Nope.
The Constitution does not have a right to privacy, and those judges who created it amended the Constitution unlawfully.
The Constitution limits the powers of government. It does not limit the rights of citizens. The Constitution does not give the federal government the power to legislate the private relations of citizens.
All states in 1965 were allowed to outlaw or allow contraception.
All states in 1955 were allowed to outlaw or allow Jim Crow laws.
I am not for outlawing contraception. I AM for following the Constitution.
When it suits you.
The Constitution is silent on murder. So, the citizens are free to murder as a retained right in your line of thinking.
The Constitution is silent on buggery. So, laws against sodomy are unconstitutional under your line of thinking.
The Constitution is silent on drug use. So, laws against drug use are unconstitutional.
Your views on the Constitution are absurd. To the extent that rights were "retained by the people" under the bill of rights, those would have been rights recognized at English common law in 1789 but not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
You are right that the Constitution sets forth a limited form of government. Congress is authorized to act only on the types of legislation enumerated, the Executive is authorized only to act in accord with that legislation and the other powers given to him under the Constitution, and the judiciary is only to interpret those laws and the cases listed in the Constitution. Among the rights involved in the Constitution, as amended, are those that guarantee that citizens shall not be deprived of life or property without due process of law. This grants the Federal government rights to examine issues such as Terri's.
There is no similar provision that protects the individual from State action with respect to so-called "privacy" issues. If they involve search and seizure, then the 4th amendment comes into play. If they involve punishment, then the 8th amendment comes into play. Civil rights, 14th.
But if it involves condoms, sodomy, welfare, midnight basketball, criminal procedure, employment law, etc., etc., there is no basis in the Constitution for federal involvement. The only reason the feds are involved is because of the expansive reading of the Constitution that came about under Roosevelt and continued apace to the present day. Now, as I learned in law school, there is NOTHING that the feds can't get involved with if they want to, under the "interstate commerce clause" and the "necessary and proper" clause. The only things left to the states presently are at the grace of the Feds.
All states in 1965 were allowed to outlaw or allow contraception.
All states in 1955 were allowed to outlaw or allow Jim Crow laws.
All states in 1955 were following the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of, as I recall, 1898, which decreed that separate but equal did not violate the 14th amendment. That decision was as wrong as the 1965 decision that found a right to privacy in the Constitution. Let's hope it doesn't take as long to correct the 40 year old Griswold decision as it took to correct Plessy v. Ferguson (67 years).
Your line of logic does not compute. It goes like this:
1. Courts had a bad decision that was in effect in 1955, and which governed all states. 2. Courts corrected it (actually, it was corrected in 1954 in Brown v. Bd. of Education). 3. People in 2005 agree with the correction, and no one today would argue that Plessy v. Ferguson was constitutional. 4. Therefore, court decision in 1965 creating a non-existent right to privacy is good, even though it changed all state laws, because changes to state laws are always constitutional if the Supreme Court says so.
You have a muddled way of thinking. I recommend you read transcripts of Scalia's latest speeches and that you buy and read Mark Levin's latest book, Men in Black. Then, think about it a little. Then, whatever you continue to believe, at least it will be a little more educated.