Posted on 04/26/2003 12:28:27 PM PDT by The Old Hoosier
Something about "emptiest barrels" and "most noise" could be appropos here.
Yup, from Moses right thru the current day, it's been a "straight" unwavering line of documentation against sodomy!
All I'm saying is that you just quoted this thing passing it off as if it were some binding, or at least significant opinion.
I have never 'passed it off' as anything but Harlan's opinion, and granted, its a wise & significant dissent, imo.
In fact it was a lone dissent--that is to say that Harlan was the only one who agreed with this.
Exactly, - thus your point about "these three justices--O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souder--" is just more nonsense.
Check the above post. With no justification (he wanted to see the context before he weighed in) he declared that Thomas Jefferson was really just pandering to voters and knew that such laws were unconstitutional. I'll disregard his future posts since he demands easily searchable documents and then provides no facts to support his own assertions.
Homosexual sexual contact is what has been made illegal in Texas. It just is a matter of physics that homosexuals only possess the equipment for sodomy.
Homosexuals are not a constitutionally defined classification of people and there is no right to commit homosexual sodomy in the constitution.
Round and round. This scenery is looking awful familiar.
Keep trollin' lurky, last out the week and you'll have been here a month.
Ah, the threat of banishment from FR. The ultimate last gasp of a faltering argument. *shrug*
I've done no such thing.
Sorry, wrong again.
They did not ban the behavior for all, did they?
That's what the Amendment says.
If the FF had intended to create an Amendment that simply safeguarded our rights to own firearms, they would have just writen "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."
But they did not, instead, they created the only Amendment with a preamble.
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
the Amendment preambles itself with the fact that in order to safeguard our nation, a well-armed militia is needed, and for that reason, our right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
"The right of the people". Individual people luis..
That's what the Amendment says. If the FF had intended to create an Amendment that simply safeguarded our rights to own firearms, they would have just writen "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."
They did. The rationalizing phrase in front does not alter or modify "the right of the people".
But they did not, instead, they created the only Amendment with a preamble.
Odd word choice, 'preamble'. It implies a conditional preface.
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Yes, -- I can see it now. -- -- The Luis Gonzalez 2nd, as amended.....
"The right to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, as long as a well-regulated Militia is decreed necessary to the security of a free State.
Why Luis? -- Why do you advocate modifying our RKBA's?
How does this agenda advance liberty in a free republic?
Freedom of speech and political association have been recognized as fundamental American rights both nationally and in the individual states throughout our nation's history, in contrast to the "right" to engage in sexual perversions.
When it comes to drawing a meritless PC equivalence, your argument should win an award.
Your ignorance is as predictable as the tides.
Criminal sodomy laws in effect in 1791: Connecticut: 1 Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut, 1808, Title LXVI, ch. 1, 2 (rev. 1672). Delaware: 1 Laws of the State of Delaware, 1797, ch. 22, 5 (passed 1719). Georgia had no criminal sodomy statute until 1816, but sodomy was a crime at common law, and the General Assembly adopted the common law of England as the law of Georgia in 1784. The First Laws of the State of Georgia, pt. 1, p. 290 (1981). Maryland had no criminal sodomy statute in 1791. Maryland's Declaration of Rights, passed in 1776, however, stated that "the inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the common law of England," and sodomy was a crime at common law. 4 W. Swindler, Sources and Documents of United States Constitutions 372 (1975). Massachusetts: Acts and Laws passed by the General Court of Massachusetts, ch. 14, Act of Mar. 3, 1785. New Hampshire passed its first sodomy statute in 1718. Acts and Laws of New Hampshire 1680-1726, p. 141 (1978). Sodomy was a crime at common law in New Jersey at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. The State enacted its first criminal sodomy law five years later. Acts of the Twentieth General Assembly, Mar. 18, 1796, ch. DC, 7. New York: Laws of New York, ch. 21 (passed 1787). [478 U.S. 186, 193] At the time of ratification of the Bill of Rights, North Carolina had adopted the English statute of Henry VIII outlawing sodomy. See Collection of the Statutes of the Parliament of England in Force in the State of North-Carolina, ch. 17, p. 314 (Martin ed. 1792). Pennsylvania: Laws of the Fourteenth General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, ch. CLIV, 2 (passed 1790). Rhode Island passed its first sodomy law in 1662. The Earliest Acts and Laws of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations 1647-1719, p. 142 (1977). South Carolina: Public Laws of the State of South Carolina, p. 49 (1790). At the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, Virginia had no specific statute outlawing sodomy, but had adopted the English common law. 9 Hening's Laws of Virginia, ch. 5, 6, p. 127 (1821) (passed 1776).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.