Replies

You ignore Article VI joe, which clearly says that States must support the US Constitution, "notwithstanding" anything to the contrary in their own constitutions.

Of course they must support the constitution, but the constitution does not say that the Bill of Rights applies to the states. The Ninth Amendment reserves to the states all those powers not specifically enumerated federal. The Bill of Rights was never considered to apply to the states by the founders nor by any court ruling for over a hundred years. Today it only is applied so due to the fourteenth amendment, not the supremacy clause, which has never applied to the Bill of Rights.

"Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority..." - Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Samuel Miller, January 23, 1808

We let fully informed juries decide if laws are repugnant to the Constitution.

No, we don't. "Fully informed" juries can do cute things like let OJ get away with cutting his wife's head off because they think there are too many blacks in prison, but they cannot overturn laws. Only judges can do that.

Roe simply said that State legislators could not decree that early term abortion was murder. Only juries decide what is murder.

Unless a judge tells them they can't because it's the woman's choice, yada, yada, yada...

Your libertarian definition of freedom is not "inherent" in the Constitution. The government cannot infringe on natural God-given rights. God didn't give you the right to kill babies, get doped up, or screw a hooker. Crimes are prohibited not only because they harm other, but because they're wrong. You may say the government has no right deciding what's right and wrong, but I say they do. In fact, that is precisely the government's purpose.

Joe wrote:

Some crimes don't involve the violation of anyone's rights.

Interesting. Can you explain?

Crimes are prohibited not only because they harm other, but because they're wrong.
You may say the government has no right deciding what's right and wrong, but I say they do.

In fact, that is precisely the government's purpose.

There you go joe, you've explained perfectly why you will never understand our Constitutional system.

Thanks..

The government cannot infringe on natural God-given rights. God didn't give you the right to kill babies, get doped up, or screw a hooker. Crimes are prohibited not only because they harm other, but because they're wrong. You may say the government has no right deciding what's right and wrong, but I say they do. In fact, that is precisely the government's purpose.

The government's purview of morality is limited to a damaging act done by one to another. To damage another is immoral. The damage done to oneself is between that one and God. For government to determine morality in this area is that government playing God.

The latter must be made by statute; it is not comprehended in the common law, which follows the law of God as expressed in His natural world.

The only entry into this area that is comprehended by a government is through its police power, which is unlimited but severely restricted to proof that an action is clear and present danger to the body public and proof that the statute in fact clearly remedies the situation. But, first, the statute must be permitted under the constitution.

And, again, this relates to harm done to another, not harm done to oneself. The steps government has made into self harm has been made possible logically by the welfare state, which makes all responsible financially for the bad choices of any.

If a man can compel the public to specific action on his part when he harms himself, the public can rightly regulate his private actions. He becomes a "human resource", that is to say, the source of revenue for the government. This is socialism and places the government in the position of parents to children and therefore, in a public scope, God.

God's law is negative, that is to say, that which one cannot do, with the implication at all else one can do.