Replies

Well, there is no prohibition of murder in the Constitution, but I think that you would be hesitant to declare that we therefore have the right of murder under the 9th. The Constitution of the U.S. is binding upon the Federal Government, and due to the 13th and 14th, is binding in certain areas upon the States (i.e. the States must recognize the rights given to citizens that are spelled out in the Constitution)

So while I would agree that a Federal anti-sodomy law would be very easy to challenge, a State law has a different level of engagement with the citizen. Likewise, a county or town ban on, let's say pornography, has more legitimacy than a state ban would have. The closer to a citizen, the more legitimacy a legislature has concerning moral codes.

This assumes of course that a higher level of government has not secured the right. For example, if a State has legalized gay marriage, a locality can not refuse the right. But if a State has made no statement on an issue, a locality has great flexability. A town may, for example, forbid more than 6 non-related persons cohabitating in a residence with only one bedroom.

Well, there is no prohibition of murder in the Constitution, but I think that you would be hesitant to declare that we therefore have the right of murder under the 9th.

Comparing consensual gay sex to murder is a a major stretch.

In the first case, no one's rights are being violated, in the second it's obvious that rights are being severely violated.

A town may, for example, forbid more than 6 non-related persons cohabitating in a residence with only one bedroom.

Whose rights are being violated in this example? Essentially you seem to be saying that unless it violates specifically enumerated rights in the Constitution, or some higher level goobermint established statute, anything goes?

So I can get 51% of the folks on my town council to outlaw nosepicking, and impose heavy fines for this unsightly and unhealthy practice?

It's "for the children", you know.