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

To: ModelBreaker
>> "Interpreted this way, Lawrence is a prescription for judicial dictatorship."

I don't see how you can reach that conclusion. The Lawrence ruling is about a specific Texas law.

It is interesting to view judicial rulings through the prism of protecting individual liberty from government interference. This is obviously a very libertarian (small l) point of view.

The difficulty in this approach is determining when an action does NOT hurt others, and is thus a protected liberty, and when it DOES hurt others and is thus a proscribed "license".
7 posted on 07/10/2003 7:39:23 PM PDT by sd-joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: sd-joe
The difficulty in this approach is determining when an action does NOT hurt others, and is thus a protected liberty, and when it DOES hurt others and is thus a proscribed "license".
7 -joe-


The law makers have to determine the 'compling reason' for a specific law, just as they should. It may be difficult, but that's their job.

If they err in their logic, the law is repugnant to the constitution, and void, -- just as Justice Marshall observed back in Marbury v Madison, 1803.
10 posted on 07/10/2003 8:09:37 PM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: sd-joe
You wrote, "The difficulty in this approach is determining when an action does NOT hurt others, and is thus a protected liberty, and when it DOES hurt others and is thus a proscribed 'license'."

The way that was dealt with--in order to grant license to kill the unborn--in 1973 was to sweep aside the notion that the unborn are individual human beings and thus persons worthy of protection from having their LIFE taken from them without due process of law. Oh, to be sure, no one wrote such a truth in the Roe v Wade ruling ... it was the underlying assumption that a woman's liberty trumped the LIFE of a non-person.

36 posted on 07/10/2003 9:59:23 PM PDT by MHGinTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: sd-joe
The Lawrence ruling is about a specific Texas law.

That is the thing - it is not just about a Texas law. It was about 12 other state's laws as well.

Furthermore, the net was cast so broadly here that laws forbidding smae-sex marriage, bestiality, incest, prostitution, obscenity, bigamy, adultery, etc. are put at risk as well. This was not a narrow decision.

127 posted on 07/11/2003 9:58:06 AM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

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