[Cold Heat]

Their argument was the Right to Privacy superceded state law.

Yea, that's a good summary, but the justices varied in their views from there is NO right of privacy to there is a understood right of privacy, to there IS a right of privacy.

Herein lies the bugger and it will indeed need to be clarified with a future case.

[tpaine]

AppyPappy:
Their argument was the Right to Privacy superceded state law.
-220-


Yea, that's a good summary, but the justices varied in their views from there is NO right of privacy to there is a understood right of privacy, to there IS a right of privacy.
Herein lies the bugger and it will indeed need to be clarified with a future case.
224 -WS-


'The argument' has always been whether a fed/state/local government can deprive an individual of our self evident rights to life, liberty and property, without due process of constitutional law.

The answer? - NO. - Obviously no.

Let the Justices quibble over seeing 'privacy' pemunbras in such unalienable basic rights, if they must.

The fact will always remain that if government violates an individuals private property unreasonably, it is our right, our duty, to defend our private life & our liberty from such abuses of power.