[tpaine]

"The Supremes said the Right to Privacy supercedes state laws"
-sapap-



You argue against a right to privacy..
Our general rights to life, liberty, and property encompass ~all~ of our unenumerated and enumerated rights..
IE.. It is doubtful that any rational person would argue against our right to live a 'private' life, secure in our homes and persons.
- Thus, does it not reasonably follow:
- That we have an unenumerated, fundamental right to privacy, found under both the 9th & 14th amendments?
In the same way, we can find our right to keep arms in both the 2nd, and in the 14ths restriction that we can not be deprived of property without due process of law.

Prohibitory state laws against behaviors or property can not be termed to be 'due process'. - They are simply the arbitrary rules of a majority.
236 -tpaine-


AppyPappy wrote:
Wouldn't that apply to laws against incest and age of consent?


Nope. - Properly written, such laws would protect immature individuals from sexual predators, imo.
We can protect our young without infringing on our own liberties, pap.

[AppyPappy]

Your two statements seem to clash with one another.

Prohibitory state laws against behaviors or property can not be termed to be 'due process'. - They are simply the arbitrary rules of a majority. 236 -tpaine-

Which is EXACTLY what the Age of Consent laws do(it's a law against a behavior) vs Nope. - Properly written, such laws would protect immature individuals from sexual predators, imo. We can protect our young without infringing on our own liberties, pap.

I don't see how you can endorse laws against behaviors while swearing they are an invasion of privacy. It would seem to me that state laws are enacted to limit "bad" behaviors that affect society, like sodomy in public parks and restrooms.