The Supreme Court: Unlocked Doors and Whitey

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

[Roscoe]

How are victimless 'crimes' offenses against fed/state authority?

Your historical ignorance is appalling.

[bvw]

Smoking is illegal in many a place, and lazy people are at times locked up for so being -- "indigents, hobos and loiterers". In some public places -- by law -- you have to have at least some many dollars on you to not be considered indigent.

Now grossly fat people and folks who are out of shape for lack of excercise - as social toxin carriers they are self-limiting. Not so homosexuality -- for most it is a profligate life-style that spreads its poisons rapidly and widely.

Oh -- go read up on quarentines and how Typhoid Mary was dealt with. No crime there, but time is served. Breaking quarentine is a crime -- but no victim, eh? At least there doesn't have to be .. and yet the risk is there.

[Roscoe]

A few of these chuckleheads think that drunk driving shouldn't be a crime until someone gets run over.

[lepton]

Uh-huh. Now apply it, and draw your line.

[lepton]

Fat isn't communicable, nor does it cause loss of judgement. There are other differences as well, but those are sufficient.

[BlazingArizona]

It may not legalize sex in public, but it will legalize prostitution via call girls as long as it's done in the privacy of one's own home

And this would be a matter of government concern because?...

[BlazingArizona]

Morality, public and private, has always been a matter of legislation at that level, and you can't just wave that away because of some hyper-libertarian fad.

As conservatives, we have to consider the precedent being set. Why, if the Supremes prevent Texas and Louisiana from controlling private consensual sex acts, we would be on a slippery slope that could lead to the IRS losing its right to spy on every aspect of our private lives.

[Illbay]

I'm sorry, but you can't just ignore the difference between Federal vs. state/local levels of government.

It would be unconstitutional for there to be a Federal law against sodomy, because it isn't for the Federal government to meddle in such things. It IS constitutional for state and local laws against such acts.

It's really a lot more simple than you let on.

[tpaine]

"It would be unconstitutional for there to be a Federal law against sodomy, because it isn't for the Federal government to meddle in such things. It IS constitutional for state and local laws against such acts.
It's really a lot more simple than you let on." - illbay-

Nope, it is NOT constitutional for state & local governments to meddle in such things. -- They are clearly prevented by doing so by the Supremacy Clause, and by the 4th & 14th amendments.
- It is that 'simple'. How can you continue to deny the words of the constitution?

[Catspaw]

Yeah! pain's for sodomy!

[tpaine]

Yeah! 'catspaw's for sodomizing the constitution!

[Catspaw]

Did little beads of sweat appear on your forehead coming up with that one, pain? You said that sodomy isn't in the constitution, therefore legal--the same goes for child porn in your book.

[tpaine]

Not at all, 'cat'. Parody of your ridiculous BS is no sweat to come up with. - And, - its a pleasure to 'out' you on your unconstitutional attitude.

Your baiting remarks on child porn are obviously demented slander with no basis in reality.
You are sick. Get help.

[Catspaw]

To: tpaine

Hah! That's rich. "Personal attacks and insults" are your first and last names and inflicting pain is your game. Abuse reports from people with unclean hands are not taken seriously. If you want to be taken seriously on this forum you might think about cleaning up your act.

257 posted on 7/28/02 4:10 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256

[tpaine]

Haw, that's rich... posted by a creep FReep like you.

[Catspaw]

It bears repeating, with emphasis added:

To: tpaine

Hah! That's rich. "Personal attacks and insults" are your first and last names and inflicting pain is your game. Abuse reports from people with unclean hands are not taken seriously. If you want to be taken seriously on this forum you might think about cleaning up your act. 257 posted on 7/28/02 4:10 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256

[tpaine]

Look in the mirror, cat.
Personal attacks and insults are what you do here.

[Catspaw]

I didn't emphasize enough for you, pain:

 

To: tpaine

Hah! That's rich. "Personal attacks and insults" are your first and last names and inflicting pain is your game. Abuse reports from people with unclean hands are not taken seriously. If you want to be taken seriously on this forum you might think about cleaning up your act.

257 posted on 7/28/02 4:10 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256

[hattend]

...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.)

How does one get "caught" in one's apartment? Were they actually "in the apartment" or out on the patio/deck/balcony? Or was the "catcher" a loud screamer and they were disturbing the peace?

Just for my own morbid curiosity I want details. LOL!!

[tpaine]

Your POT-ty mouth is calling my kettle BLACK? How stupid of you.