The extent of civil liberties and the percentage of the population of the United States who had access to these liberties has expanded over time. For example, the Constitution did not originally define who was eligible to vote, allowing each state to determine who was eligible. In the early history of the U.S., most states allowed only white male adult property owners to vote (about 6% of the population).[3][4][5] The 'Three-Fifths Compromise' allowed the southern slaveholders to consolidate power and maintain slavery in America for eighty years after the ratification of the Constitution.[6] And the Bill of Rights had little impact on judgements by the courts for the first 130 years after ratification.[7]
The concept of sexual freedom includes a broad range of different rights that are not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. The idea of sexual freedom has sprung more from the popular opinion of society in more recent years, and has had very little Constitutional backing. The following liberties are included under sexual freedom: sexual expression, sexual choices, sexual education, reproductive justice, and sexual health.[10] Sexual freedom in general is considered an implied procedure, and is not mentioned in the Constitution.
Sexual freedoms include the freedom to have consensual sex with whomever a person chooses, at any time, for any reason, provided the person is of the age of majority. Marriage is not required, nor are there any requirements as to the gender or number of people you have sex with. Sexual freedom includes the freedom to have private consensual homosexual sex (Lawrence v. Texas).
Equal protection prevents the government from creating laws that are discriminatory in application or effect.
Right to vote
The text of Amendment XIV to the United States Constitution, ratified July 9, 1868, states that:
"when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one (eighteen) years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one (eighteen) years of age in such State."[8]
The text of Amendment XV to the United States Constitution, ratified February 3, 1870, states that:
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."[8]
The text of Amendment XXIV to the United States Constitution, ratified January 23, 1964, states that:
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."[8]
The text of Amendment XXVI to the United States Constitution, ratified July 1, 1971, states that:
"The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age."[8]
The right to parent one's own children also includes the right for a parent to teach their children as they see fit, and not have others govern over what their children are taught.
In the US, privacy and expectations of privacy have been determined via court cases. Those protections have been established through court decisions provide a reasonable expectations of privacy.
The Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) found that the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy against governmental intrusion via penumbras located in the founding text.[12]
In 1890, Warren and Brandeis drafted an article published in the Harvard Law Review titled "The Right To Privacy" that is often cited as the first implicit finding of a U.S. stance on the right to privacy.[13]
Legally, the right of privacy is a basic law[16] which includes:
The right of persons to be free from unwarranted publicity
Unwarranted appropriation of one's personality
Publicizing one's private affairs without a legitimate public concern
Wrongful intrusion into one's private activities
However, outside of recognized private locations, American law, for the most part, grants next to no privacy for those in public areas. In other words, no verbal or written consent is needed to take photos or videos of those in public areas.[17] This laxness extends to potentially embarrassing situations such as when actress Jennifer Garner bent over to retrieve something from her car and revealed her thong underwear to create a whale tail. Because the photographer took the photo in a public location, in this case a pumpkin patch, circulating the photo online was a legal act.[18]
For the health care sector where medical records are part of an individual's privacy, The Privacy Rule of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act was passed in 1996. This act safeguards medical data of the patient which also includes giving individuals rights over their health information, like getting a copy of their records and seeking correction.[19] Medical anthropologist Khiara Bridges has argued that the US Medicare system requires so much personal disclosure from pregnant women that they effectively do not have privacy rights.[20]
Right to marriage
The 1967 United States Supreme Court ruling in the case Loving v. Virginia found a fundamental right to marriage, regardless of race. The 2015 United States Supreme Court ruling in the case Obergefell v. Hodges found a fundamental right to marriage, regardless of gender.
Rights of self-defense
The right to self-defense is rooted in common law and has been incorporated into statutory law in all 50 states.[21] It serves as a legal justification for the use of force, including deadly force in some cases, when an individual reasonably believes they are in imminent danger of bodily harm or death.
The use of force in self-defense is generally considered justifiable for the protection of oneself. However, there are limitations on when and how this force can be applied. The law typically requires that the force used be proportional to the threat faced, and that the person claiming self-defense had a reasonable belief that they were in danger.
Historically, many jurisdictions required individuals to attempt to retreat from a dangerous situation before using force in self-defense. However, this requirement has been modified or eliminated in many states through the adoption of stand-your-ground laws.[22]
Self-defense laws can also vary significantly from state to state. For example, only 13 states maintain a strict duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense. Additionally, some states limit the application of stand your ground laws to certain locations, such as one's home or vehicle. The threshold for what constitutes a reasonable belief of imminent danger also differs between jurisdictions.[23][24]
^"We Hold These Truths to be Self-evident;" An Interdisciplinary Analysis of the Roots of Racism & slavery in America Kenneth N. Addison; Introduction P. xxii