Replies

According to this "party" and some freepers, the states have the right to tell us what to have for breaksaft, when to eat, when to go outside, what to name our kids, and on and on. When and how did people get the idea that the constitution's purpose was to list all human rights. This type of think is dangerous and opens us up to the worst kind of totalitarianism. Let Freedom Ring!

Calling it a party is a bit ambitious, doncha think? Its not as if they need much more space than a side room at Denny's in order to have their convention.

According to this "party" and some freepers, the states have the right to tell us what to have for breaksaft, when to eat, when to go outside, what to name our kids, and on and on.

Horse manure.

As a citizen you have the obligation to participate in goverment at the state level to create a local government that meets your expectations. If you desire a fully libertine state where men can marry their sheep and smoke dope at government expense, get busy and do the hard work of persuading your fellow citizens why this should be desirable and elect representaives who will design a state in this fashion.

Your problem is that you're you're bone-idle lazy and incompetent. It's easier to whine and ask nanny government in the from of SCOTUS to chew your food for you.

Citizens such as yourself are worse than worthless. You are a pus-filled boil on the posterior of the body politic.

"Waaaah! Waaaah! Please Missus Ruthie! Please Missus Sandy! The big bad government won't let me pork my boyfriend in the butt. Waaaah! Save Me! Waaaaaaaaah!"

According to this "party" and some freepers, the states have the right to tell us what to have for breaksaft, when to eat, when to go outside, what to name our kids, and on and on. When and how did people get the idea that the constitution's purpose was to list all human rights. This type of think is dangerous and opens us up to the worst kind of totalitarianism. Let Freedom Ring!

First of all, states have no rights, only powers. Secondly, the people of the state should look to their own courts and Constitutions to protect against such abuses by state legislatures and executives, although in this case those things were pre-existing rights or powers of the people, and their retention of them is protected by the 9th amendment. There is no right to commit homosexual acts explicitly protected, and to argue that there is a right which pre-existed the Constitution to do so which is "retained" by the people, is pretty silly, especially in light of the fact that such practices were illegal in all of the 13 original states at the time. It was not protected by any laws, state Constitutions, nor those of the colonies of England itself.

It's also pretty silly to argue that anything anyone wants to do is a "fundamental right" not subject to any regulation by the states.