No such thing you may say.
A good deal of the controversy over Miers these days seems to hinge on this issue.
Does the Constitution acknowledge a right to privacy?
The ninth amendment states "the enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
In the Supreme Court decision on Griswold vs Conneticut, state law prohibiting the use of birth control in marriage was trumped by the right to privacy as established by the Court.
This Connecticut law had been challenged earlier in Poe v Ullman on the grounds that it denied plaintiffs due process, but it was decided that the plaintiffs lacked the standing because the law had not been enforced in many years.
Estelle Griswold opened a birth control clinic to dispense contraceptives. She was arrested and convicted under the state law.
The Supreme Court overtuned the conviction citing the ninth amendment. However, the Court's analysis was limited to married couple.
Later this case would be used as precedent for Roe V Wade.
I feel the court took a leap in the latter decision because I do not believe that abortion is just about birth control. However, I have noticed that many conservatives are not only interested in overturning Roe v Wade, but they do not believe the Supreme Court should have overturned Griswold either.
Can the state, federal or local, tell consenting adults what to do in our homes? Is this consistent with libertarian values?
In Lausanne, Mr. Motthagi sums it up
55 minutes ago