He also seems to make the argument that if a bunch of politicans get together and make a law that deprives you of liberty(in this case sodomy) that this does not violate due process. Antonin, buddy, pal, due process is applied to an individual for a discrete event(prison time for crime, eminent domain, etc) NOT for permanent deprivation of liberty for an entire class of persons until the law is repealed. Man, this guy loves the State.
Skywalk, you got it. Thanks!
I don't know maybe I'm nutty, but THAT seems to be Scalia's argument.
People's property does not only include their car and house. It's also their own persons. They have a right to do what they will with them, with the exception of violating the same right of others.
Buggery does not violate my rights. Therefore it is not under the rightful jurisidiction of any government.
As for whether the state has infinite rights to make laws, just because it is partially sovereign...NOPE. Any law that does not conform to the supreme law of the land is invalid. Hello, if they made Jews wear the Star of David in Massachusetts, that doesn't make it a valid constitutional law.
If Scalia really is saying what it seems he is, he apparently has less understanding of the original intent of the Framers than I do. That's just sad.
posted on 06/26/2003 7:56:22 PM PDT
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson