>You're confusing the federal government with the state governments. State governments are not limited to enumerated powers and can do anything they want.

Are you illiterate, or just purposefully obtuse? I just wrote that the US government is limited to the powers defined in the US constitution. How can you take that the other way? Why are your responses always a perverse reversal of what was otherwise clearly expressed?

>But that means it's also not a source of rights! The rights must come from somewhere else.

The rights do not need to come from anywhere. They are ours inherently, which is why they are not enumerated.

>That's why the "emanations from penumbras" reasoning is invalid. It treats the Constitution as a source of new rights that can't be found somewhere else.

No, it doesn't. It points out that the limitations of the government, as written in the US Constitution, are sculpted around the innumerable inherent rights of individuals. You once again (unsurprisingly) completely flip things around to service an otherwise devoid argument.

>I think most people on here get their legal analysis from political science majors on MSNBC and WaPo.

I don't know where you get your legal analysis from, but it's shit. Probably from reason.com. Joshua Blackwell levels of bad.