Posted on 06/26/2003 7:08:23 AM PDT by Thane_Banquo
Graet argument, well said...is that a Sir Edward Coke quote.
I knew you couldn't argue out of your hypocricy between the 9th and 10th. You're just like every other Liberaltarian I've met. No argument backed by law, only personal attack for logic. Thanks for not disappointing.
Just like Scalia.
2) The Judaeo-Christian tradition is just fine with me for starters.
I would much prefer somebody like you on the SCOTUS than numbskulls like Kennedy, O'Connor and the 4 dwarves.
And that's with prior knowledge of the fact that we see things a bit differently. From you I would get honesty.
I repat, from a layman, Kennedy's decision is pure crap.
Take the first complete thought from this sentence, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." What this means is that the people have a right to be secure. To do that they must be able to keep things private, or hidden from the government, and everyone else too.
The right is the people's right to keep things hidden and out of view. That's why it's infringement by the government was so restricted to probable cause and the testimony of witness. The unreasonableness refers to the infringement of the right, not the right itself.
That's the way the founder's thought of it. Without this right and the limit on it's infringement, folks would be open to all government demands to disclose what any individual's been up to.
The supremes don't really honor that right and neither does the government. It's the subject of the search that determines whether, or not, the right to privacy will be honored. In the case of abortion, the Supremes have said it can be done, because the it's a private matter. Yet, if someone pisses me off and I hire a killer to cut him up in small pieces and feed him to the fishes(all a private matter), the Supremes won't give me the time of day. Also they won't dump a gun registration and ballistic finger print on that ground and the 5th Amend. They pick and choose to order the world to their vision, that's it.
The right to privacy does not provide for the overruling of any law, except for those that provide for an erosion of the Constitutional limit placed on the infringement of that right.
You are way too smart to be so gullible where Torie is concerned. He is a faker, big time. You should have read his "I'd like to thank the Academy" post just because Jonah Goldberg wrote a cave-in column on gay issues the other day. He is the most inconsistent (read: lying) post on FR.
Oh well. Your statement just amazes me.
There is no such risk with consensual gay sex.
True, but there are other risks to public health, risks that extend way beyond any "product" of an incestuous union. Not to mention the risks to the public purse when those risks manifest themselves, and under "equal protection" we the taxpayers, will have to pay for the treatment and sustainment of the doomed individual(s).
Besides who are we to say that a deformed and/or mentally retarded kid is "generally undesirable"? </ sarcasm
They weren't unconsitutional then, now they are. It's called the amendment process. It's specified in Article V, which in fact prohibited certain sections from being amended, one of which was a Constitutional provision restricting Congress from prohibiting the importation of slaves until 1808. Slavery was legal, which is not to say that it was moral or right, under the Constitution as originally passed.
It is also a contract with and via the state. Ever hear of a "marriage license"? Or "By the powers invested in me by God AND THE STATE OF ****"? That's a relatively recent deal, designed to protect the public health originally. It's why some states require blood tests before issueance of a license, or used to at any rate. They even had "waiting periods".
A sad day for America as the rest of us are forced by SCOTUS federal leviathan fiat to embrace an inceasingly coarse and anti-traditional family environment.
The harm was done to the culture long ago when these Puritanical laws were passed. Today we're just starting to repair the damage.
Sure, but it not just dogs. My Dad raised pigeons and bantam chickens. Breeding father to daughter and son to mother is pretty routine...you just kill the undesirable offspring, which is what some cultures have done with undesirable human offspring as well. Ever hear of a "squab knife"? (Used not just for killing the culls, but also because some twisted people actually like to eat squab.(baby pidgeon)) Often the culls were allowed to grow to conventional eating size. Dad would donate them, both pidgeons and chickens, to needy senior citizens in the area. They were quite glad to get them.
I agree, and I was surprised to hear a Supreme Court Justice come out with something like that.
Did you actually read Thomas' dissent? It's short and follows:
I join Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today "is ... uncommonly silly." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.
Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to "decide cases 'agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.' " Id., at 530. And, just like Justice Stewart, I "can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy," ibid., or as the Court terms it today, the "liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions," ante, at 1.
Doesn't seem so "far right", to me.
If the 14th saves the RKBA, it won't be through the due process clause, but rather the "priveleges and immunities" clause. Due process doesn't relate to the drafting of the law itself, that is the central prohibition of the law, but rather the provisions for enforcement. It is supposed to mean non arbitrary, with protections for the accused to challenge the evidence. It really doesn't say anything about the underlying offense. The courts have ruled (5th circuit in Emerson) that the RKBA may be restricted via the "Due process" of boilerplate language in a divorce proceeding. Only fundamental rights are not subject to infringement, even with due process. Thus the fifth circuit ruled that the RKBA is not a fundamental right, even if it is an individual one. To be fair the 5th circuit, I think they were trying to get the case to the Supreme Court, but the SC denied certori.
Under due process, you can be sent to prison by a jury of your peers for exercising a fundamental Constitutionally protecte right.
I've read today's decision, skimmed it at least, and I have trouble disagreeing with most of Scalia's dissenting opinion. And none at all with Thomas' concurrance in that dissent. All from a logical point of view that is.
That law was probably invalidated by today's decision. Maybe you could be the test case in your state?
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.