Instead of repeating your talking points after you get caught, why don't you try addressing what others write? I was the one who pointed out that it's you libertine wackos that wanted judges to retain power, instead of the people through their elected representatives.
Unable to refute your hyping of the issue, you hype even more. Weird .
What's dangerous about this is that it would be the unelected and largely unaccountable Judge, not the elected and accountable represenative, that would be making the final decision on the value of the claimed "right".
If you are too stupid to realize the "elected and accountable" means "accountable to the people" than that's not my problem.
You laughably confer "final" power over our rights to "elected and accountable representatives"? Read Article VI. -- Both fed & state officials are bound to support our Constitution, which gives final power to the people. [see the 10th]
You laughably confer "final" power over our rights to "unelected judges". Read the Constitution, Judges are bound to support our Constitution, which gives final power to the people, through their elected representatives.
Again, more "retard" hype rather than solid argument. Pitiful.
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, well....
You concede my point -after- you call me a 'retard'.
Again, you prove my point about retardation. I didn't conceed nothing to you.
Straw man 'reasoning', refuted by my words about "rewriting" the 9th earlier.
You don't even know what "straw man reasoning is", you just saw some libertine buddy write it somewhere, then you quote it when you lose arguments. The fact is, the libertarian rewrite of the 9th amendment, gives JUDGES the final power and authority. This is dangerous, and patently unconstitutional.
Scalia, dissenting. "-- In my view, a right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children is among the "unalienable Rights" with which the Declaration of Independence proclaims "all men . . . are endowed by their Creator." And in my view that right is also among the "othe[r] [rights] retained by the people" which the Ninth Amendment says the Constitution's enumeration of rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage. --"
Any reason why you cut him off there, trying to take his comment out of context? Yep, your dishonest.
In my view, a right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children is among the “unalienable Rights” with which the Declaration of Independence proclaims “all Men … are endowed by their Creator.” And in my view that right is also among the “othe[r] [rights] retained by the people” which the Ninth Amendment says the Constitution’s enumeration of rights “shall not be construed to deny or disparage.” The Declaration of Independence, however, is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts; and the Constitution’s refusal to “deny or disparage” other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges’ list against laws duly enacted by the people. Consequently, while I would think it entirely compatible with the commitment to representative democracy set forth in the founding documents to argue, in legislative chambers or in electoral campaigns, that the state has no power to interfere with parents’ authority over the rearing of their children, I do not believe that the power which the Constitution confers upon me as a judge entitles me to deny legal effect to laws that (in my view) infringe upon what is (in my view) that unenumerated right.
So not only are libertarians retarded, they are also dishonest. A creative use of ellipses can't hide what you are trying to do.
Again, more "retard" hype rather than solid argument. Pitiful.
Sorry, there is no "retard hype", only pointing out "retard facts".
Scalia's quote is copied as it appears in Findlaw, ellipses & all. Your personal attacks are unwarranted.
No, Unedited Scalia's comment is thus:
In my view, a right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children is among the “unalienable Rights” with which the Declaration of Independence proclaims “all Men … are endowed by their Creator.” And in my view that right is also among the “othe[r] [rights] retained by the people” which the Ninth Amendment says the Constitution’s enumeration of rights “shall not be construed to deny or disparage.” The Declaration of Independence, however, is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts; and the Constitution’s refusal to “deny or disparage” other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges’ list against laws duly enacted by the people. Consequently, while I would think it entirely compatible with the commitment to representative democracy set forth in the founding documents to argue, in legislative chambers or in electoral campaigns, that the state has no power to interfere with parents’ authority over the rearing of their children, I do not believe that the power which the Constitution confers upon me as a judge entitles me to deny legal effect to laws that (in my view) infringe upon what is (in my view) that unenumerated right.
Now, I understand that it's really hard for you to understand what Scalia is saying. But his comment completely destroys your position.
There is no "rewrite" of the 9th. -- -- Our rights to life, liberty, or property [substantive rights] can not be infringed upon, -- they can only reasonably regulated with due process of law.
There absolutely is a rewrite of the 9th. The 9th itself does not confer substantive rights, it's merely a rule of construction.
Sure I do. -- It's very strange that you think it's a valid way to make your point though.
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, well....
And I was referring to due process, as anyone can read.
If you were, you only prove my point on retardation, as I was talking about the 9th Amendment. You were the one who went off on a "Due Process" tangent for no reason.
I doubt it, seeing that he thought:
" -- `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . "
"Fornication" laws are the epitome of "-- arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints --"
Again, you prove my point about retardation. In the VERY OPINION THAT YOU ARE QUOTING, JUSTICE HARLAN STATES THAT LAWS AGAINST ADULTERY, FORNICATION, AND HOMOSEXUALITY are valid.
You invoked him, he stated it, your stuck with his opinion.
Yet the very inclusion of the category of morality among state concerns indicates that society is not limited in its objects only to the physical well-being of the community, [367 U.S. 497, 546] but has traditionally concerned itself with the moral soundness of its people as well. Indeed to attempt a line between public behavior and that which is purely consensual or solitary would be to withdraw from community concern a range of subjects with which every society in civilized times has found it necessary to deal. The laws regarding marriage which provide both when the sexual powers may be used and the legal and societal context in which children are born and brought up, as well as laws forbidding adultery, fornication and homosexual practices which express the negative of the proposition, confining sexuality to lawful marriage, form a pattern so deeply pressed into the substance of our social life that any Constitutional doctrine in this area must build upon that basis. Compare McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 . Adultery, homosexuality and the like are sexual intimacies which the State forbids altogether, but the intimacy of husband and wife is necessarily an essential and accepted feature of the institution of marriage, an institution which the State not only must allow, but which always and in every age it has fostered and protected. It is one thing when the State exerts its power either to forbid extra-marital sexuality altogether, or to say who may marry, but it is quite another when, having acknowledged a marriage and the intimacies inherent in it, it undertakes to regulate by means of the criminal law the details of that intimacy. ..."[T]he family . . . is not beyond regulation," Prince v. Massachusetts, supra, and it would be an absurdity to suggest either that offenses may not be committed in the bosom of the family or that the home can be made a sanctuary for crime. The right of privacy most manifestly is not an absolute. Thus, I would not suggest that adultery, homosexuality, fornication and incest are immune from criminal enquiry, however privately practiced. So much [367 U.S. 497, 553] has been explicitly recognized in acknowledging the State's rightful concern for its people's moral welfare. Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961) (Harlan, J Dissenting).
He can't be any more clear. I realize that you don't have a law degree, and that you probably just cut and pasted a small portion of Justice Harlan's opinion that some libertine buddy gave you, but if you read what Justice Harlan actually wrote, (Here is a link for you: caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=367&invol=497) You will see that he would have upheld the Fornication laws in question here.
Instead of repeating your talking points after you get caught, why don't you try addressing what others write?
You 'caught' me? Doing what?
I was the one who pointed out that it's you libertine wackos that wanted judges to retain power, instead of the people through their elected representatives.
Whatever. You are so positive that everyone but you is a 'wacko', and that you can say anything to make a point, -- that there is little or no point in attempting to reason with you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scalia's quote is copied as it appears in Findlaw, ellipses & all. Your personal attacks are unwarranted.
No, Unedited Scalia's comment is thus: In my view, a right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children is among the "unalienable Rights" with which the Declaration of Independence proclaims "all Men … are endowed by their Creator." And in my view that right is also among the "othe[r] [rights] retained by the people" which the Ninth Amendment says the Constitution's enumeration of rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage." The Declaration of Independence, however, is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts; and the Constitution's refusal to "deny or disparage" other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges' list against laws duly enacted by the people. Consequently, while I would think it entirely compatible with the commitment to representative democracy set forth in the founding documents to argue, in legislative chambers or in electoral campaigns, that the state has no power to interfere with parents' authority over the rearing of their children, I do not believe that the power which the Constitution confers upon me as a judge entitles me to deny legal effect to laws that (in my view) infringe upon what is (in my view) that unenumerated right.
How odd. That's exactly as I quoted him.
Now, I understand that it's really hard for you to understand what Scalia is saying. But his comment completely destroys your position.
Not at all. You misunderstand Scalia. --- His 'bold' position is that he has no power to "deny legal effect to laws that (in my view) infringe upon what is (in my view) that unenumerated right." -- Quite true, he has no power to so deny.. He only has the job to make decisions on the constitutionality of such laws. The other branches have the power to change or enforce such laws.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is no "rewrite" of the 9th. -- -- Our rights to life, liberty, or property [substantive rights] can not be infringed upon, -- they can only reasonably regulated with due process of law.
There absolutely is a rewrite of the 9th.
Where? In your mind?
The 9th itself does not confer substantive rights, it's merely a rule of construction.
"-- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.. --"
Like the right to breath air, which is substantive enough.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" -- `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property;
the freedom of speech, press, and religion;
the right to keep and bear arms;
the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.
It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . "
"Fornication" laws are the epitome of "-- arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints --"
In the VERY OPINION THAT YOU ARE QUOTING, JUSTICE HARLAN STATES THAT LAWS AGAINST ADULTERY, FORNICATION, AND HOMOSEXUALITY are valid.
Nope, not valid.. -- They are "-- arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints --" unless they can be shown to meet reasonable standards that do not violate due process, depriving people of life, liberty, or property.
You invoked him, he stated it, your stuck with his opinion.
I'm quite happy with his opinion.
He can't be any more clear. I realize that you don't have a law degree, and that you probably just cut and pasted a small portion of Justice Harlan's opinion that some libertine buddy gave you, but if you read what Justice Harlan actually wrote You will see that he would have upheld the Fornication laws in question here.
I don't 'see' that at all. You see it because you want States to have the power to prohibit. Our liberties cannot be prohibited:
" -- `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property;
the freedom of speech, press, and religion;
the right to keep and bear arms;
the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.
It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . "