Supreme Court is wrong privacy is in the Constitution – Southgate News Herald

The emphasis must be not on the right to abortion but on the right to privacy

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, late Supreme Court justice

Hello Downriver,

In the context of whats been happening in our country these past several years and more importantly, these last several weeks, two themes continue to resonate with me.

A right to privacy and minority rule.

Now, Ive written about both in the past, but current developments call for a revisit.

In its most recent rulings, the conservative-dominated Supreme Court has determined that theres no such thing because the phrase doesnt exist in the Constitution.

Their argument is that as supposed originalists if something doesnt appear in the document, it doesnt exist.

That if the Founders didnt include it when writing the Constitution, then we cant add it later.

Except.

Except that the right to privacy is found throughout the Bill of Rights; indeed, its the very foundation of those first 10 Amendments.

So, to ignore that is to either be blind or simply refuse to accept the obvious.

And if I get it, why cant they?

Answer: Its not convenient nor conducive to supporting their conservative agenda of rolling back the rights of Americans.

Think Im off base?

Well, consider the words found in the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments).

In the First Amendment, the Constitution establishes the concepts of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to assemble and the right to complain.

Whats important here is that freedom of religion and speech inherently imply a personal right; a right to have private beliefs that may not be infringed.

That a person has the right to have a private relationship with her/his faith; a right to personal, private thoughts that can be spoken aloud.

Neither right has to do with the collective mind; only the individual whereas the rights of the press and assembly in fact do deal with collective acts.

This means that Founders understood the concept of privacy and the need to protect private thoughts and beliefs.

The Second Amendment has long been construed to mean that individuals have a right to bear arms.

(Even though the Amendment doesnt say that at all.)

So, this is also a privacy issue.

The Third Amendment is specific to the time of the Constitutions enactment which came on the heels of British occupation of the colonies.

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

This Amendment clearly intends that a persons home is a private dwelling that cant just be invaded by an invading army.

The Fourth Amendment is by far the most revealing of the 10 in that it specifically says the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated unless theres a search warrant.

This right simply wouldnt apply if we didnt have a right to privacy; a right that cant be circumvented without the issuance of a court-ordered search warrant.

The Fifth Amendment says a lot, but it is most well-known for its protections against self-incrimination. But equally important, it also says we cant be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This clearly means we enjoy private lives and possess private things that cant just be taken away without due process.

Private equals privacy, doesnt it?

Skipping ahead to the Ninth Amendment (six, seven and eight have to do with criminal and civil trials and the issuance of bail and imposition of punishment), we find that the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words, just because every possible right isnt spelled out in the Constitution doesnt mean that right doesnt exist which is exactly contrary to the recent ruling by the Supreme Court in overturning Roe.

In its majority opinion, the conservative justices said the opposite; that if a right wasnt spelled out 234 years ago then it doesnt exist.

Yet the 1oth Amendment reinforces the Ninth in refuting that point: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

In short, the ultimate right of each of us to live as Americans resides within each of us as personal, private individuals.

It resides in those unalienable rights Jefferson wrote about in the Declaration of Independence we celebrated on Monday.

It means we inherently possess a right to be private individuals, with private, personal beliefs, a private right to self-determination and therefore an accompanying right to privacy.

Self-determination.

Thats a phrase some may not be familiar with, but Id argue youre very familiar with its usage in everyday life.

For example, how many times have you heard a parent, teacher and even politicians encourage young people to be all they can be?

Heck, it even became a recruitment pitch for the U.S. Army.

Likewise, how many women have told girls that theres no limit to their futures?

How many adults have insisted that a child could one day grow up to be president of the United States?

Each of those is an example of how our society routinely inspires our young to pursue careers of their choice, to follow their dreams.

In short, invoke the very idea of self-determination.

Yet, in overturning Roe, the Supreme Court has now placed a limit on that pursuit; that once a girl reaches child-bearing age, certain goals and dreams may no longer be an option.

That should a girl as young as 12 become pregnant, there are no choices anymore; self-determination has been corrupted into a state-ordered determination.

Its as if Platos Republic has come to pass, with each young girl and woman now slotted into a role dictated by government fiat.

Goodbye self-determination.

Yes, yes, Im no constitutional scholar, but I do have a working, rational brain and can read English and decipher common word usage.

So, whats the problem with the six majority members of the Supreme Court when it comes to privacy and a right to self-determination?

Oh, thats right, its not about language and law and the Constitution for them its about ideology and partisan politics.

No wonder the high court has such low ratings, and is skirting with becoming illegitimate and ignored.

Next: Minority rule how it went from a Founders compromise to todays abomination.

Craig Farrand is a former managing editor of The News-Herald Newspapers. He can be reached at cfarrandudm@yahoo.com.

View post:
Supreme Court is wrong privacy is in the Constitution - Southgate News Herald