Off Topic: "Right to Privacy"

["J. R. Fox" jr_fox@xxxxxxxxxx]

Harry Binswanger wrote:

> Funny you should mention it, I just had occasion yesterday to get out my
> copy of both the Constitution and the Declaration (to criticize Scalia's
> horrible dissent in the Texas decision).

(Former ?) XyWriter Britt Hume was on Fox News this morning, hawking what I
guess amounts to the "strict constructionist" take on all this -- namely
that there is no basis whatever in the Constitution for a "Right to
Privacy," which has been building up over the last 40 years *solely* due to
a handful of Supreme Court decisions, which (it is claimed) usurp the
legislative function and have the effect of sneaking in new social policy.

Well, I'm no lawyer, much less any sort of Constitutional scholar, but I
don't buy this at all. Let's concede that there is no *explicit* mention of
a Right to Privacy in this grand document. It probably *should have* been
so enshrined in the text, but then the founders could not possibly have
imagined the myriad ways and degree to which privacy can be invaded in our
time, nor the sort of impact on people's lives this could have. (The
closest thing I can find is the 4th Amendment, re the concept of
"unreasonable searches and seizures.") But, per my reading, a Right to
Privacy is *implicit* at various points throughout the Constitution, such
that a lot of other things that *are* explicitly contained there just fall
apart without it. You would have to be willfully ignorant about the early
history of this country -- the oppressive things in other lands and
societies our founders were determined to escape from and to avoid -- in
order to conclude otherwise.

Another thing: Privacy is a fairly broad brush; you can't have just small,
selected bits of it.


Jordan