Though the war in which we are engaged is cultural, not civil, it tests whether this “nation: conceived in liberty . . . can long endure.” — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, American Enterprise Institute speech, Feb 16, 2001


The Right to Privacy of Correspondence Is Inviolate

July 22, 2013   ·   By   ·   0 Comments


by David John Marotta and Megan Russell

We now know the NSA routinely collects our normally private communications. That collection includes e-mail, video and voice chat, videos, photos, voiceover IP (e.g., Skype) chats, file transfers, social networking details and more. The American people must respond. If there isn’t a strong enough outcry, these practices will become institutionalized.

The entire case raises important civil liberties questions. Should the government be able to collect and store all of our phone calls and electronic correspondence? Or should Americans have a right to the privacy of correspondence?

The constitutions of many other countries guarantee and protect the privacy of correspondence. The United States does not.

The Ninth Amendment states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The right to the privacy of correspondence is one of these unenumerated rights.

The Founders claimed that people have natural rights. These rights are not granted by the government. We have them regardless of the government choosing to bestow them in writing or legislation. We possess them simply by being human. They are still our rights even if the government tries to take them away.

The first principle of these natural rights would be the right to own ourselves.

The Founding Fathers were not being hypocritical, holding slaves while declaring all men have a right to self-ownership. Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and even George Washington, a slave owner himself, all went on record saying to the effect that “there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of slavery” (to use George Washington’s words).

From this principle flows the right to property. If you own yourself, you own the fruit of your labor.

The privacy of our conversations and correspondence also comes from this point. If you own yourself, you can choose with whom you share your thoughts and expressions. Thus privacy of correspondence becomes a natural right.

Our natural right to the privacy of correspondence should be neither increased nor decreased by either enumerating it or leaving it unenumerated.

However, the American court system today treats enumerated rights very differently from unenumerated rights. Our rights enumerated in the Constitution serve as a paper barrier. Government intrusions on those written words have rallied public outcry more effectively than invasions on our unenumerated natural rights.

Because we don’t have an enumerated right to the privacy of correspondence, the government can claim that the Fourth Amendment, which guards us against unreasonable search and seizure, doesn’t apply in this case. Or they can rewrite legislation that provides loopholes to allow their currently employed technologies. Or they can reroute information outside the country for content review by the intelligence community of one of our allies. In essence they can choose to declare legal whatever they want and continue to operate under the veneer of legality.

Therefore, we propose the following constitutional amendment to add the enumeration of this important natural right:

Everyone shall be entitled to secrecy of messages, both sent and received, by any means of communication. The freedom and confidentiality of correspondence in any form of communication shall be inviolable.

No federal, state or local government authority or their officials may collect or store correspondence or metadata on the transmission of correspondence without the expressed permission of all involved parties.

No public or private entity can pay for, promote, encourage, initiate or further the violation of this right. Exceptions to this provision shall be allowed only with the permission of the judicial authorities for the purpose of discovering or preventing a grave crime.

Citizens have the right to become acquainted with information about themselves held by federal, state and local government authorities, in federal, state and local government archives, or to which the federal, state or local government authorities have access, in accordance with procedures determined by law.

A constitutional amendment is a simple and direct response to the growing intrusion into personal freedoms. The vested interests of government officials have little in common with the protection of civil liberties. It is not unreasonable to fear the likely abuse of government surveillance. The natural right to the privacy of correspondence has popular support. Enumerating such a right will turn back the growing normalization of government surveillance.

Several states have ballot measures whereby citizens can directly propose such resolutions. Others will have to be introduced by willing state legislatures. If one state grants its citizens the right, it will begin to raise public awareness and support for the right to privacy of correspondence, as well as inevitably to raise the issue in the federal courts. If the right stands in one state, it would bar government surveillance of that state’s citizens. Equal protection laws might extend that right to other states as well.

The time is now. We need to protect more of our natural rights by enumerating them.

This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.

Similar Posts:

David John Marotta CFP®, AIF®, is President of Marotta Wealth Management, Inc. of Charlottesville providing fee-only financial planning and wealth management at Subscribe to his blog at Questions to be answered in the column should be sent to questions at emarotta dot com or Marotta Wealth Management, Inc., One Village Green Circle, Suite 100, Charlottesville, VA 22903-4619.
David John Marotta
View all articles by David John Marotta
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
Print Friendly

Readers Comments (0)

Sorry, comments are closed on this post.

1st Climate Change Summit

   From Americans for Limited Government

Featured Articles


FDR’s Second Bill of Rights

Michael Peroutka

Back in January, 1944, just four years before Walt Kelly's Pogo first appeared, President Franklin Roosevelt, in his annual address to Congress, set the nation on a path that would destroy America as the founders envisioned it. The plan he declared to the nation in that speech was destined, if not designed, to make America its own enemy.


The Police State: Follow Orders or Resist?

John W. Whitehead

The perils of resisting the police state grow more costly with each passing day, especially if you hope to escape with your life and property intact. The thing you must remember is that we’ve entered an age of militarized police in which we’re no longer viewed as civilians but as enemy combatants.

Man in despair over bills

SOS: Speaking of Seniors - Helping a Portage Widow

Woodrow Wilcox

On October 6, 2014, a widow came to my office for help with medical bills. The woman is from Portage, Indiana. So far, the bills totaled almost $3,000. Her husband had passed away less than four weeks before our meeting and she was worried because she was getting medical bills regarding services during his last few days alive.

Supreme Court

In Defense of Marriage: Civil Disobedience on a Massive Scale

Guest Author

Yesterday's action by the Supreme Court only solidifies the idea that the powerful elites who dominate politics, media and culture do not care what the people think, expressed through the ballot box or their elected state legislators. And if "We the People's" votes do not count, then We live not in freedom but under tyranny.

Marijuana joint (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Study: Another Nail in the ‘Safe’ Marijuana Coffin

Bob Ellis

The evidence just continues to mount that marijuana is not the wonderful, benevolent plant that potheads claim it is. Not that there has been a dearth of that information in the past, since for years I have remarked on factual data about its dangers, including traffic deaths, mental health issues, psychosis, schizophrenia, other psychotic symptoms and other health dangers. Then, of course, there are the wonderful things pot use does for productivity and responsible use of the taxpayer's dollars.


"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the party over to the so-called moderates wouldn't make any sense at all." - Ronald Reagan, Nov. 10, 1964