Research Paper 1
Rabin Budhathoki
GOVT 421- B01
Instructor- Dr. Van
Heemst Due Date- March
06, 2017
INTRODUCTION:
The Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution is the list of some natural rights that all
Americans are entitled to regardless of race, color, or ethnicity. Of all these, the right to privacy
is of a core importance. In 1965, the Supreme Court introduced the ‘right to privacy,’ into
Constitution in its ruling of Griswold v. Connecticut case. The American political landscape has
changed a lot since then. It has reached to an unprecedented point after the recent election.
Meanwhile, the privacy issues are made headlines quite often by the media that many think is
fake. Taking these facts into account, I think it is essential to to take a deeper look at the way
government treats the rights of people to keep private and sensitive information within
themselves.
In 1879, Connecticut passed a law that banned the use of any drug, medical device, or
other instrument in furthering contraception (supreme.justia.com). Also, any person who assists,
abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another to commit any offense may be prosecuted
and punished as if he were the principle offender (McBride, 2007, p. 4). So, the instrumental
Griswold v. Connecticut case was filed against ‘Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut’ for
counselling people to use contraceptives. The Supreme Court ruled that the state’s law violated
the marital privacy of people. I think the state’s law clearly violates the Right to Privacy. An
absolute ban on contraceptive devices was an extreme move the state took. This clearly
dismissed the basic freedom of people to decide their family size. Also, this prevented them
from taking counsel from healthcare providers regarding sexual health, which violates ‘the right
to information,’ a rudimentary human right. Our history has always been about freedom and our
constitution has always been about granting the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of
happiness.
The case above exemplifies how crucial it is to constitutionally assure people of their
privacy. The rights to privacy that share a substantial portion of the Bill of Rights allows
American citizens to protect their sensitive information from any third party, even the
government. These rights have been clearly mentioned in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4rth, 5th, and the
14th Amendments. The fourth amendment is instrumental here because it gives each and every
American citizens freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures of properties, as well as to
maintain a personal life protected from public scrutiny.
Americans have the right to determine what kind of information is taken from them and
for what purpose. Privacy doctrine supposes that the judiciary is an appropriate body to
determine whether a law transgresses these implicit limits (Rubenfeld, 1989, p.121). So, the
government must protect these rights. In the name of keeping records, the government shouldn’t
force the citizens to discuss their personal affairs. Neither should it interfere with their private
properties for unjustified reasons. Because the Constitution isn't about what people can do; it's
about what government can do. The Constitution was created to spell out the limited rights or
powers given to the federal government. And it was clearly understood that the government had
no powers that weren't authorized in the Constitution (Browne, 2003, p. 44).
Privacy itself is a very broad issue. It can never be incorporated into the Constitution to
fullness. It is quite ironical that the word ‘privacy’ doesn’t occur at all in the Constitution. The
same goes with the ‘marriage’. There might be thousands such examples, because things are
generalized and heavily squeezed in the Constitution. It is the duty of government to make sure
nobody exploits the curtness in these documents to get access to private possessions and
information of the citizens.
“Today, many Americans keep their entire lives on their phones: family photos, emails,
calendar appointments, Internet searches and even location history. Considered separately, each
of these categories can reveal very private information. Taken together, they can present a pretty
good picture of who you are, what you do, where you go, what you read, and what you write.
What protection does the Constitution offer them from suspicion-less search by the
government?” (Paul & Coons, 2014, p. 4). For these very reasons, Apple Inc., refused to unlock
the iPhone that belonged to a suspect of San Bernardino attack even when the FBI wanted Apple
Inc. to cooperate.
In the Griswold v. Connecticut case, the ruling was in favor of privacy. “Another privacy
act called Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act has raised accusations on the companies
including Snapchat Inc. and video game maker Take-Two Interactive Inc. for collecting and
retaining face scans and similar biometric data without providing consumers with the proper
notice. In this case, the judge basically said that despite the choice-of-law provision, Illinois has
a fundamental interest in the privacy of its citizens and if it lets Facebook or any other big
corporation basically use boilerplate choice-of-law provisions, state laws that protect consumer
privacy would be written out of existence" (Grande, 2016, p. 1). In such technical cases, that are
most prevalent these days, privacy cases are filed based on details; so it becomes hard to say if
they resonate with our constitutional heritage.
Terms are often too literally interpreted in privacy cases. “In 1972, for instance, the
Supreme Court held that a District of Columbia statute criminalizing abortion unless: “necessary
for the preservation of the mother’s life or health” was not unconstitutionally vague. However,
the Court interpreted the term “health” to include “psychological as well as physical well-
being.” (reproductiverights.org). In Roe v. Wade case in 1973, when the state law denied a
woman to perform abortion, the Supreme Court decided to only restrict a woman’s rights to
choose in the later stages of pregnancy. Because the Constitutionally implied right to privacy
protects a woman’s choice in matters of abortion, this case soon earned controversies.
“Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in our bosoms. Our defense
is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands,
every where. Destroy this spirit, and you have planted the seeds of despotism around your own
doors.”-Abraham Lincoln. From the time of George Washington to Abraham Lincoln, the
underlying concept of privacy had been liberty. It’s obvious that liberty also meant people could
refuse to share information that they deem could be misused. They respected democracy and
exemplified America as the lands where freedom rings. This is applicable at present and will
continue to be applicable in the future. Our democracy should always enable people to live as
they wish, do what is best for their family; and no state’s restrictions should hurt this freedom.
Today, both government and private entities sing their own songs of privacy. Unheard of
are the rumors that the government tracks our phone calls and online behavior, that the tech
companies uses algorithms to access our personal data and analyze our personal traits to
manipulate our online choices. These activities degenerate the values our Founding Fathers
earned for America. The answer to why the outer world sees America as rode a model of
democracy is the Bill of Rights. We might now estimate how crucial it is to save the Right to
Privacy from becoming headlines in the places where people see ultimate freedom in us.
Conclusion:
So in summing up, the Constitutional right to privacy is a natural right that every
Americans are entitled to, regardless of race, color or ethnicity. Our Founding Fathers based
their principles on protecting the fundamental rights of every American, so the government
should protect and preserve the right to privacy of every citizen and not overstep its power to
infringe these rights. As mentioned in the Bible itself, “Let every person be subject to the
governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been
instituted by God” (Romans 13:1), the greatest authority of men is God, so shall He protect the
rights and freedom of these men if the government turns it back on them. The government
should be the bearer of the highest kingdom of the Lord himself and protect the rights and
liberties of its citizens.
References:
McBride, A., Expanding Civil Rights (2007),
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_griswold.html
Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965),
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/381/479/
Rubenfeld, J., “The Right of Privacy” (1989). Faculty Scholarship Series 1569.
Scholarship Series. Paper 1569.
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/1569
Browne, H. “Does the Constitution Contain a Right to Privacy?’ (2003),
http://harrybrowne.org/articles/PrivacyRight.htm
Paul, R., & Coons, C., The Founding Fathers Would Have Protected Your Smartphone,
(2014), http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/a-tech-challenge-for-fourth-
amendment-application-107129
Grande, A., Top Privacy Cases of 2016: Midyear Report, (2017),
https:// www.law360.com/articles/813134/top-privacy-cases-of-2016-midyear-report)
Privacy Law: 1891-Present, https:// www.reproductiverights.org/document/us-supreme-
court-case-summaries-privacy-law-1891-present
The Holy Bible, King James Version (2016).
