SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

FOXnews

[Thane_Banquo]

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.

[Clint N. Suhks]

See you later

[fooman]

The UK is moving in this direction too. I think you have some countries on the Continent that already acknowledge gay marriage.

Basically, marriage is for gays, gold diggers and losers. Sorry HV.

[freeeee]

In my example, the society would determine the scope of property rights. Voluntarily.

Rights are not up for popular vote. If they are they're not rights to begin with.

You keep describing unlimited democracy when critiqing libertarianism. I don't think you know the difference.

Let me help:

Libertarianism = No initiation of force or fraud by anyone, even a supermajority. Rights are inherent, and are not up for a vote.

Democracy = Majority rule. There are no rights, only privilidges bestowed by the whims of the majority.

[tpaine]

Ya'll's devotion to one another is admirable. It brings tears to my eyes, it does.
-Catty Crawford-



To: tpaine
Consensual pedophilia, bestiality (personal property) and consensual incest the Liberaltarians are hypocrites on the 10th.
1,287 posted on 06/26/2003 2:58 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1266


Quoted above is Suhks loony answer to my post 1266.

Any cool 'cat' can feel free to post my supposed "obfuscation", at the risk of being seen as a sucker for Sukhs.

[jmc813]

Even though we don't agree, it seems like you have a good understanding of the constitution. I mistakenly thought that you might be one of the FReepers who wwere being hypocritical with their constitution talk.

[El Gato]

we're confusing "privileges and immunities" in general with specific "rights",

I don't think we are. Either that or the author of the 14th amendment was similarly confused. Rights, as the term is used in the constitution, are nothing more than "imunities" from government action. "privileges and immunities" was a term of art used to describe rights protected from infringment, The drafter of the 14th amendment, Representative Bingham, , stated : "that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, fourteenth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States." He then proceeded to read those eight amendments. See Halbrook

The opponents of the 14th amendment also understood the clear meaning, and that it did indeed restrict some powers of the states.

[Macklew]

America at bat...
STRIKE TWO!

[george wythe]

Are you saying that heterosexuals have not been punished for becoming involved in oral or anal sex?

Outside of public sex, I think not
but those legislatures that make that distinction in their law clearly did so to avoid what happened today.

Just as recently as 2001, there were heterosexuals punished for getting involved in oral or anal sex.

A man convicted of sodomy with a woman has joined the suit challenging Virginia’s sodomy law.

[snip] Fred Leslie Fisher, who was convicted of sodomy with a woman in a hotel room in Frederick County, is now joining the suit, says attorney Sam Garrison, who is leading the challenge.

[Clint N. Suhks]

Any cool 'cat' can feel free to post my supposed "obfuscation", at the risk of being seen as a sucker for Sukhs.

Ok, let’s take the easiest one first shall we? Why is consensual incest, and let’s make this real easy, homosexual incest, not a (9th) right devoid the power of the state (10th)?

Waiting for your obfuscation with high boots and shovel in hand.

Quickly I gotta go.

[spunkets]

"The UK"

They failed to heed Hayek, they are a nation of serfs, like Canada where the lords in Ottawa reign.

Marriage is still the beautiful, natural institution of love, family and companionship. The thoughts and effect of all the morons that have ever lived will not change that.

[HumanaeVitae]

No...one of the things you see a lot is liberals (and libertarians) arguing for federalism when it benefits their particular issue and conservatives arguing the opposite (for instance, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban), and vice versa when the terrain is reversed. I'm just being honest. However, it's difficult to argue what is and what is not 'Constitutional' these days. It kind of depends on whether or not Sandra Day O'Connor has taken her Metamucil.

From what I've read, there have been about three different working interpretations of the Constitution throughout American history. The last major shift was in 1937, the 'switch in time that saved nine', where much of the New Deal was upheld. I believe the 10th Amendment was finally finished off for all practical purposes in 1940, but I'd have to look that up. I'm a little foggy on that.

[El Gato]

Privacy is guaranteed by the fourth amendment, as we are to be secure in our homes, papers, etc.

But only against unreasonable searchs and seizures. I really need to read this opinion, but it seems hard to find a strong privacy right in the 4th amendment alone. The 9th (10th speaks of powers not rights) would be a better place to find a right of privacy, but to do that you'd have to find that such a right was commonly accepted when the 9th amendment was ratified, and that might be hard to do.

Personally I think I have the right to manufacture and keep a machine gun, grenades and maybe some claymore type mines, in the privacy of my basement or garage, under both the second and ninth amendments, but you can be sure the BATFE, Congress, the rest of the Executive Branch, and the Courts, have other ideas.

[Grando Calrissian]

and bodily fluids covering the sidewalks.

...well that's true, but it's mostly bum urine.

[El Gato]

Where in the Constitution are States granted the right to legislate the private everyday conduct of citizens based on sexual preference? The law in question bans homsexualy sodomy but not heterosexual sodomy.

That's true, but was apparently not the basis upon which the law was overturned. This ruling is said to invalidate all sodomy laws, not just those applying to homosexuals.

The Constitution does not grant rights to the states, in fact neither they nor the federal government have any, they only have powers. However the Constitution does not grant powers to the states either, it does restrict some of their previously existing powers, but under the 10th amendment it leaves those not explicitly restricted intact.

[tdadams]

Very true, maybe I should have considered that statement more carefully before I posted. At least they're not bathing in the Union Sq. fountain anymore.

[tpaine]

Why is consensual incest, and let's make this real easy, homosexual incest, not a (9th) right devoid the power of the state (10th)?

1,349 -suhks-

Nonsense question. Are you claiming that the state has a power to invade a queers home to see if some sort of incest is being practiced? - Weird idea.

[Grando Calrissian]

Willie Brown's "Keep the Bums Away from the Tourists" campaign is working. Now they just camp out near the Trans-Bay Terminal.

[fooman]

The great one on WABC. Levin burning it up.

[tpaine]

From what I've read, there have been about three different working interpretations of the Constitution throughout American history. The last major shift was in 1937, the 'switch in time that saved nine', where much of the New Deal was upheld. I believe the 10th Amendment was finally finished off for all practical purposes in 1940, but I'd have to look that up. I'm a little foggy on that.
1,351 -hv-

Bizarre, liberal 'interpretation', imo. Where did you get the 3 different 'shifts' thing?
-- You claim a law school education. Where?

[Clint N. Suhks]

Nonsense question. Are you claiming that the state has a power to invade a queers home to see if some sort of incest is being practiced? - Weird idea.

They can't without reasonable cause.