Posted on 07/16/2003 7:54:08 PM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines
I think that's a different case. The substance of that case is that the NAMBLA should have the right to distribute information on how to rape children, because of the 1st amendment, and they can't be held criminally liable for it.
Also, every judge would automatically deny every request for a wiretap or search warrant. Even a lawfully issued and executed search warrant which found a rape of a minor in progress would be invalid because the activity is "Constitutionally protected under the rights to privacy and free assembly" in your lame-o theory.
Hey...suppose a group of convicted felons get together to reconstitute their "rape gang?" But the "law" forbids former felons from associating with each other? I guess that the law is null and void under the Constitution as per your theory of privacy and the right to assemble?
I think we are talking past one another. This man didn't rape anyone. As for the protected rights, the only unlawfull acts of sex will be those under 16 and even that age can change. This means if a man wants to have sex with a 16 year old and it happens to be his daughter then its ok so long as its done in private. If a brother and sister want to marry then it will have to be ok.
I haven't been speaking of this specific case, and not much of your idea's has been specific to this case...you've been spouting Constitutional generalities applying across the spectrum---all of society.
For example, this statement of yours: "This means if a man wants to have sex with a 16 year old and it happens to be his daughter then its ok so long as its done in private." Is completely untrue. This act would and does currently violate any number of laws on the books for all states and possibly Federal laws as well.
Did you know that the Constitution was originally designed to restrict and deter the FEDERAL gov't alone from the infringment of rights? That was done away with by an intrepretation of the 14th Amendment which links all of the Amendments down to the states, and it wasn't until the 1960's that this was done. That's why all of the southern civil rights cases, which led to laws, took so long to be enacted. States rights embodied in the 10th Amendment kept civil rights off southern law books until the very liberal Warren Court.
Here's another one of yours: "If a brother and sister want to marry then it will have to be ok."
I think this is the world as you wish it to be rather than what you think the USSC actually declares. If you think it's otherwise; give me the cite for the specific case in court history. "United States v ????" Like the case "Terry v Ohio" that authorized police pat down searches of breifly detained suspects.....or the about to be stricken "Miranda v Arizona" that mandated the reading of rights before questioning can occur. C'mon...give me a case or more than one that validates your point rather than making blanket assertions of the world as you think it should be.
Not necessarily. As I recall from my own experience in law school, the USSC can take two roads. The first is rarely done and is a "broad brush" approach where the holding encompasses a broad array of state and federal legal issues. This isn't done often because of the nature of binding precedent and the resultant societal upheaval. The OTHER, more common approach is to take the narrowest possible holding to address only the specific question posed in that particular case, with as little disruption of the legal system as possible. It often comes down to a "reversed and remanded to the trial court for retrial."
In this case, you can bet that the centrist leaning of this court (some recent liberal holdings nowithstanding) will not push such a dramatic upheaval of the system. Witness the fact that the liberal press isn't trumpeting the fact from the mountaintops....and the front steps of state capitol buildings...
We are presently evolving that direction. What happened on sodomy was unthinkable 25 years ago. In another 25 we will continue to "evolve".
Okay...I will give you that...100% But I seriously doubt there will be massive change right away...it is still years down the road and I'm sure you're right...it is "evolving" in that direction and I think it's wrong.
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.