SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

FOXnews

[Thane_Banquo]

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.

[Torie]

If I were on SCOTUS, which you are right, I will not be, one thing is for sure: my opinions or dissents (probably lots of dissents or concurring opinions), would be fun to read. Trust me.

[Clint N. Suhks]

EL GATO: Under the 10th amendment, the states retain whatever powers they had and are not explicitly forbidden to exercise. Where are they explicitly forbidden to exercise the power to proscribe certain types of sexual conduct?

pain: Where were they ever given such power?

Missouri, Alabama…

I see no such grants in state constitutions,

That would be the 10th.

and there is certainly no such federal power.

That would also be the 10th

Certainly, the colonies had 'sin' laws, but we fought a revolution to gain freedom from such arbitrary rules.

All of “such” arbitrary rules, like consensual incest, come from the 10th, why are you such a hypocrite?

[Torie]

Ya, total spam. It is like giving someone a hunting license to bag as many game as they want, anywhere, anytime. It is odd that the media has not picked up on my line of arguement here. Either I am missing something, or the media is.

[puroresu]

The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the people from having their rights infringed by the federal government. Several rights were listed (free speech, for example), but a concern arose that the federal government might assert that it could restrict rights not listed. In other words, they might claim that the listing of certain rights as being beyond federal intrusion meant the feds could intrude in areas not listed. The ninth amendment was designed to solve that problem. It says that the enumeration of certain rights as being protected against federal restriction does not deny or disparage the existence of other rights.

But you'll notice that the wording of the ninth amendment is entirely negative. It doesn't grant any rights at all. It merely says the federal government can't deny that other rights exist. Whether they exist or not is left up to the voters of each state.

In other words, the judiciary has zero authority under the ninth amendment to federally impose a "right" on the states. That's why it took constitutional amendments to abolish slavery and give women the vote, for example. The Supreme Court couldn't, under the ninth amendment, declare that a right exists not to be enslaved, or that women have a right to vote. The ninth amendment prohibits the federal government from restricting a right granted by a state. It absolutely does NOT authorize the federal courts to recognize rights not mentioned in the Constitution and force them on the states (as they did today).

And, no, the 14th amendment does not federalize the 9th amendment. That's a fabrication by "liberal" judges to expand their own power, and the power of the federal government. Again, that's why it took a constitutional amendment to give women the vote. There is no federal judicial power against the states under the 9th amendment.

[unspun]

The "right to insert one's penis into another man's rectum, before bringing it and its diseases back to one's wife" is still not something I find, either in the Constitution or in any other realm of sanity.

[Clint N. Suhks]

Ya, total spam. It is like giving someone a hunting license to bag as many game as they want

Good analogy...

[El Gato]

If it's intent is substantually violated, the constitutional contract is void.

The intent was that the states would be prohibitied from violating the rights protected by the first 8 (and maybe 9) amendments. That's been violated starting a decade or so after passage. Mainly because the Justices of the time, didn't like the 14th amendments restrictions on the states. They held that even the first amendments protection of free assembly and free speach did not apply to the state governemts, because those rights were not "created" by the federal Constitution. They found the same to be true of the RKBA. The former is no longer good law, even then only through misapplication of the due process clause and via "incorpoation" doctrine, but the latter is sitll cited by lower courts and of course many hoplophobe groups.

[tpaine]

I dismissed you some time ago for engaging in hyperbolian mopery.

Take this opportunity to get some rest.
The men with the nets will be out in force later, and you will need all your strength to avoid the booby hatch.

[Clint N. Suhks]

Several rights were listed (free speech, for example), but a concern arose that the federal government might assert that it could restrict rights not listed.

So why is consensual incest NOT "listed"?

[Clint N. Suhks]

Take this opportunity to get some rest.

Thanks for not being able to answer a SIMPLE question, hope your Liberaltarian patients don’t ask the same thing.

[jwalsh07]

Trust me.

I do dude, that's the point!

[janette]

El Gato, I just used your last mail to respond, I did not read the thread, but I have to say something



After following the news I want to mention that:

Americans, be aware, not to loose your rights to do whatever you want to do in your own home!!!!, on your own lot!

Gay sexuality is as old as the world is covered with humans!

In ancient cultures it was comman to have sex between males.
OK, times changed, but the sodomie-law is too old and laws should change with times!

People be real, are you sure, only Gay couples practice this kind of sex??????!!!!!

I don't like hypocricy

Flame me, go on people of FR ---- but don't forget to be true, or else, shut up

[oreolady]

I'm real late on this thread, but can anyone tell me this:
Now any adult can have sodomized sex in the park and not be arrested?
Anyone?

[El Gato]

We survived legalized cocaine and marijuana. We survived legal Tommy Guns

To be more precious we survived before cocaine, marijuana and keeping and bearing Tommy Guns, were criminalized. Tommy Guns may still be legal anyway, depending on what state you live in, and if you have paid the unconsitutional tax and jumped through the infringing hoops. A former coworker had a legal M-2 Carbine (full auto) and a legal belt fed 7.62 NATO machine gun. Never got to fire the MG, but the carbine was a hoot to shoot!

[puroresu]

Oh sure, you can name a few Islamic states that are sexually conservative and repressive, but that shows the beauty of Judeo-Christian morality. It produces healthy societies without repression. It did so here in the U.S. for decades.

Once a society becomes sexually libertine, though, it invariably becomes socialist and highly repressive. The European Union will be very "tolerant" of abortion and homosexuality, but not so tolerant of private property, gun ownership, free speech, and the right of the people to keep what they earn.

It just works that way. People who become obsessed with sex as a form of "liberation" lose their actual liberties. The rot their behavior creates in the society requires massive government intervention, and in fact invites it.

Do you think Teddy Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, and Hitlery Clinton support gay rights because they want to get government off our backs? Hell no! They support it because the gay agenda offers massive opportunities to expand government power.

Canada is another example. It's increasingly "tolerant" of abortion and homosexuality, and increasingly oppressive. You can now be fined there for quoting the Bible in a newspaper ad.

America's headed in the same direction.

[Clint N. Suhks]

Gay sexuality is as old as the world is covered with humans!

And why is consensual incest any different? Playing, of course, the abortion card and homosexual "adult" incest with hysterectomys and vasectomys or homsexual consensual incest?.

[puroresu]

LOL! Justice Souter would probably say it should be!

[tpaine]

The 14th is not fictitous. It may yet be the amendment that saves our RKBA's from the 'overregulators' among us. Reasonable "due process" must be used in drafting restrictive laws.. -tpaine-

If the 14th saves the RKBA, it won't be through the due process clause, but rather the "priveleges and immunities" clause. Due process doesn't relate to the drafting of the law itself, that is the central prohibition of the law, but rather the provisions for enforcement. It is supposed to mean non arbitrary, with protections for the accused to challenge the evidence. It really doesn't say anything about the underlying offense. -El Gato-

Not true.
-- 'Due process' must be used by states in the drafting of laws that could abridge our 'privileges & immunities', or deny our 'equal protections'.
The 14th protects our individual rights against all levels of goverment, and all prohibitive political schemes to 'legislate' controls.
If it's intent is substantually violated, the constitutional contract is void.
1,442

The intent was that the states would be prohibitied from violating the rights protected by the first 8 (and maybe 9) amendments.

8? - Maybe 9? Weird reply.

That's been violated starting a decade or so after passage. Mainly because the Justices of the time, didn't like the 14th amendments restrictions on the states. They held that even the first amendments protection of free assembly and free speach did not apply to the state governemts, because those rights were not "created" by the federal Constitution.

I don't think you realise what little sense this statement makes. Wanna try again?

They found the same to be true of the RKBA. The former is no longer good law, even then only through misapplication of the due process clause and via "incorpoation" doctrine, but the latter is sitll cited by lower courts and of course many hoplophobe groups.

Again, I can't find a point to answer. Maybe you should get a fresh start on this tomorow..

[El Gato]

You need to consider the 9th and 10th Amendments in light of the 14th. The 14th modifies them. Prior to the passage of the 14th, one could argue that there was a Federal right to buggery under the 9th Amendment, but that the restriction against legal infringement did not apply to the States. In fact, the 10th guaranteed their power to regulate such matters. However, the 14th changes that. Rights guaranteed against Federal instrusion are also guaranteed against State infringment.

If I understand you correctly, I don't disagree, but would observe that finding a such a right protected by the 9th amendment at the time it was passed, is going to take a heap of diggging, and probably will result in a dry hole. Sure the federal government had no power to legislate in the area at all, but you'd have to find someone who argued for such a right, or a provision in state constititutions or laws of the time, or even in English Common law, protecting such a right. It's not like the application of privacy rights, to internet communications, where one must ask the question "what would the founding fathers do" in applying the Constitution to such a situtation. They knew about homosexual acts, the state and before that the colonies had laws against them. They also had similar privacy protections to those of the 4th and other amendents, in their state consittutions. Those can be looked to. What can't be looked to in order to interpret the US Constitution are the provisions of the European Covenent on Human Rights, which is in part what the court did. The 9 th amendment protects rights "retained by the people", which to me says those rights had to be recognized as rights, not made up 200+ years later, and in part by an extra-consitutional foregin body at that.

[Skywalk]

Don't be ridiculous. Sodomy was never the main issue with public sex, be it homosexual or heterosexual.

I believe the relevant laws still apply to such conduct.

That you even asked that just shows how hysterical some people are about this decision.