lOMoARcPSD|268163 03
THE FOUNDER’S INTENT AND THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY:
AN OUTLINE
SAVANNAH NALLS
GOVT 421
FEBRAURY 10, 2019
lOMoARcPSD|268163 03
Thesis: The right to privacy, while not explicitly listed with the Bill of Rights, is an implied right
when considering the intent of the founders. While the right to privacy would ultimately be
supported by the founders, the way in which the right has been implemented in the modern day
would most likely not have been supported.
This paper seeks to first define the scope of the modern implementation of the right to privacy.
The right to privacy in the modern day has unfortunately ignored the original intent of the
founders through the promotion of the right to privacy in gay relationships and abortion. Oddly
enough, while the right to privacy has increased in these areas they have simultaneously been
redacted as there is now more government surveillance on American citizens than ever before.
While the right to privacy was not explicitly written in the Constitution, it can be implied
through analyzing the impacts of the first, third, fourth, and fifth amendment if you analyze the
document through a loose constructionist view. Additionally, the separation of church and state
also displayed the founder’s resilience of keeping religion private from the government.
I. Introduction: Defining the contradictory landscape of modern privacy rights:
A. Right to Privacy has been increased in areas of sexual freedoms such as gay relationships
and abortion.
B. Right to Privacy is currently being undermined as the government uses increased
terrorism as an excuse to spy on its own citizens.
II. Constitution Supports the Right to Privacy
A. Loose Construction to the Right to Privacy
- Definition : Loose Construction allows for implied intent to be utilized in the
interpretation of the Constitution (Kai Sherwin)
- Privacy of beliefs (first amendment), privacy of the home (third amendment), privacy
of the person and possessions against unreasonable searches (fourth amendment), and
the privacy of personal information (fifth amendment).
- Griswold v. Connecticut
B. Strict Construction to the Right to Privacy
- Definition: Strict construction requires a judge to apply the text only as it is written.
Once the court has a clear meaning of the text, no further investigation is required.
Judges—in this view—should avoid drawing inferences from a statute or constitution
and focus only on the text itself. (Bill Jackson).
- Strict Construction does not provide for an interpretation of a right to privacy.
III. Privacy in Modern America
C. Increase of Privacy for Gay Marriage/Abortions Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, Whole
Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt
D. National Security Association & Privacy
IV. Privacy and Christianity
E. 1 Thessalonians 4:11
F. Luke 12:2-3
lOMoARcPSD|268163 03
References
Allen, A. & Rotenberg, M. Privacy Law and Society. West Academic (2016).
Bill Jackson. The History of the Federal Judiciary, The Social Studies Help Center, (2018).
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479.
Johnson, John W. (2005). Griswold V. Connecticut. University of Kansas. pp. 8–10.
Kai Sherwin. Why a Loose Constructionist View of the Constitution is Necessary, Huffington
Post (2017).
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 US 558 (2003).
Tom Head. Where did the Right to Privacy Come From? Thought Co (2018).
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147, 1973 U.S. LEXIS 159 (U.S. Jan.
22, 1973)
Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (2016)
