We've always had the 'right' to choose and always will.
What the courts did was create a 'right' not to be prosecuted for the consequences of wrong choices ---
Our 'right' not to be prosecuted for the "consequences of wrong choices" has always existed; --- as we have never given governments the power to "deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law."
Prohibitive laws violate due process.
The protection of individual rights by due process is part of the Constitution and it requires that the substance of the laws be constitutional.
I'm not sure what your are saying here.
If you read all of my comment, my point becomes obvious. -- Laws that prohibit personal behaviors require that the substance of those laws must be Constitutional.
Supposing you were driving while intoxicated (that was a wrong choice) and you ran over someone and killed them (that is a consequence).
We have always had well written [thus constitutional] laws against negligent homicide. The driver can be prosecuted for murder and a jury will no doubt convict.
Are you saying that you have a right not to be arrested on a DWI or prosecuted for negligent homicide, the consequence of your choice? Not for the act of choosing, but for the consequence of the choice which produces an 'injured' party, a human, corporate or state.
I'm saying we don't need prohibitively restrictive [thus unconstitutional] laws that treat drunken driving as though it is a form of attempted murder.
Many of our present DUI laws are unreasonably restrictive & violate due process by virtually presuming guilty intent. Juries are told they must convict if the defendant was over the statutory level..
Well, yes. I did read all of your comment and have no problem with the balance of your statement, but I don't think it was relevant to my point.
You flat out said that we have a right not to be persecuted for the consequences of our choices. I'm saying that we do not have the right not to be persecuted if we are in violation, regardless of how the judge instructs the jury or how the law is interpreted. That is a different matter.
My statement was just simple, basic, and logical and due process will establish that truth. But the ins and outs and machinations of due process, statutes and laws, and judge's decrees are not all that consistent, and perhaps in some instances, unconstitutional, I'll agree.
BTW, welcome to Free Republic!