[CobaltBlue]

>>Doubtful, but that's really up to the voters of Indiana to decide, isn't it? <<

If that were true then the Constitution would not empower the Supreme Court to strike down state laws.

Everybody knows the Supreme Court has this power. What we are really arguing about is the outcome of this particular case.

[puroresu]

###If that were true then the Constitution would not empower the Supreme Court to strike down state laws.


Everybody knows the Supreme Court has this power. What we are really arguing about is the outcome of this particular case.###


They don't have a unilateral power to strike down any law they wish. There must be a clear violation of an existing constitutional provision. For example, a state can't coin its own money, or legalize slavery (since the adoption of the 13th Amendment). The courts were never supposed to take some abstract concept like "liberty" or "privacy" and then start mowing down state laws they don't like, using those concepts as justification. That's the problem most of us have with today's rulings. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the Constitution which says states can't prohibit sodomy. Once the courts start using generalized concepts to strike down laws, we end up with the personal whims of the justices being imposed on us. If five of the nine justices favor sodomy and abortion, but only four of them favor polygamy and prostitution, then state laws banning sodomy and abortion get struck down, while ones banning polygamy and prostitution get upheld. We're governed by the whims of judges.

In fact, NONE of those issues are within the jurisdiction of federal courts to begin with. Unless the Constitution specifically says a state can't do something, then they can do it. It's just that simple. It's called the 10th Amendment.