[P-Marlowe]

I am an attorney and I have studied the Roe decision and read every word of it several times. The Roe decision was bad. It set a very bad precedent.

I have read this decision. There is language in this decision that essentially takes away the power of the states as well as congress to pass reasonable laws and puts the power in the hands of the Courts to overrule any law they wish by claiming that because the courts do not agree with that law, that it has no "rational basis" for being passed and is therefore unconstitutional.

This decision has wide rangning implications. First of all, I don't see how laws against prostitution or adult incest or polygamy or even drugs can withstand the courts ruling on the issue of "privacy." Further anytime there is a law that reflects religious traditions, the courts now have a new tool (other than the so-called "separation" clause) to attack it; they can merely claim that the law in question encroaches upon someome's right to privacy or some other dreamed up right and then note that since it was passed for an "irrational reason" -- i.e., it promotes someone's irrational religious beliefs (and of course all religious beliefs are irrational in the court's eyes), it is therefore unconstitutional.

The courts have stolen the constitutional legislative power from the states and from the people. We are now effectively ruled by an appointed aristocracy of nine overly-educated snobs with law degrees who think they know better than you.

If that is not a dangerous situation, then I don't know what is.

America (as we know it) died the day this decision was published. Read it. It is a manifesto for Judicial tyranny. Then weep.

[aristeides]

You have accurately described the Lawrence decision and its implications. However, all is not lost. Enactment of an amendment like the one the article calls for might be a sufficient rebuke to the Supreme Court to limit Lawrence to sodomy laws.

[tdadams]

The courts have stolen the constitutional legislative power from the states and from the people.

Maybe so, but it didn't happen with this case. You can thank Roe for that.

[tpaine]

You argue against a right to privacy..


Our general rights to life, liberty, and property encompass ~all~ of our unenumerated and enumerated rights that can be imagined..

IE.. It is doubtful that any rational person would argue against our right to live a 'private' life, secure in our homes and persons.

- Thus, does it not reasonably follow: - That we have an unenumerated, fundamental right to privacy, found under both the 9th & 14th amendments?


In the same way, we can find our right to keep arms in both the 2nd, and in the 14ths restriction that we can not be deprived of property without due process of law.

Prohibitory state laws against behaviors or property can not be termed to be 'due process'. - They are simply the arbitrary rules of a majority.