I want to formally start the essay with a quote from our 4th president of the United States James Madison “Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected.
No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions”. When I read this quote not too long ago it helped me to reflect on our society and helped me to put my thoughts together to write this essay. If one thinks about it for a second this phrase warns us how we are not going to be safe, specially not our privacy. If the state is in a position where they are able to dictate what we can or can not do in the safety of our houses, behind closed doors they might have an excessive amount of power already, and that should be a warning sign to all of us that we have act. Because things if left unchecked are only going to get worse and not better for the citizens. As you clearly state in the syllabus the U. S. Constitution contains no explicit right to privacy. On the Bill of Rights however, James Madison and other framers placed in safeguards for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as freedom of speech which could be interpreted as our privacy to believe whatever we want to the point that it allows us to burn the American flag (1st Amendment), it gives us a privacy and guarantees us that the forced quartering of soldiers in private homes would be prohibited in peacetime and allowed only by prescribed law during wartime (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information thus preventing us from incriminating ourselves which could be an important point in the case of Griswold v Connecticut. Furthermore the 9th Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but one could interpret the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first amendments. So I definitely agree with the decision of the supreme court on Griswold v Connecticut and the right to privacy, because it is essentially implicit in the penumbras of the following amendments 1st,3rd, 5th, 9th and most notably the 4th amendment “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” Yes there is a right to privacy in the constitution although not explicitly it is there, see 4th and 9th amendments for the sake of making my point again and using that passage of the 4th amendment [the paragraph above as a guideline] we are indeed entitled to have a right to privacy. Since we have the right to be secure in our houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches then we can conclude that some privacy is …show more content…
The reason I agree or think so is because the process of amending it trough congress seems to be really complicated and a new amendment might end up sitting in congress for years without anything happening with it (e.g. immigration reforms/law) whereas if the supreme court does a little tweak here and there and using a situation or a landmark case they might be able to get the job done rather quickly, and we could in theory get important things done or moving in this country depending on how you want to see …show more content…
a gender equality or some other known liberal thing. But I do see them protecting the second amendment against its own government or lowering the age at which one can buy a gun or something like that. Naturally we should also put safeguards in place to prevent the supreme court being leaned too to one side than to the other because they would ultimately stop representing a large part of the population. In other words it should be difficult to change and modify keeping in mind that maybe not all changes are with the people’s best interest in mind however there must be a “back-door” key if you will to do necessary changes, modification and create or dismantle laws that deliver the best result for everyone in this
No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions”. When I read this quote not too long ago it helped me to reflect on our society and helped me to put my thoughts together to write this essay. If one thinks about it for a second this phrase warns us how we are not going to be safe, specially not our privacy. If the state is in a position where they are able to dictate what we can or can not do in the safety of our houses, behind closed doors they might have an excessive amount of power already, and that should be a warning sign to all of us that we have act. Because things if left unchecked are only going to get worse and not better for the citizens. As you clearly state in the syllabus the U. S. Constitution contains no explicit right to privacy. On the Bill of Rights however, James Madison and other framers placed in safeguards for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as freedom of speech which could be interpreted as our privacy to believe whatever we want to the point that it allows us to burn the American flag (1st Amendment), it gives us a privacy and guarantees us that the forced quartering of soldiers in private homes would be prohibited in peacetime and allowed only by prescribed law during wartime (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information thus preventing us from incriminating ourselves which could be an important point in the case of Griswold v Connecticut. Furthermore the 9th Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but one could interpret the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first amendments. So I definitely agree with the decision of the supreme court on Griswold v Connecticut and the right to privacy, because it is essentially implicit in the penumbras of the following amendments 1st,3rd, 5th, 9th and most notably the 4th amendment “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” Yes there is a right to privacy in the constitution although not explicitly it is there, see 4th and 9th amendments for the sake of making my point again and using that passage of the 4th amendment [the paragraph above as a guideline] we are indeed entitled to have a right to privacy. Since we have the right to be secure in our houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches then we can conclude that some privacy is …show more content…
The reason I agree or think so is because the process of amending it trough congress seems to be really complicated and a new amendment might end up sitting in congress for years without anything happening with it (e.g. immigration reforms/law) whereas if the supreme court does a little tweak here and there and using a situation or a landmark case they might be able to get the job done rather quickly, and we could in theory get important things done or moving in this country depending on how you want to see …show more content…
a gender equality or some other known liberal thing. But I do see them protecting the second amendment against its own government or lowering the age at which one can buy a gun or something like that. Naturally we should also put safeguards in place to prevent the supreme court being leaned too to one side than to the other because they would ultimately stop representing a large part of the population. In other words it should be difficult to change and modify keeping in mind that maybe not all changes are with the people’s best interest in mind however there must be a “back-door” key if you will to do necessary changes, modification and create or dismantle laws that deliver the best result for everyone in this