> > And which right does this shatter? I'm thinking Privacy, although that's not necessarily stated in the Constitution, merely implied.
>
> Given that, in the 1770's, "privacy" meant "going to the privy" (which is to say, the toilet), finding an explicit right to privacy would be... odd. Like finding an enumerated right to eat.

This sounds like a total urban legend. No reliable etymology I can find for the word mentions this meaning.

A 1702 English dictionary by John Kersey the younger (search http://leme.library.utoronto.ca/ for the entry; I can't seem to link directly to it) provides a simple definition: "Familiarity or secrecy."

And in fact a quick search of the Federalist Papers finds Hamilton using this meaning of secrecy in #69 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed69.htm)

I agree with a lot of the sentiments in the linked article but when the guy gets his big zinger wrong, I'm highly suspicious of any other facts he brings up -- particularly his claims of what the language in the Constitution means. His summary, at least, of natural rights doctrine seems pretty on.

Stephen