This comment is moral relativism. The people do not decide what is constitutional unless they can pass an amendment - the Constitution does, and the Constitution is clear. Life trumps privacy. There is no right to privacy. And today, more Americans oppose abortion than support it.
Again, show me these rights in the Constitution - court rulings must rely on one thing and one thing only - the Constitution.
Not at all. You said there was no argument as to whether Roe v. Wade was constitutional. I was just pointing out that tens of millions of your countrymen disagree. Morality has nothing to do with it.
The people do not decide what is constitutional unless they can pass an amendment - the Constitution does, and the Constitution is clear.
That's not true, and you know it. How can a piece of paper make a decision as to its own meaning? The Constitution requires human interpretation to be anything more than a 200 year old doily. There's no magic device that reads the Constitution and perfectly tells us what it means. Unfortunately, we have to rely on (imperfect) human beings. That's just the nature of the beast.
court rulings must rely on one thing and one thing only - the Constitution.
And precedent. That's how the common-law system works. If you don't like it, go to France- judges there cannot rely on precedent when it comes to interpreting their constitution.
The 9th Amendment
Aside from contending that a bill of rights was unnecessary, the Federalists responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing that inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights it would be dangerous to list some because there would be those who would seize on the absence of the omitted rights to assert that government was unrestrained as to those.
Madison adverted to this argument in presenting his proposed amendments to the House of Representatives. ''It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.''
It is clear from its text and from Madison's statement that the Amendment states but a rule of construction, making clear that a Bill of Rights might not by implication be taken to increase the powers of the national government in areas not enumerated, and that it does not contain within itself any guarantee of a right or a proscription of an infringement.
Recently, however, the Amendment has been construed to be positive affirmation of the existence of rights which are not enumerated but which are nonetheless protected by other provisions.
Source: FindLaw