Posted on 02/05/2009 11:45:52 AM PST by annalex
There is always Emanations from a Penumbrashalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai;-(
:)
The former is correct. The latter (bolded) is morally equivalent to the view that law is necessary to create the New Soviet Man or the Perfected Aryan Race.
The intention to lead man to virtue is not a moral defect in itself, it is, in fact, another virtue. However, as one goes about this task, one has to (1) have a proper concept of virtues and (2) lead by moral means. The Soviets and the Nazis lacked both.
Precisely. That excludes statist coercion.
That puts a bracket on what laws are good laws, but it does not exclude coercion altogether. Any law is by definition coercion. The current system is such that law is something that comes from the state, so in that sense any law is also “statist”, although I would agree that almost any form of customary law is better compared to what we have.
Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection.The Wall Street Journal once printed an article titled the "Dutch Way of Death". The Dutch had a murder rate six times that of the U.S.
US 5.7 (per 100,000 population in 2006, steady)
Netherlands 0.97 (per 100,000 population in 2002, falling from 1.42 in 2000; more recent data not available)
List of countries by intentional homicide rate
This source has it 4.2 and 1.1.
Unless it spiked in recent years, stratospherically.
Nonsense. A law against assault, for example, is not "coercion" -- self-defense is not coercive, but rather the exercise of a natural right, and making it a matter of law is simply delegation to the state as one's agent for exercising that right.
Still, a murderer is coerced — rightly — from doing more murdering. The questin is not whether a law coerces but does the coercion improve things for the common good, - as I said in the post you are responding to.
I already explained that self-defense has nothing to do with coercion. When you become fluent in the English language, get back to us.
The right is explicitly acknowledged in the 4th Amend. The initial phrase in the 4th refers specifically to the right: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,..."
"Smith: The “right to privacy,” when originally formulated, referred to the right to have such things as one’s journal or conversations kept private."
This is ridiculous, since they explicitly included persons, houses and effects. The right extended to everything, not just one's journal, or conversations.
"In 1965, in Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court found constitutional protection for the sale, distribution and use of contraceptives"
Here's a summary from Wiki:
"Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention "privacy", Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority that the right was to be found in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections. Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment to defend the Supreme Court's ruling. Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote a concurring opinion in which he argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Byron White also wrote a concurrence based on the due process clause."
The only Justice to get it right was Potter Stewart. "Justice Stewart famously called the Connecticut statute "an uncommonly silly law", but argued that it was nevertheless constitutional."
It usually does. Attackers are certainly coerced by being engaged by an effective self defense.
"...fluent in the English language"
Try the word justified and consider the concept behind it. The coercion inovlved in mounting an effective self defense is justified, whereas the mounting of an assault, battery, or attempt or threat to murder is not.
It depends what is meant by “privacy”: it is an elastic law.
Surely, the 4th amendment establishes due process. Let us say a law against contraception is enacted. The 4th amendment will still not allow the cops to search for condoms in bedside drawers; but the prescribing, sale and advertising of contraception will be restricted or completely banned.
It is no different from the current laws against some recreational drugs, or against some pornography. The 4th amendment does not invalidate these laws. If the right to privacy as enshrined in the constitutional penumbras meant what Griswald decided, we would not have laws against cocaine, child pornography, or prostitution, all activities similarly private.
elastic law -> elastic WORD.
No. That's a job for the legislatures and courts empowered by the Constitution.
"The 4th amendment will still not allow the cops to search for condoms in bedside drawers"
It sure does allow it. The 4th even specifies the conditions required.
"...the prescribing, sale and advertising of contraception will be restricted or completely banned."
...can be. The right to privacy doesn't trump the power of the legislature to enact law. The right to privacy is only a consideration in police actions.
"The 4th amendment does not invalidate these laws."
That's right. " If the right to privacy as enshrined in the constitutional penumbras meant what Griswald decided, we would not have laws against cocaine, child pornography, or prostitution, all activities similarly private."
Since the concept is only a figmentary element of fantasy used as a con, only the con artist can determine what it applies to. They very well may apply it to these things depending on what purpose, or outcome they intend.
I agree all around; what I meant to say about searches for condoms is exactly what you corrected: that the 4th Amendment does not allow it without a due process, but would allow it otherwise.
There is, in other words, no constitutional right for privacy that would trump the prohibition of acts and substances consummated privately.
Right. Otherwise laws against murder would be unconstitutional on privacy grounds. As long as the jihadi cuts heads off in private...
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.