Unenumerated Rights

[opebo]

The focus of the litigation surrounding this amendment is doubtless questions of abortion, homosexual sodomy, etc. Of course, I believe that these things are so basically private, so beyond the reaches of any authority, that their legal protection is assured as fundamental.

However, we must be aware of some erroneous perceptions. Some liberals find it fitting to view this amendment as reflecting the community's evolving standards of decency.

If there is a constitutional right to privacy, then aren't 'community standards of decency' completely superfluous? 

[opebo]

There is no constitutional right to privacy, so it's irrelevant.

Ah, you and I simply interpret the old document differently. 

[opebo]

See, I simply interpret that post differently:

Of course you do, and that is the point.  And it is our differences that make privacy so important!

[opebo]

There is no constitutional right to privacy, so it's irrelevant.

I would say that there is indeed a right to privacy. Such a deduction is supported, in my view, by the penumbra (sorry that I have to resort to this word) of the Fourth Amendment.

Hah, 'penumbra.' That's a neat way of admitting it's not actually part of the fourth amendment.

But as you yourself said, congress has no powers not specifically given to it.

[opebo]

Of course, but you can violate a valid federal law in private. The things you care about - abortion, drugs, and prostitution - can not be regulated by Congress, except in DC and other federal territories, in which Congress is permuted to act as a full legislature.

The regulations states apply to these things are clearly in violation of the right to privacy found in the constitution, and should be ruled as such.  Perhaps one day..

[opebo]

The states are not bound to the enumerated powers of Congress. There is no generic right to privacy applicable against every form of government.

Apparentely it is in the fourth amendment.  Or at the very least the spirit of the document.  The point is, philip, it is preferable to interpret the old document that way rather than let states inhabited by religious intolerants run roughshod over Americans freedoms.   

[opebo]

Apparentely it is in the fourth amendment.  Or at the very least the spirit of the document.  The point is, philip, it is preferable to interpret the old document that way rather than let states inhabited by religious intolerants run roughshod over Americans freedoms.   

Hmm, I'm not exactly comfortable with interpreting the Constitution inappropriately merely for convenience.

They are.