A right to privacy?

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