I disagree. As I say the purpose of the constitution is to limit the power of government...the right of the people to be left alone.
This is not a issue of finding a new right to privacy and freedom from government intrusion its one of the basic principles on which the constitution is founded.
I disagree.
The Constitution says what it says, not what we think it ought to say. It does not express general principles, which the judges then apply to new situations as they see fit.
The Constitution very explicitly states what powers government has been given and quite a number of things it is not permitted to do. You won’t find surveillance of public places in either category.
It constantly amazes me how conservatives are constitutional literalists until an issue arises that they feel strongly about, but which is just not in the document. Then they begin finding broad principles in there, like “the right of the people to be left alone.”
Can’t you see that any broad principle must be interpreted and applied, inevitably by the branch of government least accountable to the people? Do you really want five people wearing black robes and with life tenure to decide exactly what the broad principles mean, and inevitably discovering new ones whenever the urge strikes them? Haven’t we gone a good deal too far down that road already?
Why not use the mechanism for addressing new situations that the Founders installed right in the Constitution?