What is due process of law?
The due process of the law suggests that the government must treat every individual fairly. It is the right of an individual to receive fair treatment from the government. The Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments in the constitution contain the words the due process of the law. The Fifth Amendment states, “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law” (“Due Process of Law” 1).
Through this amendment, an individual has protection to be treated fairly by the government. Besides, the fourteenth amendment states, “governments cannot deprive you of your life, liberty, or property without due process of law” (Robinson 1). The fourteenth amendment ensures that individuals get fair treatment from both the local and state governments.
The members of the government must be fair and use the right procedure in making decisions as well as enforcing the law. An individual is protected against the government taking arbitrary actions on their property without informing them prior and, according to them, a chance to defend themselves. The situations in which the government can deprive an individual of their liberty and property vary from severe loss of liberty, for instance, in a case of murder or an ordinary situation like a traffic offense.
The due process of the law provides individuals with an opportunity to go through the criminal process fairly and impartially. For instance, when an individual is arrested, they should be informed of their Miranda rights to prevent them from self-incrimination. They have a right to a lawyer, and the government has the obligation of providing lawyers to suspects accused of serious crimes who cannot afford to hire one for themselves. The judges listening to the cases in courts of law must be impartial to deliver unbiased judgments (Vontz 1).
The due process of law protects individuals’ private properties. It does not allow the government to seize private property to be used for a public purpose without proper compensation. The compensation must reflect the true value of the property taken. Moreover, the due process of the law gives individuals the right to challenge the process through which their property is assessed.
Is there a constitutional right to privacy?
Privacy refers to “The right of an individual to be left alone or to determine what information or images about him- or herself will be revealed to others” (“Privacy Vs Public” 1). It, therefore, means that a person has a right to privacy, in other words, has the prerogative to determine which information to reveal or conceal about them. The right to privacy is important, and many consider it natural and thus inalienable.
The constitution provides for a right to privacy even though it does not expressly state so. The right to privacy is contained in the amendments in the constitutions. For example, the Fourth Amendment prohibits arbitrary searches and seizures. The amendment differentiates between public and private property. In other words, the right to privacy of individuals is protected. Government officials do not have the right to intrude on a person’s privacy at will. To carry out searches requires one to have a search warranty. The First Amendment protects the privacy of a person’s beliefs.
The Third Amendment protects the privacy of the home by guarding it against the use of housing soldiers. The Fifth Amendment protects individuals against self-incrimination thus protecting the privacy of their personal information. Moreover, the Ninth Amendment states “enumeration of certain rights” in the Bill of Rights “shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people” (The Right of Privacy 1). It states that the right to privacy of individuals is protected by the Bill of rights including all those privacy rights not covered by the rest of the amendments.
Conversely, some people urge that there is no constitutional right to privacy. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has largely provided for the right of privacy through its various rulings since 1923. The court reads the liberty guarantee entrenched in the Fourth Amendment and has based its ruling on matters such as marriage, procreation, abortion, parenting, and stopping of medical treatment. For example, the Supreme Court made it illegal to prohibit parents from choosing whichever language they wanted their children to be taught in school through the reading of the Fourth Amendment in the case Meyer v Nebraska to protect the private right of parents in making decisions about their children’s education (The Right of Privacy 1).
What did the Supreme Court determine in Roe v. Wade?
Before the case, Roe v Wade states in America had different laws concerning abortion, with some placing restrictions or banning it altogether. In 1973, the Supreme Court made a ruling that was both a landmark and controversial. The ruling made the Texas anti-abortion law unconstitutional. The justices of the Supreme Court determined that a woman had a right to terminate a pregnancy during the first trimester.
The decision can be carried jointly with her physician, and the state need not interfere. In pregnancy, that is progressed, the state can place restrictions on abortions using its laws as long as the restriction is aimed at protecting the health of the mother. The other determination was that even if a fetus was viable – meaning it could survive outside the mother’s womb – abortion could be allowed in case the life or the health of the mother was at risk. The state governments had the authority to pass legislation to either ban or allow later-term pregnancy terminations of viable for any other reason (Robinson 1).
The decision of the case was determined by relying on the Fourteenth Amendment, which contains the clause of due process, and the due process provides for personal privacy. The court determined that the due process prohibits that government from passing legislation that is deemed to interfere with the privacy of individuals. The government has some limits when it comes to regulating personal behavior. In allowing early abortion, the court was giving women a right to decide about their lives because it would be wrong to force a woman to become a mother against her will, as this would be denying the woman equal protection by the law. Mr. Justice Stewart, in a statement in Roe v Wade, wrote
Therefore, the Court today is correct in holding that the right asserted by Jane Roe is embraced within the personal liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Texas abortion statute infringes that right directly. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a more complete abridgment of a constitutional freedom than that worked by the inflexible criminal statute now in force in Texas (Robinson 1).
Thus according to the Supreme Court, a woman’s right to privacy extends to procuring an abortion. The ruling made abortion a basic right in the American constitution. A woman has a right to decide if she will carry her pregnancy to term or terminate it by the provision in the Ninth Amendment. It, therefore, means that a woman has a right to procure an abortion in America based on provisions found in the constitution.
Works Cited
Due process of law: procedural and substantive issues. 2003. Web.
Privacy vs. public right to know. Encyclopedia of International Media and Communications. Oxford: Elsevier Science & Technology, 2003. Credo Reference. Web.
Robinson, Allan. Roe v. Wade: Its basis; court philosophies; political aspects. 2008. Web.
The Right of Privacy. n.d. Web.
Vontz, Thomas. Teaching about Due Process of Law. 2003. Web.