Part 1 of 2
Since the word
“privacy” does not exist anywhere in the Constitution, the question of whether
the individual citizen has a “right to privacy” is not within the province of
the federal government to decide.
Any attempt on the
part of the federal government or any of its branches, departments or agencies
to express such a decision is, prima facie, a violation of the limited
government as provided by the Constitution.
That having been said,
we must still review what the Supreme Court proclaimed in its infinite wisdom
as the “law of the land”.
Two cases come to
mind as relevant to this discussion:
1.
Griswold
vs Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
2.
Roe vs
Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
In Part 1 we will
include only the Griswold vs Connecticut case.
Both of these cases stretch beyond reasonable bounds the provisions of
the Constitution. To be specific, let’s
look at the first case.
Justice William O.
Douglas wrote the majority decision in Griswold vs Connecticut in which he
stated, that the right (to privacy) was to be found in the penumbras and
emanations of other constitutional protections.
Justice William J.
Brennan, Jr., commented, “When Justices interpret the Constitution they speak
for their community, not for themselves alone. The act of interpretation must
be undertaken with full consciousness that it is, in a very real sense, the community’s
interpretation that is sought. . . . But the ultimate question must be, what do
the words of the text mean in our time.”
(Georgetown Univ. Oct. 12, 1985)
With respect to the
question at hand, “privacy”, he wrote, "If the right of privacy means anything,
it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from
unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a
person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438
(1972).
In your writer’s
opinion, the very thought of “interpret” tells the reader that you are about to
receive a personal opinion with all the nuances of prejudice that the individual
harbors. You are not going to receive a considered evaluation of the law under
discussion as to whether it conforms to the Constitution or violates any of its
principles. Staying with the original
words is considered “passé” in the eyes of justices such as Brennan and Douglas. They believe that the Constitution should be
a “living document” that is adapted or adjusted to contemporary times, morals,
practices, or whatever their understanding of the moment might be. They deny the idea that the Constitution
presented basic principles and go further in their concept that principles
change, or can be changed, due to the times or circumstances.
It would be
interesting to hear their argument in favor of repealing or ignoring the
principle of gravity! So far as this
writer is aware, that principle has held true since recorded history or its
first discovery by Isaac Newton. They
conveniently ignore the idea of “nature’s laws or laws of nature’s God” as
proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence.
They may even deny that there are “inalienable rights” which each
citizen has upon being borne.
As a consequence,
they fall into the trap of “interpreting” the Constitution rather than
“applying it” to the case under consideration.
They fail to determine whether the subject is even appropriate for their
review.
In Part 2 we will
add discussion of Roe vs Wade with
respect to privacy and conclude our essay.
That’s my view. What’s yours?
Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com
©Copyright 2014 Hillard W. Welch
