[TeleStraightShooter]

Owens hold the judicial view that the "Right to Privacy" is not in the United States Constitution.
That view is viewed as "Holy Water" by those bloodSuckers @ NARAL.

Owens view is not considered worthy of a filibuster.
I LIKE that standard.

[Sgt_Schultze]

Owens hold the judicial view that the "Right to Privacy" is not in the United States Constitution. That view is viewed as "Holy Water" by those bloodSuckers @ NARAL. Owens view is not considered worthy of a filibuster. I LIKE that standard.

You won't find the "right to eat" explicitly in the Constitution - but you wouldn't deny its existance, would you? You should understand that rights are more plentiful than only those stated in the Constitution. In fact, the rights referred to in the Constitution were only those the federal government was explicitly forbidden from affecting. The only "right" granted by the Constituion is the right to a trial by a jury of one's peers - as the judiciary is a creation of the government. The text of the Amendments presupposes individual rights.

Ninth Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.