Constitutional Amendments on Rights of Privacy Discourse

Although the right to privacy is practiced, many controversial questions arise on whether the US Constitution provides and protects the right to privacy in ways not captured in the Bill of Rights. A famous judge, Robert Bork, claimed that the right to privacy does not exist, and the court does not have guidelines for such rights as the right lacks substantial meaning (Wuest & Joanna, 964-992). He criticized the decisions made by Justice Douglas in the Griswold v. Connecticut case for ruling out that the Constitution did not safeguard the right to marital privacy when the state-imposed restrictions on contraceptives. According to Wuest & Joanna (964-992), Bork felt that Justice Douglas did not adhere to the providence of the Constitution but focused on the ideas of the rights that surround constitutionalism.

In his draft, Supreme Court associate Samuel Alito agreed that there is a need for privacy rights, and he respected the ruling made by the court on the Roe vs. Wade case (Tanne & Janice Hopkins, 1122). However, he states that other rights may be at risk due to the verdict made on abortion. He further claims that the abortion decision was wrong from the start and that overturning it would save the state as it has, resulting in many damaging consequences. The Roe judgment argued that the abortion right is part of a right to privacy that traces its roots of enforcement from the First, fourth, fifth, ninth, and fourteenth amendments.

According to Schuele & Donna (123-125), Justice Ginsberg formally argued that privacy rights are an alternative to gender equality rights. Further, he claimed that the claims made by Justice Bork on the privacy case expressed how the Supreme Court is willing to limit privacy rights as they claim the Constitution does not provide. The denial of privacy rights on reproduction rights is a blow to the fundamental rights linked to the integration of human production.

Discussion and Analysis of the Cases

Riley and Wurie’s extensive searches and seizure of their phones by detectives were justifiable. The proof found in their crime points, such as Riley in possession of loaded firearms and firing at an occupied vehicle which was an attempted murder, was enough reason for the detective to seek more information that might be a threat to the security. Additionally, Wurie, who was arrested after being surveilled by a detective selling crack cocaine, allowed for a seizure of his phone which led to detectives gaining more evidence to arraign in court. Although the Constitution, through the fourth amendment, guarantees the right to privacy, the fourth amendment does not guarantee protection against reasonable searches. Riley and Wurie’s searches were reasonable, and the court’s decision did not sound to protect the Constitution.

Abortion practices go against the right to life that is awarded to everyone, including the unborn. Abortion is illegal as of today following the overturning of the law that had awarded to as a right. The prime intention of the anti-abortion movement to overturn the decision made during the Roe vs. Wade case and reinstated during the Parenthood vs. Danforth case was substantial to saving human beings’ lineage as life begins from the embryo and the unborn deserve equal rights as the women. I agree with Wade and Alito that it is only the danger of life that abortion is worth as it aims to save a mother’s life. The Supreme Court verdict to render the ‘right to privacy’ denounced the fight against human life, and the Constitution does not support such a metric. Additionally, accepting the minor to practice abortion by parental consent shows support for immorality that the Constitution is against and is not aimed at guaranteeing privacy. Since enactment of abortion law, mortality rate increased and women’s health was threatened.

The continuous upholding of the contraceptive right and regarding it as the general right to privacy for everyone was not a decision of gain to the US culture and society. Today, the use of Contraceptives is supported by the first amendment in the Constitution although the Constitution as a whole does not give full support. As of now, the government is not allowed to invade that right and impose restrictions. Contraceptives save married couples in planning family. However, the contraceptive law has received mass challenges, especially following the court verdict in Eisenstadt v. Baird, as the verdict created a loop of immorality. Both the married and unmarried, including the minors, have used misused the contraceptives law for sexual gains. Also, contraceptive advertisement increased sexual immorality and law makers seeks to overturn the

Criticism of Robert Bork on Judge Douglas’ contraceptive verdict was significant, although he did not believe in the existence of a right