Can someone explain to me the Constitutional Guarantee of Right to Privacy or lack thereof?

I mean, I know anti-abortionist argue that there isn't a constitutional right to privacy so women can't decide with their doctors whether to have an abortion or not, but I mean there are lots of things that we do every day that aren't specifically constituionally guaranteed, aren't there?

Why don't you just ask what the meaning of life is while you're at it?

I personally think red light cameras are a breach of privacy, but the government and I don't see eye to eye there.

I found this:

4. Do you believe there is a constitutionally protected right to privacy, and, if so, under whatcircumstances does it apply?

EDIT: Peter pointed out that this aparent answer was actually a lead in to the next question. Thus, it did not answer my question at all! :oops:

But this doesn't explain how the right to privacy protects abortion or gay rights, etc.

the ninth amendment says something like there are rights reserved for the people not specifically mentioned in the constitution. i can't remember the exact wording, but that's where you get your privacy rights.

moreover, it doesn't refer to privacy in the first place.

I'm underwhelmed by your lawyerin'.

it's a really vague idea unfortunately, which means the right claims they dont see it and the left says it's clear as the skin on my post-puberty face. So then Bush claims that judges who do see it are "legislating from the bench" and creating something out of thin air. Of course what he really means is they are ruling on something he doesnt agree with and should therefore be sent down into the depths of Hell.

http://irwinschiff.homestead.com/10amdmts.html

Maybe privacy rights fall under the 4th as part of "search" prohibitations?



And maybe rights specific to abortion and same gender marriage fall into the 9th and 10th ?



..??..

where medical privacy and marriage are areas that should be left to the states or the people to decide upon in the event they are not covered or protected under existing constituional statutes?

It seems that the very generalized vague use of language in the 9th and 10th is/was intentional to be a bucket into which many things can/may fall?

c-

PS: Where are all the Consitutional Law majors when ya need em?

the tenth amendment pretty much doesn't matter anymore because of the 14th amendment. that is, unless you're antonin scalia in every states' rights case except bush v. gore.

i agree with your last comment. there's no other reason i can see to say "certain rights" and not give any hint as to what the other rights might be.

as for the fourth, i don't think it has any bearing here because it's so specific.

The "certain rights" it refers to are those that are enumerated in the Constitution and the first 8 amendments. They didn't list any others because they wanted to leave that question open to whatever "rights" may be at issue in future cases.

I think your right to privacy is waived when you're in public.

yes, i know. what they failed to do is offer up any kind of a guideline. maybe a rephrasing is in order. they list those "certain rights" in at least semi-clear terms. speech, fair trial, etc. yet there are no guidelines to what the rights alluded to in the ninth amendment might be. i think the only motivation for this is to allow for a broad future interpretation of constitutional rights.

Taken directly from every law school graduate's worst nightmare -- BarBri:

"Certain fundamental rights are protected under the Constitution. If they are denied to everyone, it is a substantive due process problem. If they are denied to some but not to others, it is an equal protection problem. The applicable standard in either case is strict scrutiny. Thus, to be valid the governmental action must be necessary to protect a compelling interest. Various privacy rights, including marriage, sexual relations, abortion, and childrearing, are fundamental rights. Thus, regulations affecting these rights are reviewed under the strict scrutiny standard and will be upheld only if they are necessary to protect a compelling interest.

Other privacy rights include: right to use contraceptives, right to read obscene material in your home (except child pornography), right of family members to live together, and the right to educate children outside of public schools."

Typically, if the federal government is denying the right, it's a 5th Amendment question. If a state government is denying the right, it's a 14th Amendment question.

why the fifth?

So, is it safe to say that Democrats and Republicans agree on this, but disagree on how strict "strict scrutiny" is?

The 5th Amendment is the federal analogue of the 14th Amendment if you're suing for due process. If it's a clear violation of equal protection, you also sue under the 5th Amendment (there is no counterpart to the 14th Amendment equal protection clause).

I agree fully. This is one of those times where it seems obvious to me that the framers intended for there to be expansion of rights of individuals as time moved on.

i think i'm losing you on something.

yours is in the application once the right is recognized, right? whereas i am thinking of where the right is given, which is the ninth amendment?

See, that's the problem. If you notice, those rights to privacy aren't found anywhere in the Constitution. They are judicially-created rights under the nebulous heading "right to privacy" that, in turn, was found to be protected under the 5th Amendment right to substantive due process. That's why people have such problems with issues such as abortion. While they aren't selectively incorporated into the Constitution, they are protected under the 5th Amendment right to due process.