Certainly can and quite easily. Starting with some "Golden Rule" philosophy.
Alcohol was made illegal with a Constitutional Amendment. Back then they knew that they needed an Amendment to do that, and it then makes reason that without a similar amendment the WOD is not Constitutional as was Alochol Prohibition.
You make a GRAVE ERROR in thinking that the Constitution grants rights to individuals; it lists some rights of individuals and states, but restricts the fedgov, NOT the individual.
Third, vices between a consenting adult and his/her animal also don’t infringe on other people’s rights.
It seems you are making the case for beastility, not me. I thought that it didn't need to be stated that it should be two HUMAN adults!! But if you wanna screw your own goat on your own property out of view of the rest of us, I won't lift a finger to stop you!
Fourth, I am not sure how one can have a vice of something illegal. Can you explain that to me? I have no problems with people having vices. I have a problem with people having illegal vices and their wanting to make such a vice completely legal, when, in fact, NO OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD has done so.
To call gambling, drinking, smoking, carousing, etc vices is quite accurate. Some are legal some are restricted and regulated, some are taxed. Why should the US government be involved at all in vices?
Remember, pot was once legal while alcohol was illegal. This isn't a moral issue or else you have to admit that morals fluxuate.
You are the self-described libertarian. So, tell us what other liberties you think we shouldn’t have while insisting some currently illegal actions should be “liberties
You claim to have libertarian leanings but I don't find any truth to that statement at all.
IMO, liberty means that adults do as they please as long as it doesn't inhereintly infringe on the rights of others, doesn't involve fraud, initiation of force, or coersion.
The Consitution does not restrict individuals; it restricts government.
Government should not be in the business of enforcing religious views of one group onto others (Blue Laws, religously caused dry counties, etc)
Freedom is too much for most to handle; most can't handle their own and don't want others to have it either.
There is absolutely no reason that I or the government should be involved in what you read or don't read, what you may or may not ingest or inhale, what you watch on TV, listen to on the radio, etc.
So why would you care what others do in similar categories?
You are the one saying that whatever one does, as long as they don't hurt another, should be fine. You are also the one who claims this shouldn't be fine. Get your thinking straight. As you say, “...why would you care what others do...” in creating chemical bombs for fun, as long as you are never a victim of them?
It's funny, but you didn't describe how someone can have a vice with something illegal. I'll help you here: Maybe it is because they did something illegal and can't stop it anymore. Do you really think legalizing something that creates a vice so bad that it makes people continue to break the law is a good idea? Get real.
In reality, you are against truly against some liberties that never used to have a law against them (bomb-making, etc.) while being for something that is currently illegal and without positive merit.