Replies

when the unwashed masses want to take your guns away, don’t go crying about your rights.

The point is, if it's not a guaranteed specific "right", then it's under the law, and the judiciary is not supposed to be making laws.

The right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutional right, unlike "privacy rights" or various other "rights" that have been more or less "judicially legislated" under the guise of protecting "life, liberty" etc...
The point is, if it's not a guaranteed specific "right", then it's under the law, and the judiciary is not supposed to be making laws.
568 -88k-

The 14th addressed our specific rights to 'life liberty, and property':

Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of the States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment protects.
[See U.S. Const., Amend. 9.]

As the second Justice Harlan recognized:

"The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.

This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property;

the freedom of speech, press, and religion;

the right to keep and bear arms;

the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.

It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . .
and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment."

The point is, if it's not a guaranteed specific "right", then it's under the law, and the judiciary is not supposed to be making laws

Well not quite.

Amendment IV

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

The question here is, is engaging in homosexual acts such a right? Was it recognised as a right at the time of the adoption of the Constitution? It's not like homosexuality sprang forth in the last half of the 20th century and so the courts have to figure out how the Constitution applies to homosexual behavior. It's existed for a long time, and the behavior has rarely been treated as a right, if ever. So where did the right come from? Was it recognize by English Common Law, or by the Constitutions of any of the then existing states or by the compacts of any of the colonies?

It's one thing to be against sodomy laws, say as bad public policy, and quite another to assert that homosexual behavior is the exercise of a Constitutionally protected right.