The trick of this trick question is on you my friend. You (like many others) are looking at the Costitution backwards. The document does not address itself from the Federal Government to We, the People, but just the opposite. It addresses itself from We, the People TO the Federal government.

Therefore, it doesn't have to say anything about "privacy" for We the People to have that right... What it would have to do for the Federal Government to be able to infringe on the right to privacy that We the People retain for ourselves is enumerate to the Federal Government the circumstances for which We the People allow privacy to be infringed. In that, the Constitution is very clear.

Amendment 3 states that the Federal Government cannot infringe on the security of our persons, houses, papers and effects except for reasonable searches and seizures. Reasonable searches and seizures being those which where a warrant is issued.

So, in answer to your question... Yes, we do have the right to privacy and also, yes, there are circumstances where we have given the Government the authority to infringe upon it.

Reply By: ParaTed2k

Ted gets a cookie for that excellent response!

The problem with Roe v. Wade was that it found the right in the constitution, when in fact there is none there.  We have the right to privacy as long as we do not allow the government to rescind it (via a constitutional amendment).

IMO...privacy falls under Locke's philosophy concerning a gov't and its citizens...but thats JMO...

We have the right to privacy as long as we do not allow the government to rescind it (via a constitutional amendment).

--hmmm, agreed...in essence...

I do not agree that a right to privacy somehow supports abortion 'rights'. Seperate from addressing the abortion issue in that head-on manner, I suggest JU pro-lifers to instead look at property rights and our history of legislature regarding personal consumption of substances and euthanasia. In considering a woman's 'right to choose', we can compare her body to personal property. We have laws showing that, like that woman, the environment or community is ill-affected by her decision to treat that body or property incorrectly, e.g. - drug use or excessive pollution. Tainting the ground is the same as tainting the body, the quality of the ground is lessened by pollution and an iv drug user's value to the community befalls the same fate. Yes your body is your own, but if you hurt it; because the action can lessen the quality of life for those around you, we pass laws against suicide and harmful drug use.. Please disconnect the right to privacy issue from that of abortion. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Having read and re-read this "entire" thread, I fail to see where terp made any reference to abortion at all. Me thinks it's just in your mind?

The right to privacy has come to the public's attention via several controversial Supreme Court rulings, including several dealing with contraception (the Griswold and Eisenstadt cases), interracial marriage (the Loving case), and abortion (the well-known Roe v. Wade case). .... Duh...............

Thank you. And now......clam up ignutz!

Sure, but like all rights, this one has limits. My right to life is limited by what I do with it. If I threaten your life, I've passed beyond the limits of my right to life, and if you kill me in self defense few would complain that my rights had been violated.

Personally, I believe that our right to privacy is limited by our impact on the world around us. To the extent that I impact the world around me with my thoughts and actions, to that same extentI give up my right to privacy.

In practical terms, I think our right to privacy is so limited as to be practically nonexistent.

Patriot Act and do our best to inform those arguing against personal liberties of ours and their future loss.

Sorry but this is one place where I draw the line. My country and the "lives" of my countrymen come first. It's one of the "main" reasons I joined the military in 75! If this is what it takes to help secure that, then so be it.

Sorry but this is one place where I draw the line. My country and the "lives" of my countrymen come first. It's one of the "main" reasons I joined the military in 75! If this is what it takes to help secure that, then so be it.

‘‘They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety," observed Benjamin Franklin, "deserve neither liberty nor safety."

There is no freedom without risk.

No government can grant a gurantee of safety to any citizen so let us never tolerate the sacrifice of civil liberties for phantom security.

This last point is so incredibly well-illustrated by hurricane Katrina. Despite the sacrifice of the fourth amendment, despite increased federal powers of observance, despite a restructuring of the government under the Dept. of Homeland Security the federal government is simply powerless against extraordinary events.

Patriot Act and Homeland Security aren't going to protect your buddies from Katrina or 9/11 like events - particularly when their primary purposes are to consolidate power at the federal level (away from local towns and states) and increase domestic, not foreign, surveillance. Weren't we supposed to be protecting ourselves from enemies without - not from within?

Hell no it is not in the constitution! is should be in the most primevial part of the human brain (If one has one).

Before there was a constitution, there were Inalenable Rights, the first of which is the right to be left alone!

One would have to been blessed with more education than common sense to look for a "right" given by his Creator in a document written by brilliant but mortal men.

Thank God when this great country was formed the brains were loaded on the frontend and then they left the knashing of teeth to be done by those so brilliant they cannot think in the most basic of human terms.

We have the right to privacy and along with that right we have the first ammendment that gives the writer the right to pontificate views that would deprive his fellow human brothers of a right given them by OUR FATHER.

Guess he's a Christian?, Right? or a Christian Rightwinger?

The "right to privacy" is a misstatement of the fourth amendment rights against illegal search and seizure, as well as the fifth amendment rights against self incrimination. The idea is that, if you have a right to be secure in your home against search and seizure, then you have an implied "right to privacy" to keep your home secure. If you have a right against self incrimination, then you have an implied "right to privacy" against authorities using your conversations to gather evidence against you without your knowledge (certain exceptions).

So there is, in fact, a "right to privacy" in a certain manner of speaking. But many individuals misunderstand their rights and how they apply to them.