Replies

Sad thing for 10th amendment proponents is the fact its most partisan advocates can't get beyond the fact that they are most vitriolic about using it to justify silly bullshit.

Bans on sodomy, both heterosexual and homosexual, bans on miscegenation, deprivation of voting, commerce and property rights on the basis of race, and other political warts have long been justified by 10th amendment advocates - all of which are deeply antithetical to individual freedom to be left alone.

To put it another way, a legal principle which allows legislatures to opine at length about acts of homosexual sodomy can also be used to grant it a right to regulate the marital bed. I felt it all was pretty clear that the SC sees the Constitution as something which keeps government out of bedrooms.

Actually, I agree with your post. When states overreach by creating ridiculous laws of this sort, they set themselves up for intervention by the federal government.

Personally I'm not at all worked up over this. I don't think it really changes anything; those that claim this opens the door to same-sex marriage, incest and bestiality are completely wrong in my estimation.

In the end I think this decision will be inconsequential, except perhaps as a case study for legal students.