Should libertarians argue for a constitutional right to privacy?

[All Along The Watchtower]

Even if it’s not explicitly stated in the text of the Constitution (such a right can easily be inferred from multiple amendments, of course).

Seems weird that any self-described libertarian wouldn’t be among the biggest champions of a constitutionally protected right to privacy—a right that has been acknowledged by the US Supreme Court itself.

[MarkD]

A substantive right to privacy that states cannot violate is not an appropriate inference from the US Constitution. The Fourth Amendment addresses a procedural right to privacy and that is appropriately inferred from the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. But unenumerated substantive rights should never be inferred from any clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

I have not yet adequately expressed the more than anxiety I feel at the ever increasing scope given to the Fourteenth Amendment in cutting down what I consider to be the constitutional rights of the states. As the decisions now stand, I can see hardly any limit but the sky to the invalidating of those rights if they happen to strike a majority of this Court as, for any reason, undesirable. I cannot believe the amendment was intended to give us carte blanche to embody our economic or moral beliefs in its prohibitions. ... [W]e ought to remember the great caution shown in the Constitution in limiting the powers of the states, and should be slow to construe the ... amendment as committing to the Court, with no guide but the Court's own discretion, the validity of whatever laws the states may pass. (Dissenting opinion by Justice Holmes in Baldwin v. Missouri, 281 U.S. 586, 595 (1930).)

Holmes should not have said that states have constitutional rights, because states have powers; all levels of government have powers. But other than that one detail, I whole-heartedly agree with Holmes' statement.

[dead0man]

I"m no legal scholar (as my posts in this sub forum have repeatedly shown), but what are some ways the state sh**ts on our right to privacy now that you think libertarians (do you think other groups should argue for it too?) should take issue with that they aren't already?  The state can't come into your home or your car without jumping through hoops, are you suggesting there should be more hoops?  Smaller hoops?  No hoops at all (as in the govt can't ever search anything of yours?  that's crazy?)  Is this more about the internet?  My opinion on that is, if you don't want the govt (or whomever else you're worried about) learning things about you and if it's that big of a deal to you, how's about YOU not put that stuff on the internet in the first place?  It's almost as dumb as the people who complain about how much Facebook knows about them.  Something else?  Medical privacy?  Seems to be too strong if anything.

[Torie]

Non specific broad sets of words that sound good (one shall have the right to life, liberty and happiness), have the primary effect of empowering the courts rather than legislators to make the law. So, the ironic effect of such a proposal, would be to give a tailwind to laws which libertarians would tend to disdain.

[Orwell]

The constiution should be read as the FF's intended, originally.

[Enduro]

I personally believe that the original bill of rights were intended as protections for the right to privacy, rendering an amendment directly addressing this as redundant. Plus, office holders would one hundred percent abuse any amendment saying that guaranteed an individual right to privacy.

Of course, I didn't know any of founding fathers personally, so I could be wrong.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The constiution should be read as the FF's intended, originally.

Original public meaning is better than original intent because there are as many "original intents" behind any legislative act as there are people participating in legislating it.

[John Dule]

I support an amendment that codifies this right, but one does not exist in the text of the Constitution as it is currently written.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I support an amendment that codifies this right, but one does not exist in the text of the Constitution as it is currently written.

So?

[John Dule]

I support an amendment that codifies this right, but one does not exist in the text of the Constitution as it is currently written.

So?

I’m not understanding the question.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I support an amendment that codifies this right, but one does not exist in the text of the Constitution as it is currently written.

So?

I’m not understanding the question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unenumerated_rights?wprov=sfti1

[John Dule]

I support an amendment that codifies this right, but one does not exist in the text of the Constitution as it is currently written.

So?

I’m not understanding the question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unenumerated_rights?wprov=sfti1

An unenumerated right has to actually be implied by something, though. Like how the Comity Clause establishes freedom of movement between the states.

[Frodo]

At risk of derailing this thread, there is also no explicit right to vote in the Constitution either.  If they were to advocate for that as well (if they aren't already), I'd be fully on board with that.  

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I support an amendment that codifies this right, but one does not exist in the text of the Constitution as it is currently written.

So?

I’m not understanding the question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unenumerated_rights?wprov=sfti1

An unenumerated right has to actually be implied by something, though. Like how the Comity Clause establishes freedom of movement between the states.

A right to be generally free from state intrusion into one's domestic arrangements can reasonably be inferred from parts of the enumerated Bill of Rights, but this would not extend to many things that most civil libertarians would like to see a right of privacy extend to, and might extend to some things that most civil libertarians would rather it not.

[MarkD]

At risk of derailing this thread, there is also no explicit right to vote in the Constitution either.  If they were to advocate for that as well (if they aren't already), I'd be fully on board with that.  

I have included this in my proposal for an amendment that, in general, rewrites and clarifies Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The SCOTUS has been "interpreting" the Equal Protection Clause as if it "protects" every citizens' equal right to vote (the principle of equal population in all legislative districts (Baker v. Carr line of cases), Harper v. Board of Elections, and so on). Even though I disapprove of that interpretation, I decided to preserve those precedents anyway, and to empower the federal government to continue protecting the legal principle of equal voting rights anyway.

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=525020.msg8807474#msg8807474