INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

The Bill of Rights ratisfied to the Constitution of the United States  December 15th, 1791. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

"The Court is on relatively firm ground when it deems certain of the liberties, set forth in the Bill of Rights to be fundamental. Thornburgh v. American Coll. of OBST. & GYN, 476 U.S. 747, 790 (1986).

The “framers of our Constitution and this [US Supreme] court … have declared … the due observance of the rights guaranteed under the Constitution by [the Fourth and Fifth] Amendments. That such rights are declared to be indispensable to the full enjoyment of personal security, personal liberty, and private property that they are to be regarded as of the very essence of constitutional liberty.” Gouled v U.S., 255 U.S. 298, 303, 304. (1921).

The "Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 , 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments,Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 , 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 , 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 484-485 ;

Seventy-five years ago, in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630 (1886), considering the Fourth and Fifth Amendments as running "almost into each other"  on the facts before it, this Court held that  the doctrines of those Amendments  "apply to all invasions on the part of the government and its employes of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life. It is not the breaking of his doors, and the rummaging of his drawers, [367 U.S. 643, 647] that constitutes the essence of the offence; but it is the invasion of his indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty and private property . . ”Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643, 646, 647 > Boyd v. United States 116 U.S. 616, 630.

This inestimable right of personal security belongs as much to the citizen on the streets of our cities as to the homeowner closeted in his study to dispose of his secret affairs. For as this Court has always recognized, "No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968) > Union Pac. R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891).

[T] he rights of property are united with the rights of person, and placed on the same ground by the fifth amendment to the Constitution, which provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law. Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 , 45 (1856)

Property does not have rights. People have rights. The right to enjoy property without unlawful deprivation, no less than the right to speak or the right to travel, is in truth a "personal" right, whether the "property" in question be a welfare check, a home, or a savings account. In fact, a fundamental interdependence exists between the personal right to liberty and the personal right in property. Neither could have meaning without the other. That rights in property are basic civil rights has long been recognized. Lynch v. Household Finance Corp., 405 U.S. 538, 552 1972.

Equal protection of laws is right of individual, not merely of group of individuals, or of body of persons according to their number. Mitchell v United States 313 U.S. 80, 97 (1941)