[counterrevolutionary]

So if a state passes a law banning interacial marriage, you don't think anyone's rights would be violated?

I don't think that anyone's rights under the US Constitution would be violated.

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. 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.

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.

[BikerNYC]

I don't think that anyone's rights under the US Constitution would be violated.

Then how do you think the 14th Amendment fits in with Constitutional jurisprudence, if a white man has the right to marry a white woman but a black man is denied that same right? How is that not a violation of "Equal Protection?"

[Hemingway's Ghost]

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.

Thank Christ in Heaven most jurists disagree with you.

I've been following your posts on this thread. You're a dangerous, dangerous person.

[tpaine]

"So if a state passes a law banning interacial marriage, you don't think anyone's rights would be violated?"

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."