Post 96 is fairly long but can probably be fairly summed up as "there is no constitutional mandate that laws cannot be based on morality."
I would go further and state that our laws must be based on morality. I don't want a nation with immoral laws (of which I think many of our existing ones are.) I don't want a nation based on amoral laws, which fail to take into account a concept of absolute right and wrong.
The idea that individual "liberty" should be considered sacred -- something that may only be taken in extreme circumstances -- is based on "morality."
Generally, when someone objects to "laws for morality" they are objecting to laws against pornography, prostitution, drugs etc which they perceive as aimed at stopping self-inflicted suffering.
I think laws aimed at stopping these behaviors are often ineffective, intrusive and counterproductive --- and when applied federally -- completely against the intent of our Founders.
On the other hand, there are laws against these things which are effective and necessary, and are designed to protect society as whole rather than instill personal virtue. If they were to be removed our society would be worse off.
I was wondering if it was these laws to which you were objecting.
"Read the 10th, and the 14th, & try to understand. What you regard as a law for morality, I may regard as a law against liberty"
in response to Rat Patrol's post 96.
Post 96 is fairly long but can probably be fairly summed up as "there is no constitutional mandate that laws cannot be based on morality."
I would go further and state that our laws must be based on morality.
-- No. -- Our laws must be, and are, based on rights. -- Your personal beliefs on what constitutes 'morality' are immaterial. So are mine.
I don't want a nation with immoral laws (of which I think many of our existing ones are.) I don't want a nation based on amoral laws, which fail to take into account a concept of absolute right and wrong.
I don't care what you 'want'. And you have no 'right' that can force me to care.
We have equal rights to life liberty & property. - And that is, essentially, - all we need from society.
The idea that individual "liberty" should be considered sacred -- something that may only be taken in extreme circumstances -- is based on "morality."
Individual liberty is an inalienable right. Some consider that concept moral, some sacred. What real difference does the concepts name make?
Generally, when someone objects to "laws for morality" they are objecting to laws against pornography, prostitution, drugs etc which they perceive as aimed at stopping self-inflicted suffering. I think laws aimed at stopping these behaviors are often ineffective, intrusive and counterproductive --- and when applied federally -- completely against the intent of our Founders.
-- Yep. -- But we've already found out once that the union cannot survive if states are allowed to violate individual rights.
On the other hand, there are laws against these things which are effective and necessary, and are designed to protect society as whole rather than instill personal virtue. If they were to be removed our society would be worse off. I was wondering if it was these laws to which you were objecting.
You know my answer. If we allow government-society to dictate 'morality' as in the current drug war, as in former booze prohibition, the unintended consequences are far worse than any imagined 'protection for society'. We best protect society by protecting the constitution.