QUESTION
Originally, the Bill of Rights was supposed to be included in the U.S. Constitution as a product of the constitutional convention. There were two reasons why it was not: fierce debate/disagreement over the various rights to include AND the fact that none of the convention representatives were actually elected from the people. It was decided that the first order of business of the First Congress would be to lay down the Bill of Rights. These rights would be the first amendments to the Constitution. Some of the rights discussed in the convention did not make it into the Bill of Rights (such as religious exception to government service, national language, and national religion) and some of the rights proposed by the House did not pass the Senate (such equal protection to all citizens under the law-which was eventually passed as the 14th Amendment after the Civil War, limiting of congressional compensation-which was eventually passed as the 27th Amendment, and a guarantee of proportional representation).
Consider the Bill of Rights and the liberty-based amendments to the Constitution. What right or liberty do you feel should be included in our basic protections under the Constitution? Why is your chosen liberty important enough to warrant universal protection by the government? Obviously, there are always exceptions to “freedoms” granted (such as limits on the freedom of speech). What, if any, limits would you consider reasonable for the government to place on your chosen liberty?
Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Originally, the Bill of Rights was supposed to be included in the U.S. Constitution as a product of the constitutional convention. There were two reasons why it was not: fierce debate/disagreement over the various rights to include AND the fact that none of the convention representatives were actually elected from the people. It was decided that the first order of business of the First Congress would be to lay down the Bill of Rights. These rights would be the first amendments to the Constitution. Some
Just from $13/Page
***Please do not argue for a liberty that is already covered by the Constitution and its Amendments***
ANSWER
Ensuring Privacy as a Fundamental Liberty: The Need for an Explicit Right to Data Protection in the U.S. Constitution
Introduction
The United States Constitution and its subsequent amendments, including the Bill of Rights, form the bedrock of the nation’s governance and protection of individual liberties. While these foundational documents have withstood the test of time, societal and technological advancements have created new challenges that require the inclusion of additional rights. In this essay, we argue for the inclusion of an explicit right to data protection in the U.S. Constitution, recognizing the importance of privacy in the digital age.
The Need for a Right to Data Protection
In today’s interconnected world, personal data has become an invaluable asset and a target for abuse. The proliferation of digital technologies, internet-based platforms, and surveillance capabilities has amplified the potential for privacy infringements (Romansky & Noninska, 2020). A comprehensive and explicit right to data protection would address this issue, establishing a safeguard against unwarranted intrusion, surveillance, and misuse of personal information.
Importance of Universal Protection
Data protection is crucial to ensuring individual autonomy, freedom of expression, and the exercise of other rights enshrined in the Constitution (OHCHR, n.d.). The ability to control one’s personal information fosters a sense of security and empowers individuals to engage freely in the digital realm without fear of undue manipulation or exploitation. By including a right to data protection, the government acknowledges the value of privacy as an essential prerequisite for the exercise of other fundamental liberties.
Reasonable Limits on Data Protection
While recognizing the significance of data protection, it is essential to strike a balance between individual rights and legitimate societal interests. Reasonable limitations on this liberty may include measures that ensure national security, public safety, and the prevention of unlawful activities. Such limitations should be narrowly defined, proportionate, and subject to robust oversight to prevent abuse and protect against encroachments on other important rights.
Moreover, certain exceptions may be necessary to facilitate law enforcement activities and to protect the rights of others. For example, law enforcement agencies may require access to personal data in cases of national security threats or to investigate serious crimes (Waldo et al., 2007). However, any encroachments on the right to data protection must be subject to judicial oversight, ensuring that they are necessary, proportionate, and carried out with due process.
Conclusion
The inclusion of an explicit right to data protection in the U.S. Constitution would address the evolving challenges presented by the digital age, ensuring that individuals retain control over their personal information. By recognizing data protection as a fundamental liberty, the government acknowledges the importance of privacy as an enabling condition for the exercise of other rights. However, to strike the appropriate balance, reasonable limitations should be established, guided by the principles of necessity, proportionality, and robust oversight. Upholding and safeguarding this essential liberty will empower individuals and preserve the integrity of the democratic society in the face of technological advancements.
References
OHCHR. (n.d.). The right to privacy in the digital age. https://www.ohchr.org/en/stories/2013/10/right-privacy-digital-age
Romansky, R., & Noninska, I. (2020). Challenges of the digital age for privacy and personal data protection. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 17(5), 5288–5303. https://doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2020286
Waldo, J. H., Lin, H. Y., & Millett, L. I. (2007). Engaging Privacy and Information Technology in a Digital Age. In National Academies Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.17226/11896