Thus the entire point of the Ninth Amendment. Well grasped.

9A was included in the Bill of Rights as assurance that the government wouldn’t try to infringe on the people’s unenumerated rights with the excuse, “Well, the Constitution doesn’t say you have the right to do that.” 9A is the framers’ way of saying that the Constitution doesn’t grant rights to the government but, conversely, limits the government to the rights listed. All other rights are reserved for the people until someone can adequately convince the legislature that there’s a good reason to take them away.

So, yeah, until Congress passes an amendment saying, “The government reserves the right to take up residence in ACG’s uterus and regulate all intercervical traffic,” the Ninth Amendment protects my right to not have them in there.

It was about the law and nothing more. As for William Douglas, he still interpreted the law, regardless of his personal views. I think Roe vs. Wade is a bad law (not for religious reasons, but because is was poorly written to begin with), but that does not mean I’m in favor of it being overturned either.

I would sure like to know…

Just for examples sake:

YOu have an Holocaust historian who uses facts and data from that time to conclude the Holocaust did happen and was a human tragedy.

You have a Holocaust revisionist historian as well who uses the same facts, but deduces that the Holocaust in fact didn’t happen, and was not a human tragedy, but rather a lie.

In both cases, the same facts are used, but different conclusions are drawn based upon their interpretations and ideologies.

In the case of the SCOTUS, it is no different. The Justices may have an exemplary knowledge of the law and the constitution – but they are chosen on how they interpret that law to further promote or uphold an agenda. You *cannot* separate ideology and interpretation if working within the same constructs!

1. Barack is not a “little” lawyer — he’s a lawyer and Con Law Scholar.

2. SCOTUS has long recognized that there exists an “implied” right to privacy Thus the Constitution implicitly protects our right to privacy. This implication arises from a review of our enumerated/fundamental rights as outlined in the following amendments: 1A, 2A, 4A, 5A. Since SCOTUS has recognized this right, they would need to now denounce it in order for the right to go away.

3. In reaching this conclusion and many others, I believe, as many other lawyers and jurists do, that the justices were doing their job-as delegated to them via the Framers- in interpreting the constitution. a decision needs to be made that the USC hasn’t specifically dicussed, it is left to interpretation.

4. The Constitution is a living document. The framers weren’t capable of predicting the future and there are many ambiguities. The Constitution is given life by the scholars and jurists that address modern questions arising from the constition.

And how do you separate ideology from interpretation?

Yes, I do believe that. Also Elle, you are correct to say a lot of folks are biased, however, when the justices hand down different opinions or dissents regarding a court decision, they speak as one.

Aproustian, it’s not about religion, it’s about interpretation. For the justices, it’s a matter of keeping the overall scope of the Constitution’s foundation in its truest form. The split you speak of comes from whether or not the Constitution’s focus should change to meet the current times or do they keep it as is.

In other words: is the Constitution considered a living or dead document?

Very good, the word “privacy” is not in there. However, the issue of privacy is discussed in numerous amendments and many of us believe that the various specific kind of privacy protected under the Constitution — privacy from unwarranted government search and seizure, privacy of religion, privacy from forced housing of troops, etc. — points to an overall understanding that privacy is indeed a right. Also, see the 9th amendment — the Constitution explicitly says that just because a certain word doesn’t appear in it, that doesn’t mean the fundamental right in question does not exist.