Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: breakem
I don't think you're following the discussion

Wrong. You might read a good con law treatise. Tribe's a liberal, but he's written a good one.

You say the Constitution protects your "liberty" because that word appears in the 5th and 14th Amendments and the 9th refers to "other" rights. OK. I have the right to "liberty," a word not defined in the Constitution. What does that mean; who decides what it means? The nine justices of the Supreme Court.

For almost two hundred years there was no right to an abortion, but viola! the Supremes discovered that "right" in the "penumbra" of the Constitution. They may read the right to keep and bear arms out of the Constitution by adopting the collective rights theory. The Ninth Circuit said "liberty" means the right to assisted suicide, but the Supremes said no, it's not in their secret penumbra.

So now YOU say that from the time of the Framers to now state legislatures have unconstitutionally declared sodomy illegal, because you just discovered the right to gay sex in your definition of "liberty."

You advocate judicial activism and the theory of subtantive due process because in this case it would assure you of the right to have whatever kind of sex you want. Fine. All I'm trying to communicate is that the Supremes are NOT libertarians and if you give them these tools they will take away far more rights from you than they will ever give you.

346 posted on 05/20/2003 1:26:26 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies ]


To: colorado tanker
You have a sad misunderstanding of rights and what I'm saying. I have no "recent" discovery of gay rights or anything else. I have beleieved in the human right to sexual activity for over 35 years. You made up an argument and you have your facts wrong.

If you look to the supreme court or the constitution or any governmental body to define your rights, then you have surrendered part of those rights to the government. The government has a lot of power, but they do not have the authority to take away my rights. That is where we differ and probably always will.

Now if some guy wants to put his penis in the rectum of another guy or if two adult women enjoy have oral sex with each other, they have the right to do so. I may not do that myself, but it is their right. I may think it's immoral, but it is their right. I may get us all together to vote to put them in jail for doing it, but it is still their right. No one can take that right away. They can use force, but the right remains.

So look to the court or whomsoever for your rights, but don't tell me that's what I do.

353 posted on 05/20/2003 1:35:05 PM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson