In discussing Barry Goldwater last Monday, we touched on different interpretations of the Constitution used by different political parties/ideologies. Many Conservatives (at least the "real" Conservatives, according to Goldwater) believe in a literal reading of the Constitution, while Liberals generally hold a more flexible view. The "right to privacy," for example, is not explicitly stated in the document, but has been successfully argued as an inferred right in Roe v. Wade in 1973. To what degree should we assume that a new political era demands alterations in interpretations of laws? How valid is the argument that the founding fathers would have written the laws this way, had they known the situation today?

Another thing: every Amendment can be restated as a right to privacy (1st = "privacy of beliefs"; 3rd = "privacy of the home," etc.). This website goes more into detail about this. what do you think?

Julie Zhao