Waitaminnit--it sounds like you understand the 14th amendment correctly, which changes everything. SCOTUS interpretation is that the 14th amendment imposes the bill of rights on the states, then you are saying the FEDS can't "violate our privacy," except where it falls within the enumerated powers, but that the STATES can do so. For example, a federal anti-prostitution law would be unconstitutional, but a state anti-prostitution law would be constitutional.
If that's your position, then we essentially agree--and you don't believe there's a "right to privacy" after all. I.e., you believe that there is at the federal level but that there is not at the state level.
"If that's your position, then we essentially agree--and you don't believe there's a "right to privacy" after all. I.e., you believe that there is at the federal level but that there is not at the state level."
Well I always was talking about the federal level because we were talking about a USSC Justice. But I take your meaning re the 14th. The States may or may not have their own right of privacy depending on their constitutional history (California explicitly does). I don't believe the federal concept of the right of privacy has ever been imposed on the states through the incorporation doctrine (which I also oppose).