>Look at the 3rd and 4th amendments. They are rooted in privacy.
Eh, I don't think that's a reasonable take. They're much more rooted in property rights. I guess you could argue they're just restatements of each other. Privacy applies to your person, while property rights apply to your stuff.
But notice the 3rd amendment specifically says "owner", not resident or something similar. For example, if a apartment building owner wanted to allow a soldier to live in your apartment, you couldn't stop them. Obviously any sane lease wouldn't allow that but my point is you couldn't make a constitutional argument against the government saying it's a violation of your rights.
I think you raise a valid objection to the interpretation, but I counter that in context, privacy and property rights were one and the same in many ways.
Eh, I don't think that's a reasonable take. They're much more rooted in property rights. I guess you could argue they're just restatements of each other. Privacy applies to your person, while property rights apply to your stuff.
But notice the 3rd amendment specifically says "owner", not resident or something similar. For example, if a apartment building owner wanted to allow a soldier to live in your apartment, you couldn't stop them. Obviously any sane lease wouldn't allow that but my point is you couldn't make a constitutional argument against the government saying it's a violation of your rights.
Also, SCOTUS didn't extend the 4th amendment to imply privacy until 1967. Before then it only applied to property. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States