Not being a lawyer, it seems clear to me that the conjured up "right to privacy" does not allow one to commit crimes in private. A person has a right to be secure in your house and your personal belongings and so forth, obviously, but if you are committing crimes in private, per the laws enacted by the people that are perfectly legal and constitutional, it seems like the right to privacy is a hollow argument.
The word "conjure" means to summon (a devil or spirit) by magical or supernatural power; to influence or effect by or as if by magic.
When you commence an argument by describing the "right to privacy" as a "conjured" right, you are stating an unsubstantiated conclusion. You have concluded, without setting forth any facts to substantiate your conclusion, that the right to privacy was somehow "created" out of thin air.
Your statement about the "conjured" nature of the right and your statements that follow this unsubstantiated conclusion demonstrate that you don't fully understand the nature and scope of the right to privacy. I hope the following remarks will be helpful to put the right into proper perspective:
The right to privacy does not entitle anyone to get away with criminal activity simply because the crime was conducted in private. The right to privacy is a liberty interest: It encompasses the broad principle that each individual has the right to live his or her life free from unreasonable government intrusions--the right to be left alone and to live one's life according to one's own conscience and choices when the government doesn't have any compelling interest that is served by sticking it's governmental nose into the people's private lives.
The best way to explain is by analogy. Let's look at the freedom of religion. That freedom is a category of our liberty and privacy rights. Each individual has the right to believe or not believe in God or religion according to one's own conscience and choices. Each individual has the right to worship in the manner he chooses free from unreasonable government intrusions.
Now let's go back to what you said: ". . . if you are committing crimes in private, per the laws enacted by the people that are perfectly legal and constitutional, it seems like the right to privacy is a hollow argument
Let's apply that reasoning to the right of religious freedom: If you are committing acts that have been defined as crimes by a constitutional
criminal statute, and you are doing so because of your religious beliefs, the right to religious freedom is not a defense. Obviously, we can all agree that the law would not allow you to engage in the sacrificial killings of human beings simply because your religion embraces the ritual. When a criminal statute is constitutional on its face and as applied, no individual's rights are infringed by the enforcement of that statute.
However, if the government passed a law that required all individuals to practice christianity and criminalized the non-practice of christianity, then it seems invoking the right to religious freedom is NOT a "hollow argument."
Similarly, if the government passed a law that required all persons to use the missionary position when engaging in sexual intercourse and criminalized all other sexual positions, then it seems invoking the right to privacy is NOT a "hollow argument."
If people truly understand the nature and scope of the right to privacy, then it should be easier to discern the difference between valid and invalid arguments based on the right to privacy.