In Griswold v. Connecticut, the Court determined that there were penumbras in the Constitution that indicated that there is a right to privacy inherent in the document. Do you agree with this reasoning? Would the Court have been better off just relying on the Ninth Amendment which reserves rights to the people? Finally, this case is seen as resurrecting the idea of substantive due process (i.e, that the piece of the due process clause that says that the government cannot take away liberty without due process, provides a Constitutional justification for the right to privacy) — is this a bad thing given where we left off with economic due process?
