Free Republic

response to 335 the states are not granted the right to deny human rights. If you believe they are please explain it to me.

You are begging the question again. You assume that Sodomy is a protected right under the constitution. Then, having concluded that, you argue that the 'states are not granted the right to deny human rights', presumably including your cherished right to sodomy.

An entirely circular argument--sodomy is a constitutional right because it is a constitutional right.

I'm out of here.

I referred to a subgroup of libertarians. Given your post, you are not one of the libertarians I referred to who believe that the US Constitution was written by Ayn Rand and it is her intent that we should plumb to figure out what it means.

Breakem:

You are arguing as if the founders had passed the constitution you want. They didn't. If you reject the idea of interpreting the constitution by the original intent of the authors (which you obviounsly do), then you can make the constitution into anyhing you want as long as you have a majority on the supreme court. Then the constitution means NOTHING because when your political opponents take your majority away, the constitution becomes what they say it is today.

This is a pernicious process that eliminates the constitution and the rule of law.

I believe it is your problem to explain why this is a government power and why you are willing to allow your government corntol of you or your neighbor's behavior in this area.

I will try once more. You are arguing as if the constitution were written by Ayn Rand. It wasn't. I'm not going to have a discussion about what an ideal constitution would contain because it is irrelevant to whether Sodomy is a constitutional right under the US CONSTITUTION. Not the constitution you would write. Not the constitution Ayn Rand would write. But the actual constitution. The history of the actual constitution lends absolutely NO support to your argument.

BTW, the state requires you to wear clothes in public. That'll make it hard for libertarians to conceal the guns you want to use to defend your right to dress as you choose :)

The Fourth Amendment enumerates a right to be secure in one's person, papers, and effects. It represents a broad right to freedom from government intrusion into one's private affairs without just cause. And consensual sex in one's own bedroom is about as private an affair as you can name.

My perspective is that the constitution needs to be interpreted according to the original intent of the founders. If you throw out the fluff from the left since the 1930's (the 'living constitution'), the fourth amendment applies ONLY as against the federal government. The current case is to declare a state law unconstitutional.

Even a passing knowledge of the history of the drafting of the constitution would convince you that the founders had no intention of preventing the states from passing anti-sodomy laws. They would have though you were from Altair 9 had you made the suggestion.

There is a group of libertarians that just do not understand this. The only difference between them and liberals (on judicial interpretation) is that libertarians want a 'living constitution' where they can make up and add new stuff whenever a libertarian judge wants to instead of going thru the process of amending the constution. Their position in this regard is as unprincipled as the left's.

I am not going to keep making the same point I have made in previous posts. If you think sodomy may be a constitutional right, go study the history of the passage of the constitution. It will change your mind, even if you are from Altair 9 :)

Sorry. I didn't include this in my previous post to you.

You wrote: May I ask why you think the government has a role in the issue of adults have sex with each other?

As I said in the post to which you responded, I think sodomy laws are silly and worse, completely unenforceable. But that is not a CONSTITUTIONAL argument. It is an argument for the legislature. This thread relates to the constitutionality of the sodomy laws. That should be a complete no-brainer. But, given the composition of the Court, I fear another assault on the integrity of our constitution in the breeze.

Breaken:

I think our discussion is about whether Sodomy is a constitutional right. The supposed 'right' to 'pursue liberty and happiness' is not in the constitution. It is a statement in the Declaration of Independence. As such, it has no constitutional weight.

The constitution doesn't include a RIGHT eat the foods of your choice. Does that mean if some legislation decides to pass laws that mandate what you can eat and when, that this would be constitutional as well?

The states regulate what you can eat all the time. Health laws, labeling laws, laws making various chemicals illegal (even food supplements). At the state level, these laws are almost certainly constitutional.

Rights are not subject to plurality vote.

Well, this begs the question we are discussing. Is sodomy a constitutional right?

One could argue that the right to partake in this activity, is a right soley incumbent upon the individuals involved.

The US constitution places almost NO restrictions on the States (it does require that they have a Republican form of government). The bill of rights was a limitation on the FEDERAL government until the pernicious 'incorporation' doctrine of the Warren court decreed that they apply as against the states (except of course, the second amendment).

The founding fathers would have laughed at the notion that the ninth and tenth amendments created rights for people AS AGAINST THE STATES.

This is evidenced by the fact that sodomy laws were passed and enforced by states after the constitution was passed and no founding father ever commented on their inappropriateness under the Federal constitution.

This is one of the most common mistakes made by libertarians when they argue for a return to our original constititional scheme. That scheme envisioned that the State governments could regulate morals pretty much as they chose.

Perhaps, with the new Homeland Security Act the Federal Government could install video cameras in every bedroom in America and immediately arrest anyone who violates the sodomy law. Would that make you happy?

Is your point that sodomy laws are bad laws or that they are unconstitutional laws? These are two VERY different issues that liberals usually confuse.

Sodomy laws are silly and unenforceable. But there is no respect in which the constitution should be read to include a RIGHT to commit sodomy. That demeans the constitution and cannot in any manner be regarded as within the intent of the authors of the constitution. So the solution should be legislative, not judicial.

I wish the Supreme Court would butt out of this. Constitutional mischief on the order of Roe vs Wade is the probable outcome.

This is interesting. In one day, I read that the Court has granted cert in a major affirmative action case and a right of sodomy case. I this a push by the liberal bloc to institutionalize some bad law before retirements occur?

In the affirmative action case, the supremes granted cert in two cases. One of them had not even been decided by the 6th circuit yet. It seems like unseemly haste. I wonder what is going on behind the scenes.

I think it is you (and others who look the other way when it comes to the Saudis), that haven’t thought things through.

Saudi Arabia has in the past and continues to export to the rest of the world one of the vilest weapons of mass destruction. (Islamic fundamentalists). They have been responsible for the brutal killings of millions of Christians and Jews throughout the world. Not to mention the 3000 Americans murdered on 9-11.

Did you read my post? From what did you conclude that I don't understand just how bad the Saudis are? I believe I said the opposite. My argument is based on when, not whether.

Actually, we agree about the stuff in your second paragraph. But it would be crazy to try to bring down the House of Saud NOW.

Let's say we ignore Iraq and take down the house of Saud. What happens? 1/4 of our oil supply is controlled by Wahhibi fundamentalists. AND, Hussein still has WMD. Is this a good idea?

Reverse the order. Take down Iraq today. Then deal with Saudi Arabia. Don't you think its a just little easier to impose our will on the Sauds without a bunch of WMD on our flank in Iraq.

Think it thru. I would love to see those smarmy princes get turned out on the street. I would love to see it happen now. But it would be really stupid to do so NOW.

Have patience, Grasshopper :). The Saudis have had 40 years to mess up the world. Another year or two isn't gonna make much of a difference at all.

It's used to make Socialists' souls.

LOL

Why won't folks let this administration solve one problem at at time? Dems I understand. Dems always think we should solve something other than the immediate problem because that means they can avoid addressing the immediate problem. But Cal Thomas and McCain can't excuse their myopia because they aren't democrats.

The House of Saud looks pretty bad. Long term, it has to change. But consider the alternative--most likely a Wahhibi run oil giant. It's the next Taliban with huge amounts of money and the leverage to blackmail the euroweenies. Not an especially pretty picture.

How to handle the transition in Saudi Arabia will be difficult and delicate. I don't pretend to have any good ideas. I'm glad the adults are in charge in Washington (and not the Wooden One). But agitating for the fall of the house of Saud right before we invade Iraq seems uncommonly irresponsible.

I don't expect much from McCain. But Thomas is normally a pretty clever fellow and I expect him to think through the consequences of his actions better than this.

Great post tator. I have been thinking along these lines also, recently. 2004 is the opportunity of the century.

The incremental approach is the right one. The political center has to be moved slowly to the right. To do that, we need to hold power for a long time. To those who read this and say 'yeah, but you're a RINO, you just want to ignore the conservative base' read my other posts. I'm a pro-life conservative who wants our movement to get and KEEP power and to effect LONG TERM CHANGES.

A fast lurch to the right would make me feel warm and fuzzy today. But it will put the left back in power soon and they will undo everything we accomplished.

Why invade Taiwan now when they didn't in 1991, you ask. Several reasons:

1. China has built a large force of ballistic missiles that can reach Taiwan. They didn't have it in 1991.

2. The US military was at a peak in 1991. It had been designed to fight one major war against the Soviets and another intermediate size war simultaneously. Today, we are stretched thin in just the middle east. After eight years of Clinton . . .

3. Perhaps most important. China is at a use it or lose it point. In 3-4 years we will deploy ship based anti missle systems that will negate the entire Chinese advantage (ballistic missles) in the coming Taiwan conflict. If they don't take advantage of this window of opportunity, they will not have another for many years.

I think a Chinese invasion of Taiwan is a not unlikely result of an invasion of Iraq. Because of the strategic importance of Taiwan, we must be prepared to fight that war also. We have smart guys running this show. They will do what they can.

I do fear that the fix is in. That Blix is no more interested in finding WMD than is Dave Bonior.

Kissinger has no loyalties. During Nixon's problems, outside of the three, Kissinger was the first to cave in and condemn Nixon.

Nixon needed to be condemned. HK, Billy Graham, the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee all condemned Nixon when the tapes were released.

Had there been good democrats during the Clinton scandals who would have walked away from the Zipper-in-Chief, his administration would have fallen in disgrace, just as did Nixon's. As it was, not one of them had the ethical spine of HK and we had to live with those disgraceful people in the White House and now, in New York.

Kissinger is an inspired choice.

Even if kids weren't so wowed last week, adults will be grateful with the system getting deployed -- as early as three or four years from now. For that will constitute real homeland security.

An intention to deploy within 3-4 years, combined with the occupation of the US in the middle east, creates a very dangerous environment in Eastern Asia.

China and NK's only real military strength is based on the ballistic missiles they have developed and deployed. Chinese intimidation of Taiwan is based on ballistic missles. China now has a window within it must act or see its dream of controlling the Western Pacific by controlling Taiwan go out the window.

If we commit too much in assets to the middle east, this window looks dangerous indeed.

I agree. We need to move the center slowly to the right. Give us control for a couple of years. Pass SOME of the agenda (the less scary parts for the independents). Let them see that the sky doesn't fall in. Then run in 2004 on a real reform agenda. If we win and the sky doesn't fall, watch the center move right fast.

Then we can get series.

According to my son, Larry Boy Rockz! I only wish he'd eat vegetables as much as he enjoys them on TV.

This article might as well have been written by the Washington Post, as part of its 'drive a wedge into the Republican coalition' drive. We need the moderates. They need us. Without both, we are a permanent minority party. With both, we have an opportunity to drive the political center (the independents) to the right. That's what this election was really about.

As to whether FR has any effect in the real world. It's my understanding that the eight young men in Florida in 2000, who prevented the dems from diasppearing into a sealed room with tens of thousands of ballots, were FREEPERS. If the dems had gotten out of the view of cameras with those ballots, Al Gore would be president today. So as I read it, FR saved our country from four years of Al Gore.

Also, check out the FR network if you haven't already. It's in its infancy but has the potential to be a potent political force. www.freepers.org