[sophacles]

You should try reading the constitution some time - there's an amendment that disagrees with your reasoning. It's called the 9th amendment and it literally says that there are rights beyond those specifically enumerated in the constitution.

[UncleEntity]

The constitution doesn’t grant rights to the people but sets down the restrictions on what the federal government can and can not do.

Anything and everything not specifically outlined in it is either retained by the people or governed by the states.

If the Supreme Court says the federal government doesn’t have jurisdiction they are simply returning the responsibility to the states or default legal status. They literally can’t strip away a right by returning it to the people.

[robonerd]

I think you should read my comment again. I agree with the premise of a right to privacy being found in the 14th Amendment. It you understand that I understand that and are trying to draw my attention to something else, then I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. What I find suspect is the court seemingly to invent a restriction to such an inferred right, the trimester rule.

[leephillips]

The Supreme Court upholds a proud tradition of pretending that the 9th and 10th amendments don’t exist. I believe I remember Judge Bork pointing out, to general outrage, during his “confirmation” “hearings” that these amendments essentially don’t mean anything. He was just calling attention to the sad truth of the matter.