[NCLaw441]

The issue, to my mind, is one of states rights and restraint on the part of the US Supreme Court. I highly commend to you Robert Bork's The Tempting of America. In point of fact, unless there is a state or US Constitutional provision to the contrary, we empower our state legislatures to make all KINDS of laws, some of which turn out to be pretty stupid. Fortunately, state laws can be amended or overturned, local authorities maintain a degree of subjectivity in the enforcement of such laws, and the people can demonstrate for change in such laws. Such is not the case with Supreme Court fiat on what constitutes Constitutional rights. Once created (or interpreted, depending on your point of view), these rights are extremely difficult to amend or overturn, and once they have achieved notoriety among their supporters, enforcement is virtually assured. This is the problem. Constitutional rights should not be determined willy-nilly. A little of the people's rights to self-determination is lost upon each expansion of these so-called rights. I prefer to trust those I elect, or to replace them as necessary.

[Buckeye Bomber]

Alright fair enough. I don't agree with Bork's point-of-view, but I understand what he is saying, and it does make sense. However, in this specific case, the 14th amendment is being violated beyond any doubt.

The right to privacy is not a bad thing, even if it wasn't explicitly stated in the Constitution. I think anything that restrains the government and keeps it out of my life is a good thing. A government that can invade our privacy whenever it wants to is not going to be a smaller, more efficient government. It is going to be expensive and massive. You think laws enforce themselves?