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.
Constitutionally, his argument is sound. The determination about the sodomy law is, properly speaking, not for the federal government to make or to impose. As with abortion, it is one that is properly determined in the legislatures and courts of the respective states. That typically means that some states will decide one way and some the other. To date, Texas' legislature has stood by the existing law and its courts have upheld it. That is not so in some other states, as is their respective right to determine. But by ruling as the court did in this case, they assumed the power of determining that particular policy into the federal government. For that reason, if nothing else, the ruling is an atrocity.
Man, this guy loves the State.
For opposing the assumption of another power by the federal government? Your reasoning is bizarre.
In essence, the Constitution was to limit the power of not only the federal governments but ALL governments.
If a state oversteps its bounds, it is in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to rule that such a law is unconstitutional.
You know, lots of blacks have a great fear of "state's rights" because it became a euphemism for unlawful forced segregation even of state institutions(and unlawful forced segregation upon PRIVATE institutions, as well.)
If we defend a state's rights to oppress citizens or make ridiculous laws that would render the majority of its citizens criminals, then we will lose credibility on the real issues.
posted on 06/26/2003 8:36:32 PM PDT
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson