Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
i beg to differ. 'Privacy' can rightfully be assumed with regards to the fourth amendment - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. - however, including abortion (or Roe v. Wade) as an inherent right to privacy was a huge stretch of the amendment. I'd even go so far as to say it violated the 9th and 10th amendments.
Creating new law is nothing new to judicial activists anyway. The second amendment has been gutted numerous times via judicial activism with every major gun law thats been written.
|
You are right DK, where I'm coming from is 'privacy' might be implicit, but it is not 'explicit'. The Justices who ruled on Griswold, were using every amendment under the sun as a sign that it was, if I remember correctly even the 9 & 10 as justifications for it. Was not the best or strongest way to make a case.