There's nothing in the Constitution to prevent a state from outlawing mullets.
The state still has no right to do it. Get that through your benighted skull. To say that something can be done is hardly the end of the matter. Once you have seen that something doesn't violate the Constitution, the question is, is it just? Is there any basis in right for government to do it?
Your stunted political awareness seems almost perfectly oblivious to exactly this consideration, which is why you are really not capable of comprehending our arguments on even the most rudimentary level. You haven't shown any evidence that you are even aware of an alternative to the absolutist conception of the state. It is only to an absolutist who is ignorant that other political positions exist who can say this:
Tell me AJ, how do we elect state officials, we go with the .......... vote. Go ahead, you can say it.
If we were in a monarchy you'd be saying that whatever the king wants is fine, and it's fine because the king wants it. That the majority selects officeholders in no way means the majority selects natural rights. At least try to understand something outside your primative political paradigm: there are principles of justice beyond the power of the majority to alter, because they are beyond the power of any government to alter. Not only are they not subordinate to the government, a just government is subordinate to them.
No the individuals of that state do if it is the decision of the majority.
That the majority selects officeholders in no way means the majority selects natural rights.
What natural right is it of yours to smoke crack in a neighborhood that does not wish to tolerate it?
See the 14th.
AJ, you've outlined exactly why NO one will ever get thru a communitarian mindset, to explain the principle behind our constitution. Congrats.
This threads getting to long to reload. See ya all elsewhere.