Posted on 02/21/2002 12:36:24 PM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:39:43 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
BOSTON (AP) -- Massachusetts' highest court on Thursday upheld two anti-sodomy laws but limited enforcement to cases when specific sex acts occurred in public or weren't consensual.
Gay activists said the Supreme Judicial Court ruling clarified for the first time that anti-sodomy laws don't apply to private, consensual sex.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
But there is a 3rd more sensible way for inherent rights to be determined which takes into account the fact that government officers and citizen jurors in a free republic have consciences and you dismiss this way without addressing its value and logic.
Lysander Spooner explained it best in Trial by Jury (1852):
"In a representative government, there is no absurdity or contradiction, nor any arraying of the people against themselves, in requiring that the statutes or enactments of the government shall pass the ordeal of any number of separate tribunals, before it shall be determined that they are to have the force of laws.
"Our American constitutions have provided five of these separate tribunals, to wit, representatives, senate, executive, jury and judges; and have made it necessary that each enactment shall pass the ordeal of all of all these separate tribunals, before its authority can be established by the punishment of those who choose to transgress it.
"The executive has a qualified veto upon the passage of laws, in most of our governments, and an absolute veto, in all of them, upon the execution of any laws which he deems unconstitutional; because his oath to support the constitution(as he understands it) forbids him to execute any law that he deems unconstitutional."
No, no, no. If a law is offensive to the plain language of the Constitution (or a state constitution), it should not be enforced by the executive or by juries, and should be overturned by judges. No one is talking about blind obedience. And constitutions can be amended to further restrict the powers of legislatures.
But there is a 3rd more sensible way for inherent rights to be determined which takes into account the fact that government officers and citizen jurors in a free republic have consciences and you dismiss this way without addressing its value and logic.
Sorry, but I will not allow that the conscience of a single individual should have primacy over the considered opinion of the assembled representives of the people. In a world where Bill Clinton can be twice elected President of the United States, we need to keep our governors on a short leash.
I don't think that anyone's rights under the US Constitution would be violated.
Good grief. -- That would be a direct violation of the 14th: " nor shall any state deprive any person life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." - Substantive -- [the essence of], due process is that a law must not be arbitrary or unreasonable. --- 'Banning' such marriages is both, and cannot be declared a criminal act.
Can you cite where a state has such power?
See, I don't accept this weird idea that seems to have taken hold that the Constitution was intended to establish God's Justice on earth. The people, in fact, have a great deal of power to do injustice.
Now, that is a weird idea! The constitution was to establish the rule of law, not of men. - [who 'do injustice'] - Bizarre turnabout of thought.
That is part of what it means to live in a Republic. If the people cannot be trusted with that power, then republican government is a failure.
Republican government? -- You're advocating majority rule, imo, -- or even a type of authoritarian democracy.
I also think that the fact that no one noticed this supposed general Constitutional right to privacy until seven Supreme Court justices said "Well, looky what we found in that there penumbra!" is pretty compelling evidence that it was never intended to exist.
The 14th, where the '7' found their privacy right, has long been recognized as fundamental to our life & liberty:
John Randolph Tucker, writing in 1899, eloquently explained the reasoning and intended effect of the 14th:
Though originally the first ten Amendments were adopted as limitations on Federal power, yet in so far as they secure and recognize fundamental rights - common law rights - of man, they make them privileges and immunities of the man as citizen of the United States, and cannot now be abridged by a State under the Fourteenth Amendment.
In other words, while the ten Amendments, as limitations on power, only apply to the Federal government, and not to the States, yet in so far as they declare or recognize rights of persons, these rights are theirs, as citizens of the United States, and the Fourteenth Amendment as to such rights limits state power, as the ten Amendments had limited federal power."
Hello? Did my last post scare you away?
I'll rephrase about Ca & guns:
"So if a state passes a law banning interacial marriage ['assault weapons'], you don't think anyone's rights would be violated?"
You don't think that anyone's rights under the US Constitution would be violated?
Hello? Did my last post scare you away?
I'll rephrase about Ca & guns:
"So if a state passes a law banning interacial marriage ['assault weapons'], you don't think anyone's rights would be violated?"
You don't think that anyone's rights under the US Constitution would be violated?
This is, as you pointed out, a hypothetical question. Nonetheless, you need to define your terms.
What is 'incest?' In Massachusetts they just changed the law because previously only intercourse was against the law; now they've added oral sex, etc. And how closely related do people have to be? 2nd cousins? 1st cousins? Adopted niece/uncle? Nephew/aunt? Step brother/sister?
And what is 'legitimized?' Some states merely forbid marriage between cousins, but sex between them is legal. Does that legitimize incestuous relations? Is it necessary for it to be criminal?
And finally, who are 'we?' Do you mean society, government, churches, or TV shows?
Since no one thinks the incest laws need to be loosened, it is moot point, but I hipe these questions show the complexity that has to be dealt with anytime we legislate morality.
How Clintonian. You know exactly what incest is. I've already defined my hypothetical several times on this thread. If for some reason that incest between adult fathers and daughters became the next sexual fad, would you deem it legitimate behavior? Yes or no?
You oughta be a lawyer. :-)
I don't approve of father/daughter sex. I don't know anyone who does. So that is a 'no.'
You haven't answered any of my questions.
Do you think there should be law against sex between cousins?
Should the government enforce the traditional prohibition on incest by criminalizing sex between cousins?
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.