Posted on 10/24/2005 12:27:04 PM PDT by Hunterb
Ahh, proof again that the exception proves the rule. Yes, you found a loophole. Just like I could invent a scenario in which you could be arrested for driving the speed limit.
Anyone remember that kind of thing happening just after they opened up the baseball stadium in Toronto that has the hotel attached?
Not surprising. Sarah Weddington, another Texas lawyer, did a similar thing in Roe-v-Wade. She had 'Jane Roe' claim that she had been raped and wanted an abortion. Norma McCorvey, the real 'Jane Roe' had not been raped, and never wanted an abortion. Weddington, in conjunction with other lawyers, and even a couple of the Supremes, used McCorvey to take the case all the way to the Supreme Court so they could force a change in the law of the land to suit their own personal legal preferences.
Randolph Churchill had syphilis. He died from it. I'm not certain as to when he was infected ( but he DID have during most, if not all of his marriage to Jenny!); however, none of his children were born with it, nor with any defects.
Either your doctor friends are lying through their teeth to you, or you are lying through your teeth! The blood tests done before one is allowed to obtain a marriage license, is NOT done to detect anything other than syphilis and gonorrhea and in some states, one or the other disease is no longer tested for at all.
I'm married, my husband and I took the blood test almost 39 years ago. My daughter is married, she and her husband took the test almost 6 years ago. Everyone, but you, knows what these test comprise.
Some people, who have familial inherited diseases running rampant in their backgrounds, sometimes have battery of tests done, before they try to have a family, but NOT ever in order to obtain a marriage license.
Just answer the question. Does the geovernment have the authority to prohibit prostitution between two consenting adults? And how do you define prostitution? Is it sex for cash? Sex for dinner and a movie?
They were secure in their persons, houses, effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. In this case, someone made a bogus distress call, stood outside an OPEN apartment, waved the officers in, where another individual pointed the officers to the room. The officers identified themselves, and entered only after repeated warnings. The sodomizers then continued to openly and brazenly engage in an illegal act after the officers repeatedly told them to stop. If you only want to rely on the underscored part and refuse to acknowledge probable cause, then no criminal act would ever be criminal or prosecutable if it is conducted completely within the privacy of one's home where one has absolute security in one's person, house, papers, and effects.
So sexual perversion (behavior) is equal to racial ethnicity is it? What a Strawman...
Race is who you are, homosexual is what you do.
Consider this. There is a California state congressman(democrat) currently putting through legislation to lower the legal voting age from 18 to 12. You can take it from there.
That's a strawman. There is a clear legal definition for "adult," so your use of quotes is interesting.
Children do not have full legal rights, and as such the government has the right to regulate certain of their behaviors. There are, therefore, not relevant to this conversation.
This conversation is only about the government regulating what adults can do on their own property. Kids are a strawman, and a lame one at that.
This is my rifle
This is my gun
This one's for fightin'
This one's for fun...
"Hypocracy" (sic)? WHAT HYPOCRISY? I stated factual information and NO opinion. Ergo, there is no "hypocrisy", other than your own!
Please use spell check or a dictionary. :-)
Take that up with the courts in D.C., but be careful what you ask for!
And that decision was correct. But what the SCOTUS did was endorse a constitional right to homosexual behavior, through the privacy "penumbras" of the Constitution, instead of leaving an issue like this, which many believe to be moral, to be decided by each state.
Such is what got Justice Scalia so burned up. Not that a state would allow the behavior, but that the high court would consider it a something worthy of its consideration as a constitutional matter.
Nor in some other states as well. :-)
So what? If any legislature votes to lower the age of adulthood, that is the state's business.
If a state ever determines that a 12 year-old can vote, if a state ever determines that a 12 year-old can own property in his own name and sign contracts and have all the other rights and responsibilities of adulthood, then and only then does a 12 year-old have the right to engage in whatever consentual sexual practices they want. That's what being a adult means.
Seems to me that your beef is with anyone who would lower the age of majority. I would agree, since I don't think that most kids are ready for those responsibilities at such an age. But if that's what a state wants, a state should be allowed to do it. It's their business where they want to draw the line between adult and child. It has no real bearing on the conversation except to raise some sort of emotional hackles.
No, because that is expressly protected by the Second Amendment. There's nothing in the Constitution protecting sodomy other than the general requirement for searches based on probable cause applicable to any conduct in the home. And the same rules regarding exigent circumstances, plain view exception, etc.
I have no problem with states not regulating sodomy. I have a big problem with a Supreme Court that rewirtes the Constitution to fit its own notions of what it "should" say.
Is it the government's place to regulate those actions?
Yes. That is rape. Thank you for the easiest question in this thread.
SCOTUS knew it was a sham case, just as they knew Griswald was a sham case. Sometimes, SCOTUS doesn't mind. They want to rule. Sometimes, SCOTUS distorts the facts, to make the rule they want. What SCOTUS wants, SCOTUS gets.
Well if you want to consider it a contrived loophole, let's imagine the following scenario:
The police receive a call about a man wandering around with a gun threatening people. They arrive on the scene and a "witness" points them to an apartment with an open door and screams "He went in there! Hurry, he's gonna kill somebody!" The police cautiously enter the open door and announce themselves "Police! Drop all weapons!" They see a person talking on the phone who calmly points toward a closed door to a room in the apartment. They approach the door and announce themselves again "Police. Open the door and come out with your hands up." The repeat the announcement several times. After repeated warnings they open the door and find two people, ignoring them, engaged in one of the following activities:
1. openly using several illegal drugs.
2. molesting a small child.
3. openly and obviously running an illegal gambling operation.
4. making illegal copies of pirated movies/music.
5. illegally performing a medical procedure without a medical license.
6. making a porno movie featuring a disgusting encounter between a dwarf and several farm animals.
or create your own inventive scenario.
Oh, or 7. engaged in sodomy, which at the moment is a violation of state law.
In any case, to challenge the arrest and subsequent "no contest" plea or conviction on the basis of "invasion of privacy" is ludicrous, especially if there is any indication that the calls to the police and the subsequent directions of the police by "witnesses" along with the criminal activity in question were all staged for the purpose of challenging the validity of the law being violated.
Given these details of the scenario described above, the violators, along with the parties making the call to the police and directing the police to the room where the illegal activity took place are ALL culpable of conspiracy to commit the crime, as well as other possible conspiracy or obstruction of justice charges.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.