Posted on 12/06/2002 5:57:06 PM PST by Tina Johnson
The Supreme Court will hear three cases that should be of particular interest to conservatives, as the subsequent rulings could put significant weight behind two of the Right’s grander tenets. First, Lawrence v. Texas, in which the Court will determine the validity of anti-sodomy laws in 13 States, concerning the 1998 arrests of John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner, who were caught in Lawrence’s apartment engaging in acts of sodomy. (The two eventually plead no contest and paid $200 fines.)
Now most Right-wingers will read that and wonder, “What conservative tenet does this address, exactly?” None, unless you take seriously Ronald Reagan’s long held wish to get government off of the people’s backs and out of their lives. President Reagan was speaking of the federal government, of course, but taking the extra step to include State and local governments is not only desirable but logical, at which point one must admit getting off of one’s back should include not giving a damn what happens in his bedroom, provided all are adults, all consent and the neighbors aren’t being kept awake. (All right, that last bit is self-serving, but still.)
We are speaking here of laws in 13 States banning sodomy, nine of which are for both sexes (Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia), the other four pertaining strictly to gays (these are Texas, Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma). How does a municipality go about enforcing said laws, exactly? In the case of Lawrence and Garner, a false report about an armed intruder was made to police, who then walked into the unlocked apartment and proceeded to make a federal case out of it. Literally. If not for an unlocked door, these State laws would probably be allowed to stand. And let’s make no mistake about it, they should all be overturned.
Put aside for a moment the normal arguments regarding whether or not one has a constitutional right to sodomy, or whether or not the integrity of the anti-AIDS crusade can be upheld, and consider just this: Part of having and enjoying autonomy – and in this it is meant the autonomy of human beings, not just American citizens – is being able to make up one’s mind regarding those activities not necessarily typical of his contemporaries. A man or woman of sound mind and majority can choose whether or not to undergo or skip cancer treatments, whether or not they can be kept alive artificially should some horrible trauma befall them, whether or not their organs can be harvested and donated to those in need. To suggest the same adults who are presumably capable of making these decisions cannot decide rationally on the matter of oral and / or anal sex, and must therefore be overseen by law (no matter how generally unenforceable) is ludicrous. It’s an idea that supplants the ability of adults to decide for themselves what happens within their own walls; private walls, after all.
The second and third cases are Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger, in which the Court will consider the University of Michigan’s open race-based preference admissions policy. Here two white students were turned away from the University’s undergraduate and law schools respectively in favor of “minority applicants.” The interest to conservatives is obvious: It should be said by the Supreme Court that every man and woman trying to get into college should be considered by the weight of their intellect, not the color of their skin (to adapt Reverend King’s well spoken expression).
It’s fine for one to wish upon the Court the wisdom to make the proper decision (and I do), but how come no one has ever complained about racial preferences on the University’s basketball court and football field? The University of Michigan has for years produced basketball and football teams that have not only contended for Big Ten and national championships, but have won them, as well. At some point the dictum “Whitey Really Isn’t Needed Here, Unless He’s a Quarterback or a Center” came from on high, and not so much as one fit was ever pitched. Weren’t nitwits brought onto campus for the sole purpose of putting the University within shouting distance of one championship or another (Yes; e.g., Chris Webber), and therefore haven’t large bags of cash been dumped on administration desks, one after the other, as a result?
Well sure, that’s because we’re talking about sports, and the standards there have come to be held at different levels for sports teams, especially in large Division 1-A schools like … well … the University of Michigan. So the Right should know, in this matter, even if the Court rules on the side of logic, there will always, always, be race-based preferences on the college campus, some preferences just stated more loudly than others.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Sodomy is not a Federal matter.
L
Sorry if I was unclear. I didn't mean, literally, that you would charge me with the responsibility. I meant that it is meaningless to assert somebody has a responsibility for something they do not enjoy the liberty to carry out. Let me try again. My parents and I agree I'm responsible to walk my little brother home from school. I get grounded, can't leave the house. I no longer have the freedom required for the responsibility. There are many more complex examples, but the bottom line is responsibility means nothing if the person charged does not enjoy the liberty to assume it.
While the anti-federalists were prescient, indeed -- all their reservations are nothing before something gets going.
No.
It is therefore not surprising that every court that has considered the question, both before and after the Supreme Court's decision in Lopez, has concluded that section 841(a)(1) represents a valid exercise of the commerce power. See, e.g., United States v. Edwards, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 1996 WL 621913, at *5 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 29, 1996); United States v. Kim, 94 F.3d 1247, 1249-50 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Bell, 90 F.3d 318, 321 (8th Cir. 1996); United States v. Lerebours, 87 F.3d 582, 584-85 (1st Cir. 1996); United States v. Wacker, 72 F.3d 1453, 1475 (10th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 136 (1996); United States v. Leshuk, 65 F.3d 1105, 1111-12 (4th Cir. 1995); United States v. Scales, 464 F.2d 371, 375 (6th Cir. 1972); Lopez, 459 F.2d at 953.Proyect attempts to distinguish this body of authority by arguing that, while growing marijuana for distribution has a significant impact on interstate commerce, growing marijuana only for personal consumption does not. Despite the fact that he was convicted of growing more than 100 marijuana plants, making it very unlikely that he personally intended to consume all of his crop, Proyect contends that no one may be convicted under a statute that fails to distinguish between the cultivation of marijuana for distribution and the cultivation of marijuana for personal consumption. This contention is without merit.
False. Period.
L
You're wrong.
I won't even say "next," because you have nothing more to add.
I said nothing about a sexual act. I said, is it all right for a prostitute to solicit in front of your home? Can she stand on a public streetcorner, right there where you live, and proposition a "john"?
And while we're at it: Why is it not okay for them to have sex right there as well? After all, it's a "mutually beneficial exchange," as you said. If you don't like it, don't look.
I don't have to. The Founding Fathers made such entreaties. Their fathers did as well. And their fathers. And so on back to Adam.
The fact that for some reason, your Saturday-morning-cartoon-addled brain was disconnected from the line is no reason to pay the slightest attention to what you or your ilk have to say on the subject.
Yours is the wisdom of a defiant sixteen year old brat proclaiming to his parents that his business is his own, and none of theirs.
Roe is emphatically not irrelevant to the sodomy case. If the court rules the sodomy statute is unconstitutional, it will almost certainly do so on the basis of the "right of privacy" created in Roe vs Wade.
Roe purports to find a penumbra of emanations of privacy rights somewhere in the bill of rights. Those privacy rights include the right to abort a child, anywhere anytime, according to the Supreme Court.
The bill of rights (containing that supposed right of privacy) only applies to the States thru the 14th amendment (so you are right about the 14th amendment). My recollection is that the right of privacy based on ROE was the issue before the supreme court the first time the court dealt with the Sodomy rights issue.
So you have to have Roe PLUS the fourteenth amendment for the US Constitution to prohibit state sodomy laws. (If sodomy were not permitted to homosexuals but was permitted to heteros, then you might have an equal protection argument, but I don't think that is an issue in this case.)
If you think ROE vs WADE was good constitutional law, then you will love the Constitutional Right of Sodomy. If you don't like ROE, don't let libertarian tendencies push you into supporting a very, very, bad constitutional result. This decision would be a continuation of the huge increase in the power of the federal government that was started by Roe vs Wade--that is, the power to tell all states what morality they can and cannot, must and must not enforce.
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.