U.S. Supreme Court rewrites Constitution and 3,000 years of history

Alliance Defense Fund | 6/26/03 | Richard K. Jefferson

[colorado tanker]

Presumably, "libs" includes llibertarians applauding their flavor of judicial activism.

Unfortunatly, you are correct. I have had several interchanges with libertartians advising them not to advocate an activist SCOTUS as a source of personal liberty, because in my observation activist courts take away far more rights than they confer. But I've had no luck persuading them. If the SCOTUS again deviates from the plain language of the Constitution in taking away 2nd Amendment rights, I'm gonna have precious little sympathy for the wails of the libertarians.

[jwalsh07]

Amen brother.

[Travis McGee]

Animals cannot consent to sex, and neither can dead people.

If one may legally purchase a sheep to cut its throat and eat it, by what reasoning now can it be illegal to have sex with it?

Can't a "life partner" put it in his or her will that he wants his necrophile life partner to have sex with his corpse post mortem? Why not?

The man can decide to be burned to ashes after death, or donated to a medical school, why can't he permit his necrophile partner to have sex with his body? Please explain your reasoning.

"But it's totally different!!!" does not constitute reasoning.

[Travis McGee]

132: Well said.

[DannyTN]

"I don't need a warrant to peek in on your daughter while she's bathing. "

You better bring some really big steaks for the dogs and a bullet proof vest.

But she wouldn't be bathing with the window open anyway. What if old Mr. Gramson from next door walked by?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Amendment IX

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

My point being that while privacy is not a constitutional right, the Ninth Amendment makes it clear that all our rights are not listed in the Constitution.

I believe that I have a right to privacy, and if I believe that's my right, by extension, privacy is a right of yours as well.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"You better bring some really big steaks for the dogs and a bullet proof vest."

The first requirement is not a problem, I am a food broker.

The second...

[DannyTN]

"It was a stupid law that gae the other side all the ammunition they needed. Texas should have just simply made sodomy illegal for all citizens. "

I don't understand. I thought Texas did make sodomy illegal for all citizens. It's just they hardly ever are given evidence of sodomy. This was a freak occurence.

[Snuffington]

Like abortion, homosexual sodomy is not legitimately within the purview of the federal government, and legislation regarding both should be properly left to the states.

Obviously it should under the plain meaning of our Constitution. But even further, it doesn't belong with the judiciary at any level. Federal or state. This is a legislative function.

But look at what's happening. People left and right now practically beg the courts to legislate when they don't get their own way in the legislature. It's an ugly and ominous sign when the people in a Republic toss out the rule book and support the power grab.

[DannyTN]

"I believe that I have a right to privacy, and if I believe that's my right, by extension, privacy is a right of yours as well. "

You have a right against unreasonable search and seizure. You don't have the right to do anything you want just because it's done in private.

The Federal government has absolutely no business telling the state what they can or cannot do, unless the state has infringed on one of the Rights that the Federal Government has been charged with insuring.

Privacy is not a protected right under the Federal Constitution. And therefore a state can make a law that decrees what you can or cannot do. The Federal Government has no business overturning state law, because the Federal Government was never explicitly given the authority to do that in the case of privacy.

[Luis Gonzalez]

What Texas did was make same-sex sodomy illegal.

Then they tried to convince the world that this was not a law which discriminated against a small percentage of the population.

Texas defined sodomy in their statutes as contact between one person's anal or oral cavity, and another person's genitalia...they call this practice "deviant sexual intercourse" and prohibited the practice of it for same-sex couplings, thus iun fact giving their consent for heterosexual couples top engage in deviant sexual intercourse free of repercussions.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Privacy is not a protected right under the Federal Constitution."

Neither is owning a house.

What would you say if your State decided that red-haired people could no longer own houses?

[DannyTN]

"What Texas did was make same-sex sodomy illegal. "

So. The court's logic would still have overturned it if they had made anal and oral sex illegal for both homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Besides Texas should be allowed to discriminate against homosexual behavior, if they so choose. They are not a protected class by any federal statute.

[colorado tanker]

So, just what makes the "right" to gay sex so "deeply rooted" in the Constitution? On the other hand, I don't think I want you to tell me.

[DannyTN]

"What would you say if your State decided that red-haired people could no longer own houses?

Discriminating on red hair would effectively be racial discrimination.

What I don't understand is that the Supremes said there was no compelling state interest. If the plagues of AIDS, Hepatitis, and MSRV don't constitute a compelling state interest, I don't know what does.

[YankeeReb]

yes, but through the amendment process, not through judicial fiat with the Supreme Court inventing new rights out of thin air.

Oh don't worry, as soon as judicial fiat stops going the liberal way, then Gephardt (and one can assume he speaks for other leftists as well) or any other leftist who assumes the presidency will simply rule by executive order.

[bvw]

It is not a right to privacy. It is a right to complete liberty, in any activity between consenting adults the state cannot show a compelling state interest, where mere "morality", at least, no longer suffices to demonstrate a compelling interest. The rule applied is if a lot of people (not by numbers but by loudness) complain about a state law -- it can have no compelling interest. IOW, a compelling state interest only can include those nobody complains about.

Therefore taxes -- forget them! The state has no interest that people haven't complained about loudly wrt/ taxes!

The STATE is only allowed to give you free drugs, free money, free education. How they pay for it? Who knows?

Probably by creating a slave class, (using a different label than slave, of course -- slavery is illegal, so call it something else) that today's ruling doesn't apply to.

Probably white men and women over 35.

[CobaltBlue]

>>I think the legal doctrine that minors above the age of 10 or 12 or so are incapable of giving consent is a legal fiction.<<

You're entitled to believe whatever you choose but if you decide to act upon it, you're facing a world of trouble.

[CobaltBlue]

>>Children don't get to consent to be adopted by non-"nuclear" families either<<

True. That's why a court has to approve adoption. In Virginia, any case involving termination of parental rights requires the appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent the interests of the child.

[CobaltBlue]

Please read the opinion which gives the reasoning of the court.