[inquest]

I give up. There was a decision handed down this week by the Supreme Court that caused a wee bit of a controversy, remember? It's the subject of this thread? Hello?

Yeah, hello. You seemed to be implying that the Constitution has changed, without an amendment changing it. The ruling here didn't try to claim that. If the courts say that laws against sodomy are unconstitutional, then they're saying that they've always been unconstitutional, from the moment the relevant clauses have been part of the Constitution.

[colorado tanker]

You seemed to be implying that the Constitution has changed, without an amendment changing it.

Yep, that's what activist courts do, they change the Consitution without amending it, by finding new "rights."

If the courts say that laws against sodomy are unconstitutional, then they're saying that they've always been unconstitutional, from the moment the relevant clauses have been part of the Constitution.

That's what they said. But doesn't it seem a little bit suspicous to you that for 213 years of this Republic no court ever said sodomy laws were unconstitutional??? And how about the fact that when the Constitution, including the Fifth Amendment, went into effect, every State had a sodomy law but none of the men who actually wrote the Constitution ever said they were unconstitutional under the new Constitution???

This is just more "living Constitution" situational ethics bull pucky, which means your rights and mine mean nothing more than what five unelected justices think they mean, the plain language of the Constitution be d@nmed.