Privacy Questions:
1) What amendments are the basis for our right to privacy?
The First, and the Fourth Amendment serve as the basis for our right to privacy
2) What would a judicial conservative say about the right to privacy?
A judicial conservative would support the right to privacy as long as it was within moral boundaries.
1) What amendments are the basis for our right to privacy?
The First, and the Fourth Amendment serve as the basis for our right to privacy
2) What would a judicial conservative say about the right to privacy?
A judicial conservative would support the right to privacy as long as it was within moral boundaries.
Court Cases:
Lawrence v. Texas:
Date: 2002
Facts of the Case: Houston Police entered John Lawrence’s apartment looking for some kind of weapons disturbance and found him and another man performing sexual acts.
Questions of the Case: “Do the criminal convictions of John Lawrence and Tyron Garner under the Texas "Homosexual Conduct" law, which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior by different-sex couples, violate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of laws? Do their 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 Fourteenth Amendment? Should Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), be overruled?”
Significance: Bowers v. Hardwick was overturned and the Supreme Court ruled that it was a violation of the Due Process Clause and stated that the two individuals could engage in whatever conduct they wanted privately without the intervention of the state government.
Lawrence v. Texas:
Date: 2002
Facts of the Case: Houston Police entered John Lawrence’s apartment looking for some kind of weapons disturbance and found him and another man performing sexual acts.
Questions of the Case: “Do the criminal convictions of John Lawrence and Tyron Garner under the Texas "Homosexual Conduct" law, which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior by different-sex couples, violate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of laws? Do their 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 Fourteenth Amendment? Should Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), be overruled?”
Significance: Bowers v. Hardwick was overturned and the Supreme Court ruled that it was a violation of the Due Process Clause and stated that the two individuals could engage in whatever conduct they wanted privately without the intervention of the state government.
Bowers v. Hardwick:
Date: 1985
Facts of the Case: Georgia Police officer observed Michael Hardwick while he was engaged in homosexual sexual acts in his apartment. After being charged with violating the Georgia statute that criminalized sodomy, he challenged the federal district court that this statute was unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals reversed the ruling and said that the statute was not constitutional.
Questions of the Case: “Does the Constitution confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in consensual sodomy, thereby invalidating the laws of many states which make such conduct illegal?”
Significance: The court found that there was no constitutional protection for sodomy and that states could outlaw those acts if they were so inclined to do so. The Court reasoned that they only seek to protect rights not easily identifiable in the Constitution when they are “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” or “deeply rooted in the nations history or tradition.”
Date: 1985
Facts of the Case: Georgia Police officer observed Michael Hardwick while he was engaged in homosexual sexual acts in his apartment. After being charged with violating the Georgia statute that criminalized sodomy, he challenged the federal district court that this statute was unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals reversed the ruling and said that the statute was not constitutional.
Questions of the Case: “Does the Constitution confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in consensual sodomy, thereby invalidating the laws of many states which make such conduct illegal?”
Significance: The court found that there was no constitutional protection for sodomy and that states could outlaw those acts if they were so inclined to do so. The Court reasoned that they only seek to protect rights not easily identifiable in the Constitution when they are “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” or “deeply rooted in the nations history or tradition.”