quote:
Consequently, when something happens that they think infringes on their privacy, to them it is the same as having their Constitutional "rights" trampled, violated, stripped, etc.
Actually, if you look at what the US Supreme Court, in the process of Judicial Review, has said in cases such as Griswald and Roe V Wade, privacy was mentioned as a right granted by the 4th Amendment.
In the case of Griswald (which preceded Roe v. Wade) a state passed a law that forbid a married couple from using contraceptive devices in the privacy of their own bedroom.
The question of enforciability came up and how the police could or could not know whether the couple was using contraception at a given instant, unless the police were to monitor the married couple engage in such activities, and make a bust. The Court found the idea of police monitoring married couples in this way to be abhorant, and deemed that given that was such a way to enforce this statute, that it violated the couple's 4th Amendment rights to privacy. This was the first time to my knowledge in which the High Court interpreted the 4th Amendment as giving a general (though not specifically stated) right to privacy (intent of the fore-fathers type argument).
The case of Roe v. Wade was then further based off the argument put forth in Griswald. Now ever since the case of Marbury vs. Madison, it has been understood/accepted that the Court has the power of Judicial Review and the power to interpret the law.
