My privacy amendment

In accordance with the inherent attributes of human existence as laid down in our Declaration of Independence: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and also with the foremost duty of government: to protect these three conditions of life (except in the case of sound evidence to the abuse of the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of others), it will be unconstitutional to invade or infringe on the privacy of citizens, or anyone within the boundary of this United States of America. Privacy, in this case, being defined as their right to withhold information of a personal, familial, or vocational nature, retain objects or material that may be of unsavory origin or composition, or otherwise live their life how they chose without fear of what they are or what they do being frowned upon by government, except where their behavior is contrary to the natural rights of others. Unconstitutional privacy invasion includes the use of telephone or computer taps to eavesdrop on the affairs and activities of citizens, thermal imaging, or residence-specific sewage analysis prior to evidence of unlawful pursuits and a warrant obtained through the standard legal channels.

 I wrote this privacy amendment after a class activity in which we discussed the ramifications and possible loopholes in the amendments, and were asked to write our own "water-tight" amendment. This amendment is by no means "bullet-proof" and I am sure that anyone with a few minutes available for pondering could think their way through it unscathed. I was inspired by the writing style of the other amendments, the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence, and strove to imitate their roundabout approach, studded with commas and strictly unnecessary vocabulary. I also was attempting to strike a balance between the Federalist and Anti-Federalist views, so that the amendment preserved people's freedom to pursue activities that might not be socially or legally acceptable, while at the same time not making the long arm of the law so atrophied and arthritic that civilization collapses around us. My reasoning for this was that no person, whether political leader, law enforcement agent, multi-billion dollar oil tycoon, third world dictator, or even religious head-honcho, truly has the right to judge right from wrong, and therefore is unable to dictate how any other person is supposed to live. So long as somebody's chosen pastime, occupation, or whatever does not affect anyone in an adverse manner, they should be free to live how they want, and likewise if somebody else's opinions are incompatible with the activities or opinions of others, they are free to think what they want as long as their disapproval stays within the limits of civility and does not threaten the natural rights of those in question.