Never said that Bill, what I stated was that folks who are under the mistaken impression that the Constitution in it's entirety, the DOI and every law passed by every legislature since the first in the US of A are not based on "moral concerns" are stupid. BTW, that was your word to begin with, I just went with the flow. Ignorant is perhaps a better choice of words but I'll go with your choice here.
Now I'd be happy to debate the BOR's and their applicability to indivduals if you'd like but first I want to right your ship on morality and the founding documents of the United States.
Lets hear from James Madison:
You getting the picture here Bill? Morality is not limited to your narrow definition of it. Morality "concerns" itself with right and wrong on the macro as well as the micro scale. Wrong would be a government of unlimited power with the ability to confiscate the weapons of it's citizenry absent due process and just cause, be that government a federal, state or local one.
Well contrary to the revisionists of history the DOI was nothing more than a secessionist document, a list of reasons that the separate and sovereign states gave for leaving the British Empire. It holds no legal basis for rule. So you can toss whatever that means to you right out. The only document controlling these United States is the Constitution of these United States and the Bill of Rights
but first I want to right your ship on morality and the founding documents of the United States. Lets hear from James Madison:
Interesting. At no point do I see from those words an advocation for the general government to become involved in moral concerns of the citizens of the respective states. I have no doubt these men advocated morality, called for morality, and even wished for morality of all the citizens of the states but my point was at no point did they advocate usage of the federal government's powers to legislate morality. That was left to the states. And since you use Madison, let's see what Madison had to say in arguing for the Constitution shall we?
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.--Federalist 45Where did Madison say that power lay again? Oh yes, the states. Not Congress, not SCOTUS, not the Executive, but the states.
You getting the picture here Bill?
You getting the picture here jwalsh? Except for the explicit issues laid out in the BOR that were intended to limit the federal government only, issues such as homosexuality, marriage, abortion, etc. were intended to be dealt with by the states. Mucking around with the Constitution or the federal legislative branch to enforce your views would be, as I said originally, a foreign idea to the Framers of the Constitution