No, it's the whole truth. Libertarians are cheering the usurpation of the legislative powers reserved to the states by an all-powerful federal governmental body. The federal leviathan has spoken through SCOTUS and the libertarians are applauding.
And they are cheering the gagging and suffocation of America on the excrement of libertinism--which is the libertarians' true agenda.
You misquote the Constitution.
The tenth amendment actually says:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The SCOTUS has said that what two consenting adults do privately in their bedroom is not within the power of the Fed or the states to regulate.
While I may find certain practices disgusting and morally wrong, they don't violate my rights or anybody else's.
The SCOTUS took a stand for individual rights - which is why Libertarians are cheering.
I don't know about 'the whole truth', but part of the truth is I'm laughing. At you!
Right. Well, actually, the agenda of Libertarians is to make pastries out of the blood of infants.
Do you have any articles or other citations to back this up, or are you just spewing as usual?
With all due respect KC, there's nothing specifically in the Texas Constitution about sodomy, but indecency with children and sexual assault are still defined as violent felonies. The Texas Constitution similar language as the 4th Amendment in its Bill of Rights (The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from all unreasonable seizures or searches, and no warrant to search any place, or to seize any person or thing, shall issue without describing them as near as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation) and are guaranteed equal rights (All free men, when they form a social compact, have equal rights, and no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive separate public emoluments, or privileges, but in consideration of public services) and protection (Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed, or national origin.) under law.
Had a married couple been found in flagrante delicto by the police when searching the wrong house, nothing would have happened to them. This is a right to equal protection under law and to be secure in their persons and houses.
Libertarians may be cheering, but not for the reasons you state. They are cheering the fact that the USSC has struck down a law that, in contravention of our Bill of Rights and respect for individual liberties, had nevertheless existed for too many years.
I consider myself to lean Libertarian (small, limited, well-defined federal government), and I'm neither celebrating nor lamenting the decision.
This decision is not a usurpation of legislative powers. It has always been the case that the federal courts can (and should) strike down unConstitutional state laws... unless you were perfectly happy with Jim Crow laws. (In fact, I don't remember you on that side of the the WBTS threads. I should ping all those usual suspects... they'd have a conniption if they saw you supporting states rights, LOL.)
While I'm all for a limited federal government, one of their appropriate functions is to strike down unConstitutional state laws (although it should be struck down in the lower state courts). Nothing gives the states the power to usurp the Constitution. SCOTUS has just declared that the Constitutional does not allow sodomy laws of this kind. I can see the results being Constitutionally supportable and consistent, but I would have though that an Equal Protection argument would have been far better.
My main worry is that this logic will be extended to marriage ("since two men can consent to it, and it is allowed when a straight couple consents to it, then it should be allowed"). My argument against would be that the institution is a religious one, and that the state can only rule over civil institutions. Then, of course, the states would create civil unions, and give them the same rights and benefits that married couples enjoy. It is coming.
What the majority is saying is that there are certain personal rights that no government, on any level, can infringe. It is not a matter of liberal political correctness or favoritism to one group, since you are just as free to dislike homosexuality and/or refuse to engage in "sodomy" as you were before. Because the decision expands individual freedom, it's a huge victory for conservatives. It limits government intrusion into our private lives.