Right to Privacy Not Guaranteed by Constitution, says SCOTUS

[General Zod]

WESTON, FL—In a public ruling made this week while peering into the home of 28-year-old resident Laura Daltry, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito stated that "in no way whatsoever" is the right to privacy explicitly upheld by the U.S. Constitution.

"After careful consideration, it is this justice's finding that there is no specific mention of the right to privacy in any of the 27 amendments," Alito whispered, before furtively looking around and then jimmying Daltry's bathroom window ajar with a penknife. "A rigorous originalist interpretation of the pertinent statutory language has yielded the conclusion that privacy is not now, nor has it ever been, a federally protected liberty."

"Although modern tort law indicates four categories of privacy invasion, these amount to little more than a vague suggestion of the 'right to be left alone,'" Alito added, crawling through the narrow opening and slowly lowering himself onto Daltry's toilet tank. "Plus, if you rent a ground floor apartment, you're kind of asking for it."

The 1-0 decision, made by Alito after several scotch and sodas at a nearby bar, stipulated that a citizen does retain the personal rights unambiguously guaranteed by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, specifically those pertaining to search and seizure. However, Alito said that the amendments' language does not unequivocally protect against high-level judiciary officials entering one's home and rifling through one's laundry hamper.

Alito was also careful to point out several times that Supreme Court justices are appointed for life.

"No reading of the applicable statutes or legal precedents reveals the proceedings at hand to be unlawful or unconstitutional in any way," Alito said as he lightly ran his fingers over a tube of contraceptive foam he found in Daltry's medicine cabinet. "Additionally, there is no express mention of, or even reference to, 'Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito' in any of the amendments relevant to said proceedings."

"Christ, what on earth does this woman need with three boxes of Q-tips?" Alito continued, hiding behind the bathroom's shower curtain after he thought he heard a noise.

The associate justice has made similar rulings in the past during what he refers to as "emergency sessions." Alito's most notable case of this kind was decided in 2006, when he hastily found that "the U.S. Constitution does not specifically uphold the pursuit of happiness" after hitting an unidentified man with his car and speeding away.

Alito cited additional cases relating to his latest decision, including three pertaining to the current state of habeas corpus rights, and the landmark case of Souter v. Alpha Delta Pi Sorority, Michigan State University Chapter.

"The Constitution was intended by the framers to be malleable in order to accommodate for extraordinary wartime circumstances, and as such, certain personal and property rights cannot always be guaranteed," concluded Alito, breathing heavily through a pair of pink undergarments before concealing them in his robes. "If a party is in possession of certain items of interest that could be important to, uh...a federal investigation, then due process can be suspended and these items seized without first having to obtain a warrant or other writ."

Justice Alito was not available for further comment as Daltry had suddenly returned home and exercised her constitutionally protected Second Amendment rights.

link

Choice bits highlighted.

[Thanas]

Hilarious.

[The Spartan]

Alito broke into someone's house!?

I hope they throw him off the bench for this!

[Phantasee]

Alpha Delta Pi? April Day Prank is what I came up with.

[General Zod]

Alpha Delta Pi? April Day Prank is what I came up with.

ITT we learn who only reads highlights.

[Darth Wong]

Even though it's an Onion article, I thought it was correct that the right to privacy is not explicitly stated anywhere in the Constitution.

[Patrick Degan]

It's also not very far off on how these rightard "strict-constructionists" actually think.

[Ender]

Even though it's an Onion article, I thought it was correct that the right to privacy is not explicitly stated anywhere in the Constitution.

Correct, the right to privacy is an extrapolation from other rights granted by the Constitution rather than enumerated amongst them. I suspect this will become a very important fact in future legal battles.

[Guardsman Bass]

Even though it's an Onion article, I thought it was correct that the right to privacy is not explicitly stated anywhere in the Constitution.

It is. Technically speaking, the Right to Privacy is not explicitly stated anywhere in the US Constitution. It is an implied right based off the fact that several of the explicitly written rights (such as Freedom of Speech, Protection against unwarranted search and seizure) create "zones of privacy" (so, for example, Protection Against Unwarranted Search and Seizure implies a right to privacy in one's home).

Correct, the right to privacy is an extrapolation from other rights granted by the Constitution rather than enumerated amongst them. I suspect this will become a very important fact in future legal battles.

It already is - you can find so-called Constitutional Originalists arguing that since it is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, the interpretation of a Right to Privacy that emerged from the Griswold v. Connecticut Supreme Court ruling is overly broad. They tend to argue that there is no "Right to Privacy", but rather specifically defined privacy protections associated with the explicitly stated rights in the Constitution.

[RedImperator]

The ending is priceless:

Justice Alito was not available for further comment as Daltry had suddenly returned home and exercised her constitutionally protected Second Amendment rights.

[General Zod]

Even though it's an Onion article, I thought it was correct that the right to privacy is not explicitly stated anywhere in the Constitution.

They aren't, which is why this article is such an excellent troll. If only people wouldn't give away that it was from the Onion so early.

[Adrian Laguna]

Even though it's an Onion article, I thought it was correct that the right to privacy is not explicitly stated anywhere in the Constitution.

Correct, the right to privacy is an extrapolation from other rights granted by the Constitution rather than enumerated amongst them. I suspect this will become a very important fact in future legal battles.

I note that the Framers and Anti-Federalists put provisions into the Constitution which facilitate this extrapolation, and cripple the argument that a given right should not exist because it is not specifically stated. The Ninth Amendment bluntly states that, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." I don't think one could get more straightforward than that, but they didn't stop there. Tenth Amendment, "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," backs the Ninth. It explicitly states that the Constitution places limits on the Federal Government and the states, but not the people.

Together the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are essentially and acknowledgement that rules lawyering can and will happen, to which they flatly say that there will be none of it. This gives the Bill of Rights the necessary flexibility to cover things that were not conceived of at the time, or that were felt to not require explicit mention. Privacy, for example, is rather directly implied to exist as a right by the Third and Fourth Amendments. More indirectly, what about the right to life? The Constitution establishes the right to not be deprived of life by the government without due process, but it doesn't really deal with it in a more general sense. For example, do people have a right to not die from want? All the Constitutions offers is the Preamble, which states "promote the general welfare" as a reason for ordaining the Constitution. That's no much to go on. Yet I think most here can agree that such a right exists, that someone left completely destitute has a right to protective shelter, enough food to keep them going, and basic medical care. Even thought it says precious little on the subject, Constitution nevertheless allows for it, even if the political establishment doesn't.

[Ender]

Even though it's an Onion article, I thought it was correct that the right to privacy is not explicitly stated anywhere in the Constitution.

They aren't, which is why this article is such an excellent troll.

No actually it was pretty shitty. The very first line made it clear it was nonsense. But way to jump on the bandwagon of trying to trick people rather than having actual discourse.

[Darth Wong]

Privacy, for example, is rather directly implied to exist as a right by the Third and Fourth Amendments. More indirectly, what about the right to life? The Constitution establishes the right to not be deprived of life by the government without due process, but it doesn't really deal with it in a more general sense. For example, do people have a right to not die from want? All the Constitutions offers is the Preamble, which states "promote the general welfare" as a reason for ordaining the Constitution. That's no much to go on. Yet I think most here can agree that such a right exists, that someone left completely destitute has a right to protective shelter, enough food to keep them going, and basic medical care. Even thought it says precious little on the subject, Constitution nevertheless allows for it, even if the political establishment doesn't.

Perhaps a better solution would be to stop trying to force everything to fit into a framework of "rights". You cannot generate a complete ethical system by relying entirely on "rights" and ignoring all other ethical concerns. Many Americans don't even recognize the concept of an implicit social contract, because they can't describe it in terms of rights.

[Adrian Laguna]

I suspect this will become a very important fact in future legal battles.

It already is - you can find so-called Constitutional Originalists arguing that since it is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, the interpretation of a Right to Privacy that emerged from the Griswold v. Connecticut Supreme Court ruling is overly broad. They tend to argue that there is no "Right to Privacy", but rather specifically defined privacy protections associated with the explicitly stated rights in the Constitution.

How do they defend their stance against the claim that the Constitution clearly states that rights can exist even if they are not explicitly stated? Or do they just pretend the Ninth Amendment doesn't exist?

Obviously the Ninth does not, and cannot, provide for every right one could conceive of. However, I think it clear that rights consistent with the general purposes and philosophy of the Constitution can be said to exist and have protected status.


[Ed -Reply to Darth Wong will be forthcoming, just need to get my thoughts together.]

[General Zod]

Obviously the Ninth does not, and cannot, provide for every right one could conceive of. However, I think it clear that rights consistent with the general purposes and philosophy of the Constitution can be said to exist and have protected status.

As long as those rights don't offend the Christian majority, at any rate. . .

[Coyote]

How do they defend their stance against the claim that the Constitution clearly states that rights can exist even if they are not explicitly stated? Or do they just pretend the Ninth Amendment doesn't exist?

If I remember correctly, Jefferson didn't like the idea of having a Bill of Rights because he felt that people would see the Bill of Rights and assume that anything not explicitely stated there was open for the government to interpret/subjugate. Basically, the things specifically mentioned in the Bill would become "the Reservation" where the American people would end up, while everything else conceivable under the sun around it would become the Government's purview.

Seems to be the case, unfortunately. We're accustomed to thinking in terms of "well, if it isn't in the Bill of Rights, then it must be free game". It's a result of our own laziness and unwillingness to remain involved in our government.

[Kanastrous]

Perhaps a better solution would be to stop trying to force everything to fit into a framework of "rights". You cannot generate a complete ethical system by relying entirely on "rights" and ignoring all other ethical concerns. Many Americans don't even recognize the concept of an implicit social contract, because they can't describe it in terms of rights.

Except for some exempted classes of people (children, PVS patients, mentally incompetent persons) I have trouble conceptualizing rights within a society without associated responsibilities.

Add it to the list of things which I have trouble conceptualizing, I guess.

[Adrian Laguna]

Perhaps a better solution would be to stop trying to force everything to fit into a framework of "rights". You cannot generate a complete ethical system by relying entirely on "rights" and ignoring all other ethical concerns. Many Americans don't even recognize the concept of an implicit social contract, because they can't describe it in terms of rights.

I find the concept of a "natural right", as developed by Enlightenment philosophers and espoused by America's Founding fathers, to quite frankly be nothing more than mystical bullshit. There is nothing natural about rights, they are not some ethereal thing that every human is imbued with at birth, but rather wholly artificial creations of man. They can be defined into existence, and defined out of existence. By themselves, rights are phantom-like things, existing only inasmuch as we say they do, and as such a given set of them does not, and cannot, constitute an ethical system.

My evident support for rights-based frameworks is on the ground of them being useful tools, much likes bodies of laws are. Attempts to make an ethical system out of either one are a classic case of square peg, round hole. Rights need to be developed from an ethical system, and constrained by it. Otherwise they are just a poorly justified set of arbitrary entitlements. Their purpose is to serve as general guidelines in the structuring and maintenance of government, society, and laws. They are by no means the whole of it, and indeed are not even strictly necessary, just useful in some cases.

I do note that the concept of implicit social contract is present in the US Constitution, specifically the Preamble. Unfortunately the American school system does a poor job of teaching it as such, and the political establishment prefers to ignore it. It is much easier to treat rights as being absolute, rather than relative to a greater purpose. This is the source of Thomas Jefferson's valid concerns about the Bill of Rights (brought-up by Coyote), and therein lies their double-edged nature.

[Guardsman Bass]

I suspect this will become a very important fact in future legal battles.

It already is - you can find so-called Constitutional Originalists arguing that since it is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, the interpretation of a Right to Privacy that emerged from the Griswold v. Connecticut Supreme Court ruling is overly broad. They tend to argue that there is no "Right to Privacy", but rather specifically defined privacy protections associated with the explicitly stated rights in the Constitution.

How do they defend their stance against the claim that the Constitution clearly states that rights can exist even if they are not explicitly stated? Or do they just pretend the Ninth Amendment doesn't exist?

That's pretty much what they do.

[Terralthra]

They generally say it's too vague to have any meaning. The archetypal judge of this stripe, Robert Bork, famously said that the 9th amendment "is as obscure as it would be had an inkblot covered it on the original parchment."

[Patrick Degan]

They generally say it's too vague to have any meaning. The archetypal judge of this stripe, Robert Bork, famously said that the 9th amendment "is as obscure as it would be had an inkblot covered it on the original parchment."

Translation from strict-constructionism speak: "Lalalalalalala I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALALALALALA...."

[Adrian Laguna]

Given the clear economy of words in the document, it seems spurious to suggest that from a strict-constructionist viewpoint any part of the Constitution is irrelevant or can be safely ignored. Though I can see why they do it, since the Ninth and Tenth Amendments basically tells them that they're doing it wrong. Can't let something like "facts" get in the way.