I had originally posted this as a comment on the Judge Roberts confirmation diary, but there were a couple of good comments, and I thought a diary might expand that conversation further.
"Why not introduce a Constitutional Amendment adding the right to privacy?"
The entire comment plus some extra in the extended...
Here is the original comment:
This may be a little off-topic, but as I listen to both Republican and Democratic Senators make their opening remarks, there have been many references to the "Right to Privacy" and whether or not it truly exists, in the context of our Constitution.
Here's my thought: Why not introduce a Constitutional Amendment adding the right to privacy? George Bush and the rest of the radical right seemed eager to introduce a Constitutional Amendment when they decided that gay marriage would ruin the country. They said the people needed to decide whether we wanted to allow gay couples to marry, and that the courts were not going to allow us to do that. They claimed that "activist judges" had made it so that only an amendment would preserve marriage.
I find it hard to believe that a majority of Americans would not support a Right to Privacy Amendment. Even the pro-lifers would have a hard time arguing against it, since that would mean giving up all of the other rights that are included with the Right to Privacy. Only the fundies would be against it, with their desire to turn America into a theocracy, where they can pry into everyone's personal lives to ensure that we're not committing any sins.
As jrooth wrote on the thread, Equal Rights was something that a lot of people thought was implied by the Constitution, but it took an Amendment to make it law. He/She was also kind enough to add the text of the Right to Privacy from the Florida State Constitution:
Right of privacy.--Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person's private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public's right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law.
I'm sure that most of us agree that the Right to Privacy does exist, whether explicitly or implicitly. The point is that there is the possibility, as expressed here numerous times, that it could be overturned and the right to privacy could be lost.
And in this case, there's only one way to trump a right-wing Supreme Court.
I'm not a lawyer, or a Constitutional law professor, so I'm sure there' a lot of people who could argue either side of this much better than I can. I also realize that as a minority party, this is something that we would not be able to get on the agenda.
Besides, whether it passes or not, simply discussing the idea would bring awareness to what's at stake with the two SC nominations. Just as Bush used gay marriage to draw voters to the polls, we could use something like this as a wedge. How many true conservatives are going to argue against a right to privacy from the government?
Go ahead, give me what you got!