Today the Supreme Court overturned themselves, and Texas law, making it unconstitutional for Texas to press charges on two men caught performing sodomy. This is an awful day for state rights and the constitution.
quote:Our founders just thought of it as unacceptable and morally wrong.
can you tell me where in the constitution it says that sodomy is unacceptable and morally wrong? or are we now granting the title of "founders" to anyone who pushes for legislation?
quote: I still don't think the government should impose laws dictating what you can or cannot do in your own house.
I still don't understand why the government gives a **** about what you do in your house. It's not like people are practicing sodomy in the street. It's in their private residence, and the government shouldn't care, or have a say, what goes on in a private residence unless is is harmful or illegal, for a good reason. And that brings me back to my first question. Why is/was sodomy illegal?
quote: But if a state's majority (the voters) believe they should, then the government represents the will of the people.
True. But, it's consitutionally illegal if that inferior government's practices come into conflict with the practices of the superior government, whose practices are dicatated by the overall majority. Thus "providing the greatest pleasure for the greatest number of people" aka utilitarianism and the belief in majority rule which is the foundation of our democracy.
The post from WND, if that is your view, is correct in saying that state's rights are not in danger. Just like a majority opinion cannot bring back slavery, it cannot criminalize consentual sex as it is constitutionally protected.
quote: But if a state's majority (the voters) believe they should, then the government represents the will of the people.
This from the kid who campaigns against democracy?
A lot of voters are ignorant. There are reasons we don't let them dictate social policy. My freedom shouldn't be negated due to the moral hangups of a prominent religion.
quote: But the Supreme Court was not designed to MAKE laws - they were regulated to APPLYING them.
They didn't make a law, they simply recognized freedoms that already existed, correcting an eggregious wrong that was done by the court in '86. The right to be let alone already existed since the constitution was written, it just took the Nine Stuffy-bums in Washington a real long time to spell it out for everyone.
This pretty much explains how I feel about it all:
Credit is duly noted.
Looking for privacy in wrong place</B]
quote:Those who say they cannot find a "right to privacy" in the Constitution aren't looking in the right place. The Constitution was never meant to be a document listing what individuals are permitted to do. It's a document that limits the powers of government.
quote:The same conservatives who are supposedly so devoted to the principles of freedom and a strict interpretation of the document should pay particular attention to the Ninth Amendment. It covers rights not specifically enumerated by the Founders.
quote:Those who fear for States' Rights should know that the States are bound by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as well. How would you feel if the people of your state collectively gathered and petitioned their representatives to revoke your right to worship? Are you as an individual subject to the whims of society – of the angry mob?
quote:This is a nation founded on the principles of the rule of law, which protects the rights of the individual. Not the right of a simple majority to impose their moral standards on everyone. If you find homosexual behavior abhorrent, then don't engage in it. But don't assume you can enlist the police powers of government to force others to comply with your views.
[B]Ron Bagwell
WorldNetDaily.com
<JoeyDauben>
Posted
I still don't think the government should impose laws dictating what you can or cannot do in your own house.
But if a state's majority (the voters) believe they should, then the government represents the will of the people.
Sorry for the morons comment. I'm still debating this, and why make laws you cannot enforce?
But the Supreme Court was not designed to MAKE laws - they were regulated to APPLYING them.
Well, www.cato.org appears to support the court's decision.
"Cato Legal Expert: Supreme Court Anti-Sodomy Decision Is "Victory for the Pursuit of Happiness"
...Pilon, vice president for legal affairs and director of Cato’s Center for Constitutional Studies, released a statement after the ruling:
“I’m delighted that the Supreme Court did today what it should do in all cases – stand for liberty, against majoritarian tyranny. Today’s decision is not a victory for alternative lifestyles alone. Because it has far-reaching implications, it is a victory for liberty itself and hence for everyone, gay and straight alike.
“The state of Texas argued that its inherent police power authorized it to police morals. But the state has no such authority. State police power is meant to secure rights. Plaintiffs Lawrence and Garner were violating no one’s rights. What they were doing was no more the business of the state than it was of any neighbor.
“Moreover, the Fourteenth Amendment recognizes rights against such state actions. In reaching that conclusion today, the Court may have taken the first step toward a Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence that is rooted at last in the amendment’s first principles.
“Taking the unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench, Justice Scalia claimed that ‘the Court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda,’ adding that it has ‘taken sides in the culture war.’ That misses the point. The issue here is not the ‘homosexual agenda.’ It’s the Constitution. Ours is a Constitution of liberty. It restrains government. As with flag-burning and much else, one can with perfect consistency condemn what a person does yet defend his right to do it. As we prepare to celebrate our independence next week, let us celebrate now this victory for the pursuit of happiness.”
Just quoting from the site you suggested when trying to educated the "morons" on this site.
quote: If you are even remotley educated in government you will answer state rights.
Yeah, It started with the articles of confederation which gave the states more power and rights than the federal government... and guess what... It failed, miserably.
quote: But why don't all of you ignorants who are against this rulling ask yourself wheter this country was founded on federal rights or state rights. If you are even remotley educated in government you will answer state rights.
Ahh!! Too many muddled opinions about different issues.
Alright we have more than one controversy here. The sodomy law was overturned. This spawns two debates -> gay rights -> and states rights. Let's see how the supreme court decision influenced each of these.
1. Gay Rights: This is an obvious "score one" for the gay community. The ruling added fuel to the fire of gay marriage. The possibility of gay marriages is one step closer to becoming a reality.
Supporters: the gay community, sympathizers of gay rights, those who believe the governemnt has not right to legislate the legality of private matters like sex lives. Supporting arguement: The law was discriminatory and a violation of privacy. It was a low blow to the homosexual lifestyles.
Opponents: those opposed to the gay community gaining recognition and rights for their lifestyle. Religious affliations are oftened strong in this category. Opposing arguement: Sodomy is morally wrong. It is a crime.
2. State's Rights: The ruling is an example of the supreme court using it's power to strike down state laws.
Supporters: Who? Varies. I don't know if any generalizations can be made. Supporting Argument: The Supreme Court has the right to strike down state laws when they are a violation of the constitution. The constitution applies to all states and state laws can not interferre with that.
Opponents: Once again, I don't know. Those wary of the power of the federal governmnet Opposing Argument: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Feel free to add points to the supporting/opposing arguments.
*Please note: Just because you support the court's ruling in regards to gay rights does not mean you support it in terms of state rights and vice versa*
Personally I support the ruling in both regards to gay and state rights. I believe that the states do have reserved rights but I believe the sodomy law violated the constitution. It is not okay for states to have unconstitutional laws. The Supreme Court should not have the power to strike down states laws for any other reason that unconstitutionality.
quote: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens" Acording to your use of bold font, Dante, I can imply that you obvliously think that no state rights exists.
Actually, you can't infer anything. What I explicitly state later on is that in the case of discrimination it is a federal responsibility. Also, given our judicial system, the supreme court is the ultimate authority on constitutional issues so they get jurisdiction, in no way is this particular issue a state's rights issue.
quote: Perhaps you should re-read the constitution instead of just picking and chosing exerts to fit your arguement.
The "excerpts" I picked are the ones the case was decided on. Maybe you should have read the decision. I quoted the relevant part, and the entiretly of it at that. It was an equal protection issue so therefore I quoted the section one equal protection.
quote: "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." All people where protected under this law, both heterosexualls and homosexualls. Maybe you should read the law Texas had, sodomy was a crime, not just homosexuall sodomy. Therefor you next statement is a mute point ...
This proves how ignorant you are of the issues at hand. The Texas Law Outlawed Only Homosexual Sodomy. Maybe you should know what you're tlaking about first. Your point here is now "moot" (not "mute" which is what you should stay until you know what you're talking about).
quote: "Hatred against a class of persons was not considered by the Court as a legitimate goal of government" Excuse me, not just that sentence, but the entire paragraph is a mute point. No actually the rest of your post is useless. So it appears your last post was simply a way to waste space.
Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself. I quoted the court decision. If that isn't relevant, what is?
quote: But why don't all of you ignorants who are against this rulling ask yourself wheter this country was founded on federal rights or state rights.
Yeah, why don't you ignorants who argue against this ruling ask yourselves...
In the begining the states had too much power and the government didn't work. That's why they made the Constitution. You would have had to go to all of three government classes to learn that. Additionally, federalism doesn't exist in the judicial realm in the same way. The Supreme Court is the last stop, the ultimate authority, if we were talking about a federal law then you could talk about federalism.
But how the hell is sodomy a crime? It's no more a crime than vaginal sex is, but it seems to me that Texas and whatever other states, if any, are simply discriminating against homosexuals. And of course they had to say that it would be a "crime" not just a homosexual "crime" because it being a homosexual "crime" is blantantly discriminating against homosexuals. And if anything's a crime in this whole ****ing ordeal, the crime is discrimination.
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens" Acording to your use of bold font, Dante, I can imply that you obvliously think that no state rights exists. Perhaps you should re-read the constitution instead of just picking and chosing exerts to fit your arguement.
"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." All people where protected under this law, both heterosexualls and homosexualls. Maybe you should read the law Texas had, sodomy was a crime, not just homosexuall sodomy. Therefor you next statement is a mute point ... "Hatred against a class of persons was not considered by the Court as a legitimate goal of government" Excuse me, not just that sentence, but the entire paragraph is a mute point. No actually the rest of your post is useless. So it appears your last post was simply a way to waste space.
Before you people start arguing this please become familiar with both the constitution and the law in question.
And for all you idiots who are saying that the Supreme Court is the law of the land, no kidding. I bet you guys learned that in high school. No one is arguing that. But why don't all of you ignorants who are against this rulling ask yourself wheter this country was founded on federal rights or state rights. If you are even remotley educated in government you will answer state rights.
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. [i]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; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Hatred against a class of persons was not considered by the Court as a legitimate goal of government: ''[I]f the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.''
The state's cannote discriminate. That is a power they don't have. You can't pick and choose which parts of the constitution you want to follow. States have power over what the Constitution does not talk about, however, the Constitution takes a posisition on discrimination it is therefore not a legitimate State's Rights issue.
What do you ****ing gain when you sodomize,pleasure? satisfaction or what.l guess some are just perverts and twisted.
seriously serious l deem it a wrongful act which is totally obnoxious.for heaven sakes,God destroyed sodom and gommorah for that.l am not saying they should jailed or burned to the stakes or something, l am saying it isn't right.
quote: Do you not know what the Bill of Rights are, dumb@$$?
Don't you realise that there are enough people to hate in the world already, without your putting in so much effort to give us another? And if I want **** from you, I'll squeeze your head.
Topics 
