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

To: finnman69
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

Yes, but we're confusing "privileges and immunities" in general with specific "rights", which I think is Constitutionally suspect...seems to me the U.S. Supreme Court should not be issuing rulings at all on sexual practice unless you're going to say sexual conduct is somehow a protected right and privilege specified in the Constitution...

And doesn't this ruling infringe on states' rights? Times might indeed be "changing", but other states have simply repealed various laws without interference from the Supremes. I certainly hope this federal intervention was very narrowly tailored, or we could indeed be looking down a slippery slope; Santorum made some good legal points that he was unfairly excoriated for (look for the "rerun" following this decision) and I do wonder why O'Connor reversed herself...that inconsistency is a bit "troubling"...!

201 posted on 06/26/2003 8:07:43 AM PDT by 88keys
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies ]


To: 88keys
seems to me the U.S. Supreme Court should not be issuing rulings at all on sexual practice unless you're going to say sexual conduct is somehow a protected right and privilege specified in the Constitution...

I think that's exactly what they ARE saying...

217 posted on 06/26/2003 8:10:49 AM PDT by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies ]

To: Amelia
The States with sodomy laws........


266 posted on 06/26/2003 8:26:17 AM PDT by deport (TLBSHOW = BUSHBOT de EXTRAORDINAIE TRANSCENDS...MAY 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies ]

To: 88keys
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.

Is not a person's sexual behavior part of their life and is it not also a liberty and a "natural right" as defined by the term liberty?

If the USSC had issued a specific ruling making 'sexual conduct' a private right that is guaranteed protection from state rights, THEN you are opening the door to rulings on incest, child porn, etc.

They did not do this and I so no reaon why incest, statuatory rape laws or child porn laws are somehow in jeopardy as a result of this ruling.
293 posted on 06/26/2003 8:33:24 AM PDT by finnman69 (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies ]

To: 88keys
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.

1,346 posted on 06/26/2003 4:04:28 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies ]

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