Replies

###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.

We're governed by the whims of judges.

I agree. There are those who see this as an undeniable liberty, an act between consenting adults.

I could list countless acts between consenting adults that are illegally across this nation and some which are illegal in most states.

The argument made hints that they will be made legal due to privacy concerns but they won't be. Some issues, the legislature will try to "legalize" for the sake of regulation ("legalize it and then tax the hell out of it").

>>There must be a clear violation of an existing constitutional provision.<<

Wrong. This was the argument of the federalists, Madison, John Jay and Hamilton prior to the enactment of the Constitution, but was opposed by the anti-federalists, like George Mason. The enactment of the Bill of Rights was a compromise with the anti-federalists.

If your argument were correct, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments would be meaningless.

Further, how do you define "liberty"? The Supreme Court say says that liberty includes the right to be let alone. Is that wrong?