Federal Privacy Notions

LRC ^ | June 29, 2003 | Paul Hein

[Cathryn Crawford]

Take a look at this.

[Dan from Michigan]

If SCOTUS says this was unconstitution, they should strike down all those stupid gun laws in all the states. At least there's the 2nd Amendment as well on that one.

[gcruse]

Commercial transactions seem to be regulatable (regulable?).
Personal interactions, see below.


The Georgia Supreme Court noted:

The individual's right to freely exercise his or her liberty is not dependent upon whether the majority believes such exercise to be moral, dishonorable, or wrong. Simply because something is beyond the pale of "majoritarian morality" does not place it beyond the scope of constitutional protection. To allow the moral indignation of a majority (or, even worse, a loud and/or radical minority) to justify criminalizing private consensual conduct would be a strike against freedoms paid for and preserved by our forefathers.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Statement: "Federal Privacy Notions."

Response; Simply note how the concept of 'privacy' is almost invariably used to cover vice, corruption, fraud and violence. If I remember correctly the initiation of the idea was by a lawyer whose father had been convicted of judicial corruption. Thus, even the birth of the concept is suspect! A Bastard born, if you will.

[mrsmith]

Every one who thinks the Bill of Rights wasn't written to limit the power of the federal government is ecstatic over this ruling.

I don't know how our schools have convinced people to turn the Bill of Rights on it's head to give the feds more power over the citizens.
Don't they even teach children that the Constitution would not have been ratified if Madison hadn't promised to amend it to further limit the new government's powers?
Are Madison and Jefferson no longer mentioned in courses on our history except as examples of mean white men?

The Ninth amendment has joined the Tenth as a useless anachronism.

[gitmo]

If SCOTUS says this was unconstitution, they should strike down all those stupid gun laws in all the states. At least there's the 2nd Amendment as well on that one.

Little comfort. In the Law School ruling last week, the Equal Protection amendment was specifically subordinated to a hypothetical need for diversity.

With this current SCOTUS, the Constituion is only of secondary importance.

[gitmo]

I have no issue with a right to privacy. It should be included in the scope of the 9th and 10th amendment. But the broadsweeping power of this ruling is ludicrous. I don't see why it would not as easily apply to incest, drug use, counterfeiting, or stealing cable TV.

[mrsmith]

Some might misunderstand that quote, so to put it in context::

"The Georgia Supreme Court noted:
The individual's right to freely exercise his or her liberty is not dependent upon whether the majority believes such exercise to be moral, dishonorable, or wrong. Simply because something is beyond the pale of "majoritarian morality" does not place it beyond the scope of constitutional protection [under the Constitution of the State of Georgia]... "

[gcruse]

Yes, for those who think this is a matter strictly of states rights, Georgia weighs in.

[foolscap]

I can't see why everyone is getting so worked up on this topic. The sodomy laws have not been enforced for years and will not be anytime in the near future. If two people of the same sex want to do nasty things to each other and they both consent then it's no one business but their own. It may open the door to gay marriage but I think that's coming down the pike anyway. There are those that argue that gay marriage takes away from the sanctity of marriage in general. Sorry guys but that was lost a long time ago when heterosexual degraded the institution with divorce. Marriage has become meaningless because people have treated it as meaningless. When the churches have a divorce rate the same as those who are un-churched then they have some housecleaning of their own to do. They should focus on that and fix the problem then maybe someone might be interested in what they have to offer. If gays want to get in on the misery so be it. It will be funny to see what their divorce statistics are in a few years time. The only ones to benefit from all this will be the lawyers.

[mrsmith]

Those of us who think the Ninth amendment prevents the feds from arbitrarily deciding between the unenumerated right to pass laws to limit sodomy, and the unenumerated right to have sodomy, have weighed in too.
That is the saddest part of this to me. I never knew there was such ignorance of the Bill of Rights.

Patrick Henry: "Well goodness, this constitution doesn't give the new federal government enough power over the people and the states!"
James Madison: "Well if it's ratified I promise to introduce a Bill of Rights to give it more power!"
(... excerpt from a modern history text book- I suppose.)

[William McKinley]

The court has opened a can of worms that it never should have.

They basically have ruled that the framers of the Constitution did not understand what was constitutional and what was not, since at the time of the enactment of the constitution, and for generations afterwards, there were sodomy laws.

If what goes on behind closed doors is protected by a constitutional right to privacy, then how can there be drug use laws, how can there be laws against prostitution, or bigamy, polygamy, bestiality, etc.?

But that was Santorum's point, wasn't it? Smart guy that Santorum.

The courts need to leave the legislating for the Legislature, and the federal government needs to leave as much of the governing to the states as possible. Only when there is a compelling national interest should the federal government be involved, at all.

[gcruse]

Ignorance of the BOR is one thing, traducing it into irrelevance, ala the Tenth, is quite another.

[mrsmith]

This has been a real eye-opener for me. Everyone thinks that they will get what they want from a living constitution- and the homosexuals just did.

I'll never treat the living constitutionalists lightly again

[StriperSniper]

But that was Santorum's point, wasn't it?

That is perhaps the most galling aspect to this whole thing. After the Santorum flap, all, including the leftists on the bench, must have known about those worms.

Then there is Sandy D, if one is going to strike that law down, equal protection is the way to keep it narrow. Since there was a difference between hetro/homosexual conduct in that particular law, it fails equal protection, protections.

Let Texas fix it was the way to go. This should not have been a Federal case. As Mark levin has been saying all week "I'm tired of everywhere I turn there is SODOMY! Over there, SODOMY! Over there, SODOMY! I don't care what anybody does, I just don't want to hear any more about SODOMY!"

This was an intentional case of expanding the rule of lawyers.

[DManA]

Hard to keep track. My bedroom is off limits to the Feds but they may interfere with my refrigerator and pantry with impunity? My girth is a vital interest to them but STDs isn't?

[ValenB4]

OK. I looked at it.

[Cathryn Crawford]

Would you like to COMMENT on it? Geez! It's even from LRC!

[ValenB4]

So you want me to READ it. You need to be more pacific.