Replies

"the Constitution simply does not address them."

Amendment IX, U.S. Constitution:

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

If I have to explain it to you why this amendment is the constitutional basis for overturning "sodomy" laws, then you do not think from the starting point of a "presumption of liberty."

Every state who agreed to live under the constitution had laws against certain immoral activities including sodomy.

You are suggesting that those states agreed to have all those laws overturned by the judicial branch of the federal government when they signed the constitution and the bill of rights.

They would never have agreed to live under that type of oligarchy.

These laws have only recently come under attack. The attack has been led by the ACLU and their leftist allies. Since they don't have a leg to stand on and could not get the job done via the proper legislative branch, they have recreated the intent of the original constitution, using the leftist, activist courts who want to rewrite the meanings and laws from the bench.

The population of each state that sent their elected officials to go to the constitution convention in 1787; who also gave consent for the bill of rights to become law for them to live under did not intend to live under a judicial kingship.

If someone would have said, "that bill of rights you are agreeing to put into law is to be used by judges to overthrow all your state morality laws, like your anti-sodomy laws", they never would have signed it in the first place.

If I have to explain it to you why this amendment is the constitutional basis for overturning "sodomy" laws, then you do not think from the starting point of a "presumption of liberty."

You are assuming that "rights" includes the ability to do things which are objectively wrong and against the natural law, like sodomy. None of the men who wrote the Bill of Rights would have put up with such childish drivel beign asserted. Perhaps you should review the penal laws then in force for homosexual acts?

I fear you have little understanding of what "rights" and "liberties" are. That makes you quite ill-equipped to try to teach others about them.

I think your conception of the federal government is somehow inverted; the relevant question is where does the federal government get the power to step in and override state sodomy laws.

All of these limited power/privacy things are good arguments, but they are good arguments to make to State legislatures, not Supreme Court justices who shouldn't be mucking around with State laws in the first place absent some compelling Constitutional reason to do so. The Supreme Court is the one exercising government power here, even if it's power to stop another government from exercising power.