Introduction

The Right to privacy can be defined as being a source of contention in the USA. While the Bill of Rights makes provisions for the right to privacy, the USA Constitution does not make explicit provision for the right to privacy. Both the ambiguity and the need for a clarification on the right to privacy has been the subject of many court circuits[1]. In the case Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965, the USA Supreme Court made a decision that upheld the notion of the general right to privacy. The ruling of the case was based on the First, Fifth, Fourth, Ninth and the Fourteenth Constitutional Amendments. Nonetheless, there is the need to have a keen contextual analysis of determining the legitimacy to the right to privacy in the USA constitution.

The Griswold v. Connecticut ruling is widely employed in the debates on human rights and also serve as the basis of the Comstock Act which prohibits the sending of obscene materials such as literature contraception and pictures through the mail. The Fourteenth Amendment serves as the longest Amendment in the USA constitution and guarantees to all persons the preceding rights of the USA constitution.  The Amendment states that none of the USA citizens would be deprived of the rights that are provided in the constitution and thus grants rights equality to all citizens.

While the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment outlines who citizens are, the second section grants equal protection to all citizens under state laws.  The provisions of the second section thus saw the federalizing of the Bill of Rights. It is worth noting that the USA constitution requires that all states both accept and enforce the provisions of the Bill of Rights[2].  The Fourteenth Amendment notes that the right to due process is to be accorded to both citizens and none citizens. The granting of the Amendment as the right to equality implies that most cases in the Supreme Court and high courts are alleged violations and Fourteenth Amendment cases as opposed to being matters of fundamental rights.

One of the areas that tend to be overlooked is the 1875 Equal Rights Act notes that all persons are entitled to equal rights. The Act further explains that personal pleasure is one of the aspects of human rights. The introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment can be termed as hoeing redefined humanity as it prohibited states from infringing on the rights to property, liberty, and life.  On the other hand, the Tenth Amendment acts as part of the Bill of Rights and provides for both state’s rights and federalism.  It infers that states only have powers that are delegated by the USA constitution. The remaining powers are thus reserved as the objective of the framers was to reaffirm federalism and create the necessary construction rule.

While the Supreme Court of the USA was inferior as compared to the Legislative Branch and Executive Branch, the Judiciary Act of 1789 saw it become the highest court in the country.  John Marshall is cited as being one of the individuals who helped transform the Supreme Court and also ensured that it had a single voice. Consequently, the court became to be referred to as being the ultimate interpreter of the USA constitution. Nonetheless, the provisions of the right to privacy can be traced to the Fourth Amendment which incorporates critical writings from the common-law traditions.

In his work Institutes of the Laws of England, Sir Edward Coke offered rhetoric on the need to abolish illegal searches.  These ideas are contained in the Fourth Amendment which requires the need to uphold the right for people to be secure in their papers, houses, persons, and effects against any unreasonable searches or seizures.  The Amendment further outlines that such searches are only to be conducted when supported by either affirmation or oath.  The ultimate goal of the Amendment can be defined as upholding the right to privacy and addressing cases of unreasonable intrusions.  Nonetheless, it is worth noting that it does not provide protection from all searches.

While the Supreme Court initially required one to prove that he/she was a victim of the intrusion, it has since departed from this requirement.  Currently, one is only required to prove that there was a justifiable expectation of privacy.  It implies that search warrants must support all federal searches. Nonetheless, there are exigent circumstances that may require state officers to make such searches without having a warrant. A better interpretation of the right to privacy can be attained by making reference to the Fourth, Third, and the Fifth Amendments. In the case of the Third Amendment, it upholds the Bill of Rights by providing the right against the usurpation of an individual’s dwellings.

On the other hand, the Fifth Amendment outlines that persons are protected from makings self-incriminating statements and thus issues the right for one to keep his/her thought and mind private. Nonetheless, this Amendment is only applicable during criminal hearings. Logical and grammatical evaluation of the Fourth Amendment infers that for a search warrant to be given, the search or intrusion must be seen as of being unreasonable nature.  However, this goes against the common belief appeal.  These provisions indicate that there is no general provision for implicit privacy rights.  According to the English Common Law, it is customary and legal to search the house and facilities of an arrestee[3].

In the past, the Supreme Court has issued a number of rulings that are seen to either in support or against the rights to privacy. While some rulings have been in line with the constitutions, others can be defined as being overstepped. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that the Supreme Court is regarded as being the final interpreter of the constitution. The ambiguity of the outlined Amendments thus makes it possible to have varying standpoints on the topic of the right to privacy. The framers of the constitution are cited as having the objective of limiting the powers of the Federal government. However, there are a number of rulings where the Supreme Court has been seen to issue more power to the federal governments.

The limiting of the Federal powers ensures that the USA constitution the people remains superior. It further ensures that all the authority of the federal government is derived from the USA constitution. Contrary to the s objective of the framers in promoting security on private property,  some of the Supreme Court decisions seem to be based on the need to strengthen the government[4].  InHelvering v Davis, the Supreme Court is seen as having issued more lights.

Mark Levin notes that the founding fathers had a great picture of what they wanted the Federal government wanted to be. They ensured that the power of the Federal government was limited with an objective of addressing possible cases of anarchy or violation of human rights.  However, there is the view that the Supreme Court is overstepping its mandate as seen in the pursuit of liberal whims where there is the stripping down of laws and the creation of new ones[5].  Levin argues that the move deprives Americans their freedom, rights and the values that the country is founded on.

There is the mention of the efforts by the Supreme Court to protect virtual pornography involving children as well as the burning of flags as a form of free speech. Nonetheless, it barred a teenager from listening/ playing an invocation with the mention of the word of God at a graduation ceremony. Moreover, the Supreme Court has also made rulings that mean that aliens have civil rights to access education and other basic services. While these changes are based on the Fourteenth Amendment that calls for equality of rights, the regular creation of new laws is seen to contradict the objective of the framers of the constitution.

The change of the constitutional provisions by the Supreme Court to have the federal government assume more economic powers has led to a lot of victimization of the latter by the private property owners. For instance, the Helvering v Davis case of 1937 saw the Supreme Court uphold the Congress’ power to tax, as well as spend more funds as a way of promoting the general economic welfare behind the required jurisdictions.[6] The Supreme Court, which initially held the obligation of ensuring the federal government does not gain more power within the economic realm as compared to the private property owners, was on the frontline of helping the same unit to achieve more authority regarding financial decisions.

In O’Brien’s work, there is an analysis of the ways that an individual’s opinions and court rulings have come to change the society we live in. Individual opinions and some court rulings are seen as going against the initial purpose of forming the constitution. Similar sentiments are put across by both Mellor and Levy[7]. They offer a detailed highlight of some of the Supreme Court rulings that have either increased the power of the Federal government and those that impact an individual’s liberty.  In the ruling of Whitman v. American Trucking Associations (2001, the court delegated crucial administrative duties to the Federal government.

The Whitman v. American Trucking Associations (2001, meant that the federal government had authority over the Bill of Rights which is unlike the previous cases where all authorities by the federal government were based on the constitution. The Whitman v. American Trucking Associations (2001 ruling is often cited as having led to the rise of an administrative state. While the Helvering v. Davis (1937 is not tied to the right to privacy, it highlights the new powers of the federal government and state authority. In this ruling, the Supreme Court gave the federal government the power to increase the tax levels thus violating the liberal rights of the Americans.

Contrary to the framers of the USA constitution, it is worth noting that the New Dealers saw the numerous property rights as a being a barrier to the attainment of their objectives. In 1937, the Supreme Court oversaw the ratification of the constitution thus granting more power to the national government as opposed to clinging on the historic American solicitude for rights to property. Many scholars are of the view that the role of the judiciary ought to be the interpretation of the law. On the other hand, Congress and other agencies ought to engage in activities that lead to the review or making of new laws.

However, this is not the case with the Supreme Court as recent rulings indicate that there is the tendency for the court to overstep its authority. Contrary to serving as the interpreter of the constitution, Americans are witnessing a scenario where the Supreme Court is abolishing laws and coming up with new regulations.  It is critical to note that many judges at the Supreme court have been found to include personal beliefs and ideologies in the making of important rulings. The trend can be linked to the widely held view that judges are more knowledgeable about matters of the constitution.  The Supreme Court has in the past engaged in a vicious battle with the Congress on matters relating to liberal rights.

The Supreme Court has the obligation of ensuring equity for every citizen by interpreting laws in a professional manner, as well as coming up with judgments that ensure a positive way of living for every individual. However, there have been cases where the Supreme Court was the one supporting the mishandling of American individuals. This went to the extent of battling with the goal of ensuring new policies that would result in equality for everyone being achieved. For example, James Burns gives an account of how at one time the Supreme Court supported the inhumane treatment of the African American slaves in the United States. It was in 1857 when the African American slaves were trying to win the rights of becoming full United States’ citizens.

The role of the Judiciary has always been the interpretation of laws, as well as carrying out various trials to those who go against the national or state policies. However, the recent past has seen the Supreme Court accumulate excessive power to the extent of playing the role of coming up with new regulations or changing the existing ones to serve the interests of particular groups, such as the federal government and other private parties[8]. For example, the Supreme Court judges have been on the frontline in incorporating prejudice and personal beliefs in making judgments to do with cases pertaining same-sex marriage, illegal immigration, abortion, in addition to the aspect of terrorists’ rights, and much more

It is expected of every judicial party, especially the Supreme Court judges, clerks, and other employees to be receptive to other people’s ideas. For example, during the handling of a high court case, a judge should be able to give room for other people’s side of the story before settling on the final decision that bases on all the presented pieces of evidence, as well as the guidelines provided in the U.S. Constitution. However, contrary to the public expectations, the employees of the Supreme Court have been on the frontline of being ignorant of others’ views whenever they assume the respective judicial positions. For example, David Savage, in his text, laments how the former Chief Justice Warren Burger was no longer exhibiting the required level of tolerance when he assumed office.

In 1857, historical records indicate that the Supreme Court supported the violation of the rights to privacy and protection by the law of African-American slaves. The action by the court can be defined as having been contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment which stresses equality of rights.  In the case Dred Scott, the court only records as having argued that slaves could only be considered as being property to the white owners[9]. Not only did it fail to uphold the right to freedom of all persons, but it also went contrary to the Bill of Rights which advocates for liberal rights.  The state of the Supreme Court is complicated by the fact that clerks handle most of the complex issues as opposed to judges.

The trend exposes the country to many risks and may see a significant deviation from the provisions of the USA constitution. Elements such as failure by the Supreme Court to uphold individual liberty, to protect the private property, assist the government to expand its corporate power, as well as the lack of effort in protecting individual rights against government harassment, and battling with the Congress in attempt to thwart positive changes on individual’s privacy, show that it has failed in its initial course of protecting individuals’ privacy.

Many actions by the Supreme Court creates the ground for the writ of habeas data as a form of remedy to the violation of the right to privacy. However, the provisions require that there be an existence of nexus on the right to privacy and the right to liberty, security, and life[10]. The different ruling indicates that the creation of new laws by the Supreme Court impacts on the right to security, privacy and liberty thus warranting for the extension of the writ.  The section “ to safeguard individual freedom from abuse in the information age” implies that the writ is not restricted to extrajudicial killings but covers the right to privacy. It further regulates the collection of data or makings searches by the state officials on the aggrieved parties.

Reference List

Russell, Jeremiah H. “The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It.” (2005): 401-403.

Levy, Robert A., and William Mellor.The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom. Cato Institute, 2009.

PaweJr, LA Scot. “Packing the Court: The Rise of Judicial Power and the Coming Crisis of the Supreme Court.”The Journal of American History 97, no. 4 (2011): 1103.

Burns, James M. Packing the Court: The Rise of Judicial Power and the Coming Crisis of the Supreme Court. London, England: Penguin, 2009.

Levin, Mark R. Men In Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America. Regnery Publishing, 2005.

O’Brien, David M. Storm Center: The Supreme Court in American Politics. New York, NY: W. W. Norton, 2017.

Savage, David G. Turning right: the making of the Rehnquist Supreme Court. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 1992.

Schlafly, Phyllis. The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and how to Stop it. Richard Vigilante, 2006.

Starr, Kenneth W. First among Equals: The Supreme Court in American Life. New York, NY: Warner Books (NY), 2014.

[1]PaweJr, LA Scot. “Packing the Court: The Rise of Judicial Power and the Coming Crisis of the Supreme Court.”The Journal of American History 97, no. 4 (2011): 1103.

[2]Levy, Robert A., and William Mellor.The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom. Cato Institute, 2009.

[3]Levy, Robert A., and William Mellor.The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom. Cato Institute, 2009.

[4]Russell, Jeremiah H. “The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It.” (2005): 401-403.

Levy, Robert A., and William Mellor.The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom. Cato Institute, 2009.

[5]Russell, Jeremiah H. “The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It.” (2005): 401-403.[7]Burns, James M. Packing the Court: The Rise of Judicial Power and the Coming Crisis of the Supreme Court. London, England: Penguin, 2009.

[8]Burns, James M. Packing the Court: The Rise of Judicial Power and the Coming Crisis of the Supreme Court. London, England: Penguin, 2009.

[9]Levin, Mark R. Men In Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America. Regnery Publishing, 2005.

[10]O’Brien, David M. Storm Center: The Supreme Court in American Politics. New York, NY: W. W. Norton, 2017.

Do you need high quality Custom Essay Writing Services?