The Right To Privacy By Robert Bork. :: essays research papers

The Right to Privacy by Robert Bork.Robert Borks The Right of Privacy examined the catchment area case Griswald v.Conneticut. Borks "originalist" view proclaimed that nicety Douglaserroneously interpreted the rectify of privacy from the typography. Theoriginalist view is that judges must strictly adhere to the delivery of theConstitution, thus people do not have a general safe to privacy because it wasnever actually written into the Constitution. This view bad restrictsjudges in dealing with new issues that our forefathers could not have by chanceenvisioned. The in tycoon of "originalist" to deal with modern and futureproblems displays a need for imperative Court judges to be able to interpret lawsfrom the Constitution.     Without this ability it would be doubtful if peopletoday could claim a general right to privacy.The Griswald case involved a bizarre law that forbade the use of condoms in thehope that it would foil adulterous affairs . This deduction is as absurd asbanning all sales of chocolate in order to prevent obesity.Robert Bork admitted that this law did not make sense, especially in the abilityof disposal officials to enforce the law. Yet, Bork disagreed with the methodused by Justice Douglas to overturn the prison term of two doctors distributing training on condoms. Bork felt that Douglass liberal use of penumbras to make a zone of privacy was an excessive use of judicial power. Bork feels ajudge must follow the Constitution and should not imply anything from themixed ideas in the Constitution. This poses problems when trying to deal withcases that the Constitution does not specifically mention. For example, withoutthe ability to interpret some of the various amendments in the constitution itwould be most impossible for a judge to decide cases dealing with the on-line world. Is an online service provider similar to a magazine publisher(Responsible for the information that it disseminates) or like a bookstore (Thatis not specifically nonresistant for the information that it disseminates)? Thesetypes of decisions cannot be solved with an "originalist" view, because theConstitution did not have the hyperopia to deal with such issues. In this samemanner Justice Douglas implements penumbras to hail at a general right ofprivacy that is not explicitly written into the Constitution. These penumbrasare all valid within the spirit of the Constitution and does not go againstanything specifically forbidden in the document. Thus, the justification ofJustice Douglas to create a zone of privacy is legitimate and the old oldGriswald laws is forever vanquished into the history books. Justice Douglaswrites"Various guarantees create zones of privacy.