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 needfor 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 FourteenthConstitutionalAmendments. 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. Connecticutruling is widely employed in the debates on human rights and also serve as the basis of the Comstock Act whichprohibits the sending of obscenematerials such as literature contraception and pictures through the mail. The Fourteenth Amendment serves as the longestAmendment in the USA constitution and guarantees to all persons the precedingrights 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 thefirstsection of the FourteenthAmendment 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 FourteenthAmendment 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 personalpleasure is one of the aspects of human rights. The introduction of the FourteenthAmendment can be termed as hoeingredefined 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 aredelegated 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 ExecutiveBranch, 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 Amendmentwhich 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 illegalsearches.  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 eitheraffirmation 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 sincedeparted 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’sdwellings.

On the other hand, the FifthAmendment outlines that persons are protected from makings self-incriminating statements and thus issues the right for one to keep his/her thought and mindprivate. Nonetheless, this Amendment is only applicable during criminal hearings. Logical and grammatical evaluation of the FourthAmendment 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 provisionsindicate 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 andfacilities of an arrestee[3].

In the past, the SupremeCourt 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 isregarded as being the final interpreter of the constitution. The ambiguity of the outlined Amendments thus makes it possible to have varying standpoints on the topicof 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 federalgovernments.

The limiting of the Federal powers ensures that the USA constitution the people remains superior. It further ensures that all the authority of the federalgovernment 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

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.

[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.

 
Do you need high quality Custom Essay Writing Services?