We should interpret the Constitution as it fits our world today, but we must not take it to extremes. I would suggest that for abortion, gay marriage and gay rights, that there should be amendments. But as to privacy, we should let the Supreme Court hash it out and then we can rely on precedents. I believe that this mixing of the two would make this the living document that our founding fathers wanted it to be.
Today’s “interest-group democracy” contributes to the proliferation of phony "rights." When "rights" become merely legal claims attached to interests and preferences, the stage is set for political and social conflict. Interests and preferences may conflict, but rights cannot. There can be no conflict of genuine human rights in a free society.
Speaking of phony, former Christian Coalition executive director Ralph Reed wrote that America is united around "a vision of a society based on two fundamental beliefs. The first belief is that all men, created equal in the eyes of God with certain inalienable rights, are free to pursue the longings of their heart. The second belief is that the sole purpose of government is to protect those rights." But his political program is to ban abortion, forbid gay people to marry, and censor the Internet.
When the Federal Government or even one of the States, imposes obligations on its people through the political or judicial process, those obligations can conflict with their natural rights.
In the second paragraph of the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson laid out a statement of rights and their meaning that has rarely been equaled for grace and brevity. His task in writing the Declaration was to express the common sentiments of the American colonists.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.”
I believe that the right to self-ownership means that individuals must have the right to acquire and exchange property in order to fulfill their needs and desires. To feed ourselves, or provide shelter for our families, or open a business, we must make use of property. And we need to be confident that our property right is legally secure, that someone else can't come and confiscate the wealth we've created.
The ninth amendment states; “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” (Amendment 9, U.S. Constitution)
In an Associated Press piece quoted on Fox News, was an article about the Circuit Court of Appeals decisions on March 14, 2007 it was implied that the Circuit Court considered the Ninth Amendment no longer relevant, and that the federal government of the United States of America has no moral legitimacy.
In Gonzales v. Raich, the court ruled that the Constitution’s clause to “make regular” interstate commerce permitted federal agents to raid the home of a sick woman and confiscate the six marijuana plants she was growing for her own medication ��" all in a state whose population had overwhelmingly voted to legalize medical marijuana.
And in Kelo v. City of New London, the court found that the phrase “public use” in the Fifth Amendment allows local governments to snatch land from law-abiding people, and sell that property off to wealthy developers. Property is anything that people can use, control, or dispose of. A property right means the freedom to use, control, or dispose of an object or entity.
Both cases will have negative repercussions for liberty that reach far beyond their specific facts.