[Sandy]

You'll like this.

[Support Free Republic]

Free Republic. More Bang For The Buck!
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[freekitty]

They want equality which is equal to slavery. The more equality; the less freedom one has. You have less opportunity to think freely, upperward mobility, create, etc. It is all stiffled with equality.

Which would you choose? The freedom to make the life you want or to be smothered just like everyone else?

[Rodsomnia]

Liberty or Privacy-whatever? It's too bad those jurists don't have the same attitude with my wallet as with my penis.

[ModelBreaker]

Interpreted this way, Lawrence is a prescription for judicial dictatorship. There are no limits remaining and all tether to the reality of the constitution has been severed.

Any act that 5 old guys or girls think is cool is now constitutionally protected.

[swilhelm73]

Wonderful, now a judge can, and most leftist ones will, claim the 9th Amendment to strike down *any* law he wants to, and doesn't even have to pull the old BS routine about penumbras!

A right to sodomy wasn't noticed in the Constitution for 200 years, but since leftists want such a right now, the founders must have meant to include it anyway.

Hey, maybe Justice Souter can find a right to pedophilia and Justice O'Connor can find a right to stick forks in babies heads *after* birth. I'm sure the Founders meant to include both of those 'rights' too.

Liberals can't win a majority to legislate so now they are confined to dictating from the bench. Libertarians, knowing leftists will throw them the bone of drug legalization, are along for the ride. Aren't these wonderful times.

Those poor benighted idiots who worked on the ERA amendment or the HRL Amendment. Little did they know all it takes is five justices to change the Constitution, but a supermajority in the legislature and states.

[tpaine]

Fresh meat for you anti-libertarians!

Show us what you got!
-- Refute some legal reasoning for a change, instead of spouting your usual rhetorical pap generaities.

[William Terrell]

It's my theory that the 14th amendment weakened the 9th and 10th amendments to the point they are putty in the hands of federal judiciary. The 14th amnedment confers citizenship. Before the 14th amnedment, states awarded citizenship, each one with more or less differing requirments. By virtue of state citizenship came federal citizenship.

The power to make a citizen of the state and the United States would be a legal measure of sovereignty. Who's the dog and who's the tail. I'd have to presume the 9th and 10th amendments were written to operate within the state=dog, feds=tail relationship, because that was the relationship when they were written.

People are federal citizens now residing in a state. So, the SC can trounce on the state any way it wants to only very gently restrained by the 9th and the 10th. Those two have turned into rights generators in collusion with the 14th. The citizens are all federal, the states have no citizens and therefore must treat it's federal citizens according to federal guidelines.

Making an "enumerated rights only" barrier to assumed constitutionality, pretty much limiting it to the 10 amendments, with the 9th and 10th taken out, is a massive declaration of federal power over their citizens' private lives, disguised in a tiny amount of grudgingly conceeded liberty in a specific area: contraceptives. They pay so little for what they take.

The feds have been flexing their muscles during the whole 20th century. We ought not be surprised.

[mrsmith]

Nothing cracks me up more than people trying to argue that the Ninth authorizes the feds to take our unenumerated rights into their hands.

"...it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure.
This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution (the Ninth Amendment)."
I Annals of Congress 439 (Gales and Seaton ed. 1834).

The core problem though, is that these are "hot" issues that elected representatives and executives try to avoid- and they are therefore disinclined to limit the court's assertion of power.