Download
slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
does the constitution guarantee a PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
does the constitution guarantee a

does the constitution guarantee a

355 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

does the constitution guarantee a

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

    1. Does the Constitution Guarantee a Right to Privacy?

    Amy Albrecht Alaina Cominskie Colleen Hughes Shannon Johnston

    2. What is the U.S. Constitution?

    A document created by our founding fathers establishing the government of the United States with three separate branches: Legislative, Judicial, and Executive. The constitute ensures checks and balances of power among each branch. While the Constitution establishes what the government can do, the Amendments (Bill of Rights) spell out what the government can NOT do. The Constitution does not establish limitations on what people can do, it regulates the government. Spells out the governments limited rights and/or powers The 1st Ten Amendments are considered the Bill of Rights The 13th, 14th and 19th Amendments attempt to ensure quality to all.The 1st Ten Amendments are considered the Bill of Rights The 13th, 14th and 19th Amendments attempt to ensure quality to all.

    3. Privacy in the Constitution

    The right to privacy is not stated specifically in the Constitution. However, the Supreme Courts responsibility is to decide the constitutionality of a law or government action. The Supreme Court does not establish laws on privacy but prefers to use a case-by-case approach to rule on privacy. The Constitution is a living document that often reflects public opinion.

    4. What is the Right to Privacy?

    The right of a person to be free from intrusion into matters of a personal nature. Right to be let alone, according to Supreme Court Justice Brandeis. The 4 States of Privacy Solitude Intimacy Anonymity Reserve

    5. Solitude: As close to being alone as one can get Free from observation of others Intimacy: This is when a person has the right to chose their friend or partner, without concern of what others will think Anonymity: Free from identification and supervision Reserve: Free to hold back information that we wish to keep to ourselves Not forced to disclose information unless a person chooses to

    6. Does the Constitution support the right to privacy?

    The majority of Justices on the Supreme Court believe the right to privacy to be a basic human right. Some amendments that are believed to include the right of privacy include: 1st Amendment 4th Amendment 5th Amendment 9th Amendment 14th Amendment

    7. 1st Amendment

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. This provides you with the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the freedom to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. This provides you with the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the freedom to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    8. 4th Amendment

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall no be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. You can not be searched and your property seized without probably cause. Police/government must have a warrant to search you and your stuffYou can not be searched and your property seized without probably cause. Police/government must have a warrant to search you and your stuff

    9. 5th Amendment

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Several things: You can not be tried for a crime without being indicted by a grand jury Double Jeopardy: You cant be tried twice for the same crime You can not be forced to testify against yourself or incriminate yourself, you cant be forced to confess. You can not be held indefinitely for a crime without a trialyou have the right to a swift and speedy trial If the government wants your propertythey must pay you for it. Several things: You can not be tried for a crime without being indicted by a grand jury Double Jeopardy: You cant be tried twice for the same crime You can not be forced to testify against yourself or incriminate yourself, you cant be forced to confess. You can not be held indefinitely for a crime without a trialyou have the right to a swift and speedy trial If the government wants your propertythey must pay you for it.

    10. 9th Amendment

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. People have the same rights equally. -Cant take rights away. People have the same rights equally. -Cant take rights away.

    11. 14th Amendment

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,(See Note 15) and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. If your born hereyou are a citizen and are protected equally This section inclues: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2: This section designates the House of Representatives and voting rights If your born hereyou are a citizen and are protected equally This section inclues: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2: This section designates the House of Representatives and voting rights

    12. 14th Amendment

    Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Section 3: Restriction on anyone holding an office. Section 4: The debt is real. (you can not receive money from the government for loss of a slave) Section 5: this can be enforced Section 3: Restriction on anyone holding an office. Section 4: The debt is real. (you can not receive money from the government for loss of a slave) Section 5: this can be enforced

    13. Major cases concerning privacy in the U.S. include:

    Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) Stanley v. Georgia (1969) Roe v. Wade (1973) Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

    14. Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

    The Issue: A Connecticut statute forbids any person to obtain any drug or article to prevent conception. Section 53-32: Any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception shall be fined not less than fifty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days nor more than one year or be both fined and imprisoned. Section 54-196: Any person who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another to commit any offense may be prosecuted and punished if he were the principal offender.

    15. Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

    Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut and their Medical Director, a licensed physician, were found guilty for supplying materials and advice concerning the prevention of contraception to a married couple. The State considered this topic (birth-control) a legitimate state concern. It says that preventing the use of birth-control devices by married persons helps prevent the indulgence by some in such extramarital relations.

    16. Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

    The Supreme Court ruled: Appellants have standing to assert the constitutional rights of the married people. The Connecticut statute forbidding use of contraceptives violates the right of marital privacy which is within the penumbra of specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights.

    17. Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

    Justice Douglas delivered the opinion of the Court: I believe that the right of privacy in the marital relation is fundamental and basic a personal right retained by the people within the meaning of the Ninth Amendment. Connecticut cannot constitutionally abridge this fundamental right, which is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from the infringement by the States. The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. And it concerns a law which, in forbidding the use of contraceptives rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, seeks to achieve its goals by means having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship. We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights. It is an innate human right. The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. And it concerns a law which, in forbidding the use of contraceptives rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, seeks to achieve its goals by means having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship. We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights. It is an innate human right.

    18. Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

    Justice Black and Justice Stewart dissented: If the married couple had merely been informed about contraceptives and their uses, Planned Parenthood would be protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. But speech is one thing; conduct and physical activities are quite another. Since the Executive Director examined the wife and provided contraceptive devices, they were clearly violating the Connecticut law. Merely because some speech was used in carrying on that conduct - just as in ordinary life some speech accompanies most kinds of conduct we are not justified in holding that the First Amendment forbids the State to punish their conduct. Strongly as I desire to protect all First Amendment freedoms, I am unable to stretch the Amendment so as to afford protection to the conduct of these defendants in violating the Connecticut law. Merely because some speech was used in carrying on that conduct - just as in ordinary life some speech accompanies most kinds of conduct we are not justified in holding that the First Amendment forbids the State to punish their conduct. Strongly as I desire to protect all First Amendment freedoms, I am unable to stretch the Amendment so as to afford protection to the conduct of these defendants in violating the Connecticut law.

    19. Stanley v. Georgia (1969)

    The issue: State laws prohibiting the possession of obscene material. Federal and State agents obtained a warrant to search Stanleys home for evidence of bookmaking activity. Instead of finding evidence of bookmaking, the agents found films of obscene footage. Stanley was arrested for having them in his possession. Stanley argued that he has the right to read what he pleases. Georgia argued using the court decision regarding Roth v. U.S. verdict that obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press, that Stanley was not protected and could be prosecuted. -bookmaking is the activity of taking bet, figuring out odds, and paying the winners The First Amendment as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth prohibits making mere private possessions of obscene material a crime. -bookmaking is the activity of taking bet, figuring out odds, and paying the winners The First Amendment as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth prohibits making mere private possessions of obscene material a crime.

    20. Stanley v. Georgia (1969)

    Supreme Court Ruled: We hold that the 1st and 14th amendments prohibit making mere private possession of obscene material a crime. The Constitution does protect a persons right to receive information without regard to its social worth. Supreme court says, States retain the broad power to regulate obscenity, that power simply does not extend to mere possession by the individual in the privacy of his own home.

    21. Stanley v. Georgia (1969)

    Justice Marshall stated that: -If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch. Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds.

    22. Roe v. Wade (1973)

    The Issue: A Texas law enforcing that attempting to or procuring an abortion is illegal. A pregnant single woman (Roe) brought a class action challenging the constitutionality of the law. A separate lawsuit was brought by an unpregnant married couple (Does) also challenging. A physician (Hallford) with two state abortion prosecutions pending also brought a suit.

    23. Roe v. Wade (1973)

    Supreme Court Ruled: Roe could sue, but Does and Hallford could not. The Texas law violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects state action against the right of privacy, including a womans qualified right to terminate her pregnancy.

    24. Roe v. Wade (1973)

    Supreme Court Ruled: For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant womans attending physician. For the stages subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. The Texas criminal abortion statutes as is are unconstitutional.

    25. Roe v. Wade (1973)

    Justice Blackmun delivers opinion: The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as [1891], the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts the Court or individual Justices have indeed found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    26. Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)

    The issue: A Georgia statute that criminalized sodomy. (Georgia Criminal Code 16-6-2) A bartender for a gay bar, Michael Hardwick was arrested for having oral sex with his partner in his home. The charges were dropped but Hardwick attempted to have the sodomy law declared unconstitutional.

    27. Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)

    [A] person commits the offense of sodomy when he performs or submits to any sexual act involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another. The sex or status of the persons who engage in the act is irrelevant as a matter of state law. Oral Sex between male and female is sodomy alsoOral Sex between male and female is sodomy also

    28. Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)

    The Supreme Court ruled: The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy. None of the fundamental rights announced in this Courts prior cases involving family relationships, marriage, or procreation bear any resemblance to the right asserted in this case. And any claim that those cases stand for the proposition that any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable. Against a background in which many States have criminalized sodomy and still do, to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is deeply rooted in this Nations history and tradition or implicit in the concept of ordered liberty is, at best, facetious.

    29. Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)

    The Supreme Court ruled: There should be great resistance to expand the reach of the Due Process Clauses to cover new fundamental rights. Otherwise, the Judiciary necessarily would take upon itself further authority to govern the country without constitutional authority. The claimed right in this case falls far short of overcoming this resistance. The fact that homosexual conduct occurs in the privacy of the home does not affect the result. Sodomy laws should not be invalidated on the asserted basis that majority belief that sodomy is immoral is an inadequate rationale to support the laws.

    30. Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)

    Justice White delivered the Courts opinion: Any claim that these cases nevertheless stand for the proposition that any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable. Plainly enough, otherwise illegal conduct is not always immunized whenever it occurs in the home.

    31. Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)

    Originally, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit stated that : ..the Georgia statute violated respondents fundamental rights because his homosexual activity is a private and intimate association that is beyond the reach of state regulation by reason of the Ninth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice Burger added that: in constitutional terms there is no such thing as a fundamental right to commit homosexual sodomy.

    32. Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

    The Issue: A Texas law forbidding a man from engaging in deviant sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex. Defendants were caught when police entered the home in response to a reported weapons disturbance.

    33. Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

    The Supreme Court considered: Whether petitioners criminal convictions under the Texas Homosexual Conduct law-which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior by different-sex couples-violate the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection of laws.

    34. Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

    The Supreme Court considered: Whether petitioners criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interests in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Whether Bowers v Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), should be overruled.

    35. Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

    The Supreme Court Ruled: Texas Homosexual Conduct law violates the privacy of homosexuals under the 14th Amendment. Convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interests in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled. Quote by Justice Kennedy Quote by Justice Kennedy

    36. Privacy as a Penumbral Right

    Justice William O. Douglas announced the penumbral right to privacy in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut. Penumbra: an area in which something exists to a lesser or uncertain degree. An extension of protection, reach, application, or consideration; especially: a body of rights held to be guaranteed by the implication from other rights explicitly enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.

    37. Privacy as a Penumbral Right

    Previous cases suggests that the specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by the emanation from those guarantees that give them substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy, such as the First Amendment right of association, the Third Amendment prohibition against quartering soldiers in a home, the Fourth Amendment right to be secure in ones person, house, papers, and effects, the Fifth Amendment right to not deny or disparage any right retained by the people. These cases press for recognition of the penumbral rights of privacy and repose. (Justice Douglas, for the majority with Goldberg, Warren, & Brennan also concurring) The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, Roth, supra, at 489, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. If a state obscenity law is thus limited, First Amendment values are adequately protected by ultimate independent appellate review of constitutional claims when necessary. Pp. 24-25. 3. The test of "utterly without redeeming social value" articulated in Memoirs, supra, is rejected as a constitutional standard. Pp. 24-25. 4. The jury may measure the essentially factual issues of prurient appeal and patent offensiveness by the standard that prevails in the forum community, and need not employ a "national standard." Pp. 30-34. In pope v Illinois..reversed the Community standard. In a prosecution for the sale of allegedly obscene materials, the jury should not be instructed to apply community standards in deciding the value question. Only the first and second prongs of the Miller test - appeal to prurient interest and patent offensiveness - should be decided with reference to "contemporary community standards." The ideas that a work represents need not obtain majority approval to merit protection, and the value of that work does not vary from community to community based on the degree of local acceptance it has won. The proper inquiry is not whether an ordinary member of any given community would find serious value in the allegedly obscene material, but whether a reasonable person would find such value in the material, taken as a whole. The instruction at issue therefore violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 500-501. The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, Roth, supra, at 489, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. If a state obscenity law is thus limited, First Amendment values are adequately protected by ultimate independent appellate review of constitutional claims when necessary. Pp. 24-25. 3. The test of "utterly without redeeming social value" articulated in Memoirs, supra, is rejected as a constitutional standard. Pp. 24-25. 4. The jury may measure the essentially factual issues of prurient appeal and patent offensiveness by the standard that prevails in the forum community, and need not employ a "national standard." Pp. 30-34. In pope v Illinois..reversed the Community standard. In a prosecution for the sale of allegedly obscene materials, the jury should not be instructed to apply community standards in deciding the value question. Only the first and second prongs of the Miller test - appeal to prurient interest and patent offensiveness - should be decided with reference to "contemporary community standards." The ideas that a work represents need not obtain majority approval to merit protection, and the value of that work does not vary from community to community based on the degree of local acceptance it has won. The proper inquiry is not whether an ordinary member of any given community would find serious value in the allegedly obscene material, but whether a reasonable person would find such value in the material, taken as a whole. The instruction at issue therefore violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 500-501.

    38. Conservative Justices

    Chief Justice William Hubbs Rehnquist Justice Antonin Scalia Justice Clarence Thomas Textualism Strict adherence to a text Textualists look no further than the words of the constitution to reach decisions. If you are a textualist, you dont care about the intent, and I dont care if the Framers of the Constitution had some secret meaning in mind when they adopted its words. I take the words as they were promulgated to the people of the United States and what is the fairly understood meaning of those words. Scalia Words do have a limited range of meaning and no interpretation that goes beyond that range is permissible. Scalia Promulgated: to put a law into effect through a formal public announcement. The liberal justices use original intentwhat they think the framers would have wanted. Helps keep rights of today from disappearing. Stevens and ginsburg are leading proponents of original intent. Conservative judges Only two of the judges are democrats, two female (1 is the 1 democrat) Stevens, oconnor and Ginsburg..could be retiring which creates a HUGE threat Conservative judges seem to view the 9th amendments as saying that there are things that will come up that are NOT in the constitution and they should be ruled out following these guidelines. Promulgated: to put a law into effect through a formal public announcement. The liberal justices use original intentwhat they think the framers would have wanted. Helps keep rights of today from disappearing. Stevens and ginsburg are leading proponents of original intent. Conservative judges Only two of the judges are democrats, two female (1 is the 1 democrat) Stevens, oconnor and Ginsburg..could be retiring which creates a HUGE threat Conservative judges seem to view the 9th amendments as saying that there are things that will come up that are NOT in the constitution and they should be ruled out following these guidelines.

    39. Does the Constitution Guarantee a Right to Privacy?

    We feel it does due to the following: Although the right to privacy is not specifically stated in the Constitution it is contained in the Penumbra of the Bill of Rights. The latest Supreme Court Rulings support Personal Privacy. Privacy from the GOVERNMENT.

    40. Taylor, Myron. Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School Right to privacy: personal autonomy http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics.personal_autonomy.html Pitt. William. (01/06/04). The right of privacy. http:faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/325/325lect04.htm Browne, Harry. (05/9/03). Does the constitution contain a right to privacy? http://www.harrybrowne.org/article.PrivacyRight.htm Htpp://www2.law.cornell.edu U.S. constitution Legal Information Institute http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html The United States Constitution http:// www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html Griswold v. Connecticut: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/381/479.html. http://www.thisnation.com/library/print/griswold2.html. Stanley v. Georgia www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/article.jop?id=h2943 http://.caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=394&invol=557 http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/stanley.html Bowers v. Hardwick http://www.sodomylaws.org/bowers/bowers.htm www.georgiaencyclopedia.rg/nge/Article.jsp?path=1Government/Politics/Government/legalcases&id=h-2946 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/478/186.html

    Kyllo v. United States http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20010738s=cole http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-8508.75.html Lawrence v. Texas http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=02-102 Roe v. Wade http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=410&invol=113 Standler, Ronald (1997). Privacy laws in the usa. www.rbs2.com/privacy.htm. 1-12. Miller, Jacqui (2004). Overview of do-not-call registry litigation. http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_speech/no_call_list_facts.html. 1-2. Schelmetic, Tracey (2004). http://www.tmcnet.com/tmcnet/articles/2004/100404ts.htm. 1. U.S. Supreme Court. Katz v. united states, 389 u.s. 347 (1967). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=389&invol=347. 1-21 Herbeck, Dale; Tedford, Thomas (2001). Freedom of Speech in the United States. State College, PA: Strata Publishing, Inc., www.bc.edu/free_speech. 4th ed. http://www.phschool.com/atschool/supreme_court_cases/olmstead.html. 1-3. Rosenberg, Jerry (1969). The death of privacy. New York: Random House. 150-152. Constitutional law and abortion. http://www.members.aol.com/abtrbng/conlaw.htm.

    41. Griswold v. Connecticut: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/381/479.html. http://www.thisnation.com/library/print/griswold2.html. Stanley v. Georgia www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/article.jop?id=h2943 http://.caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=394&invol=557 http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/stanley.html Bowers v. Hardwick http://www.sodomylaws.org/bowers/bowers.htm www.georgiaencyclopedia.rg/nge/Article.jsp?path=1Government/Politics/Government/legalcases&id=h-2946 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/478/186.html Kyllo v. United States http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20010738s=cole http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-8508.75.html Lawrence v. Texas http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=02-102 Roe v. Wade http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=410&invol=113 Standler, Ronald (1997). Privacy laws in the usa. www.rbs2.com/privacy.htm. 1-12. Miller, Jacqui (2004). Overview of do-not-call registry litigation.

    http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_speech/no_call_list_facts.html. 1-2. Schelmetic, Tracey (2004). http://www.tmcnet.com/tmcnet/articles/2004/100404ts.htm. 1. U.S. Supreme Court. Katz v. united states, 389 u.s. 347 (1967). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=389&invol=347. 1-21 Herbeck, Dale; Tedford, Thomas (2001). Freedom of Speech in the United States. State College, PA: Strata Publishing, Inc., www.bc.edu/free_speech. 4th ed. http://www.phschool.com/atschool/supreme_court_cases/olmstead.html. 1-3. Rosenberg, Jerry (1969). The death of privacy. New York: Random House. 150-152. Constitutional law and abortion. http://www.members.aol.com/abtrbng/conlaw.htm. Scalia, A. (1997). A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Epstein, L. & Walker, T.G. (2004). Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Rights, Liberties, and Justice. Washington D.C.: CQ Press. Ducat, C.R. & Chase, H.W. (1992). Constitutional Interpretation: Powers of Government West Publishing Company. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/10/18/SUPREMES.TMP http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4515-2004Oct3.html http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/410/410lect02.htm http://dictionary.reference.com/