Replies

"...Hey, you go ahead with that view, seems like you can justify anything with that. I'm supposed to not only go along with that view, but not even disagree unless it's done through the courts and "traditional forms of self-governance."..."

The Framers were wise, as was Justice Marshall, the first SC Chief Justice. He established the principle of judicial review. That is, that the SCOTUS has the power to overturn laws that are inconsistent with the Constitution, its Amendments and the BoR.

The tradition of judicial review protects the people from the tyranny of a state majority. This is a critical pillar of our freedom and I cherish it.

But, the review power granted to the SCOTUS can easily be abused. Prior to the modern era, it was widely held that the SCOTUS should apply a strict reading of the Constitution when exercising its judicial supremacy power over the states. That is, it should give grave deference to the laws of the states, and it shouldn't go inventing rights that aren't set forth in the Constitution, and then start overturning state law because the laws deprive the citizens of that state of the newly minted right. The modern courts have abandoned this sensible constraint of their potentially dictatorial power. The social costs of this change have been tremendous. Although you may not understand it, the damage to our liberty has been incalculable.

The invention of a privacy right in the Constitution was the most serious breach of the traditional constraint of strict construction. Scalia clearly questions the existence of a constitutionally protected right to privacy, being the strict constructionist that he is. I agree with him. The Founders suffered under no such delusion, nor is it imbedded in the Common Law.

If you want a right of privacy, pass a constitutional amendment. Until such an amendment is passed, you are free to move to a state that does not prohibit your private act of gratification. If no such state exists, you are free to move to another country where it is.

This ability of self governance, the right to property and the freedom of movement is the bedrock of our freedom. The imposition of the high minded opinions of several justices who deem it unnecessary to support their opinions with any kind of compelling legal argument is not freedom, rather tyranny.

For the record, I am with Thomas on the appropriateness of sodomy laws. Indeed, I have great respect even for O'Conner's comments regarding the equal protection issue of whether a sodomy law should apply only to homosexual conduct (although ultimately Scalia's legal argument on this matter is more compelling). I do not advocate sodomy laws. But it is clear to me that the Constitution gives states the right to have them, just as it gives them the right to outlaw prostitution, suicide or drug possession, even when these activities occur in the privacy of one's home.

You may believe that these "victimless" crimes should not be crimes at all. If so, petition your state government to act in that manner. But please, don't use the dictatorial powers of the supreme court to impose your views on the rest of us. Many of us disagree and wish to live in a different type of society. That’s what Federalism is all about.

But the existence of a law is the imposition, though I grant the imposition may be wholly justified and moral(law against murder, for instance.)

Therefore, it's really the laws and those that support them that are imposing on the rest of us. The case is even stronger when one discusses laws against drug possession. There are a host of issues associated with criminalizing possession of a substance, but that's for another day.

The fact is, through demagoguery a couple of these laws were passed and the government worked so hard to propagandize the populace that people commonly believe the law to be just. Anyone who really believe marijuana should be illegal and alcohol legal is an example of this phenomenon.

I do not trust the government as you do.