|
The assertion that one has a right retained under the Ninth Amendment only begs the question that such right exists by law. The right of privacy under the Constitution is a matter of judicial interpretation. In this, there is no express provision of the Constitution for a general right of privacy. Rather it is based on the decisions of the Supreme Court in interpreting the First, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments viewed through the prism of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in such cases as Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, Cruzon v. Missouri Dept. of Health, and more recently, Lawrence v. Texas. It is the product of an expansive reading of the Constitution rather than a literal interpretation of its provisions. I can remember Judge Robert Bork (renowned constitutional scholar and foremost exponent of "Originalism" in the interpretation of the Constitution) stating that there was no right to privacy, which did not go down well in the Senate confirmation hearings for his failed nomination to the Supreme Court; albeit today Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito, as well as Chief Justice Roberts, would be considered to have rather narrow views on the right of privacy; and whether a specific law violates an individual's right to privacy is a matter for independent judicial review.
|