[Sabertooth]

Thus, does it not reasonably follow: - That we have an unenumerated, fundamental right to privacy, found under both the 9th & 14th amendments?

I can imagine that an Amendment guaranteeing a right to privacy would have been ratified by the Founders, but not if it was understood by them to give legal protection to buggery.

[tpaine]

You argue against a right to privacy..
Our general rights to life, liberty, and property encompass ~all~ of our unenumerated and enumerated rights that can be imagined..
IE.. It is doubtful that any rational person would argue against our right to live a 'private' life, secure in our homes and persons.

- Thus, does it not reasonably follow: - That we have an unenumerated, fundamental right to privacy, found under both the 9th & 14th amendments?

In the same way, we can find our right to keep arms in both the 2nd, and in the 14ths restriction that we can not be deprived of property without due process of law.

Prohibitory state laws against behaviors or property can not be termed to be 'due process'. - They are simply the arbitrary rules of a majority.
-203-


I can imagine that an Amendment guaranteeing a right to privacy would have been ratified by the Founders, but not if it was understood by them to give legal protection to buggery.
-Sabertooth-



Fundamental rights, like privacy, protect everyone, 'morally' deviate or not. - Buggery is nasty sex, granted. But as a consensual act it is not criminal.

-- Irrational, prohibitive laws are also nasty, in that they jail people for what are decreed to be 'evil' possessions or 'sinful' acts.
Thus, such 'laws' are criminal in themselves, under our constitution.