Replies

So you want to turn our Constitution into one with millions of amendments?

Amendment 678: Eating of broccoli shall not be required at dinner time. [in response to the state of Oregon passing such a law]

It's ridiculous. The presumption is that we have personal liberty. That's what the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and our form of government presume. Without a compelling interest by the state, personal liberty is sacred and inalienable.

I'm not talking about abortion or marriage or child porn or anything else the state can show a compelling interest in regulating. The reason for the Texas law was "just because." That's it. There is no good reason for the government to get involved. Non-commercial sodomy by consenting adults of heterosexual or homosexual persuasion-- by itself-- is of no compelling interest of the state.

"Without a compelling interest by the state, personal liberty is sacred and inalienable."

It seems the state has developed a "compelling interest" in increasingly more parts of our personal lives. Seems like there should be a clear definition of what constitutes a compelling interest. Obviously common sense, decency and good judgement are no longer a reliable basis for administering the law.

I assume you realize that "compelling interest" is a technical term in the law, and that the Supreme Court very rarely recognizes a new one. Thus, it is very unlikely to agree with you that the instances you mention involve compelling interests.

No, I don't want a constitution with a million amendments. I'm content to leave things to the states. I don't want a federal pro-sodomy amendment or a federal anti-sodomy amendment. I don't want judicial activism on the issue either.

However, the courts, by their arrogant aggression against the Constitution, are backing people up against the wall. The state Constitutions in both Alaska & Hawaii now contain amendments limiting marriage to one man & one woman. Those amendments should have been unnecessary, but "liberal" state judges in both states "discovered" a right of gays to marry hidden in the various auras and penumbras (or whatever) surrounding their state Constitutions. The voters in both states then had two choices: 1) submit to judicial tyranny by permitting judges to read whatever they want into the Constitution anytime they feel an urge to revolutionize society or 2) amend the Constitution to stop the judicial aggression into the legislative sphere in question.

The federal courts are arrogantly shoving us around in the same way via Roe, the sodomy ruling, and other decisions.

"...There is no good reason for the government to get involved. Non-commercial sodomy by consenting adults of heterosexual or homosexual persuasion-- by itself-- is of no compelling interest of the state...."

The above may be how the flinty folks of the Granite State think. Good for them for their tolerance and open minds. Unfortunately, that is not how the people of Texas viewed the proscribed behavior in question. Quaintly, they think the behavior in question is destructive to things they hold near and dear: family, community and the participants themselves.

Irrespective of how the folks in the Granite State feel, Texans have the authority to proscribe said behavior. The SCOTUS, conversely, does not have the Constitutional authority to tell them otherwise. When it did it overstepped its Constitutional authority, thereby threatening the freedom of all Americans.