« Charlie Derangel | Main | I seek a challenge »
April 15, 2005
The right to privacy
So apparently, according to the Supreme Court, we have a Constitutionally-protected right to privacy. This right doesn't appear in the actual Constitution, mind, but it's there just the same. The founders surely meant to include it, they must've just forgotten. It's in one of those penumbra thingies.
And this right to privacy is broad indeed. Because we have this right, neither the federal government nor the state governments have the authority to proscribe or even limit abortion, nor to enact laws regarding sexual practices, nor, if you listen to some judges, to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples.
I was thinking about this right to privacy today, as I was busy filling out detailed forms informing the government where and how I earned every penny of my salary, which stocks I've bought and sold, how much interest I paid on my mortgage, which charitable organizations I've supported, and how much money I've won gambling.
April 15, 2005 in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834559cb569e200d83476268769e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The right to privacy:
Comments
Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
Posted by: Kade | Apr 16, 2005 9:52:14 AM
Is he trolling, or is he just thick? I still haven't decided.
In case it's the latter, I'll answer your absurd argument as though it were sincere. The Constitution says nothing about the right to free ham sandwiches. By your logic, therefore, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments mean that my right to free ham sandwiches is Constitutionally-protected, and should I choose to steal a ham sandwich, neither state nor federal governments have the authority to prosecute me.
And anyway, you missed the point entirely, which was that compelling citizens to provide such intimate details about their private dealings and swear to them under penalty of perjury makes a mockery of the so-called "right to privacy", and possibly the Fifth Amendment as well.
Posted by: Voice of Reason | Apr 16, 2005 10:53:18 AM
"In case it's the latter, I'll answer your absurd argument as though it were sincere. The Constitution says nothing about the right to free ham sandwiches. By your logic, therefore, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments mean that my right to free ham sandwiches is Constitutionally-protected, and should I choose to steal a ham sandwich, neither state nor federal governments have the authority to prosecute me."
What infringement upon your liberty/rights/welfare does my right to privacy commit (and I don't think Roe v. Wade is justified by a right to privacy) Can you say the same about your ham sandwich example? I didn't think so.
Also - If you don't think a right to privacy is inherent in the 9th/10th combo, what rights do you think they vest in the public at large?
Posted by: Kade | Apr 16, 2005 11:00:02 PM
Very well, I insist that my Constitutionally-protected right to free ham sandwiches compells the government to provide them for me. That satisfies the requirement that it not infringe anybody else's right.
I'm not sure why you keep citing the Tenth Amendment, which has nothing to do with rights and everything to do with powers. I am of course a big fan of the Tenth, which was sadly ignored during most of the 20th century before undergoing a brief revival at the hands of the Rehnquist court. As for the Ninth Amendment, it simply states that the enumeration of rights in the Consitution doesn't mean you don't have other rights as well. But conversely, the lack of enumeration of rights in the Constitution doesn't mean you do have those rights, else we'd all have the right to free ham sandwiches.
Posted by: Voice of Reason | Apr 17, 2005 5:45:06 PM
In other words, the 9th is solely a typo? And the 10th, if you didn't notice, has a second half to it. Right after it says "reserved to the states", it says "reserved to the PEOPLE".
Posted by: Kade | Apr 17, 2005 6:29:18 PM
Yes, the Tenth Amendment contains the words "reserved to the people", but it's talking about powers, not rights.
As for the Ninth Amendment, it simply states that the set of rights enumerated in the Constitution is a subset of the rights enjoyed by Americans. It does not follow that the set of rights enjoyed by Americans encompasses the universe. Can you explain why, under your expansive interpretation of the Ninth, Americans do not enjoy the right to free ham sandwiches?
Posted by: Voice of Reason | Apr 17, 2005 10:34:39 PM
I'm not the one who bitches about the "Judicial Activism" that occurs when the Supreme Court invokes it.
Posted by: Kade | Apr 18, 2005 7:07:22 AM
Let's just rid ourselves of IRS! ABOLISH THE 16th AMENDMENDT!
Posted by: Taylor | Apr 23, 2005 11:52:51 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
