|
Founded in 2005, Americans for Freedom and Equality is a
non-partisan organization
|
|
What amendment specifically does:
- Defines civil freedom and individual and applies these concepts to our
U.S. laws. Concept of equality strengthened by stipulating "individual."
(Section 1a) - Establishes minimum sentencing and fines to for laws
pertaining to civil freedoms. (Section 1b) -Creates hierarchal
relationship between present constitutional principles affecting
individual civil liberties - places "liberty" at the top of the list.
(Section 3) - Creates balance between national security interests and
civil liberties. (Section 4) - Amends Article V of our present
constitution to also require a simple majority vote by "the people" for
any newly proposed constitutional changes involving freedom, equality, or
the concept of persons. (Section 5)
___________________ Few would dispute that America is a country
based on the concepts of freedom and equality. Just as important, although
not spoken as often, we are a country with a very strong anti-tyrannical
bent. The problem in our legal history has always been, how do we
define freedom, equality, and tyranny? To be responsible stewards of
the "idea" of America should at least require us to address these questions.
Americans for Freedom and Equality have begun the process by proposing
constitutional definitions (in the case of equality this is done by
stipulating individual) for these important items. We have also
created a recommended outlined approach where "the people" will not only
have the opportunity to weigh on where these objects settle, they will also
ultimately decide the justness of the entire amendment proposal.
___________________ The following "reasoning" section contains
thoughts based on our initial draft amendment. Most of what is provided
below relates to general governing virtues and principles. Please
remember that everything is open to democratic scrutiny - feel free to not
only challenge and criticize the initial draft amendment,
but also the reasoning provided hereafter.
From a philosophical perspective: Freedom is not an
ideology, it is the absence of placing forced ideologies upon others.
Freedom works as a well-grounded approach to law because it not only focuses
on what is allowed, it also states what is not permissible. For example,
acts which directly and intentionally harm other individuals are not part of
freedom, they are a violation of the concept. Therefore, it is logical
to see that murder, assault, kidnapping, robbery, burglary, larceny,
fraud and rape would easily violate philosophical definitions of freedom
developed over the last three centuries. Because part of freedom states
what is not permissible, there is a strong sense of community inherently
implied within it. Freedom is almost meaningless if you are alone on a
stranded island. Rather, it is a concept that explains how we should
responsibly interact with others. Part of freewill is allowing an
individual to do a they wish to themselves, even if one knows it is not in
their best interests. Philosophical acceptance of this prior statement
allows for right of privacy interests to "breathe" in the law.
Allowing an individual to do as they will to themselves does not mean that
we are negligent with advice and care. Regarding areas of law, it
simply should mean that we do not resort to tyrannical methods of punishment as a
solution.
While AFFAE strongly believe in a strict separation of church and state,
it cannot be denied that there is a very compelling moral element to the
principles of freedom and equality that are displayed in our Constitution.
Freedom and equality are the highest of all governing virtues. When one takes
into account the entire scope of both concepts, it is illogical to place
them in an imaginary battle with other virtues. It is philosophically more
correct to develop government laws with a "black and white" approach on
principles, rather than specific issues. A grounded "black and white"
approach on principles takes into account the gray areas of life, while a
"black and white" approach on issues frequently does not. When
the law takes a "black and white" approach on issues it assumes the typical
adult citizen has a below average IQ (84 or lower). When this occurs,
the law invites a paternalistic disposition. ( America's Founder's
frowned upon paternalism as a governing virtue because it mirrored the
arbitrary authority of aristocratic monarchies.) To the contrary, when the
law takes a "black and white" approach on principles, it assumes the typical
adult citizen has an average to above average IQ (85 or higher). In order to
maintain civil liberties, it is recommended that the law take this latter
position. Some argue that if the law takes a "black and white"
approach on principles rather than issues, the law will be unsettled and
confuse individuals. While perhaps contrary to common wisdom, we
believe this is a positive development. If there is unsettlement in
certain areas of law it often points to an unfairness that exists. Thus, the
recommended black and white approach to principles flushes out any
unfairness, where it can then be remedied through individual legislation or
judicial discretion. Similar to how
Thomas Paine felt, AFFAE believe that freedom and equality are part of the
natural order of the world. Use of the word "right" has traditionally
meant a gaining of power. The goal of this amendment, however, is not
to gain power, this legislation seeks only to limit those who unnecessarily
try to seize it. Therefore, this amendment adopts a similar
philosophical stance to our Bill of Rights. Civil freedom and equality should never be
at odds with the rule of law. When they are, a general fear and
mistrust occurs towards government. In addition, the surest way to produce
unrest in society is to stress the rule of law without any acknowledgement
of its possible defects on freedom and equality. Our country found this out
first hand when the U.S. Supreme Court enshrined slavery in Scott v.
Sanford (1856) and segregation in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896).
The future chaos that ensued from these decisions could have been averted if
those in power (not only the judiciary, but the executive and legislative
branches) would of initially applied our founding sentiments as a central
theme. If government is allowed to place even one act of tyranny upon the
people, or even one act contrary to the people's natural rights of freedom
and equality, an ominous legislative and judicial precedent is set that this
totalitarian approach is acceptable for other areas of law. Absolutism is usually offensive to
others. One tends to postulate that an absolute theory must be
oppressive and controlling since the messenger is giving no room for other
thought. One of the few exceptions to this rule is freedom. When
one advocates for an absolute approach to this concept, they are allowing
you to make the decisions that will shape your life. Thus, the oddity
of this amendment - the more absolute we become toward liberty, the less
absolute control is placed on American lives. It would be comforting to state that
there are no prejudices or stereotypes that exist in our culture.
Unfortunately, we know this is not true. When it comes to race,
religion, sexual orientation or lifestyle choices many of us begin with
preconceived grudges. Soaking these negative feelings into our being
vanishes our disposition for reason and instead exacerbates attitudes of
division. Perhaps the very nature of politics is gratifying these
divisive feelings for whomever is lucky enough to be in the majority.
Given this reality, how is it possible to have a constitutional amendment
that looks at the differences in our individuality through the dispassionate
lens of equality? There is no quick or easy answer, except to ask you
to consider the following - regardless of your personal opinions toward
others, please accept the dignified and moral principle that "all are
entitled to equal treatment under the law." When Thomas Jefferson stressed the enlightenment philosophies in
our Declaration of Independence he was painting an idea of liberty centered
around the individual. Jefferson also correctly saw the danger of
dividing up the word freedom and liberty. Those who believe in
dividing up these concepts advocate that at times it is necessary to limit
individual freedoms for the sake of enjoying liberty on a greater scale.
On these matters of individual freedom vs. the greater picture of liberty
Jefferson stated, "If we are made in some degree for others, yet in a
greater degree are we made for ourselves. If were contrary to feeling and
indeed ridiculous to suppose man had less right in himself than one of his
neighbors or all of them put together. This would be slavery and that
liberty which the bill of rights has made inviolable and for the
preservation of which our government has been changed." To the
contrary of Jefferson's individual liberty stated in our Declaration of
Independence, totalitarian or tyrannical philosophies squarely place the
community and general welfare far above the rights of the individual.
Importantly, this is not done for compassionate aims such as charity or
helping the poor, rather
it is done for nefarious purposes, (usually a sadistic desire to exert
unnecessary control or to make others
suffer through extreme punishment.) For example in Adolph Hitler's
ideological manifesto, Mein Kampf, Hitler stated his vision for the ideal
worker. "...he does not work directly for himself but makes productive
work part of the community..." and similarly speaking of the
role of the individual within the larger concept of society "...development
requires willingness on the individual to sacrifice himself for the
community..." While sounding harmless on a personal level, the
manifestation of these ideologies as "truths" for governance had dire
consequences. In Hitler's
Nazi Germany, speech was no longer in the hands of the individual, rather it
was to be placed under the guidance of government's perceived vision of the
general welfare, quoting from Mein Kampf, "..theater, art,
literature, cinema, press, posters and window displays must be
cleansed of all manifestations of our rotting world and placed in the
service of moral, political, and cultural ideas.." Hitler also
said,
"There is a path to freedom...its precepts are obedience, servitude, and
love of fatherland..." In his mind, freedom meant placing
pre-conditional ideologies before any notion of individual rights. In
his ultimate twisted sense of liberty, Adolph Hitler believed that Germans
of Aryan descent were exercising their freedom by slaughtering Jews. The
former Khmer Rouge regime is another example of a tyrannical system that
believed in general welfare over the rights of the individual. A key
philosophy that contributed to the large number of genocide deaths
(estimated 1.7 million) in Cambodia was Pol Pot's directive, "it is
better to kill ten innocent people then to let one guilty individual
go free."
Former Soviet Communist Russia was also a tyrannical regime that
believed in collectivism over the individual. For example, even the
moderate Soviet Communist Krushev, stated "I do not believe in the
religion of the individual." The result was that the people of
Soviet Communist Russia were forbidden from practicing religion, owning
private property, traveling abroad, and were barred from criticizing or
petitioning their government for a redress of grievances.
Despite these criticisms of tyrannical and totalitarian ideologies,
Americans for Freedom and Equality strongly believe in the open-market place
of ideas (and political parties), regardless of how offensive they may be.
The solution to overcome tyrannical ideologies is not censorship, rather
there should be a careful study and analysis of what its essential
principles are.
This suggestion borrows from our Founders ( i.e., Jefferson, Adams, and
Franklin's writings; Madison, Hamilton, and Jay's "Federalist Papers") who
used countless source examples of past and present governments, philosophies
and ideologies to explain what direction America should "not" follow.
In the
words of Thomas Jefferson, "Reason and free enquiry are the only
effectual agents against error."
From a legal perspective:
Much has been written about the proper legal role of our three branches of
government. But what is the suggested legal position that "the people"
should take relative to the Constitution? Are "the people's"
requirements for the U.S. Constitution identical to the three branches?
Americans For Freedom and Equality believe "the people" have the ultimate
responsibility to judge the wisdom of our founding document. The
justification for this claim is embodied in the opening words of our
Constitution, "We the people of the United States..." James Wilson,
who authored the Preamble stated that the Constitution's "leading
principle" is that "the supreme power resides in the people." In
addition Wilson stated that the Constitution "is announced in their
(the people's) name - it receives its political existence from their
authority: they ordain and establish. What is the necessary
consequence? Those who ordain and establish have the power, if
they think proper, to repeal and annul." This significant role is
quite different from the judicial branch, which oversees that our present
Constitution is faithfully interpreted. It is also a different
obligation from our legislative branch, whose role was best defined by
Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson said our legislators "true office is to
declare and enforce our natural rights and duties and to take none of
them from us..."
Does this statement of ultimate responsibility and authority negate "the
people" from traditional legal interpretations? To the contrary, "the
people" should faithfully consider all requirements that entail sound
judicial and legislative decisions. This includes an understanding of
our original constitutional text, common law heritage, the philosophical
implications of open-ended concepts such as freedom and equality, the intent
of our Founders, America's legal history, statistical/scientific evidence,
and the judicial precedents set out by the U.S. Supreme Court.
In addition, "the people" should take the the posture of a cool, calm, and
reasoned philosopher. This suggests taking the "big picture view" of
our legal history, rather than focusing on any one issue or time period.
If the solemn obligation of evaluating our Constitution is taken up in this
responsible manner, there will be an optimistic air that accompanies a
mature nation whose "people" have taken the initiative to ensure their
happiness.
___________________
Like many Americans we cherish the concepts of freedom and equality
contained within our Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.
Many are correct to note that these items are sacred or "settled law" that
should never be reduced. Therefore, we feel the only appropriate
constitutional amendment approach that deals with freedom and equality is to
promote their advancement. Since "the people" are only proposing an
advancement of these present constitutional concepts, we believe this
amendment honors all existing clauses contained within our U.S.
Constitution.
The constitutional items of more perfect union, domestic tranquility,
majority will, general welfare, and states' rights will not be eliminated
with this amendment. The same is true for police powers, (not
specifically stated in our Constitution but implied through Supreme Court
decisions and legislative precedents.) This statement is in reference to
Section 3 of the Freedom and Equality amendment which says, "Domestic
tranquility, more perfect union, states' rights, majority will, and police
powers are not to supersede civil freedoms - for with the open violation
or denial of personal liberty through the law, we have tyranny." We
simply believe there is no evidence in America's founding history that
states or implies - use these items to ignore freedom and equality so that
you may instead follow a tyrannical direction.
To the contrary, there is ample evidence that the Framers believed that
items such as "general welfare" had a limited and specific purpose.
This purpose was not to be used to eliminate America's founding sentiments.
In Federalist No. 41 James Madison states, " It has been urged and
echoed, that the power to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and
excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general
welfare of the United States, amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise
every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defence or
general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress
under which these writers labour for objections, than their stooping to such
a misconstruction...A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial
by jury or even regulate the course of descents, or the form of conveyances,
must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the
general welfare."
It has been noted by many scholars that Alexander Hamilton took a different
view on the broad powers granted in the U.S. Constitution. Did these views,
however, constitute an invitation to tyranny? Broadening out the
general welfare subject Madison addressed in Federalist No. 41, Alexander
Hamilton's words give us a definitive answer. In Federalist No. 33 he
states, "If the Federal Government should overpass the just bounds of its
authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers; the people whose creature
it is must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such
measures to redress the injury done to the constitution..." So
despite the fact that Hamilton thought the powers in the Constitution gave
more license to government than what Madison or Jefferson would concur, none
of the Founders or Framers (either conservative, moderate, or
liberal) believed that the U.S. Constitution granted authority for tyranny.
Additional reasoning
The initial draft amendment strongly implies that when an individual is in
the privacy of their own home, and they are not engaged in direct or
intentional harms upon others, the law has no right of coercion. In
addition, this amendment strongly implies that an individual's lifestyle
choice within the meaning of civil freedom, and/or personal/hereditary status will not become an issue when they
come before the law.
It is important to state that we do not claim that F.A.E. is a "perfect"
amendment possessing the ability to solve all issues of freedom and equality
- this is the open-ended nature of constitutional provisions dealing with
principles rather than issues. However, we can say with cautious
optimism, that with passage of F.A.E., more future issues will be resolved
with individual freedom and equality at the forefront.
The reason for this careful outlook is rooted in the last constitutional
change that advanced freedom and equality for all persons - the 14th
amendment. There was extensive debate on what impact the
amendment would have before it was ratified in 1868. All these
debates, however, could not foresee how the Supreme Court would specifically
look at this new constitutional provision. For example, almost
immediately after the 14th amendment was passed, the Court did not see
females as full-fledged individuals. In Bradwell v Illinois
(1873) women were denied the right to practice law, and in Minor v.
Happersett, (1875) women were not permitted to vote in presidential
elections. Does this mean that constitutional provisions that advance
freedom and equality through principles ( such as the 14th amendment) should
be frowned upon? We think not. Despite the 14th amendments initial
disappointments, its long-term impact has affected our country in a positive
way. It should be remembered that during the 20th century, the 14th
amendment was instrumental in the hard fought constitutional battles won
by women and African Americans.
What else can we learn from the history of the 14th amendment (Section 1)?
As great as this provision was it did not define liberty, nor did it relate
the concept of individual directly to freedom, (a necessity to advance
equality.) As a consequence, those who wanted to wriggle around the
14th could easily do so. The same analysis can be made toward our 1st
amendment. James Madison, who helped draft this Bill of Rights
provision in 1791, was disappointed at the ease at which it could be
maneuvered around - only seven years after the 1st amendment was placed in
our Constitution.
As a general rule of thumb, our three branches of government will follow
specific constitutional amendments accurately, so as not to create unrest in
the country. If, however, there are "ambiguities" within a particular
amendment (such as what currently exists in our 1st and 14th amendments), a
philosophical misreading or deliberate avoidance is quite possible.
This is why Americans For Freedom and Equality are recommending a more
detailed approach to our founding sentiments.
Why not constitutionally address specific issues that need rectifying?
Certainly there have been times in our American history when specific groups
with particular issues have had their freedom and equality advanced.
We believe these measures were necessary and correct. The 13th
amendment exclusively outlawed slavery, while the 15th allowed voting
participation regardless of race. The 19th amendment specifically
dealt with the unfairness of not allowing women the right to vote.
As a whole, Americans For Freedom and Equality support all constitutional
initiatives that advance freedom and equality, whether principled or
issue-oriented. Our constitutional recommendation, however, is to use
a principled approach, rather than one that is issue-based. To make a
reasoned analogy, if a surgeon identifies cancer inside a patient, does she
remove a partial amount, or does she try to remove as much as possible?
Likewise, if we are going to invest time in a national constitutional
amendment, should we continue dealing with a patchwork scheme, or should we
try to mend the larger picture of our constitutional history?
The following section gives
a brief summary reasoning for sentences within the Freedom and Equality
(F.A.E.) amendment. The amendments wording is in italic quotes:
"No federal state or local law..." The due process clause of the 14th
amendment applies to the states, the due process clause of the 5th amendment
applies to the federal government. To clear any doubts as to its
application, the proposed F.A.E. amendment is framed with the words,
"federal, state or local laws." AFFAE believe the main legal
issue in our country has never been the sovereignty of state power vs.
federal. Rather it has always been the freedom and equality of the
individual vs. tyranny on any government level. Because this issue was not
addressed in 1789, the deadliest war in 19th century history, the Civil War,
took place on American soil. Unfortunately, up to present times,
Supreme Court ambiguity on this issue has still left this question
unresolved. How will this amendment change the perspective on the
sovereignty of states vs. the national government? This amendment
implies the general principle that states should remain democratic
laboratories, especially when they are pushing the envelope for freedom and
equality. Thus it is plausible that in some instances, states would
have more sovereignty than the national government. If however, a
state moves to invoke tyranny over persons (such as what happened in
the case of slavery before the Civil War), our national Constitution should
give the federal legislative and judicial branches the ability to
compassionately protect Americans. This change is the best way to
domestically maintain peace and harmony in America for future generations.
Miscellaneous Further
elaboration on the definition of "totality" (contained in the explanatory
section): Despite the "reasonable" exemption for minors, this amendment
can be applied to them. Overall, we believe that minors will likely gain more
rights with passage of F.A.E. This is due to the following areas
within the proposed amendment: 1. the definition of civil freedom 2. the
limiting of punishment for acts within the scope of civil freedom 3. the
right of privacy clause 4. placing liberty as the optimum concept within
our Preamble It would be impossible to address every issue that minors may
face and state what is, and what is not a reasonable limitation. Obviously,
this amendment should not grant a five year old the right to drive a car (
we would consider this a reasonable restriction.)
To summarize, minors do possess constitutional rights - so therefore,
just as the Bill of Rights grants many civil liberties to minors ( i.e., if
minors are charged with a crime, they have to decide their plea, not their
parents), so should this proposed amendment. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Special emphasis was given to the following areas of U.S. history: the
Founding Era, the Civil War Era/reconstruction amendment period, and the 20th
century civil rights struggles. In addition to our own U.S. Constitution, an
extensive study of the UN Charter/Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
past/present world constitutions was undertaken.
Considerable research on the philosophical, legal and cultural history of
freedom and equality was incurred. Special emphasis was placed on current
U.S. federal, state, and local laws as well as Supreme Court issues over the
last 50 years.
Source notes
Home page: "two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress", "state
legislatures in three-fourths of the states" "A second
constitutional convention has never been called." Lee Epstein, Thomas G.
Walker in Constitutional Law for a Changing America (The Free
Press,1998)
Home page: " ... believe our outlined process is in accord with
Article V of the constitution which does not contain language preventing
"the people" from proposing bills or amendments to
Congress" Alan Hirsch, Akhil Reed Amar in For the People( The
Free Press,1998); from Chapter One, "The People's Right to Amend the
Constitution", pages 3-33.
Amendment: "Civil freedom is the ability for persons to do as
they will, as long as no direct intentional harms are present to
others."
France was the first country to have attempted to define freedom in their
constitution. The definition presented itself in the Rights of Man,1789; it
states, "Liberty consists of the freedom to do everything which
injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man
has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society
the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be
determined by law."
Thomas Jefferson, who spent time in Paris on assignment from our
government, had a hand in penning the Rights of Man. Jefferson, however,
seems to have taken issue with the last sentence of the French liberty
definition. In a letter to Isaac Tiffany in 1819, Jefferson stated, "Rightful
liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within the limits drawn
around us by the rights of others. I don't add "within the limits
of law" because the law is often a tyrants will and always
when it violates the right of the individual."
Italy has recently placed a definition of freedom in their newly revised
constitution. It is very similar to the French definition in the Rights of
Man.
In the 1800s two well-known philosophers gave their definition of
freedom. Both definitions are significant because they were quoted in U.S.
Supreme Court opinions. In his book entitled Essay on Liberty, John
Stuart Mill stated, "An individual's liberty can rightfully be
constrained only in order to prevent harm to others."* Herbert Spencer in
his book, Justice, stated his definition for freedom, "Every man
is free to do that which he wills, provided he infringes not the
equal freedom of any other man."
*One of the legitimate philosophical criticisms against
Mills was that he never defined what "harms" were. We believe that
this amendment's definition of civil freedom corrects this error by
detailing that harms (with regard to government's right to punish
individuals) should have a "direct" or "intentional" association.
Perhaps the most direct source for the amendment's term intentional
comes from Socrates in the Apology. In this famous philosophical
story, Socrates is made to drink poison as a punishment for expressing his
opinions . Socrates says to the judge, "if my offense is unintentional,
the man of law has no cognizance of unintentional offenses.."
Amendment: "Persons are humans of any race, ethnicity,
language, creed, nationality, sex, sexual orientation, mental
conscience, lifestyle choice, political party or disability."
The U.N. Charter (Article 55[c]) lists these categories for persons:
"Universal respect for, and observance of human rights and fundamental
freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or
religion."
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, sponsored by the UN, and
signed by the United States says in Article 2: "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this
Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex,
language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social
origin, property, birth or other status."
The following U.S. laws cover these categories of persons:
Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) prohibits discrimination based
on nationality.
Civil Rights Act of 1964 bans discrimination against persons of race,
color, religion, or national origin.
The Federal Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination
based on disability.
The Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (AEDA) prohibits
employment discrimination based on age.
There is currently no U.S. federal laws prohibiting discrimination based
on sexual orientation, however, there are numerous entries in state and
local laws.
States that ban discrimination in public employment based on sexual
orientation: Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania
and Washington.
States that ban discrimination in private employment based on sexual
orientation: California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island,
Vermont and Wisconsin.
Municipalities that include sexual orientation in their civil rights
laws:
Phoenix, AZ, Pima County, AZ, Tuscon, AZ, Berkley, CA, Costa Mesa, CA, Daly City, CA, Hayward, Ca, Long Beach, CA, city of Los Angeles, CA, Los
Angeles County, CA, Marion County, CA, Oakland, CA, Pasadena, CA,
Sacramento, CA, San Diego, CA, San Francisco, CA, San Jose, CA, San Mateo
County, CA, City of Santa Barbara, CA, Santa Barbara County, CA, Santa Clara
County, CA, Santa Monica ,CA, West Hollywood, CA, Arvada, CO, City of
Boulder, CO, Boulder County, CO, Denver, CO, Hartford, CT, New Haven CT,
Stanford, CT, Broward County, FL, Coral Springs, FL, Gainseville, FL, Miami
Beach, FL, Miami-Dade County, FL, Monroe County, FL, Okaloosa County, FL,
Palm Beach County, FL, Santa Rosa County, FL, Tampa, FL, Atlanta, GA, DeKalb
County, GA, Fulton County, GA, Honolulu, HI, Chicago, IL, Cook County, IL,
Indianapolis, IN, Topeka, KS, Wichita, KS, Jefferson County, KY,
Lexington-Fayette, KY, Louisville, KY, New Orleans LA, Oachita Parish, LA,
Baltimore, MD, Howard County, MD, Montgomery County, MD, Prince George
County, MD, Boston, MA, Cambridge, MA, Worchester, MA, Ann Arbor, MI,
Detroit, MI, Grand Rapids, MI, Wayne County, MI, Hennepin County, MN,
Minneapolis, MN, St. Paul, MN, Joplin MO, Kansas City MO, St. Louis, MO,
Glouchester County, NJ, Albuquerque, NM, City of Albany, NY, New York, NY,
Albany County, NY, Buffalo, NY, Rochester, NY, Suffolk County, NY, Syracuse,
NY, Tompkins County, NY, Watertown, NY, Chapel Hill, NC, Durham, NC,
Raleigh, NC, Cleveland, OH, Columbus, OH, Cuyahoga County, OH, Toledo, OH,
Benton County, OR, Eugene, OR, Gresham, OR, Portland, OR, Philadelphia, PA,
Pittsburgh, PA Providence, RI, Columbia, SC, Minnehaha County, SD, Austin,
TX, Dallas, TX, Travis County, TX, Salt Lake County, UT, Alexandria, VA,
Arlington County, VA Virginia Beach, VA, Clark County WA, King County, WA,
Seattle, WA Spokane, WA Thurston County, WA, Vancouver, WA, Dane County, WI,
Madison, WI, Milwaukee, WI
Amendment: "Within the context of civil freedoms the right of
privacy is guaranteed to all persons."
A direct mention of a constitutional right of privacy is found in the
constitutions of the Netherlands, Finland and Israel. The state constitution
of California also has a right to privacy clause.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights mentions a right to privacy:
Article 12 "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his
honour or reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law
against such interference's or attacks."
Lee Epstein and Thomas Walker in Constitutional Law for a Changing
America, page 419, state that justices of the Supreme Court have
affirmed a right of privacy, however, they have come to differing
conclusions as to which constitutional sources guarantee that right.
The sources the Supreme Court justices have identified are:
- The First Amendment's right of association
- The Third Amendment's prohibition against quartering soldiers
- The Fourth Amendment's Search and Seizure Clause
- The Fifth Amendment guarantees against self-incrimination
- The Ninth Amendment
- The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause
Explanatory section: The definition of chilling, "overly broad
legislation that makes people fearful of legitimate activity." Epstein,
Lee; Walker, Thomas G. in Constitutional Law for a Changing America.
Explanatory section: The definition of civil freedom, "Covers
issues of freedom, the right to privacy and discrimination." Epstein,
Lee; Walker, Thomas G. in Constitutional Law for a Changing America.
Reasoning: "The due process clause of the 14th
amendment applies to the states, the due process clause of the 5th
amendment applies to the federal government." Epstein, Lee; Walker, Thomas
G. in Constitutional Law for a Changing America.
REFERENCES
United States. Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the
United States of America: John M. Ashbrock Center for Public,
2001
Hamilton, Alexander; Madison, James; Jay, John. The Federalist Papers
: Penguin Classics,1987
Appleby, Joyce. Jefferson: Political Writings: Cambridge
University Press,1999
Paine, Thomas. Common Sense: Dover Publications,1997
Paine, Thomas. Rights of Man: Penguin Classic,1984
Mill, John Stuart. Essay on Liberty: Longman, Roberts & Green
1869; Bartleby.com,1999
Spencer, Hubert. Justice: Being Part IV of the Principles of Ethics:
London: Williams & Norgate, 1891
Cooper, John M. Plato Complete Works : Hackett Publishing
Company,1997
Jefferson, Thomas. Notes on the State of Virginia: Penguin
Classics, 1998
De Tocqueville, Alexis. Democracy in America : Signer Book, 2001
Hall, Kermit L. The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court
Decisions: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2000
Cogan, Neil H. The Complete Bill of Rights : Oxford University
Press,1997
Hugler, Jerome. Locke in America: University Press of Kansas,1995
Williams, David. The Enlightenment: Cambridge U.K.; New York:
Cambridge University Press 1999
Gurko, Leo. Tom Paine: Freedom's Apostle: Ty Crowell,1957
Chernov, Ron. Alexander Hamilton: Penguin Books, 2004
Cappon, Lester J. The Adams-Jefferson Letters: University of North
CarolinaPress,1988
Plato. Defence of Socrates, Euthyphro, Crito: Oxford University
Press
Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice: Belknap Press,1999
Plato. Laws: PocketePCpress, 2000
Plato. Plato's Republic: Agora Publications, 2001
Tessitore, Aristide. Aristotle and Modern Politics: University of
Notre Dame Press, 2003
Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, State and Utopia: Basic Books,1977
Rand, Ayn. Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology: Plume,1990
Lively, Donald E. Landmark Supreme Court Cases: Greenwood
Press,1999
Read, James H. Power Versus Liberty: Madison, Hamilton, Wilson and
Jefferson: University Press of Virginia,2000
Walling, Karl Friedrich. Republican Empire: Alexander Hamilton and
Free Government: University press of Kansas,1999
Sullivan, Harold J. Civil Rights and Liberties, Prentice Hall,2004
Lipkin, Robert Justin. Constitutional Revolutions: Pragmatism and the
Role of Judicial Review in American Constitutionalism: Duke
university Press, 2000
Nagel, Robert F. The Implosion of American Federalism: Oxford
University Press, 2002
Tushnet, Mark V. Taking the Constitution Away From the Courts:
Princeton University Press,1999
Shmuel, Lock. Crime, Public Opinion and Civil Liberties: Praeger
Publishers, 1999
Patterson, Orlando. Freedom, Vol. 1: Freedom in the Making of Western
Culture: Basic Books; Reprint edition, 1992
Witte, John; Witte, Jr.; Catalano, Steve. Religion and the American
Constitutional Experiment: Westview Press, 2004
Amar, Akhil Reed; Hirsch, Alan. For the People: The Free
Press,1998
Simpson, Peter. A Philosophical Commentary on the Politics of
Aristotle: University of North Carolina Press, 2002
Klarman, Michael J. From Jim Crow to Civil Rights: Oxford
University Press,2004
Epstein, Lee; Walker, Thomas G. Constitutional Law for a Changing
America: Congressional Quarterly Inc., 2004
Alston, Philip. The EU and Human Rights: Oxford University Press,
1999
Irons, Peter. A People's History of the Supreme Court: Penguin
Books, 2000
Cogan, Neil H. The Complete Bill of Rights. Oxford University
Press, 1997
Anastaplo, George. The Amendments to the Constitution: A Commentary:
The John Hopkins University Press, 1997
Bernstein, Richard B.; Agel, Jerome. Amending America: Time
Books,1993
Vile, John B. Encyclopedia of Constitutional Amendments, and Amending
Issues,1789-1995,: ABC-Clio Inc.,1996
Hall, Kermit L.; Finkelman, Paul; Wiecek, William M. American Legal
History: Oxford University Press, 1996
Frantzich, Stephen E. Citizen Democracy: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers,1999
Jayne, Allen. Jefferson's Declaration of Independence: Origins,
Philosophy and Theology: The University Press of Kentucky,1998
Cohen, William. Supplement to Cohen and Kaplan's Constitutional Law:
Foundation Press,1987
Guelzo, Allen C. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation: Simon &
Schuster,2004
Stone, Geoffery R. The Bill of Rights in the Modern State:
University of Chicago Press,1992
Der Meide, Wayne Van. Legislating Equality: Policy Institute of
the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 2000
Kershaw, Ian. Stalinism and Nazism: Dictatorships in Comparison:
Cambridge University Press, 1997
Maitland, Frederic William. A Historical Sketch of Liberty and
Equality: Liberty Fund, 2001
Rohmann, Chris. A World of Ideas: Ballantine Books, 2000
Duncan, Christopher M. The Anti-Federalists and Early American
Political Thought: Northern Illinois University Press, 1995
Labunski, Richard. The Second Constitutional Convention: Marley &
Beck Press, 2000
Matthews, Richard K. If Men Were Angels; James Madison and the
Heartless Empire of Reason: University Press of Kansas, 1994
Ebenstein, Alan; Fogelman, Edwin; Ebenstein, William. Today's Isms: Prentice
Hall,1999
Hitler, Adolph. Mein Kampf: Mariner Books, Reissue edition, 1998
Eisenach, Eldon J. Mill and the Moral Character of Liberalism:
Pennsylvania State University press, 1999
Goodin, Roberet E. Contemporary Political Philosophy: Blackwell
Publishers,1997
Capoldi, Nicholas. Immigration: Debating the Issues: Prometheus
Books, 1997
Machan, Tibor R. Liberty for the 21st Century:
Rowman & Littlefield Inc., 1995
Hauser, Barbara H.; Tigges, Julie A. Women's Legal Guide: Fulcrum
Publishing, 1996
Padover, Saul K. The Living U.S. Constitution: Meridian,1995
Zakaria, Fareed. The Future of Freedom: W.W. Norton Company, 1999
Mencken, H.L. Mencken's America: Ohio University Press, 2004
Clinton, Robert Lowry. God and Man in the Law: The Foundation of
Anglo-American Constitutionalism: University Press of Kansas,
1997
Wood, Gordon S. The Radicalism of the American Revolution: Vintage,
1993
Dworkin, R.M. Freedom's Law: The Moral Reading of the American
Constitution:
Harvard University Press, 1997
Rakove, Jack N. (editor). Interpreting the Constitution: The Debate
over Original Intent: Northeastern University Press,1990
Boaz, David. The Libertarian Reader: Free Press,1998
|
|
.gif) |