Skip to comments.
End of the Constitution? (Cal Thomas)
Jewish World Review ^
| 7/1/03
| Cal Thomas
Posted on 07/01/2003 10:45:21 AM PDT by truthandlife
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61 next last
To: truthandlife
y'know the repetition of "manufactured right to privacy" as if it were some kind of mantra really gets on my nerves. My right of privacy preceeded govt and the constitution and doesn't have to be manufactured by anybody seeing as how it already existed and nobody can lawfully take it away.
2
posted on
07/01/2003 10:49:58 AM PDT
by
agitator
(Ok, mic check...line one...)
To: truthandlife
![](http://movieweb.com/movie/vegas/co3.jpg)
Griswold?
3
posted on
07/01/2003 10:54:36 AM PDT
by
OXENinFLA
To: truthandlife
Haven't felt this bad since BJ Clinton was twice elected POTUS!
4
posted on
07/01/2003 10:56:49 AM PDT
by
SwinneySwitch
(Freedom is not Free - Support the Troops!)
To: truthandlife
Kennedy dismisses thousands of years of law, history and theology, choosing to rely solely on modern times: "In all events we think that our laws and traditions in the past half century are of most relevance here." Yeah, sure, Kennedy. Gland-driven laws and traditions rooted firmly in the sand of statistical morality will surely endure.
5
posted on
07/01/2003 11:00:28 AM PDT
by
rhema
To: truthandlife
We the People need to assert our authority. Impeach the U.S. Supreme Court!
To: truthandlife
"2Tm:3:13: But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 2Tm:3:14: But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;"
To: truthandlife
No surprise here becasue the Bible is always right, especially about the days we are living in. The last days of fallen men on a planet ruled by a fallen supernatural being named Satan.
Very soon a remnant of divine creatures transformed by the resurrection power of Christ, will transform His creation from earthy to heavenly, and Christ will remove Satan, and rule the planet inhabited with creatues like Him. If you say you are like him now, you lie, because you are getting old and dying. Christ does not age, because he has no sin or death in him.
Romans 9:
28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.
29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.
8
posted on
07/01/2003 11:18:06 AM PDT
by
Russell Scott
(When Christ's Kingdom appears, all of man's problems will disappear.)
To: truthandlife
The Constitution means whatever the powerful say it means. The Supreme Court is merely their mouthpiece. Alexander Hamilton pointed out long ago that the people would not defend the Constitution, and he has been proven right. No use crying over spilt milk. The idea that the Constitution is some sort of bulwark of freedom is merely a social myth. Grieve if you must, but we must go on. Face reality with courage.
9
posted on
07/01/2003 11:20:42 AM PDT
by
Iris7
To: truthandlife; Nix 2
Supreme Court decisions like this one also have far-reaching consequences. Griswold led to Roe, which led to partial birth abortion. And this ruling will lead to same-sex "marriage," because the court has removed from the people their right to create community standards for themselves. Same-sex marriage is indeed next on the menu after this decision, and the gay community didn't waste a second pursuing that goal.
Talking to Nix the other day, she wondered why no one seemed to be thinking about the economic ramifications of a whole class of new marriages. And she's right - there are far-reaching consequences of this, for example for the social security system.
10
posted on
07/01/2003 11:49:45 AM PDT
by
Cachelot
(~ In waters near you ~)
To: agitator
If the right to privacy is a natural right as you imply then the proper procedure under our system is to ammend the Constution to make this right an explicit legal right. To act as the Supreme Court did under Lawrence is usurp powers reserved for State Legilatures under the Constitution.
With one opinion the Supreme summarily removed from the State governments the right to regulate ANY sexual behavior. The Supreme Court eseentially asserted under Lawrence that State Goevrnments are too benighted to makes laws regarding these behaviors.
This ruling is an act of monumental effrontery and hubris on the part of the Supreme Court; it was also a legally incoherent and tortured legal opinion. It bespeaks of the contempt that elite opinion holds for traditional Constitutional understanding.
11
posted on
07/01/2003 11:50:22 AM PDT
by
ggekko
To: ggekko
"If the right to privacy is a natural right as you imply then the proper procedure under our system is to ammend the Constution to make this right an explicit legal right."
Seems to me that it would be better to reinforce the meaning of the 9th Amendment.
12
posted on
07/01/2003 12:06:18 PM PDT
by
agitator
(Ok, mic check...line one...)
To: ggekko
if everything goes as expected, than our descendants, this world continuing the slog on darkness road, can legally marry their pet dog, horse, or whatever.
I'll be glad to be no witness to it.
13
posted on
07/01/2003 12:10:32 PM PDT
by
Psalm118
To: Russell Scott; carolina_rn7
"Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes And clever in their own sight! Woe to those who are heroes in drinking wine And valiant men in mixing strong drink, Who justify the wicked for a bribe, And take away the rights of the ones who are in the right!"- (Isaiah 5-20-23)
14
posted on
07/01/2003 12:15:48 PM PDT
by
sweetliberty
("Having the right to do a thing is not at all the same thing as being right in doing it.")
To: lilylangtree
Simply do not comply! Maintain our religious
beliefs and principles.
To: truthandlife
Fortunately, these Justices are much older than me so that I will be allowed the satisfaction of, in my lifetime, being able to piss on their graves for what they have wrought.
16
posted on
07/01/2003 12:37:53 PM PDT
by
DoctorMichael
(Mean people suck! Especially mean FReepers.)
To: Psalm118
To: ggekko
The government calls talk like yours "specious legal theories." As far as what the Constitution meant to people in, say, 1830, it is of mere historical interest. This has been shown again, and again, and again. Getting upset over the whole business is childish.
18
posted on
07/01/2003 1:20:42 PM PDT
by
Iris7
To: agitator
y'know the repetition of "manufactured right to privacy" as if it were some kind of mantra really gets on my nerves. My right of privacy preceeded govt and the constitution and doesn't have to be manufactured by anybody seeing as how it already existed and nobody can lawfully take it away.There are two notions of privacy in play here -- the legitimate one you're invoking, which is central to the Fourth Amendment ("A man's home is his castle"), and the phony one ("Between a woman and her physician") that was conjured up to rationalize abortion as a "constitutional right" in Roe vs. Wade.
19
posted on
07/01/2003 1:37:19 PM PDT
by
mrustow
(no tag)
To: agitator
y'know the repetition of "manufactured right to privacy" as if it were some kind of mantra really gets on my nerves. My right of privacy preceeded govt and the constitution and doesn't have to be manufactured by anybody seeing as how it already existed and nobody can lawfully take it away.The constitution does not give six unelected old f##ts the power to tell the states what they can and cannot make private. As a federal constitutional power, it does not exist. Thus, as a federal constitutional right, it was entirely manufactured out of, dare I say, wholecloth.
Do you have any doubt but that the founding fathers thought state sodomy laws were constitutional and based on sound policy? Or that the post-civil-war congress (who passed the 14th amendment) also felt the same way. If so, why did both groups write a constitution that banned state sodomy laws? The answer (of course) is, they did not and no reasonable person can argue otherwise, without being willfully blind to the constitution and the historic record.
It took 230 years for six old f##ts to make-up the right of Sodomy (or the right of "privacy" for the squeamish who need nice euphemisms). "Manufactured right" is a reasonable synonym for this entirely made up right.
And that's why the term "manufactured" right is repeated over-and-over. And that's why, for that use, the term is quite precise.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61 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