Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban
FOXnews

Posted on 06/26/2003 7:08:23 AM PDT by Thane_Banquo

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 0amanreapswhathesews; 0bedroomkgb; 0godwillnotbemocked; 1aslimmeyslope; 1scrotus; 1slimmeyslope; 3branchesofgovt; activistcourt; activistsupremecourt; ageofconsentlaws; aides; aidesincreasetaxesup; aidesintheusa; aidesupinsuranceup; aidsalert; antibiblecountry; antichristiantrolls; antirelgiontrolls; antireligion; antireligionbigots; antireligiontroll; aregayapparel; arroganceofscotus; ascrotus; assthumpingidiots; biblethumpingmorons; biggovernmentcorrupt; bluenose; blueoyster; bohica; bowtothesecularstate; bowtothewelfarestate; bugger; buggered; buggerer; buggery; busybodieslose; buttpirate; buyvaselinestock; catsdogsmice; celebratesin; chickenlollipoppers; christianbashing; civilrights; clintonlegacy; constitutiontrashed; crazyfundies; culturewar; davidsouterisafaggot; deathoftheusa; deathofthewest; degeneracy; depravity; destructionofusa; devianceuptaxesup; deviantsex; donwenow; downourthroats; downwenoware; druglaws; endofcivilization; evilinactivistcourts; evilinrighttoprivacy; falalafalalalalala; falalalalalalalala; farkinqueers; fecalcontact; fools; fudgepackersdelight; fundiesinthecloset; fundyhysteria; gay; gayagenda; gayarrogance; gaybashing; gaycheese; gaycivlrights; gaydar; gaygestapo; gaykeywords; gaymafia; gaymarriage; gaymoose; gaynarcissist; gaypride; gayrights; gaysarevictimtoo; gayscelebrate; gaysholdusacaptive; gaysoutofcloset; gaysremakeamerica; gayssuppressthetruth; gaystapo; gaytrolldolls; gaytyrants; gayvote; getoutofmyroom; goawaymrsgrundy; godless; godsjudgement; godswrath; governmentschoolsex; hatecrimelegislation; himom; hitlerywins; homeschoolnow; homoapologists; homophobes; homosexual; homosexualagenda; homosexualagendawins; homosexualvote; hyperventilating; ihavearighttosin; ihaverights; incestlaws; indoctrination; itsjustsex; itsunatural; jeebuslovesgays; keywordwarsaregay; kitcheneducation; kneepadbrigade; lawrencevtexas; legislatinghate; legislatingsin; legislaturemakeslaws; lewinksys4all; lewinsky; lewinskys; liars; liberalagenda; libertariansareevil; libertines; lotsdaughters; lpcausesbo; makejeebuscry; manboylove; manboyloveassoc; manholeinspectorjoy; menwithmen; moralrelativism; moralrelativistinusa; msgrundypatrol; mycousinknowsclay; nambla; namblawillwinnext; onepercentrulesusa; oralsex; ourgayapparel; paulwellstone; pcdecision; pederasty; peepingtomgovt; perversion; perverts; preverts; prisoners; privacyprotection; prostitutionlaws; publichealthhazard; puritanslose; readtheconstitution; relgionbashing; religionbashing; romans1godswrath; rosieishappytoday; rosietypes; rumprangers; samesexdisorder; samesexmarriage; samesexmarriages; scotusknowsbest; scotusmakeslaw; scotustrumpsgodslaw; scotustrumpstate; scotustyranny; scrotus; sexeducation; sexindoctrination; sexpolice; sin; singlorified; slimmeyslope; slipperyslop; slipperyslope; slouching; slurpslurp; snitchonyourneighbor; sodomandgomorrah; sodomites; sodommites; sodomy; sodomylaw; sodomylaws; spyinthebushes; statesrights; stronginthesouth; supremecourt; swalloworspit; talibanintheusa; talibannedtrolls; texassodomylaw; thefunpolice; thegayelite; thegayvote; thisisevil; tisseasontobeunhappy; tistheseason; tobejolly; usathirdworldcountry; vicesnowvirtues; victimlesscrime; victimsofaids; victimsofhepatitus; weakinthehead; whatstatesright; womenwithwomen; zscrotus; zslimmeyslope; zzgoodruling
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,301-1,3501,351-1,4001,401-1,450 ... 1,701-1,734 next last
To: jmc813
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.

1,351 posted on 06/26/2003 4:12:19 PM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Catholic Epimethean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1345 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
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.

1,352 posted on 06/26/2003 4:17:03 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
and bodily fluids covering the sidewalks.

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

1,353 posted on 06/26/2003 4:17:16 PM PDT by Grando Calrissian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1330 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
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.

1,354 posted on 06/26/2003 4:21:28 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: Grando Calrissian
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.
1,355 posted on 06/26/2003 4:21:50 PM PDT by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1353 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
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.
1,356 posted on 06/26/2003 4:21:59 PM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1349 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
Willie Brown's "Keep the Bums Away from the Tourists" campaign is working. Now they just camp out near the Trans-Bay Terminal.
1,357 posted on 06/26/2003 4:26:01 PM PDT by Grando Calrissian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1355 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
The great one on WABC. Levin burning it up.
1,358 posted on 06/26/2003 4:28:29 PM PDT by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1352 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
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?
1,359 posted on 06/26/2003 4:28:35 PM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1351 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
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.

1,360 posted on 06/26/2003 4:28:39 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1356 | View Replies]

To: george wythe
What was the compelling state interest to regulate heterosexual sodomy until 1960?

Cultural norms. It's hard not to notice that all kinds of sexual deviancy, and the effects thereof, took off in the 1960s.

1,361 posted on 06/26/2003 4:29:59 PM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Catholic Epimethean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1284 | View Replies]

To: dead
Actually, you should familiarize yourself with the Bill of Rights. It is equally dismissive of “democracy” for the same good reasons.

In fact neither the word "democracy", nor any varient such as "democratic", appear in the Constitution, including amendments thereto. The word "republican" does however, in Art. IV Sec. 4

". The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..."

1,362 posted on 06/26/2003 4:30:21 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: Grando Calrissian
Someone forgot to tell the extremely scary guy I saw on Market St. I consider myself a pretty tough and jaded city dweller and never get the least bit skittish about the various people I cross paths with on the street. But I swear, this guy looked like some post-apocalyptic Rob Zombie type from a Mad Max movie and was pointing and staring at people looking like he was about to start shooting. That was the only time in my life I can remember conciously thinking to myself, "Walk away, don't look at him."
1,363 posted on 06/26/2003 4:31:50 PM PDT by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1357 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
Gotta be Market Street between 5th and Van Ness. One of the worst stretches in the City. It's like Blade Runner come to life.
1,364 posted on 06/26/2003 4:35:31 PM PDT by Grando Calrissian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1363 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
Although I have no use for or respect for Queers, I must agree with the Court.  The reason is simple.

Homosexuality is either a mental illness, a physical disease or a birth defect.  Those are the only possible, rational explanations.  If we punish these sick people for their sickness, all that we are doing is opening the door for the persecution of other people with different diseases or defects.

Punishing a person with cancer or heart disease does not help them or us.  Neither does punishing people whose particular disease or defect causes them to want to have deviant sex with others of the same sex.

Rather than wasting time, effort and taxpayer money, trying to punish queers for deviant sex between consenting adults, we should be spending that same time, effort and money trying to cure them.  After all, if we can find a cure for homosexuality, there will soon be no need for laws against it.

 

1,365 posted on 06/26/2003 4:36:02 PM PDT by Action-America (The next country to invade Europe has to keep France!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Catie
States' rights, fugghedaboudit. Except, of course, for the "compelling interest" of "diversity." Aaargh.

That's a "compelling state interest", where "state" does not necessarily mean one of the several States, but rather "Government". BTW, States have no rights, only powers.

1,366 posted on 06/26/2003 4:36:04 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 337 | View Replies]

To: george wythe
Darn, the missus and me were thinking of moving to Idaho.
1,367 posted on 06/26/2003 4:36:49 PM PDT by A Navy Vet ( b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
It's hard not to notice that all kinds of sexual deviancy, and the effects thereof, took off in the 1960s.

Chicken or egg?

Which came first, the state courts and state legislatures jettisoning sodomy laws, or the debauch “sex, drugs, and rock’n roll” of the 1960s and 1970s?

1,368 posted on 06/26/2003 4:38:47 PM PDT by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1361 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Are you claiming that the state has a power to invade a queers home to see if some sort of incest is being practiced? -

Intersting sophistry I didn't see before. Nor am I claiming that the state has a power to invade an incestuals home to see if some sort of perversion is being practiced? -With out probable cause.

1,369 posted on 06/26/2003 4:39:24 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1356 | View Replies]

To: Grando Calrissian
You got it. San Francisco's own Harlem.
1,370 posted on 06/26/2003 4:40:53 PM PDT by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1364 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
So why isn't it a 9th right, Roger Dodger?
1,371 posted on 06/26/2003 4:41:52 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1356 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Hey, I just cut and pasted and italicized what you and he both said. My only personal comment was about the two of ya'll's love for one another.
1,372 posted on 06/26/2003 4:42:58 PM PDT by Cathryn Crawford (...you doping libertine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1344 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
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.
-tpaine-



They can't without reasonable cause.
-suhks-


Of course they can't.
Same principle applies to the sodomy issue.
Which leaves us hip deep in your BS "obfuscation issue".
-- Whatta sorry clown.
1,373 posted on 06/26/2003 4:43:06 PM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1360 | View Replies]

To: george wythe
Valid question. It is a chicken and egg question. You could make a strong argument that WWII was the culprit. Morals, from what I understand, tend to decay after major wars. Having said that, the case for enforcement of the public morality is still valid whether or not people want the public morality enforced. If they do not want it enforced, however, it won't be. The people themselves are the enforcement mechanism
1,374 posted on 06/26/2003 4:45:18 PM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Catholic Epimethean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1368 | View Replies]

To: Lijahsbubbe
In my opinion, the way is being cleared for same-sex marriages.

I think it will happen very quickly too. But it will be on equal protection grounds. And the courts will ignore the purpose of marriage and all the laws relating to the state of being married, which is to protect the basic unit of society, that is, the family, and thus to protect society itself. However most of those laws are state laws, and they should remain so. Nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government any power in this area.

I won't be surprised if the Supreme Court hears a homosexual marriage case before it hears a second amendment case.

1,375 posted on 06/26/2003 4:46:40 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Of course they can't. Which leaves us hip deep in your BS "obfuscation issue".

Not really, you didn't answer the question did you?

1,376 posted on 06/26/2003 4:47:37 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1373 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
You are apprently under the delusion that you framed a question on the 9th?

-- Where? What is it?
1,377 posted on 06/26/2003 4:47:55 PM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1371 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte
They think gum is for wimps.
1,378 posted on 06/26/2003 4:48:52 PM PDT by ffusco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1201 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
Reframe the nonsense that you imagine to be a "question".
1,379 posted on 06/26/2003 4:50:19 PM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1376 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
We don't invade homes to find consensual incest either so why are you a hypocrite when it comes to regulating it?
1,380 posted on 06/26/2003 4:50:35 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1373 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Right now, I'm also causing stock clerks to put the wrong expriation date on bags of puppy chow.

Now cut that out!
1,381 posted on 06/26/2003 4:52:12 PM PDT by ffusco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1210 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Read here... try and keep up.
1,382 posted on 06/26/2003 4:52:14 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1379 | View Replies]

To: Cathryn Crawford

Cat, -- ya'll's devotion to Clint N. Suhks is admirable. It brings tears to my eyes, it does.
1,383 posted on 06/26/2003 4:52:55 PM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1372 | View Replies]

To: george wythe
As Scalia observed, sodomy, whether hetero- or homo- is what is outlawed. That's a compelling State interest in right order.
1,384 posted on 06/26/2003 4:53:33 PM PDT by ninenot (Joe McCarthy was RIGHT, but Drank Too Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1307 | View Replies]

To: gdani
It pains me to see how many people on this thread *think* they are for smaller Govt but disagree with the ruling.

It's not inconsistent to want a smaller federal government, while also wanting to retain the power of state governments to make such laws, not to make them, or recind any they now have. They always have made them, including before the federal government was created.

1,385 posted on 06/26/2003 4:53:50 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
Marriage is for gays, gold diggers and losers.

Family unit? we will all be plugged into the matrix and the hillary will control what we see and taxes will sucked out Intravenously .
1,386 posted on 06/26/2003 4:55:28 PM PDT by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1375 | View Replies]

To: jmc813; sinkspur
Sinky is much more a libertarian than you suspect. He cannot understand what Right Order has to do with the Constitution.

Means he's about equal to Souter, Kennedy, and the old broads.
1,387 posted on 06/26/2003 4:55:39 PM PDT by ninenot (Joe McCarthy was RIGHT, but Drank Too Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1309 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
We don't invade homes to find consensual incest either so why are you a hypocrite when it comes to regulating it?
1,380 -suhks-

You have some insane idea that I'm "a hypocrite when it comes to regulating incest"? -- Why?


1,388 posted on 06/26/2003 4:58:40 PM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1380 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
Do you think Texas should have the right to make marijuana legal? Gay marriage?

Under the 9th Amendment, yes.

Put it to a vote. See what happens.

1,389 posted on 06/26/2003 4:59:15 PM PDT by ninenot (Joe McCarthy was RIGHT, but Drank Too Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1324 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
You are making a fool of yourself by reposting your original idiocy. - Thanks.

1,390 posted on 06/26/2003 5:01:25 PM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1382 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
Adultery CANNOT be a crime anymore, according to Scalia's dissenting opinion. For that matter, States may not outlaw bestiality or bigamy any more, either.
1,391 posted on 06/26/2003 5:02:31 PM PDT by ninenot (Joe McCarthy was RIGHT, but Drank Too Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1329 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user
Considering the lack of support that Santorum's previous remarks received from the White House and his colleagues, I think the last thing the GOP now wants is for this sodomy decision to be discussed in the public forum. I have notice little outrage from the GOP leadership -- in fact, no outrage at all.
1,392 posted on 06/26/2003 5:02:38 PM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
He cannot understand what Right Order has to do with the Constitution.

The Constitution guarantees equal protection, which is what O'Connor cited as the reason to strike down the Texas law. Privacy was not the reason to strike down the Texas law.

Right decision for the wrong reason.

1,393 posted on 06/26/2003 5:03:06 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1387 | View Replies]

To: george wythe
Off the thread. Just downloaded Scalia's dissent. I'll read that before the majority opinion. Best to save the worst for last.
1,394 posted on 06/26/2003 5:03:28 PM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Catholic Epimethean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1368 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Pedophilia is rape of a minor. Minors have no consent to give as a protected class of person.
1,395 posted on 06/26/2003 5:06:21 PM PDT by ffusco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1300 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
SCOTUS really should have that "Stupid, but Constitutional" ink stamp.

They do. It reads, "Cert denied." ;)

1,396 posted on 06/26/2003 5:08:04 PM PDT by Brandon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 621 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
unConstitutional state laws... unless you were perfectly happy with Jim Crow laws.

Jim Crow laws were what the 14th amendment was about, well part in question anyway. The question here is twofold, is privacy one of the "liberties", or "priveleges and immunities" that states are not allowed to violate (without due process in the case of liberties) which leads to the second question of whether such privacy extends to acts of sodomy, or merely to enforcement actions. My read is that "privacy" isn't about what can or can not be made illegal, but rather about enforcement actions. Even the privacy, such as it is, of being "secure in one's person, house, papers and effects", protected by the 4th amendment is only secured against unreasonable searches and seizures. It does not protect any an all actions taken in private. The only possible place to find a right of privacy is in the 9th amendent, but to find one there, and one that protects private sexual conduct at that, one would have to submit some evidence that such a right was recognized at the time of adoption of the 9th amendment.. and that would be a tough row to hoe, IMHO. It would be a lot easier to find a right to smoke pot or opium in private, or even in public, in the 9th amendment, since such things weren't, for the most part, criminalised until the 20th century in most places.

All this is not to say that the states aren't free to put privacy, even sexual privacy, rights into their state constitutions, or even merely pass laws to protect, or recind laws against, such acts.

1,397 posted on 06/26/2003 5:09:30 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 454 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
"Put it to a vote. See what happens"
-nn-



Our basic constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property are not subject to a 'vote'. - They never have been.
They are self-evident and inalienable.
Learn to live with the founding principes of our republic.
1,398 posted on 06/26/2003 5:10:14 PM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1389 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
Those cultural norms were also moral norms. There IS no compelling interest for the Supremes to overturn extant moral norms, except in the fevered minds of the 6.
1,399 posted on 06/26/2003 5:10:29 PM PDT by ninenot (Joe McCarthy was RIGHT, but Drank Too Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1361 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Should the SCOTUS void a states anti-nose picking law, hypothetically?
Yes. The only legit function of government is protection of individual Rights.

I can't agree. Why have states if the Federal Supreme Court can go around invalidating silly laws? I fear federalism is dead.

1,400 posted on 06/26/2003 5:12:23 PM PDT by NeoCaveman (Ohio Chapter. Original White Devil for Sharpton!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 700 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,301-1,3501,351-1,4001,401-1,450 ... 1,701-1,734 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson