Posted on 06/27/2003 3:17:48 AM PDT by kattracks
LOL, you and the rest of the central government yahoos think it is your right to tell the rest of us what is right and wrong.
Well, I've got news for you KCmark. You've got fascist genes. America is a Constitutional Republic steeped in Federalism and you and yours are wont to turn that into a damned oligarchy.
You'll find you will have a fight on yours amigo.
Not at all. States clearly have the power to regulate public behaviors, within reasonable bounds, but they cannot prohibit private non-criminal consensual acts..
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.
Except for murder, none of those behaviors, if consensual, are 'illegal' in private. I can drive drunk, gamble, and go sexually berserk on my hunting ranch lands if I damn well please, as long as I hurt no-one else in the doing.
Where the behavior is done and whether it is discovered are not constitutional questions.
My private consensual non-violent behavior is none of your or the states business on private property.
How it is discovered is a relevant constitutional question.
Yep, why you or the state want to snoop, is indeed a relevent concern to lovers of liberty. Can you explain?
You're avoiding the arguments.
States DO have the right to legislate moral issues, safety issues, and so forth- they do it all the time.
but they cannot prohibit private non-criminal consensual acts.
If an act is considered contrary to the public good ��(prostitution, gambling, hanky panky with horses) the state can, will and does prohibit it, plus they enforce the prohibition of the act. Your short conversation with a policeman or public prosecutor will confirm my suspiscions on this point.
Except for murder, none of those behaviors, if consensual, are 'illegal' in private.
Now, tp, that's plain goofy. Every Superbowl Sunday in every city there's a raid and the bookies get hauled off to jail. "Where" they were making book is irrelevant. "That" they were making book is relevant. Same goes for the other behaviors. That you committed a crime but 'didn't get caught' is, to say the least, a Clintonesque argument (as long as I hurt no-one else in the doing --- dear me, I'll let you take this back, if you like...).
My private consensual non-violent behavior is none of your or the states business on private property.
Ah, a Libertine. You want the benefits of the community, you just don't want to share the responsibility. 'Nuff said.
Yep, why you or the state want to snoop, is indeed a relevent concern to lovers of liberty. Can you explain?
I don't want to snoop. Read up the thread, and you'll see that I am of the opinion that this case should have been tossed on the grounds that it was an illegal intrusion. I don't believe the police should have been in the room, and the case never would have come up. Having said that, I also believe the case was a 'put-up' by the left to force an agenda item.
If you look carefully at what I said, you'll see that I believe the states have the right- as granted in the constitution- to pass their own laws. If the people of a state elect leaders who pass laws banning trash collection on Wednesdays, well, the residents of that state have a duty to follow the law, toss the bums out, or move. It's that simple.
You have a right to do whatever you like on your property insofar as you don't violate the laws passed by those you've elected to represent you. You have three choices, as with the trash collectees.
Society and civilization need structure; the Libertarian utopia of 'every man for himself' is as ridiculous as the socialist 'cradle to grave diaper'.
It ain't gonna happen.
You ought to look carefully at who you're in bed with in some of your arguments, tp.
Bull. I reposted ALL of your comments and replied to every point. You have not.
States DO have the right to legislate moral issues, safety issues, and so forth- they do it all the time.
-- but they cannot prohibit private non-criminal consensual acts. The fact that they "do it all the time" is the very issue that made the USSC act yesterday..
If an act is considered contrary to the public good (prostitution, gambling, hanky panky with horses) the state can, will and does prohibit it, plus they enforce the prohibition of the act. Your short conversation with a policeman or public prosecutor will confirm my suspiscions on this point.
The "public good" does not trump our constitutional rights..
---------------------------------
Except for murder, none of those behaviors, if consensual, are 'illegal' in private.
Now, tp, that's plain goofy. Every Superbowl Sunday in every city there's a raid and the bookies get hauled off to jail. "Where" they were making book is irrelevant. "That" they were making book is relevant.
Bookies conduct their business in public. They can be, and are, regulated by many states. Hell, the state IS the bookie in many areas. You are the 'goof' if you can't see the relevancy.
Same goes for the other behaviors. That you committed a crime but 'didn't get caught' is, to say the least, a Clintonesque argument (as long as I hurt no-one else in the doing --- dear me, I'll let you take this back, if you like...).
Babble on. Pretend you made a point.The fact remains:
My private consensual non-violent behavior is none of your or the states business on private property.
Ah, a Libertine. You want the benefits of the community, you just don't want to share the responsibility. 'Nuff said.
Ah an absolutist. It's your way or the hi-way. Nuff said.
Yep, why you or the state want to snoop, is indeed a relevent concern to lovers of liberty. Can you explain?
I don't want to snoop. Read up the thread, and you'll see that I am of the opinion that this case should have been tossed on the grounds that it was an illegal intrusion. I don't believe the police should have been in the room, and the case never would have come up. Having said that, I also believe the case was a 'put-up' by the left to force an agenda item. If you look carefully at what I said, you'll see that I believe the states have the right- as granted in the constitution- to pass their own laws. If the people of a state elect leaders who pass laws banning trash collection on Wednesdays, well, the residents of that state have a duty to follow the law, toss the bums out, or move. It's that simple.
Nope, individual rights trump unreasonable "bans". States have no 'rights'. They have reasonable, - and limited, - powers, which do not include the power to make fiat prohibitions on property or behaviors that do no harm.
You have a right to do whatever you like on your property insofar as you don't violate the laws passed by those you've elected to represent you. You have three choices, as with the trash collectees. Society and civilization need structure; the Libertarian utopia of 'every man for himself' is as ridiculous as the socialist 'cradle to grave diaper'. It ain't gonna happen. You ought to look carefully at who you're in bed with in some of your arguments, tp.
I stand behind our constitution, kiddo. Who I 'bed' with is none of your concern.
All I can say is, I'm sure glad you're not in my HOA.
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.