Again, then it is a worthwhile argument to ask why certain things are enshrined when others are not, if it is indeed possible to base a legal system upon what reasonable minds agree is "implied". For example, most people today would agree that not enslaving humans is implied under the equal protection clause., and yet, we have a specific amendment that had to be ratified, stating "No person can hold another as a slave..."

Like most implied rights, the right to privacy is weak specifically because it is not enshrined. Even the explicitly stated rights have limits, particularly when they butt into the other explicitly stated rights.

When the implied "right to privacy" butts into the 1st Amendment rights of freedom of expression and a free press, on which side do you think the courts will err on, on a consistent basis?