In my book, “American Turning Point: Repairing and Restoring Our Constitutional Republic”, I presented 16 changes to the rules made thus far by our elected officials for how we are governed in the United States, and to incorporate these “Citizen Rules” in 6 Amendments to the Constitution. These 16 changes are summarized on the book’s “Citizen Rules” page and the 6 Amendments are detailed on the book’s “Amendments” at www.citizenrules.org.

The recent decisions released by the Supreme Court this month, which included the relaxing of laws limiting access to guns to help protect the public welfare, to overturning Roe v Wade, and the writing by Justice Thomas that a right to privacy does not exist in the Constitution as it is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, are extremely concerning. I now believe a new 17th “Citizen Rule and a 7th Amendment to the Constitution is required, as part of the overall effort to Repair and Restore our Constitutional Republic.

We have seen the Supreme Court act in confusing and seemingly contradictive ways in recent weeks. In the gun case, the Supreme Court ruled that laws cannot overly limit the right to carry arms outside of the home for self-defense. But the Second Amendment does not specifically enumerate a right to carry arms for self-defense outside the home, and the decision totally ignores addressing the language in the Second Amendment that begins “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state …” in explaining how the right of an individual to carry arms for self-defense in public is enumerated in that Amendment. So it seems this decision is an “implied” right not included in specific language in the Second Amendment.

Yet in the abortion case, the Supreme Court overturned a decision by many Supreme Court Justices over 5 decades, stating that there is NOT a right to privacy inherent in the right to personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution because it is not expressly enumerated in Constitutional language. If there is no right to privacy that is inseparable from the right to personal liberty, then other decisions preventing limits on the use of contraceptives, the right to interracial marriage, or the right of gays to marry could be also overturned.

Neither of these decisions seem to be based on a consistent legal rationale for interpreting 18th century Constitutional language in the 21st century and beyond. Neither are they consistent with what seems to be the beliefs and preferences of the majority of citizens across the country. The decision on abortion also calls into question the very integrity of the confirmation process for Justices to the Supreme Court, as the 3 conservative Justices confirmed under the Trump Administration clearly and strongly indicated they considered the Roe v Wade decision as “settled precedent”, in fact a “precedent upon precedent” confirmed by subsequent Supreme Court decisions, as an indication that they would not overturn the decision. Had they stated otherwise, it is unlikely that they would have been confirmed.

The willingness of the conservative majority in this Supreme Court to make future decisions on these other “rights” that have been decided based on the interpretation of a right to privacy being inherent in the right to personal liberty and freedom is indeed very concerning. If citizens do not have an inherent right to privacy to limit government intrusion into personal lives and private behaviors, how can we say we have personal liberty to make decisions in our own lives and behaviors that don’t have an impact on the general welfare of others?

To address this new challenge to our Constitutional Republic, I have added a new 17th rule to the original 16 “Citizen Rules” highlighted in the book, and a new 7th Amendment to the original 6 Amendments which would add these rules to the Constitution and ensure they could not be overturned by a new Congress or a Supreme Court’s interpretations. These are now on the book’s website at www.citizenrules.org, in the page on “Citizen Rules” and the page on “Amendments”. These additions will clearly state that a right to privacy is in fact inseparable from the rights of personal liberty and freedom enshrined in the Constitution, by adding specific new language to the Ninth Amendment. In that Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, the Founders wrote the following:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

In this case, the right to privacy can be considered as a right “retained by the people” even if not enumerated. Here is the language of the proposed new 7th Amendment (which would be the 34th Amendment), as an addition to the current language Ninth Amendment:

Proposed Additional Language:

“This amendment specifically embodies the right of the people to privacy in their personal lives, that is retained by the people as inseparable from the rights to personal liberty and freedom as enshrined in this Constitution, which shall not be limited by Congress or the individual States except in the need to fulfill the overarching purposes and requirements of the Constitution to establish justice or to promote the general welfare as set forth in the Preamble to the Constitution.

The enactment of any and all rights enumerated in the Constitution into law shall be consistent with the overarching purposes and requirements of the Constitution as set forth in the Preamble to the Constitution. Where laws enacted to institute Constitutional rights are not consistent with the purposes of the Constitution to establish justice, promote the general welfare, or ensure the blessings of liberty to the people of the United States, they shall be judged as unconstitutional and shall be removed from law.”

Your comments as always are invited and most welcome.