I agree with other commenters that the meaning is clear. But I think they underestimate how far the Supreme Court is willing to go to torture the meaning of the Constitution. Hopefully I am wrong.
I think if you want to defend Griswold you are forced to defend Lochner. If “emanations from penumbras” is a legitimate source of constitutional authority that can override democratically enacted laws, that has sweeping implications. Clearly the constitution has an overriding focus on property rights and economic liberty. What freedoms can you find in the “emanations from penumbras” of the contract clause or the takings clause?
I don’t think Griswold is wrong per se. Rather, I think it’s based on a libertarian view of the Constitution that almost none of Griswold’s proponents actually support.
