There you go again, trying to apply the 9th amendment where it shouldn't.
Lawrence v Texas involved a state statute, not a federal one. If the 9th amendment does include a "right to privacy" (and no court has found that it does), that right would be protected by the 9th from federal intrusion, not state intrusion.
If a person is seeking protection from state statutes, the 14th amendment is used. In this case, petitioners used the "due process" clause; to wit:
"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
They claimed that they "were free as adults to engage in private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause". Now, in order for the USSC to find this "right to engage in private conduct" (ie., sodomy), the must find this right to be "fundamental to the concept of liberty", which they did not.
"Most prominent of these is the right to privacy ---"
Privacy is essential, certainly, but I doubt that the framers gave much thought to specifically enumerating the right to be 'left alone'. --- It's an obvious freedom, and would be akin to enumerating our right to lock our doors.
Statist's here on FR seen to think that any individual liberty not specifically mentioned in our Constitution is fair game for State 'regulations', even for outright prohibitions. -- Some, like paulsen, even believe that States can prohibit our RKBA's.
This is 'conservatism'?
There you go again, trying to apply the 9th amendment where it shouldn't.
Lawrence v Texas involved a state statute, not a federal one. If the 9th amendment does include a "right to privacy" (and no court has found that it does), that right would be protected by the 9th from federal intrusion, not state intrusion.
The Ninth says "the people" retain all of their rights, whether enumerated in the Constitution or not. -- Thus, -- your silly opinion that States can infringe upon our unenumerated rights is simply authoritarian wishful thinking.
If a person is seeking protection from state statutes, the 14th amendment is used. In this case, petitioners used the "due process" clause; to wit: "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
They claimed that they "were free as adults to engage in private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause".
Indeed they are. Private conduct that harms no other person is obviously not subject to the regulatory power of the State. NOWHERE, in any of our Constitutions, are any level of our governments granted such a power.
Now, in order for the USSC to find this "right to engage in private conduct" (ie., sodomy), the must find this right to be "fundamental to the concept of liberty", which they did not.
Specious argument. They found the Texas 'law' in question unconstitutional. -- Case closed.