The Supreme Court: Unlocked Doors and Whitey

IntellectualConservative.com ^ | Friday, December 6th | Brian S. Wise

[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.

[Karsus]

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) :

Harm \Harm\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Harmed; p. pr. & vb. n.
Harming.] [OE. harmen, AS. hearmian. See Harm, n.]
To hurt; to injure; to damage; to wrong.

Though yet he never harmed me. --Shak.

No ground of enmity between us known Why he should mean
me ill or seek to harm. --Milton.


From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) :

Harm \Harm\, n. [OE. harm, hearm, AS. hearm; akin to OS. harm,
G. harm grief, Icel. harmr, Dan. harme, Sw. harm; cf. OSlav.
& Russ. sram' shame, Skr. crama toil, fatigue.]
1. Injury; hurt; damage; detriment; misfortune.

2. That which causes injury, damage, or loss.

We, ignorant of ourselves, Beg often our own harms.
--Shak.

Syn: Mischief; evil; loss; injury. See Mischief.


From WordNet (r) 1.7 :

harm
n 1: any physical damage to the body caused by violence or
accident or fracture etc. [syn: injury, hurt, trauma]
2: the occurrence of a change for the worse [syn: damage, impairment]
3: the act of damaging something or someone [syn: damage, hurt,
scathe]
v : cause or do harm to

[Karsus]

First I do not have access to the entire legal code of every location in the USA but a good starting point would be the areas where one can be charges with public indescency/intoxication.

But I hope that most logical thinking people can say that being behind 4 walls, a roof, a closed door, and closed windows constitute a private area. If your own home is not a private are then what?

There is a MAJOR step from g-string to public sex. You are using the same argument that the pro-abortion / anti-gun groups use.

A strip club does have an effect on the surronding area. That is why they can be regulated by the local goverment.

[bvw]

Well, the in-practise definition of adequately covering private parts started with full size panties and migrated down to a g-string.

Likewise courts have been pretty arbritary with regard to what constitutes a private sub-space within a public space. The trend has been liberal -- allowing more claims against prosecuting on the basis that there was some expectation of privacy even in public areas. You argue using the most secure and easy to define private space -- in practise there are many more private spaces much less secure and easy-to-agree on than a bedroom in your own house.

[tpaine]

bvw:
Other than you and young Sprout's own imaginations and wanna-be-ism can you give any historical support for your novel definition of crime?

No, he can't.
218 - roscoe lies -

My comments at #211 stand unrefuted by you three clowns, -- and now, to divert attention away from that fact, you claim that victimless 'crime' law is historically justified.
-- This nations constitution was written in an attempt to correct such historical injustice.

You boys, and your weird opinions on constitutional law are testimony that much work remains to educate americans on their own liberty.

[Roscoe]

My comments at #211

Unresponsive noise.

[tpaine]

More BS from roscoe.

[Roscoe]

"Other than you and young Sprout's own imaginations and wanna-be-ism can you give any historical support for your novel definition of crime? Or would you have that in the 5000 years (minimum) of civilization this has not been considered and is you two have happened upon it?" --bvw

Couldn't manage even a speck of historical support, tpaine?

No surprise there.

[tpaine]

Read the constitution. It's my historical support, just as I noted.

[Roscoe]

Read the constitution.

Which provides no support for your inane, unsupported and willfully ignorant assertions.

[tpaine]

Another inane, unsupported and willfully ignorant assertion by roscoe. -- Ho hum.

[Roscoe]

"Valentin claims that the federal government does not have concurrent criminal jurisdiction in instances where the state has criminalized certain conduct. We disagree. Although the states have a primary role in defining and prosecuting criminal law, see Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 128 (1982), both the states and the federal government are vested with the authority to define and punish offenses against their authority, see United States v. Giovanelli, 945 F.2d 479, 491 (2d Cir. 1991), and "a single act constitutes an 'offence' against each sovereign whose laws are violated by that act." Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82, 93 (1985)."

"Valentin's claim, that the federal government lacks jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause, is also without merit. Under the Commerce Clause, Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the states, see U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, as well as activity that substantially affects interstate commerce. See United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 558 (1995). This court has found that certain federal criminal statutes established by the Controlled Substances Act, including 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), criminalize conduct which substantially affects interstate commerce. See Proyect v. United States, 101 F.3d 11, 14 (2d Cir. 1996)(per curiam) (upholding 21 U.S.C. §841(a)(1)); United States v. Genao, 79 F.3d 1333, 1336 (2d Cir. 1996)(upholding 21 U.S.C. § 846). Furthermore, congressional findings codified in 21 U.S.C. § 801 establish that even the local manufacture, distribution, and possession of controlled substances substantially affect interstate commerce. See 21 U.S.C. § 803(3),(5); see also Proyect, 101 F.3d at 12-13; Genao, 79 F.3d at 1335-36."

http://www.tourolaw.edu/2ndCircuit/May98/s96-2782.html

[bvw]

You give no entry to your own pig-headedness.

[bvw]

That wouldn't even give a first grader a passing grade.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

If it is done in private what does it matter? It is not like it is hurting anyone (except maybe those involved in it)

Sodomy hurts all tax payers. As tax payers we are paying out the ass (as opposet to in the ass) huge sums of money to treat and attempt to find a cure for AIDS. If the people participating in high risk behavours, such as sodomy, take all of the responsibility I wouldn't mind the laws being repealed. Let those who kill others via AIDS pay for their actions. Don't take money from me to pay for their perverted practices.

[tpaine]

"Valentin claims that the federal government does not have concurrent criminal jurisdiction in instances where the state has criminalized certain conduct. We disagree. Although the states have a primary role in defining and prosecuting criminal law, see Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 128 (1982), both the states and the federal government are vested with the authority to define and punish offenses against their authority, see United States v. Giovanelli, 945 F.2d 479, 491 (2d Cir. 1991), and "a single act constitutes an 'offence' against each sovereign whose laws are violated by that act." Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82, 93 (1985)."

Good grief, what an inane cite.
-- How are victimless 'crimes' offenses against fed/state authority?
Who gave fed/state/local governments the power/authority to create 'crime' from acts that harm no person?

[tpaine]

Your posts show you to be the 'pig-headed' juvenile.
Thanks, & keep up the good work.

[FreedomCalls]

Sodomy hurts all tax payers.

Read this.

[Karsus]

Smoking, overweight people, lazy people, people who do not exercise, people who X hurt all taxpayers. Should all the above be made illegal also?

This is not about if sodomy is right or wrong. It is about the power of the state to control people.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

Like I said, "if the people participating in high risk behavours, such as sodomy, take all of the responsibility I wouldn't mind the laws being repealed."

I know of no laws already on the books regarding fat people so there are none to repeal. PLease let me know if I am incorrect (with links to the anti-fat-people laws please).

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

Excellent link!