The very people who wrote the Constitution endorsed laws like NC's Cohabitation Statute. They endorsed and understood as Constitutional laws that prohibited Adultery, Fornication and other immoral acts. They understood that a people cannot be free if they are immoral. They drew upon people like Edmund Burke, who stated:
Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their appetites in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.
200 years ago, we had slavery and Women had few if any rights. Religious tests though unconstitutional were the law in many states. The founding fathers gave us a Constitution that allowed for continued improvement of our Nation and society.
How nice, another libertine endorses the leftist Statist position of a "living constitution", one that places the power in the hands of the judiciary rather than the people.
When are libertines going to realize that the "living constitution" theory is more dangerous to them, as they don't just get to pick and choose when it's used. Sure, you like the "living constitution" theory when it endorses your various hedonistic perversions, yet when those same judges use the "living constitution" to say that you no longer have a right to own guns, you scream. Guess what, you can't have it both ways.
Either the Constitution means what it says, and means what it ment when the framers wrote it, or it means whatever the judicial oligarchy says it means. Which means they are your new rulers. Bow down and worship.
I hate to break it to you:
"[W]hen a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean." Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 621 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Further, "The Constitution is a written instrument. As such its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now." The State of South Carolina v. United States 199 U.S. 437 (1905).
The pathetic libertine attempts to drag up slavery are so foolish they shouldn't be addressed. Slavery was fixed with the Amendment process. As George Washington Stated:
If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.
The 6 million couples living together outside of marriage hardly compare with the 2 1/2 to 3 million divorces annually, which directly and negatively impact over a million children annually. So the definition of swine may have to be greatly expanded.
Again with the divorce lie? Again, 50% of marriages DO NOT end in Divorce. But 90% of Cohabitating couples do not last more than 5 years together.
Perhaps they understand that true liberty means free choices, which at times will be the wrong choices. But that is the basis of freedom...the freedom to make a bad choice.
You don't have the freedom to destroy the moral fabric of society.
Yes, there were many laws they endorsed in those days we wouldn't countenance today. As for freedom and morality, take a look at Benjamin Franklin. Adultery, fornication and other immoral acts didn't seem to prevent his freedom. And then there's Thomas Jefferson. Shall we discuss his morality? Was he free?
How nice, another libertine endorses the leftist Statist position of a "living constitution", one that places the power in the hands of the judiciary rather than the people.
No, another conservative as opposed to a religious repressive. I assume by that comment, you find disgusting laws and judicial decisions that prohibit discrimination, segregation, miscegenation, among others? The Constitution is not a living document, but in the area of the Bill of Rights and especially the 14th Amendment, America was slow to realize just what they meant. They aren't just words.
Sure, you like the "living constitution" theory when it endorses your various hedonistic perversions, yet when those same judges use the "living constitution" to say that you no longer have a right to own guns, you scream.
That answered my earlier question. We are better off with discrimination in every aspect of society in your view until the majority wants it removed. Who do you think the Bill of Rights was designed to protect? It wasn't the Bible toting, white male. It was everyone else who didn't have the power to decide anything. Fundamentalists are upset the the concept of rights applies to everyone, not just those in the pews next to them.
Either the Constitution means what it says, and means what it ment when the framers wrote it, or it means whatever the judicial oligarchy says it means. Which means they are your new rulers. Bow down and worship.
I always love it when someone thinks they know exactly what the framers meant. First, the framers are irrelevant to the discussion. The Constitution became the supreme law of the land when it was ratified, not when it was first drafted. Second, if you read the anti-federalist papers, you see that there was much dispute and many differing opinions on virtually every article of the Constitution. The Federalist Papers were only the opinions of mainly Madison and Hamilton, who wrote them for the newspapers to advertise and promote the new Constitution. Many different opinions existed then, just as they do now.
Again with the divorce lie? Again, 50% of marriages DO NOT end in Divorce. But 90% of Cohabitating couples do not last more than 5 years together.
1997 statistics show that 50% of first time marriages ended in divorce, and 60% of second marriages ended in divorce. If you have any other statistics provide them rather than the usual insults.
You don't have the freedom to destroy the moral fabric of society.
And you sir, haven't the freedom to decide which parts of society will benefit from the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment and which will not. Keep your Bible out of my bedroom, and I'll keep my moral compass out of yours.