Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: y'all
You 'caught' me? Doing what?

Lying.

Any one that disagrees with you is a wacko liar? You need rest, monkey.

BTW: How's Liberty Post? I am postive that certain kinds of folks are wacko. And you don't have a reputation for "reasoning" anyway. Either here or on other boards.

LP? -- Thanks for the clue.. -- I think I see the pattern here. You're a disgruntled lawyer I've 'outed' before at FR, and then at LP. -- That you OPH? -- Just couldn't stay away without some kind of 'payback', eh?


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.

Sorry, I don't misunderstand Scalia at all, and I am not the one trying to make him out to be saying something that he isn't. But I do understand where you are coming from. Libertine ideology doesn't mesh well with reading comprehension. You libertines do this all the time, you bold one portion of a lengthy passage in the Constitution, or judicial opinion, and try to ignore what immediately preceeds and follows it. That doesn't work.

It worked. All you can do is sputter about "libertines".


"-- 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.

"-- This is not to say that no unenumerated rights are constitutional in nature, for some of them may be found in the penumbras of the first eight amendments or in the liberty concept of the Fourteenth Amendment and, thus, rise to constitutional magnitude.
1 Annals of Congress 438-40 (1789); II Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 626-27 & 651 (5th ed. 1891).
Therefore, this court is of the opinion that there is nothing in the Ninth Amendment to be incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment as the Ninth Amendment is merely a rule of construction. The alternative interpretation, which is unacceptable to this court, would be to construe the Ninth Amendment as incorporating all fundamental rights into the Constitution, although they were never intended to be rights of constitutional magnitude." CHARLES v. BROWN, 495 F. Supp. 862 (N.D. Ala. 1980)

You cite 'penumbras' and incorporation doctrine to support your belief that the 9th is "unsubstantive"? Dream on.


Fornication" laws are the epitome of "-- 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.

Can Justice Harlan be any more clear? He makes clear that the right of privacy is NOT absolute, and that adultery, homosexuality, incest and fornication ARE NOT IMMUNE FROM CRIMINAL LAWS, no matter HOW PRIVATE each may be practiced.

He's absolutely right. -- But the State has no power to write laws that 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.

Why do you feel it necessary to lie about the person you invoked?

Why do you feel it necessary to lie about the person you disagree with?
You've been using this same ploy since the first time you registered at FR, years ago. -- Pretty sad when a hot shot lawyer is reduced to pointing the liar-liar finger. Grow up.

244 posted on 07/23/2006 12:19:35 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies ]


To: tpaine
Fornication" laws are the epitome of "-- 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.

Exactly. I just read the article on the 16 year old Iranian girl who was hung from a crane for having sex. She claimed she was raped, but that only infuriated the judge who personally put the noose around her neck. All this based solely on religion. While we don't hang children here for such "crimes" as being raped, we must continually guard against the same mindset by religious fanatics who want their Biblical moral code as the basis for the laws in our Country. Mullahs and ministers need to keep their religions out of the Constitution and the laws of this Nation.

245 posted on 07/23/2006 1:26:48 PM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson