Skip to comments.
'Scalia Constitution' is scary
Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^
| 6/30/03
| Jay Bookman
Posted on 06/30/2003 5:59:18 AM PDT by madprof98
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 261-273 next last
If we are indeed engaged in a culture war, Scalia's side is losing and he knows it. In his desperation, he and others wish to enlist the power of government as a weapon to repress a minority he despises. The AJC--like most major newspapers--provides almost ceaseless propaganda for one side of the culture war. (Bookman's piece, for example, is accompanied by an op-ed deploring Christian teaching against homosexuality because it makes young gay men feel bad.) I wonder why they fight so hard if they're so sure they're winning?
1
posted on
06/30/2003 5:59:18 AM PDT
by
madprof98
To: madprof98
Scalia, of course, disagreed. He rejected the contention that there is a constitutional right to privacy. And he is right.
I think there should be a Right to Privacy, but the way to insure it is by ammending the Constitution, not by inventing a nonexistant right.
I think the only reason a Right to Privacy is not currently in the Constitution is that it was inconceivable to the founders that any Govt. would even consider infringing it.
So9
To: madprof98
Bookman is ALWAYS scary.
3
posted on
06/30/2003 6:07:14 AM PDT
by
freeangel
(freeangel)
To: madprof98
geez... the tortured language and interpretations these idiot liberals use to put down ANY conserveative.
Scalia is right- and that fact that this moron doesn't like what he said convinces me more
4
posted on
06/30/2003 6:07:40 AM PDT
by
Mr. K
(where oh where did my little fishy go?)
To: madprof98
I believe that if it's not explicitly stated in the Constitution, then it is left to the other branches of government - the people - to negotiate. If they chose not to comment on it one way or the other, that's great and actually preferable. But if they pass a law, one can't always say that the Constitution trumps it and that it's one of the "rights" implied but not expressed by the Ninth Amendment. It's up to the legislative government to decide.
That said, I think that government is intruding in our lives to an extent that needs some sort of check. when it takes upteen millions of dollars to run for a simple state or federal congressional seat, then government is by the monied, for the monied, with favors returned to the monied. I think the "people" and the idealism of the Founding Fathers need a little breathing room these days.
To: Servant of the Nine
Search and seizure is the control. Illegal activity in private is not a right.
6
posted on
06/30/2003 6:11:50 AM PDT
by
Sacajaweau
(God Bless Our Troops!!)
To: madprof98
The author of this is so glaringly ingonorant of both law and even the fundamentals of our constitution that I won't even bother responding. I find it funny that he appeals to the founding fathers and their notions of rights in his lame attempt to say that a "right to privacy" exists. The founding fathers wrote the constitution and they would be shocked indeed to find out that they nullify local sodomy and abortion laws. Only an ignorant fool (as this author) is or an outright liar can write such nonsense.
7
posted on
06/30/2003 6:16:29 AM PDT
by
Burkeman1
To: madprof98
The author of this is so glaringly ingonorant of both law and even the fundamentals of our constitution that I won't even bother responding. I find it funny that he appeals to the founding fathers and their notions of rights in his lame attempt to say that a "right to privacy" exists. The founding fathers wrote the constitution and they would be shocked indeed to find out that they nullify local sodomy and abortion laws. Only an ignorant fool (as this author) is or an outright liar can write such nonsense.
What is worse is that he actually sites the ninth amendment!
8
posted on
06/30/2003 6:17:19 AM PDT
by
Burkeman1
To: Servant of the Nine
And he is right. I think there should be a Right to Privacy, but the way to insure it is by ammending the Constitution, not by inventing a nonexistant right.Seems like it would easily fall under those rights the 9th ammendment (the forgotten ammendment) says are retained by the people." The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.".
9
posted on
06/30/2003 6:19:50 AM PDT
by
templar
To: madprof98
"The Constitution just sets minimums," Scalia told an audience at John Carroll University on March 18. "Most of the rights that you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires." Scalia is a Harvard-trained lawyer with a keen intellect and an excellent command of the language. It seems fair to assume that he meant exactly what he said.
Of course he meant it. Unlike the author, Scalias apparently read the 9th Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10
posted on
06/30/2003 6:21:36 AM PDT
by
dead
To: Servant of the Nine
"Amendment IV
The right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
"Scalia, of course, disagreed. He rejected the contention that there is a constitutional right to privacy. "
And he is right.
Pardon me, but if the 4th amendment does not guarantee a right to privacy, what does it gurantee? Not that I agree with, support, or in anyway condone homosexuality, but the right to privacy in ones home is one of the fundamental tenants of the 4th amendment. As long as what one does in ones home does no harm to anyone else in society, their right to privacy should be protected.
To: dixierat22
if the 4th amendment does not guarantee a right to privacy, what does it gurantee? Not that I agree with, support, or in anyway condone homosexuality, but the right to privacy in ones home is one of the fundamental tenants of the 4th amendment. The 4th limits and regulates the way the Govt. may gather evidence against you for a crime.
That is not a right of privacy, which would prohibit the Govt. from making any laws against things done in private, presumably limited to those between consenting adults.
So9
To: Burkeman1
What is worse is that he actually sites the ninth amendment!So what do you say the 9th means? Does it refer to rights of the people not actually specified in the constitution or to something else? Why wouldn't it be referring to a right to privacy of the people? Or does "people" refer to a collective right and not an individual right?
13
posted on
06/30/2003 6:33:38 AM PDT
by
templar
To: Burkeman1
Let's see, which of the two (Scalia or Jay Bookman) has spent more time studying the constitution? I prefer to rely on the wisdom of Justice Scalia on matters of constitutional law over a know-it-all two-bit liberal writer.
But that's just my opinion...
14
posted on
06/30/2003 6:34:43 AM PDT
by
Russ
To: templar
Seems like it would easily fall under those rights the 9th ammendment (the forgotten ammendment) says are retained by the people." The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.".The 9th is a constraint on the federal government. It is not a constraint on the states via the 10th. An expansive joining of the 9th and 14th is a recipie for federal judicial activism like that seen in Roe v. Wade.
15
posted on
06/30/2003 6:35:58 AM PDT
by
dirtboy
(Not enough words in FR taglines to adequately describe the dimensions of Hillary's thunderous thighs)
To: Puddleglum
I believe that if it's not explicitly stated in the Constitution, then it is left to the other branches of government - the people - to negotiate.This enters the individual or collective right argument. Does "the people" here refer to individual (non negotioble) rights or to the collective right of the people, acting as the State, to controll the individual rights?
16
posted on
06/30/2003 6:36:17 AM PDT
by
templar
Comment #17 Removed by Moderator
To: madprof98
Scalia, of course, disagreed. He rejected the contention that there is a constitutional right to privacy. He wrote that disapproval of gay sex by the majority is enough to make it a legitimate state interest. The Texas law, he says, does not discriminate against gay Americans because "men and women, homosexual and heterosexual, are all subject to its prohibition of deviate sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex." That's like saying you can pass a law against being Jewish because that law applies to everyone, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu or atheist.
The author is right. That was a stupid thing for Scalia to state.
18
posted on
06/30/2003 6:43:53 AM PDT
by
GraniteStateConservative
(Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
To: madprof98
I would probably agree with the ruling IF it ended in the bedroom, but it doesn't. No sooner than it was handed down, homosexual sex offenders are released from prison, suits are being filed to allow them to marry and the faggot day parade goes into overdrive. All of these things should be of interest to the state for the simple reason that they impose on other peoples' rights. They are no longer hoppy having their own meeting places and carrying on discreet relationships in the privacy of their homes or wherever it is they once preferred. They want to take it to the streets, the courthouse, the church, the workplace, the schools and wherever else they can think of, thereby offending the sensibilities and decency of the majority of people, defiling the sanctity of marriage, and recruiting OUR children in perversity. They have a powerful and growing lobby in Washington pushing their agenda against the well-being of the rest of society. They are working towards legitimizing sex with children (NAMBLA) and making their deviant lifestyle a civil right with the same weight as race. How are these issues NOT a concern of the state? The perverts will only use this ruling as the go ahead to encroach furthur on the rights of the rest of the population. It is a tragic testament to the state of our health as a nation, not to mention a serious threat to our future and that of our children and grandchildren.
19
posted on
06/30/2003 6:44:09 AM PDT
by
sweetliberty
("Having the right to do a thing is not at all the same thing as being right in doing it.")
To: TonyRo76
I have to agree.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 261-273 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson