You argue against a right to privacy..
Not at all, I believe that there is an unenumerated right to privacy, and that the Founders would have agreed.
The question, then, is to what that right of privacy extends. Does it extend to suicide? Consensual homicide? We can all agree that there's a limit somewhere, even if we disagree on where that limit is.
The Founders would not have agreed that there is an unenumerated right to buggery, by way of an extension of the right to privacy. Neither do I.
That doesn't mean I think it's a good idea to throw out California's consenting adult law, or that governments should try to outlaw every possible thing for which we don't have a right.
However, on the basis of the 10th Amendment, that's a matter for the people and the states, not the SCOTUS and the feds.
Our general rights to life, liberty, and property encompass ~all~ of our unenumerated and enumerated rights that can be imagined..
Nonsense, rights don't come from our imaginations, they are unalienable, as they are endowed to us by our Creator.
To assert a right to buggery is to assert that our Creator has endowed us with that right. Those asserting such a right need to provide some evidence that our Creator has done so.
Fundamental rights, like privacy, protect everyone, 'morally' deviate or not. - Buggery is nasty sex, granted. But as a consensual act it is not criminal.
Whether or not to criminalize an act for which there is no right an argument for the Texas State Legislature.
Irrational, prohibitive laws are also nasty, in that they jail people for what are decreed to be 'evil' possessions or 'sinful' acts. Thus, such 'laws' are criminal in themselves, under our constitution.
Where does the Constitution empower the Supreme Court to strike down laws because they're nasty?
Are you really in such a hurry to eviscerate what's left of the 10th Amendment?
You argue against a right to privacy..
Not at all, I believe that there is an unenumerated right to privacy, and that the Founders would have agreed. The question, then, is to what that right of privacy extends. Does it extend to suicide? Consensual homicide? We can all agree that there's a limit somewhere, even if we disagree on where that limit is. The Founders would not have agreed that there is an unenumerated right to buggery, by way of an extension of the right to privacy. Neither do I.
That's your unfounded supposition about some very independent men. Did any of them 'bugger' slaves on the privacy of their plantations? If King George would have charged so, I doubt they would have meekly admitted their sins. OR even agreed that the colonial government had jurisdiction over their private lives.
That doesn't mean I think it's a good idea to throw out California's consenting adult law, or that governments should try to outlaw every possible thing for which we don't have a right. However, on the basis of the 10th Amendment, that's a matter for the people and the states, not the SCOTUS and the feds.
People & states [or feds] do not have the power to 'outlaw' non-criminal private acts.. No "However" about it.
Our general rights to life, liberty, and property encompass ~all~ of our unenumerated and enumerated rights that can be imagined..
Nonsense, rights don't come from our imaginations, they are unalienable, as they are endowed to us by our Creator.
The 'nonsense' is wordplay.. Strike out imagined and the line still means the same. - That rights are unalienable is not at issue.
To assert a right to buggery is to assert that our Creator has endowed us with that right. Those asserting such a right need to provide some evidence that our Creator has done so.
You have 'buggary' on the brain. It's a nasty sexual practice, protected by our rights to live a private life. Hyping the issue is sophistry.
Fundamental rights, like privacy, protect everyone, 'morally' deviate or not. - Buggery is nasty sex, granted. But as a consensual act it is not criminal.
Whether or not to criminalize an act for which there is no right an argument for the Texas State Legislature.
Nope, Texas has never had the granted power to criminalize such a private act.
Irrational, prohibitive laws are also nasty, in that they jail people for what are decreed to be 'evil' possessions or 'sinful' acts. Thus, such 'laws' are criminal in themselves, under our constitution.
Where does the Constitution empower the Supreme Court to strike down laws because they're nasty?
Word play again on 'nasty'. The 14th declares such irrational prohibitive 'laws' unconstitutional on the basis of privileges/immunities, due process, & equal treatment.
Are you really in such a hurry to eviscerate what's left of the 10th Amendment?
Its not 'eviscrated'. That's more hype..
States can tell the feds to shove their pork barrel money at any time, and regain political freedom. That's reality.