Posted on 06/27/2003 3:17:48 AM PDT by kattracks
One of the reasons that prostitution is made illegal is that it exploits (particularly young) women. In a true libertarian paradise, this would not be an issue.
That being true, you are making an ideological argument, with which I agree. But as a constitutional argument, there's nothing in the Constitution that is limiting this. If any activity within one's home is constitutionally protected, then there is no limit to it. The limit to which private acts are constitutionally protected will be determined by judicial fiat because the Constitution gives no guidelines.
Uh, yes. To put it simply, when the SCOTUS declares a law to be unconstitutional, they must write (essentially): "This law is unconstitutional because the Constitution says . . ."
Otherwise the SCOTUS can remain silent. I, for one, am glad such laws are gone and I would have been happy with a 14th amendment argument. But we've already seen that the 14th amendment doesn't mean what it says either.
You didn't address me with an argument, and your reply to me never mentioned 'privacy'.
What's your point?
Well, that's one of the surest ways to see if something is "constitutional", isn't it? And that's the Supreme Court's job, no more, no less. Inferences have to be debated, and when necessary, clarified by an amendment or by legislation - those other venues of government. The Constitution gave legislators and states, not judges, the power to amend the Constitution. In other words, the concensus has to speak, not a cadre of the cultural elite. And before it speaks, it has to deliberate and, hopefully, consider carefully the consequences of the changes.
As cumbersome as it may seem, I think the amendment system is the best thing our republic has for resolving Constitutional ambiguity, given the alternative is to put all your liberties, including the ones you think you've already won, at the whim of an elite cadre.
And don't think that the relatively clear, unambiguous language of the Bill of Rights is in any way insulated from their caprices just because it has a few abstract nouns sprinkled in, like "speech" or "bear arms." Should it become acceptable for a handful of autocrats to dream up and reinterpret rights as the cultural spirit of the times dictates, nothing is safe.
Show me where it grants you the right to travel or leave the country freely. Or would it be "constitutional" to turn the U.S. into the same sort of prison the Soviet Union was?
You are the one who made a mistake about what the Constitution says: The Constitution authorizes the federal government to act in some clearly defined areas. If the government is not authorized to act, what the government does becomes unconstitutional.
Nor is this a "privacy" or "penumbra" debate. If you can't enforce a law and stay on this side of the line in explicit constitutional prohibitions against unreasonable search, or meet the requirements the of obtaining "oaths and affirmation," etc. it is, at least, a constitutionally dubious law.
That's what I think ---all this should be at the local level ---what gave the federal government any authority to get involved in any of this?
People might think they're dancing.
Hmmmmm, good point.
I recall during the confirmation hearings of Robert Bork (who was rejected by the Senate), that Judge Bork raised the same issue, stating that there was no Constitutional "right to privacy". Of course, he was lambasted for this remark by the media and by the liberals -- who subsequently succeeded in "Borking" him....
And I would have to agree with both Mr. Bork and with you that you both are correct by virtue of the most technical arguments of reasoning.
So.... having concurred with you, this begs the next question:
If there is currently no "Constitutional right" that provides and guarantees "privacy" to the citizens of the United States, isn't it time to amend the United States Constitution so that the Constitution _itself_ becomes the statutory guarantor of privacy to the individual?
If we are continually worried (as conservatives tend to be) about government intrusion into our private lives, isn't the time ripe for such an amendment?
I, for one, would endorse and encourage a Constitutional amendment that secures a "right of privacy" for all citizens with respect to the government of the United States and the governments of the Several States.
Would you support or oppose such an amendment? Why?
Cheers!
- John
A Right to sleep in on the Weekends.
A Right to shower/bath in my own bathroom. Completely NUDE.
A Right to move my shrubs up front to the backyard.
A Right to rotate the tires on my truck myself.
A Right to wake up at 6:00AM instead of 7:00AM.
You get the idea... ;-)
It is clear in the constitution that states have the right to legislate behavior. Sodomy is a behavior, prostitution is a behavior, gambling, murder and drunk driving are behaviors. These behaviors are not less illegal if they're done out of view.
Where the behavior is done and whether it is discovered are not constitutional questions.
How it is discovered is a relevant constitutional question.
Information is property, as Mr. Gates has had established in our court system. Therefore information about ME is MY property. You violate my privacy, you are stealing my property and potentially costing me money from the potential sale of such information. Or at least, so goes the reasoning. This is also how the libertarians came up with the "fraud" portion of the "force, fraud, theft" equation.
An Amendment just should not be necessary as we already have the 4th, the 9th, and the 14th.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.