[fooman]

1677 is yet another tour de force from you.

I still think privacy is a canard.

I could see it being a ‘natural’ right that the states could recognize. I could also see it being a constitutional amendment, which it should be. The era of big government databases demands this.

However, privacy is never a veil for illegal activity, like rape and incest. So the court should decide whether the activity is illegal or not. The court loses credibility when it uses privacy to cover up illegal activity.

[puroresu]

Thanks! Upon re-reading my post, though, I see that I phrased something incorrectly. I said that the 9th amendment doesn't give the federal courts the authority to enfore any rights at all. I should have specified that that means they can't enforce rights against a state. The 9th amendment does give the federal courts the power to block federal intrusions on rights issues involving states.

For example, prior to adoption of the 19th amendment (female suffrage) states were free to grant or withhold the vote from women as they wished. The Supreme Court, under the 9th amendment, couldn't stop a state from either permitting or prohibiting women from voting. However, had the U.S. Congress tried to stop a state from permitting women to vote, the Supreme Court would have been within their power to protect female voting rights, as granted by the state in question, from federal restriction.