In a Common Law system, which the US has by design, the system formally admits that laws must be interpreted, that they can't say absolutely everything which ne

In a Common Law system, which the US has by design, the system formally admits that laws must be interpreted, that they can't say absolutely everything which needs to be said, and that precedent is an important part of that interpretation. For example: Point to where the US Constitution says you have a right to privacy. Not a right to be free from "unreasonable search and seizure", but a right to be private. It isn't in there. If that means the Founders intended all medical documents to be public, then the Founders were wrong and need to be ignored on this issue; more likely, however, the Founders never felt the need to state the obvious, leaving it to the courts in case it ever came up. Which it did. Griswold v. Connecticut was decided on the basis of a right to privacy, and that basis is what Roe v. Wade is founded on. Did the Court "amend the Constitution" by deciding that Americans have a right to privacy in medical matters? Was that something it should not have done? Modern morality would say the Court did the right thing, and privacy is an essential human right which any government worthy of the name must recognize.