Right to Privacy: It's already there
comments powered by Disqus
Aeon J. Skoble - 11/22/2005
One reason why some opposed the bill of rights is that they guessed (correctly, it turns out) that "if we specify some, future generations will think we meant those are the only ones we have." The 9th is meant to stave off that interpretation, and still didn't work. Stipulating a right to privacy might then be pyrrhic victory. In any case, I took him to be conceding the no-constitutional-right-to-privacy point when we made fun of the penumbras.
Charles Johnson - 11/22/2005
Did Savage claim that there isn't a right to privacy in the Constitution? As I read his column, he seemed to be saying that whether there is one or not, it's a matter of dispute and that the dispute could be settled unambiguously by adding an explicit amendment protecting the right to privacy. And further that it would be politically advantageous for supporters of the right to privacy to do so. But of course you can believe that while fully believing that the constitution already recognizes the right to privacy.
(You could make a similar argument that the whole first section of the 14th Amendment merely makes more explicit what any reasonable reading of "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" in Article IV Section 4 would demand; but that it was helpful, ca. 1868, to pass an amendment in order to make sure to settle a particular dispute over the kinds of state governments that white Southerners could get away with imposing.)
- Historian author Antony Beevor says his new World War 2 book may anger Americans
- Ron Radosh and Allis Radosh plan to defend Warren Harding in a new book
- Historians tackle America’s mass incarceration problem
- Report: Russian studies in crisis
- Ken Burns: Donald Trump’s birtherism — a “politer way of saying the ‘N-word'” — proves America isn’t remotely “post-racial”