Where is privacy protected in the Constitution?
79423
It's not...not in so many words anyways...the main thing that leads privacy to be upheld is the Supreme Court decisions.  There are some indications in the Fourth Amendment, but privacy's boundaries and definition are explored in various cases including: Roe v Wade, Olmstead v. United States, Griswold v. Connecticut, etc.  Hope this helps!
87185
Try this site:\n\nhttp://www.usconstitution.net/\n\nIt has all kind of information on the Constitution.
849817
Ummmm....the US Constitution?
157869
Well, in the US, family planning and procreation is protected by the right to privacy -- for example the Supreme Court's case in Griswold v. Connecticut.  The extension of Griswold ultimately was Roe v. Wade - but that's a different story all together, isn't it?
163448
the funny thing about the constitution is that it is exactly as democratic as anyone wants it to be (or doesn't).  basically it can be anything based on your interpretation of it.\n\nan example.  the constitution protects our freedom of speech.  meanwhile, there are a thousand laws limiting this freedom.  some are for legitimate reasons and some aren't.  someone like george w. bush reads the constitution and believes that we as americans have very few civil liberties, that it is okay for him to put restrictions on our "constitutionally protected" rights of free speech, religion, assembly, privacy, due process, and many, many more, and that these rights can be sacrificed in order to protect "national security".  other people and organizations, such as the ACLU or the democratic party before its spine mysteriously disappeared a few years ago, believe that these rights should not be infringed, ever, for any reason.  \n\nthis just goes to show how two different people can read the same thing and come away with two completely different opinions about what it actually means.
929043
Because it is the only slim thread that holds them some rights.\n\nIt is of course as everyone knows based on no real constitutional grounds, since it has no real relatonship to right to privacy, which is what it is based on.\n\nit was passed because of political pressure, not good legal grounds,  If actually reviewed by legal standard it would never hold up again.
296614
on you're browser type 1st amendment of USA at the bottom of the browser swith to images and you should have pages to choose from good luck
1177639
Check out your local privacy acts and laws information.  Do so by searching on your city/town/state (basically your location) main web site.
112407
The starting point really is Griswold v. Connecticut saying that the state has no right to regulate your childbearing decisions.  There's nothing in the constitution specifically saying that there's a right to privacy.  Courts have found that it exists in the "penumbra" or shadow of all explicit rights in the Constitution.  \n\nPeople who read the Constitution literally word for word say that the word "privacy" doesn't appear in the Constitution and that the framers of the constitution according to the "plan of the convention" - code word for the mores of the 18th century - never intended for there to be a right to privacy.  This is the battleground on which some people want to attack the continued viability to constitutional protection for abortion rights under Roe v Wade, which ultimately is founded on an extension of the Griswold right to privacy (right to reproduce without state regulation or interference).
221469
Liberty is the essential heart of freedom.  Liberty means being able to choose one's own actions, without intrusion by government.  Every law that restricts your movement, your actions or your words is one that restricts your liberty.\n\nPrivacy is the notion that the government will not intrude upon actions that you intend to be private.  For instance, intercepting someones mail violates their privacy, as it is expected that only the recipient of the mail will read it.\n\nEvery infringement upon privacy can therefore potentially result in a infringement of liberty.  For example, a wiretap could lead to an arrest.\n\nPeople have a right to privacy, that is, they have a right to expect that the government will do as little as necessary to intrude upon their rights.  This right is expressly provided for in the bill of rights.  These rules govern due process.  This is why the police must obtain a warrant to do a search.
913674
The Bill of Rights--the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States--ranks alongside the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence as one of the nation's most treasured documents. Since its adoption in 1791, the Bill of Rights has served as the cornerstone of basic American freedoms. Its laws specify the fundamental rights and most cherished liberties of the American people and protect them from the whims of popular majority opinions and abusive government officials.\nWhat the Bill of Rights Says\n\nThe first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights set forth specific guarantees and liberties. The Ninth Amendment acknowledges that the American people have rights that are not even specified in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. (The Federalists argued for this particular amendment, stating that it would be impossible to list all of the rights and liberties that should be protected.)\n\nThe Tenth Amendment emphasizes the national character of the United States constitutional system. It declares that the states or people retain those "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution."\n\nMost people, however, believe that their most important rights are those guaranteed by the First Amendment. Commonly called "First Amendment freedoms," these are the fundamental freedoms of religion, speech, and press, as well as the right of the people to assemble and to petition a government.\n\nOther vital provisions contained in the first eight amendments also deal with the rights of individuals. They are designed to protect people against inconsistent or abusive government, particularly in criminal proceedings.\n\nFor example, the Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures (either of themselves or of their property and possessions) by law enforcement officials.\n\nThe Fifth Amendment prohibits double jeopardy, which means that someone cannot be tried twice for the same crime. The Fifth Amendment also states that people cannot be compelled to testify against themselves (self-incrimination), and it guarantees "due process," which means people accused of a crime must be properly notified of the charges and given a fair hearing.\n\nThe Sixth Amendment establishes the right of an accused person to a public trial by jury. The accused also has the right to have a lawyer, to confront hostile witnesses, and to obtain witnesses in his or her defense.\n\nFinally, the Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of "cruel and unusual punishments" (either mental or physical) on those convicted of a crime.\n\nThe remaining amendments (the Second, Third, and Seventh) do not cover individual rights in criminal proceedings but address other specific concerns. The Second Amendment is the most noteworthy and controversial of these remaining amendments. After noting the need for a "well regulated militia" (a body of citizen soldiers called to serve during times of emergency or war), this amendment declares that the people's right "…to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."\n\nThe Third Amendment prevents the government from making citizens shelter soldiers in their homes. This amendment was drafted in response to abuses by British forces during the Revolutionary War.\n\nThe Seventh Amendment was included to meet the demands of many Anti-Federalists who wanted to insure trial by jury in civil suits.\n\nToday, for all intents and purposes, the fundamental rights and liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights apply with equal force to both the national and the state governments.\n\nState Bills of Rights\n\nAll of the fifty state constitutions contain a bill of rights. The Illinois Bill of Rights borrows from the Declaration of Independence in stating, "All men are by nature free and independent and have certain inherent and unalienable rights among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Some
865708
The 13th Amendment.  Here it is:\n\n\nAmendment XIII\nSection 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. \n\n\nSection 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
87751
The Constitution of the United States of America provides protection of the speech acts of its citizens provided that:\n1. they are not putting anyone else in danger,\n2. the person involved in the speech act is not in the military or incarcerated,\n3. the speech act is not considered obscene by the judicial system.\n\nOther than that, free speech should not be curtailed under the law.
473500
the 9th amendment protects ALL other rights that aren't mentioned in the Bill of Rights. the people of the US aren't limited to JUST those rights, and all their other rights must be upheld in the court of law\n\nthat article explains it very well!
312239
Aboslutely not! Any nation willing to exchange privacy for security deserves and will have neither.That is a rough quote from one of our founding fathers.Franklin or Jefferson,I think.
490105
This right is protected by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. \n\n"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
1090487
It's shameful that we would need an amendment to remind the SCOTUS that the Forth Amendment means what the words say it means, the probable cause means probable cause and not reasonable suspicion and so on ... yet this seems to be the case.\n\nI'd definitely like an amendment that spells out the "Constitutional privacy" I learned about in High School Civics class. This Constitutional privacy was the other side of Constitutional obligation. The two of them together defined the limits of government power, something we today are in sore need of.\n\nObligation: If activity infringes your rights, then the government MUST act to protect your rights. If it refuses to do so, citizens can take the legislative and/or executive branches to court, where the judiciary can MAKE the government do its job.\n\nPrivacy: If your activity does NOT infringe on the rights of others, then the government MAY NOT interfere to curtail that activity. If it does, citizens can take the legislative and/or executive branches to court, where the judiciary can MAKE the government respect your right to privacy.\n\nNote on obligation: This does not mean that government can or should guarantee that you will never be robbed, only that government has an obligation to consider theft to be a crime and to take reasonable measures to prevent theft, to apprehend and punish theives.\n\nNote on privacy: There are cases where government can interfere in public activity, but must "butt out" where the activity is in private between consenting adults. Sexual behavior is a good example.\n\nNote on both: True, we have many laws that violate this principle. For instance, some say that "No beer sales on Sunday" violates this principle. That these laws have not (as yet) been successfully challenged and repealed does not negate the principle.