To: RealEstateEntrepreneur
I don't know maybe I'm nutty, but THAT seems to be Scalia's argument.
People's property does not only include their car and house. It's also their own persons. They have a right to do what they will with them, with the exception of violating the same right of others.
Buggery does not violate my rights. Therefore it is not under the rightful jurisidiction of any government.
As for whether the state has infinite rights to make laws, just because it is partially sovereign...NOPE. Any law that does not conform to the supreme law of the land is invalid. Hello, if they made Jews wear the Star of David in Massachusetts, that doesn't make it a valid constitutional law.
If Scalia really is saying what it seems he is, he apparently has less understanding of the original intent of the Framers than I do. That's just sad.
22 posted on
06/26/2003 7:56:22 PM PDT by
Skywalk
To: Skywalk
If Scalia really is saying what it seems he is, he apparently has less understanding of the original intent of the Framers than I do. That's just sad. Yeah, the Framers were real big on buggery. That's why they included it in the Bill of Rights.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson