The Constitution of the United States of America

The Right to Privacy and the Constitution

The right to privacy is not mentioned in the United States Constitution. “For the time being, I’ll set aside the Constitution, because many people believe it’s a charter for judges to create a growing common law of free speech, privacy rights, and the like. That, I believe, is incorrect...” The constitution, on the other hand, shows some interest in protecting certain aspects of privacy. Several constitutional modifications have been made in order to accommodate specific features of privacy. The first through fifth amendments have been particularly important in defending the privacy of individual properties, information, and personal privacy. The ninth amendment is controversial owed to the fact that it evades capture and comprehension to the presence of right to privacy. IT makes it subject to many interpretations depending on the interpreter. Many judges have used this amendment as vindication and alibi for expressing protection of privacy in the Bill of rights. The controversy shown by this amendment brings in the question of whether the Constitution should be interpreted by judges to guarantee privacy as a right.

The Supreme Court’s Role in Interpreting the Constitution

The Supreme Court holds the position of interpreting and protecting the constitution in the United States. The creation of the Supreme Court, which is originally an American idea and functionality, aimed to deal with constitutional controversy by its interpretation to the subjects. Elsewhere in the world, other courts have been granted these duties and thus subjected the constitutional controversies to the interpretation of judges. Different judges have different ideologies and views and thus are deemed to interpret the different discussions in unique manners.

The Debate Over Interpretation by Judges

Subjecting the constitution to interpretation by judges not only diminishes uniformity in enacting the constitution but also brings in a lot more controversy. In Griswold v Connecticut, interpretation of the Constitution by judges led to the withdrawal of a state law that prohibited the ownership, sale, and distribution of contraceptives to married couples. This move to withdraw the law was instigated by interpretation of the Bill of Rights as well as the ninth amendment that conferred married couples privacy from searches by the state. Interpretation of the Constitution by judges creates an avenue for a wide range of views which in turn results in expression of privacy as a right.

The Shift in Court Cases about Privacy

Many court cases about privacy have involved states against individuals who have acted against the conducts of their jurisdictions. The decisions of the courts are dependent on how exact and strong the states are at subduing claims of invasion of protected interests of liberty by the individuals. This has previously disadvantaged the states to the advantage of individuals in most instances. The trend is, however, hanging the demands on the states diminishing as indicated in recent court cases.

The Need for Clear Definitions of Privacy Rights

Interpretation of the Constitution by judges imparts vagueness in the Bill of Rights which should be exact so as to guarantee liberty and privacy to the Americans. It is necessitated by the gap in the privacy protection which is very significant for the protection of the Bill of Rights. A clear demarcation of the right of privacy is necessary so as to alienate the need for interpretation by judges. Before this definition of the right of privacy, there is a need for the judges to interpret the Constitution to guarantee privacy as a right.

Bibliography

Scalia, Antonin. “Common-law courts in a civil-law system: the role of united states federal courts in interpreting the constitution and laws.” Tanner Lectures on Human Values 18 (1997):3-47

McBride, Alex. “The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Griswold V. Connecticut (1965) | PBS.” PBS: Public Broadcasting Service. Last modified January 2006. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_griswold.html.

Hull, N. E. H., and Peter Charles Hoffer. Roe V. Wade: The Abortion Rights Controversy in American History. Lawrence, Kan: University Press of Kansas, 2010.