Right to PrivacyEssay title: Right to PrivacyThe right to privacy is a fundamental value of American culture. The original European colonization of North America was done by Puritan refugees seeking the freedom to practice their religion devoid of governmental interference. The legacy of tolerance and privacy is vital to the continuation of the American way of life that began over 400 years ago. However, specifically during the Warren and Burger courts of the mid-1900s, debate has arisen over the actual degree of privacy allowed in the Constitution. Since then, the varying degree of judicial activism has shaped present-day legislation and the zone of privacy therein.
This paper will illustrate my opinion for the need to distinguish between behaviors that are morally suspicious and actions that are reasonably related to cause direct harm to a large population. I will progress through the three main privacy rights cases and describe their effect on society. It is my contention that the decisions in these cases have expanded the zone of privacy to an adequate size and without these milestone rulings, our culture would be at a significant disadvantage.
Roe v. Wade (1973) is arguably the most popular and controversial privacy case in the history of the Supreme Court. The ruling of this case clearly stated that a women’s right to privacy is grounds for the legality of an abortion (under very specific circumstances). In a way, Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) was the predecessor to Roe v. Wade’s controversial ruling. Griswold v. Connecticut involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives. The Supreme Court ruled that such a law violated “the right to marital privacy” and established that the Constitution protected the right to privacy despite any explicit mention of the word “privacy” in the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court interpreted the 14th Amendment, notably the due process clause and the privileges and immunities clause to allow a citizen the “right” to privacy.
Like the later Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut deals with a decision between rational adults. The decision to use contraceptives is one exercised by logical, consenting people and affects no one but those directly involved. Such a decision to use birth control is not a sweeping attempt to control a large population. Those who oppose these practices claim that, with the precedent set in Griswold, the use of contraceptives will erode social morality. This position primarily stems from religious beliefs, and therefore, the secular state in which we live must protect against the overt influence of religion upon public domain. This, again, is an example of a morally suspicious law. I can say that, at the time of Griswold v. Connecticut, I can understand the state’s position on the issue. Contraceptives were not very well known, nor were the generally accepted at that point in history. Thus, those born 1960s were dubbed the �Baby Boomer’ generation. However, freedom of choice supersedes any suspected negative impact a law may have. In other words, legality/legitimacy comes before morally based opinion.
Lawrence v. Texas was the landmark ruling that struck down the prohibition of homosexual sodomy in Texas. The court found that intimate homosexual conduct between consenting adults was part of the liberty protected by due process under the 14th Amendment. This ruling helped invalidate similar laws across the country that criminalized consensual sexual activity acting in private, namely the Supreme Court case, Bowers v. Hardwick. Like Roe v. Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas concerns only those directly involved and, while the ruling does indirectly affect a larger number of people than contraceptive rights (seeing as abortion affects only young women of child-bearing age), it is not an attempt to forcefully negatively influence a population.
The United States Supreme Courts holding in Yoder v. Wisconsin made it illegal for Wisconsin to forcibly place Amish children in compulsory education past 8th grade. The court found that the Wisconsin statute violated the free exercise of religion clause of the 1st Amendment. Of all the three cases I discuss, Yoder v. Wisconsin is most likely the one with least resistance. I believe this to be because freedom of religion is directly stated in the Bill of Rights, whereas privacy is implied and thus subject to interpretation. Moreover, as I mentioned earlier, the freedom to freely exercise religion without any governmental intervention is a pillar of American society. Because of this, I believe the court takes a more activist role when dealing with the denial of the 1st Amendment. As well, unlike sodomy and contraceptive use, which in some situations directly contradict the beliefs of certain religions, the exercise of an alternative religion does
[¶4] While it has been widely believed in the public that the First Amendment protection of free exercise of religion has been enshrined in all federal laws since the ratification of the Constitution, it is questionable whether the Supreme Court has held otherwise. We have generally seen, however, that the First Amendment protects a fundamental right—both of speech and of religion—that is protected only by judicial review of statutes.  Since the first amendment was ratified at the same time as the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has, in various contexts, upheld the Second Amendment’s protection of First Amendment rights of “the people”.Â
[¶5] We have generally seen, however, that the First Amendment protects a fundamental right—both of speech and of religion—that is protected only by judicial review of statutes.
[¶6] There are in fact significant cases that challenge this fundamental right. First, a 2013 Supreme Court decision in Utah, which held that a person’s First Amendment rights were “indifferent to the rights of anyone on the government” under s. 14(a), is cited by a recent case involving one of the biggest gay marriage bans in the United States.  The Court held that, like other States of Virginia, the Court “had found unconstitutional” a New Jersey statute prohibiting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people from buying property in New Jersey while they were married.  The Supreme Court held that New Jersey’s statute violated the First Amendment because as it held in its first judgment, in deciding the case, the Court considered First Amendment protection of free exercise of religion “subsequently eroded.” In subsequent decisions that have been reversed in the relevant jurisdiction, the Court has held the same. [¶7]
[¶8] For example, the Supreme Court held in the case of Stonewall Inn v. Alabama that public officials who “undermine” “church values” in the same way employers do against the First Amendment’s protection of free exercise of religion—in particular, the role of public employees in the enforcement of nondiscrimination ordinances—are protected by federal law.  It was later found that this action “would not hold, and no First Amendment rule would survive and be deemed an ‘inherent encroachment’ on religion’s right’ in the absence of such an encroachment.”Â
[¶9] The Court’s decision in Stonewall in this case is illustrative of an area where First Amendment concerns have held up. The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion as such, however unconstitutional, only if there is compelling scientific or philosophical reason to think that any given state’s laws would be discriminatory to a particular group. . Moreover, even in cases of lawmaking that require religious or other private activity as a basis for discrimination—when a state’s laws have been found to discriminate against a Christian minority—the Court might find the existence of such a finding “reasonable, as well as necessary, to permit such an action to proceed in any direction at all.”Â
[¶10] Indeed, the Court has ruled in some cases that religious religious activity is unconstitutional as long as such activity does not, in the absence of a compelling religious belief, harm any citizen’s religious liberty. An issue regarding religious religious activity where it appears to harm the public good should be one that could be decided by the Court’s decision in Stonewall.  If religious people are expected to conduct their religious activity in a “free-spirited” manner for public benefit, they cannot expect to be held to have done so. But if they are expected to practice their religious activity for the public good, no question of discrimination can justify their conduct.  Even when they were found to be guilty of discrimination because of their beliefs, they cannot expect their actions to harm them.  The First Amendment is based