Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Libertarian Judicial Activism
7/2/03 | William McKinley

Posted on 07/02/2003 11:16:07 AM PDT by William McKinley

Libertarian Judicial Activism


Last week, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down two opinions which have dismayed many conservatives. In Grutter, the majority refused to strike down the use of race in admission decisions at the University of Michigan, and in Lawrence, the majority declared that a Texas law forbidding sodomy was unconstitutional.

Much of the conservative criticism has been aimed at Sandra Day O'Connor, who voted with the majority in both cases. In Lawrence, she suggested that the law in question was "a bare ... desire to harm a politically unpopular group"; laws of that nature the court has "consistenly held ... are not legitimate state interests." Right or wrong in her analysis of if the Texas sodomy law, the scope of her legal argument is relatively narrow.

Her concurring opinion was not the opinion of the Court, however, and O'Connor did not join in the majority opinion. Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion is more ambitious in scale and, as the Court's opinion, is further reaching in impact; as such it deserves more attention. Writing for the court, he states [bolded emphasis mine]:

"In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), the Court reaffirmed the substantive force of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause. The Casey decision again confimed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Id., at 851. In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows:
"These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under the compulsion of the State." Ibid.
This passage makes clear that the majority of the court, led by Kennedy, is expanding the edicts of Roe far beyond matters of abortion. As pointed out by Jeffrey Rosen in Sex Appeal, "carried to its logical conclusion, it seems to read the libertarian harm principle of John Stuart Mill into the Constitution, preventing the state from forbidding individuals from engaging in behavior that the majority considers immoral but that poses no harm to others."
"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." - John Stuart Mill, Essay on Liberty, 1859
If one buys into the argument made by Mill should not be the point. The point is whether the Constitution, as written, embodies this principle. Is there, in the Constitution, a "right to define one's own concept" of morality, with local, state and federal governments forbidden from legislating such matters so long as they do not harm others? As Justice Scalia wrote in dissent,
"That 'casts some doubt' upon either the totality of our jurisprudence or else (presumably the right answer) nothing at all. I have never heard of a law that attempted to restrict one's "right to define" certain concepts; and if the passage calls into question the government's power to regulate actions based on one's self-defined "concept of existence, etc.," it is the passage that ate the rule of law."
The Constitution is one of the most libertarian documents of governance ever employed, but it is not a completely libertarian framework. The 10th Amendment states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." If the intent of the founding fathers to implement for the entire country the principle that Mill's theorem later encapsulated, the phrases regarding "the States" would not have been included. The wording of the 10th Amendment strongly suggests the Constitution was not written so as to give citizens "a right to define one's own concept" of the law, but rather that such was the realm of either the states or the people. The fact that laws regarding morality were commonplace in states during the years following adoption of the Constitution backs this reading of the intent of the founders.

Kennedy hints that the 14th Amendment is salient and must be considered. "These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment". But even his words highlight that the 14th does not introduce liberties, but rather introduces protections (for all citizens) of the liberties already specified within the Constitution.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.", 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, Section 1
Is the "right to define one's own concept" of the law one of the privileges of citizens of the United States? It was not prior to the 14th, and the 14th did not add it.

Kennedy has engaged in judicial activism of the libertarian variety. In so doing, he struck a blow against the principles of federalism; a blow that Justices Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Stevens were all too happy to join in making. And if, indeed, there is Constitutional protection "to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education", then on what grounds are there to be laws regarding bigamy, polygamy, bestiality, and incest? This is the exact argument that Senator Santorum was making when he was recently vilified by the mainstream media. It is not that sodomy and bestiality are comparable, but rather that the Constitutional basis for laws regarding such matters is the same, and the Kennedy opinion destroys that basis.

The question is not if it is good governance for there to be sodomy laws, as Justice Thomas noted in dissent. "I write separately to note that the law before the Court today "is ... uncommonly silly." ... If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. ... I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated". Thanks to Lawrence, that is no longer the case. Due to unintended (or intended) consequences, libertarian judicial activism has greatly expanded the powers and the reach of the federal government as personified by the courts, at expense of the ability of states and localities to self-govern.

For conservatives and adherents to a strict constructionism judicial philosophy, this is an obvious setback, but not one without a silver lining. As Santorum warned, such a ruling will lead to a bevy of challenges to many other laws. It does not take much imagination to apply the "right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life" to any number of laws. The court will inevitably be forced to revisit the stealth addition of Mill to the Constitution, either to repeatedly reaffirm it or to remove that fanciful addition. One such review will come regarding gay marriage laws ("personal decisions relating to marriage"). More will come after that. And since this is now the pillar on which Roe stands, such a revisitation will be welcome, especially if in the context of the absurdity of a challenge to laws restricting bestiality or incest.


TOPICS: Editorial; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: kennedy; lawrence; roe; sodomy
Thought I would give this a go here. I also posted this at my blog
1 posted on 07/02/2003 11:16:08 AM PDT by William McKinley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
Kennedy has engaged in judicial activism of the libertarian variety.

A rather interesting application of logic. Let's see if I can replicate it.

The sky is blue.
Robin eggs are blue.
Therefore, the sky is a robin egg.

Just because libertarians may be opposed to state laws against sodomy, it does not mean they applaud using the cudgle of SCOTUS judicial activism to end such.

2 posted on 07/02/2003 11:24:03 AM PDT by dirtboy (Not enough words in FR taglines to adequately describe the dimensions of Hillary's thunderous thighs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
If all libertarians would do as Kennedy has done is neither the question nor the point. The fact is that Kennedy was in a position to, and he did, using a libertarian argument. This is not intended as a hit piece on libertarians. It is a criticism of Kennedy using his position on the court to tailor the government to suit his own personal philosophy rather than simply following the Constitution.
3 posted on 07/02/2003 11:28:24 AM PDT by William McKinley (My new blog that no one cares about can be found at http://williammckinley.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
The fact is that Kennedy was in a position to, and he did, using a libertarian argument.

That you need to prove a lot better.

4 posted on 07/02/2003 11:29:58 AM PDT by dirtboy (Not enough words in FR taglines to adequately describe the dimensions of Hillary's thunderous thighs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Well, I am not meaning to be argumentative with you, so I'll let it go after this if you do not think it sufficient. To prove that Kennedy was in a position to do so, and that he did, I merely need to point out that he is the Supreme Court Justice who wrote the majority opinion.

To prove that he did so using a libertarian argument, I guess it is a matter of opinion on if the following is a libertarian concept or not:

"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."
To me, it strikes me as being such.
5 posted on 07/02/2003 11:34:06 AM PDT by William McKinley (My new blog that no one cares about can be found at http://williammckinley.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."

Why does that sound like a libertarian argument? That sounds more like something that you'd find in It Takes a Village.

6 posted on 07/02/2003 11:57:58 AM PDT by dirtboy (Not enough words in FR taglines to adequately describe the dimensions of Hillary's thunderous thighs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
I cede your point that I did not make the linkage more clear between Kennedy's argument and the flavor of libertarianism which he often employs. I should have included a few more quotations from his opinion, such as
"This, as a general rule, should counsel against attempts by the State, or a court, to define the meaning of the relationship or to set its boundaries absent injury to a person or abuse of an institution the law protects."
This would have tied it more directly to Mill's harm edict.

Similarly, Kennedy states "The statutes do seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals". Again, this is a very libertarian argument. If one were to substitute the word "activity" for "relationship" would be applicable to an argument against drug use laws; why activities regarding relationships deserve different Constitutional treatment than others is not well defined, especially "absent injury to a person or abuse of an institution the law protects".

Upon reflection, my article would have been stronger had I originally included them, and as such I have added it to my article at the source. I do not believe that it impacts the central thesis, which is that this was a significant case of judicial activism, unsupported by the Constitution, that will be inevitably revisited.

Thanks for the critique.

7 posted on 07/02/2003 12:31:42 PM PDT by William McKinley (My new blog that no one cares about can be found at http://williammckinley.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
Your argument is stronger now, and easier to debate. I think that there are two main branches of libertarianism - those that are in favor of limited government and those that are activist. Take drug laws, for example. The limited-government libertarians would say the federal government has no role under the constitution outlawing the cultivation of cannabis for personal use - but that states have that power, and it is a matter of making the case for legalizing cultivation on a state-by-state basis. The activist libertarians would point to the 9th Amendment and say that it can be construed to establish federal rights that are not enumerated, and SCOTUS should strike down state laws that infringe on non-enumerated liberties. My little "l" libertarian influences tend towards the former - I do NOT want an activist Supreme Court creating federal rights out of thin air.
8 posted on 07/02/2003 12:45:49 PM PDT by dirtboy (Not enough words in FR taglines to adequately describe the dimensions of Hillary's thunderous thighs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
I also believe that there are many different flavors of libertarianism, and I was not really meaning to get into a debate on the different flavors of them or on the virtues of any of them. I was aiming at the judicial activism in general and this particular application in specific. Judicial activism almost always opens a can of worms.
9 posted on 07/02/2003 12:50:43 PM PDT by William McKinley (My new blog that no one cares about can be found at http://williammckinley.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
One little question from an activist libertarian just to get the debate focused properly: if the Constitution allows, for instance, an 18 year old boy to be thrown in prison for 17 years for having oral sex with another teenage boy (Limon v. Kansas)--remind me exactly why I should be supporting the Constitution?
10 posted on 07/02/2003 1:45:56 PM PDT by cherrycapital
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: cherrycapital
You are arguing that sex with minors should be protected behavior in your ideal system of governance?
11 posted on 07/02/2003 2:00:24 PM PDT by William McKinley (My new blog that no one cares about can be found at http://williammckinley.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
I am not "arguing" anything, I am *asserting* that the state has no right whatever to criminalize a consenting relationship between an 18 year old and a 14 year old.
12 posted on 07/02/2003 2:58:09 PM PDT by cherrycapital
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: cherrycapital
An assertion or an argument in this context is a distinction without a difference. If you want to characterize your statement as an assertion and not an argument, feel free.

I notice that the bar has moved downward, from 17 years to 14 years. At what age is the limit? Who decides? By what standard?

13 posted on 07/02/2003 3:04:05 PM PDT by William McKinley (My new blog that no one cares about can be found at http://williammckinley.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
I didn't move the bar downward; I made no reference to 17 year olds. Who decides? Naturally, I would like to decide (wouldn't we all) but if it comes to a choice between at least semi-educated judges and the collection of pinheads and yahoos who fill the state legislatures, I would select the former without a second thought.

Why is it so important to you that states retain the right to lock teenagers up for decades for having sex with each other?
14 posted on 07/02/2003 3:10:19 PM PDT by cherrycapital
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
Let us assume that this is the heart of the matter: ...it seems to read the libertarian harm principle of John Stuart Mill into the Constitution, preventing the state from forbidding individuals from engaging in behavior that the majority considers immoral but that poses no harm to others."

Fine. I think that actually most libertarians have little problem with this principle and conservatives can live with it as stated. The issue is in this case then, is: does sodomy pose no harm to others? I think an excellant argument can be made that it does: HIV, AIDS, various STDs and other ailments. Therefore as per the 10th amendment there can be legislation on this issue. And I for one think that is the way to go.

We don't ban people from sky diving (a relatively risky proposition). We require that they get insurance coverage. This is not for their benefit. It is so society does not incur the expense if they have an accident. Ergo, we can simply require identify a set of conditions that neither the state nor the federal government, nor employers, have to provide medical coverage for. Thus, if you have HIV it is your responsibility to prove you got it from a contaminated blood transfusion. Otherwise, zero state or federal medical dollars will be available to pay your medical expenses. You want to engage in risky behavior that "only poses harm to yourself"? Fine. You pay for the insurance. THAT the state can legislate.

Further -- the state can aggressively prosecute those who have given HIV to others, since their behavior did, in fact, harm others. This will not violate any constitutional provision at all.

The solution is very simple. We don't care what the behavior is -- but if it does harm others then the state will vigorously arrest and prosecute. So while sodomy per se might not "harm others" -- giving an STD or HIV does. And guess what. The state CAN legislate that anyone who shows up to a medical center who tests positive for a STD or HIV can be prosecuted (accessory after the fact, concealing a crime, etc.) if they don't turn over their sex partners. Heh heh.

15 posted on 07/02/2003 3:20:42 PM PDT by dark_lord (The Statue of Liberty now holds a baseball bat and she's yelling 'You want a piece of me?')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dark_lord
I have no problem with prosecuting those who knowingly spread infectious diseases.
16 posted on 07/02/2003 3:24:16 PM PDT by cherrycapital
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: cherrycapital
I made no reference to 17 year olds
I stand corrected- I saw the 17 in your original comment and when I hit reply transposed it to you saying that was the age of the other boy.
but if it comes to a choice between at least semi-educated judges and the collection of pinheads and yahoos who fill the state legislatures, I would select the former without a second thought
And if a collection of semi-educated judges determines, since you empowered them with the rule of man rather than the rule of law, that the people should be disarmed, then?

And if you are going to cede the power of governance away to such a chamber of rulers, why not go the full monty and support a benevolent dictatorship?

Why is it so important to you that states retain the right to lock teenagers up for decades for having sex with each other?
It is important to me that the Constitution be maintained. I happen to like the country, and the country has gotten where it has under the framework of the Constitution. I don't like all of it, but then I do not believe in utopia. As a conservative I do not believe in perfectability of either man or his political systems.

And it is important to me that the ability for localities to govern themselves as they see fit is protected as best possible without infringing on the rights of others as spelled out in the Constitution and its Amendments as written. I should not be able to force my desires for how a community should craft its laws on a township of Amish hundreds of miles away, any more than they should be able to force theirs on mine. But your question begs the return question, why is it so important to you that states retain the right to lock up teenagers for decades for having sex with each other? And why is it so important to you that it be protected under the Constitution instead of simply getting the law changed (if a persuasive argument can be made to the people, as indicated by their votes for their elected officials)? Why is it important for you to say that people have no right to pass laws that say "sex with 10 year olds is illegal"?

It sounds to me like you don't like the way the law is crafted (too harsh a penalty, the ages too high, etc.) and as such you think the Constitution should reflect your view of the law. That's the rule of man, not the rule of law.

And under the rule of man, your beloved 2nd Amendment rights exist at their whim and their whim alone. I am sure you have not liked SCOTUS rulings that have eroded the 2nd Amendment. But thinking like that shown by Kennedy in his majority opinion is what leads to rulings like "the 2nd Amendment is not a personal right but a state militia right".

17 posted on 07/02/2003 3:51:16 PM PDT by William McKinley (My new blog that no one cares about can be found at http://williammckinley.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: cherrycapital
See, I'd err in exactly the opposite fashion; judges are the pinheads who are reading plain English into oblivion. If the court had made a decision that they couldn't get involved but cried out for a Constitutional amendment extending the Bill of Rights and Supreme Court oversight of all the states, I might be for that, depending on how it's written. But inventing penumbral rights does nothing but guarantee future court review, and the SCOTUS's random calls on dividing which cases deal with federalism and equal protection and privacy intrusions are proving more and more troublesome.

If the court invents rights or deletes them on a whim, as they now do, how are we to know what to fight the legislatures from doing ourselves? It only further empowers lawyers! And worse, while the court invents and interprets its own powers, how are we to know where it begins to interfere in the political arena inappopriately (see busing, redistricting, etc.)?

I would sooner trust the stupid horse-brained masses than the power of one judge. At least the masses have some brake on their action by sheer inertia. A judge can do the 'stroke of the pen, law of the land' thing, without even blinking.

We don't disagree on the end result--I don't care if homosexuals do whatever. I just don't want the Supreme Court telling me Texas can't stop them. I'll be the first to say Texas shouldn't, because it's a waste of tax money trying to stop consensual crime.

By the way, I'm sure this wasn't a case Texas wanted to prosecute, and it wasn't a harassing neighbor that started it all, but an activist gay trying to get a test case. Just like the cop probably either didn't want to arrest the two, or did so in the interests of getting a test case. Just like Rosa Parks didn't sit on that bus to rest her feet, but to get a test case. I'm weary of hearing of the saintly appellants in these cases, when they're ACTIVISTS intent on wreaking judicial havoc on the law, instead of correcting legislative idiocy.
18 posted on 07/02/2003 5:31:18 PM PDT by LibertarianInExile (Government trying to 'do good' will ALWAYS result in the same government eventually doing evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
In Grutter, the majority refused to strike down the use of race in admission decisions at the University of Michigan

This is Not libertarian anything.

Libertarians and small "L" libertarians oppose racial quotas FYI.

19 posted on 07/02/2003 5:46:02 PM PDT by DAnconia55 (Taxation is a greater threat to the family than gay sex is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
ping
20 posted on 07/02/2003 5:54:21 PM PDT by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DAnconia55
I did not say anything of Grutter was libertarian anything.
21 posted on 07/02/2003 6:06:25 PM PDT by William McKinley (My new blog that no one cares about can be found at http://williammckinley.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
>And if you are going to cede the power of governance away >to such a chamber of rulers, why not go the full monty >and support a benevolent dictatorship?

Because there is no need to do so. There are indeed times when a benevolent dictatorship is better than a democracy; Chile in 1973 was one instance. But in the U.S. in 2003 we are better off merely having the swamps of public prejudice ventilated by a Supreme Court that lives up to its duty to protect our rights. Voting to oppress others is not one of our rights.

Democracy is like oxygen. In its proper proportion it nourishes. In pure form it deranges. Conservatives used to understand this principle (in fact, it was the John Birch Society that revived the notion that the United States is a republic, not a democracy.) But when the cherished right to oppress homosexuals is threatened, democracy becomes their adopted buzzword.

>And why is it so important to you that it be protected >under the Constitution instead of simply getting the law >changed (if a persuasive argument can be made to the >people, as indicated by their votes for their elected >officials)?

Basic human rights should not be at the mercy of the loathsome rednecks who wouldn't know a syllogism from a transit of Venus, but who (sadly) make up a majority of the electorate. As Justice Robert Jackson explained it:

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." (West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette, 1943)

>I am sure you have not liked SCOTUS rulings that have >eroded the 2nd Amendment.

I am unapologetic in applying an apparent double standard here. There is all the difference in the world between a ruling expanding the rights guaranteed by the Constitution (as in Lawrence and Limon) and a ruling contracting them (as in certain 2nd Amendment cases). As Justice Brennan put it "The Constitution is not a neutral document. It was designed to get the governmnent of the backs of the people."
22 posted on 07/04/2003 10:17:36 AM PDT by cherrycapital
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
Many Libertarians are very comfortable with the Federal courts censoring religious expression. They usually scurry down the "government shouldn't be doing it anyways so who cares if religion is banned from public schools" rathole.
23 posted on 07/04/2003 10:27:59 AM PDT by DPB101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cherrycapital; Jim Robinson

You are on the wrong forum if you are trying to advocate the pedophilia is a Constitutional right or that minors are able to give consent.

24 posted on 07/04/2003 10:34:37 AM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Judging by the fact that you don't even know what the term "pedophilia" means, I'm not sure you're in a position to tell me what forums I should or shouldn't be on.
25 posted on 07/04/2003 10:38:33 AM PDT by cherrycapital
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: cherrycapital
Heck, why have a Constitution at all then. You are right- someone like you should not support the Constitution, as it is meaningless for you.
26 posted on 07/04/2003 9:26:28 PM PDT by William McKinley (My new blog that no one cares about can be found at http://williammckinley.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
The point of having a Constitution is utility. It is more useful, in nearly all cases, than having each individual having to defend his/her own rights by force. That doesn't mean that patently oppressive laws need to be honored in the name of the Constitution. To do so would be sacrificing the end to the means. Constitutionalism, republicanism, and law itself are only means, not ends.
27 posted on 07/05/2003 11:16:11 AM PDT by cherrycapital
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: cherrycapital
That doesn't mean that patently oppressive laws need to be honored in the name of the Constitution. To do so would be sacrificing the end to the means.

So the fedgov SHOULD enforce rights not enumerated in the Constitution? Congrats, you just killed the 10th Amendment, which pushes that debate to a playing field between the states and the people living in each state.

28 posted on 07/07/2003 10:07:03 AM PDT by dirtboy (Not enough words in FR taglines to adequately describe the dimensions of Hillary's thunderous thighs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Does the 9th Amendment mean nothing at all?
29 posted on 07/07/2003 11:12:28 AM PDT by cherrycapital
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: cherrycapital
Does the 9th Amendment mean nothing at all?

Yes, as a constraint on federal power to limit rights. Otherwise, you've destroyed the 10th, because the feds can declare ANYTHING a federal right and the 10th becomes null and void.

30 posted on 07/07/2003 11:13:25 AM PDT by dirtboy (Not enough words in FR taglines to adequately describe the dimensions of Hillary's thunderous thighs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Sorry, but the 14th Amendment applies the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states, and no amount of casuistry can change that. What is more frightening than the fact that anyone would deny that the Bill of Rights is binding on the states, is that anyone would *want* to.
31 posted on 07/07/2003 11:18:50 AM PDT by cherrycapital
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: cherrycapital
Sorry, but the 14th Amendment applies the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states, and no amount of casuistry can change that.

You do that, and the 10th is null and void. And SCOTUS has, I believe, exactly TWICE referenced the 9th Amendment, whereas it has referenced the 10th many, many times.

What is more frightening than the fact that anyone would deny that the Bill of Rights is binding on the states, is that anyone would *want* to.

You have a contradiction, the same as the one used by the gun grabbers with the 2nd. The 10th is part of the Bill of Rights. But it is not a restriction on the states. Federalism is not just about the rights of the people, but also is about the powers of state government and limiting the power of the fedgov to restrict what states can do. Your expansive reading of the 9th is consistent with activism, not conservatism.

32 posted on 07/07/2003 11:22:01 AM PDT by dirtboy (Not enough words in FR taglines to adequately describe the dimensions of Hillary's thunderous thighs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
The 9th Amendment via the 14th prevents the states from violating the rights of individuals.

The 10th Amendment prevents the government from violating the rights of states or individuals.

Since it is not one of the rights of a state to violate the constitutional rights of citizens, there is no contradiction. There are plenty of powers and prerogatives remaining within the authjority of the states that do not involve the violation of the rights of citizens.
33 posted on 07/07/2003 11:26:27 AM PDT by cherrycapital
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
How is using the 9th Amendment to protect unenumerated rights the same as the gun-grabbers violating enumerated ones? By and large, they use state laws as much as federal laws to do that.
34 posted on 07/07/2003 11:41:13 AM PDT by cherrycapital
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
The crypto-fascist-libertarians are busy at work burying the 10th Amendment.
35 posted on 07/07/2003 11:43:03 AM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cherrycapital
The 9th Amendment via the 14th prevents the states from violating the rights of individuals.

Once again, SCOTUS has seldom cited the 9th. Try again.

The 10th Amendment prevents the government from violating the rights of states or individuals.

Now, if the fedgov, through the 9th, were to define something to be a federal right that was not enumerated by the Constitution and not allocated to the fedgov, then the 10th is cheapened - or even destroyed if it happens enough. And what's next? Does healthcare become a right, and the fedgov usurps power over medical resoures that belongs to the individual? It's no different, usurping state power or usurping the rights of individuals - you may applaud the work of the federal Frankenstein today, but don't be surprised when it turns on you tomorrow.

I don't think sodomy should be outlawed by the states. But I also don't think it is a federal right or issue to be imposed on the states.

36 posted on 07/07/2003 1:18:46 PM PDT by dirtboy (Not enough words in FR taglines to adequately describe the dimensions of Hillary's thunderous thighs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
And if a collection of semi-educated judges determines, since you empowered them with the rule of man rather than the rule of law,

Laws such as sodomy laws ARE the "rule of man". Many people keep making this same mistake. But they have been conditioned to, I guess.

37 posted on 07/07/2003 1:22:34 PM PDT by HurkinMcGurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: HurkinMcGurkin
So you support having the Constitution mean only whatever a group of 5 people decides it to mean?
38 posted on 07/07/2003 1:24:16 PM PDT by William McKinley (My new blog that no one cares about can be found at http://williammckinley.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
Strawman
39 posted on 07/07/2003 1:26:27 PM PDT by HurkinMcGurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: HurkinMcGurkin
Strawman

Hardly ... because that's what it boils down to anymore.

40 posted on 07/07/2003 1:27:56 PM PDT by dirtboy (Not enough words in FR taglines to adequately describe the dimensions of Hillary's thunderous thighs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: HurkinMcGurkin
Not at all.
41 posted on 07/07/2003 1:29:25 PM PDT by William McKinley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Yep, ever since Marbury v. Madison.
42 posted on 07/07/2003 1:29:46 PM PDT by HurkinMcGurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: HurkinMcGurkin
Yep, ever since Marbury v. Madison.

Except for now they don't bother citing the Constitution much, and are getting really good at parsing concepts to avoid what is left of it.

43 posted on 07/07/2003 1:32:42 PM PDT by dirtboy (Not enough words in FR taglines to adequately describe the dimensions of Hillary's thunderous thighs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
Sure it is. 5 people essentially have been determining that the Constitution means what they say it means since Marbury v. Madison. It didn't start happening in 1973 or at some other point in time in recent history when decisions started "going the other way".

The argument isn't whether I support five people "determining that the Constitution says what they want it to", Its about government, ALL levels, not having the power to determine what private, consensual activities adults may engage in. Like I posted before, the "rule of man" is demonstrated quite well by laws such as "sodomy laws" where a majority has decided to oppress a minority. The "rule of law" only occurrs when government is kept at its minimal purposes, which is the defense of the rights of all. Otherwise, you have the "rule of man" where whatever "majority" is in charge makes rules to enforce against a minority who disagrees.

There have been good decisions, and bad decisions, IMO, that have been rendered by the court. Those rulings that expand the recognition of pre-existing rights are applauded by me, while those that expand the power of government(most of them) are denounced. Decisions striking down sodomy laws accomplish the former, thus I appaud them, regardless of the fact I don't like homos.

44 posted on 07/07/2003 1:37:34 PM PDT by HurkinMcGurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: HurkinMcGurkin
The "rule of law" only occurrs when government is kept at its minimal purposes, which is the defense of the rights of all.

But then who defines what is a right? Do liberals get to define health care as a right? That's the slippery slope - the fedgov should be limited to protecting rights enumerated in the Constitution, and not to defining rights, because a lot of trouble has come from that direction.

45 posted on 07/07/2003 1:41:40 PM PDT by dirtboy (Not enough words in FR taglines to adequately describe the dimensions of Hillary's thunderous thighs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: HurkinMcGurkin
Those rulings that expand the recognition of pre-existing rights

Where did this right pre-exist at the federal level?

those that expand the power of government(most of them) are denounced

I hate to break it to you - but this ruling DID expand the power of the federal government. And it will be cited for other expansions of power.

Decisions striking down sodomy laws accomplish the former

The end justifies the means, eh?

46 posted on 07/07/2003 1:43:45 PM PDT by dirtboy (Not enough words in FR taglines to adequately describe the dimensions of Hillary's thunderous thighs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: HurkinMcGurkin
The argument isn't whether I support five people "determining that the Constitution says what they want it to"
If the question at hand is if you support the SCOTUS overturning a law you do not like without there being a firm Constitutional basis for their decision, then yes, the argument is precisely this.
47 posted on 07/07/2003 1:49:21 PM PDT by William McKinley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
And I believe sexual association is an unenumerated right, which is my private opinion, but there is plenty of precedent for the idea that privacy is an unenumerated right. See Goldberg's opinion in Griswold, e.g.
48 posted on 07/07/2003 2:05:34 PM PDT by cherrycapital
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: cherrycapital
And I believe sexual association is an unenumerated right

Which means the fedgov cannot ban such, but also cannot prohibit the states from acting one way or the other against it.

which is my private opinion, but there is plenty of precedent for the idea that privacy is an unenumerated right. See Goldberg's opinion in Griswold, e.g.

Ah, citing Griswold, eh? The father of Roe v. Wade, the mother of all judicial activist decisions.

49 posted on 07/07/2003 2:11:02 PM PDT by dirtboy (Not enough words in FR taglines to adequately describe the dimensions of Hillary's thunderous thighs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Of course the fed can prevent the states from violating a constitutional right, enumerated or unenumerated.
50 posted on 07/09/2003 1:22:40 PM PDT by cherrycapital
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson