This is the fundamental problem liberals have. When they prattle on about "right to privacy" or "keeping government out of the bedroom", they are in effect arguing NOT that government should be allowed to arbitrarily enter certain places to see whether or not you are committing a crime (MY Fourth Amendment has done that for over 200 years), they are arguing that this non-existent "right to privacy" means that the government can't even make those things a crime PERIOD.

Hence the reason not a single one of them has been able to explain why I can't (in the "privacy" of my bedroom) engage in:

1. Buying and selling votes
2. Prostitution
3. Eating trans-fats
4. Drug use
5. Beastiality
6. Human sacrifice with a willing sacrificee (after all, they do argue in a "right to die" as part of this "right to privacy)
Etc., etc.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

Arguing the ridiculous doesn't make your case.

None of those evil liberals are saying that the right to privacy gives you the right to perform illegal activities just because you're in a place that's private.

Oh, and you can eat as many trans fats as you want.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Whether or not you think the "right to privacy" exists or not is irrelevant. The United States Supreme Court has said that it does.

Really? You yourself have argued that Sodomy can't be made illegal.

As for "arguing the ridiculous" not making a case, you are once again demonstrating your total ignorance of the law. One of the most ancient and established rules of legal construction is "arguing the ridiculous", namely, if the arguments or logic underlying a particular interpretation, consistently applied to other situations, yields a result which is clealry absurd, it totally undercuts the rational for the interpretation.

That you cannot provide any explanation (let alone a logically consistent one) that explains why sodomy is a constitutionally protect matter under the "right to privacy", while all those things I listed are not, then it pretty much establishes the lack of any real intellectual substance for your ridiculous interpretation.

Why don't you just admit that what you support is the unrestricted rule of judges, with them imposing their will (insofar as you agree with it) with no constitutional, historical, or even public support.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

Geez, another pathetically obtuse liberal. Of course as a matter of law, that is the case. What we are discussing is whether or not that is a intellectually reasonable or defensible interpretation of the institution.

Do you believe that Judges are bound by anything other than their own personal views and preferences in declaring what the law is, or is it an abuse of their judicial authority to ignore the will of the people as expressed through the law and instead impose their own preferences even when it is contradicted by the text, history, and the people?

Do you believe the other two branches are Constiuttionally bound to follow the Supreme Court's rulings?

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

Correct. And the USSC agrees with me.

You're clearly not an attorney. You're discussing things on an Internet discussion board.

Sodomy is protected because the laws preventing it were only intended to discriminate against a minority group. Human sacrifice involved the active killing of a healthy individual. Clearly, they're not the same, no matter how you want to twist it.

Of course. That's exactly what I support. Thank you for restating my position so clearly.

You really are a masterdebater!

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

And there reasoning is just as inconsistent, and indefensible as your's (evidenced by your absolute inability to provide any)

I clearly know more about the law and basic logic and reasoning than you, evidenced by that non sequitor.

You must be a fool, your handle is Pramjockey

Do you have any problem with the logic of that statement?

You are so clearly incapable of defending your posititon, you just resort to an endless litany of logical fallacies (most of which you yourself are ignorant of).

At least I have tried to have a rational and substantive discussion, you have not, why even bother to engage? I am at least honing and sharpening my reasoning skills, at best you are making yourself look like a substanceless fool who might be improving their typing speed.

So, I will ask again, give me a single argument justifying interpreting the constitution in a manner that makes sodomy a "right", but not beastiality?

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

Asking someone if they'd like to engage in sex is legal.
Public sex acts are illegal, and soliciting a public sex act is illegal, but soliciting a private sex act is legal.

The ACLU is contending that the law assumes that a person soliciting sex in a mens room is soliciting public sex, but in Minnesota, sex in a bathroom stall is private. The argument is that Craig may have been soliciting private sex, which is perfectly legal.

But what Conservative Republican Senators do in mens rooms has become quite a topic of discussion, huh?

Maybe the ACLU is doing this just to remind voters that while all Conservative Republicans may not blow strangers in mens rooms, at least one currently serving Conservative Republican Senator is on record, pursuing the activity..........

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

The United States Supreme Court may interpret laws according to what the language allows.

Here is the Ninth Amendment to the United States Consititution:

Article III of the United States Constitution says in part:

And the answer is, no harm, no foul.
The "crime" is creating a public disturbance, if you don't create a public disturbance, you haven't committed a crime.

There is no right to have sex in a public place, but if it's just the two (or three or whatever) of you, then you aren't disturbing the public.

If I act lewdly in the National Forest, and no one sees me, there is no crime, if I act lewdly in the crowded public square, it produces a different result.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

Yes, but the court must, in excercising its power try to the best of its ability to adhere to the reasonable meaning of those laws as they were understood by those who gave them effect. In the case of the Constitution, those who ratified it and its amendments. The constitution doesn't empower judges to decide what the constitution SHOULD say, it empowers them to apply what it DOES say.

And yes, when dealing with a finite text and an infinite set of possible situatiosn to which that text may need to be applied, ambiguities may arise, but that doesn't mean that judges are completely unbound, free to give ANY meaning to the text.

The first and most obvious point I would make is that the language of the ninth amendment itself makes it clear that it is NOT a source for the creation of NEW rights by judges, but is a recognition that there were rights believed by those who ratified it that ALREADY existed which were RETAINED by the people. So, the question for a good judge is, was sodomy understood to be one of those rights retained by the people? Clearly not, since laws proscribing sodomy existed at the time, and were not understood to conflict with the Ninth Amendment.

Second, and just as important, you need to understand why the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were included in the Bill of Rights.

The reason the Bill of Rights are the first ten amendments to the constitution was because originally the founders opposed such an enumeration of rights on two grounds. First, they believed that the limited powers granted to the Federal government and the fact that the states retained their soveriegnty, along with the overall structure and disperal of powers over the three branches was more than sufficient to guard against Federal intrusion on individual liberties.

Also, and far more importantly, they believed that an enumeration of certain rights might lead to the misinterpretation that anything not specifically DENIED the Federal Government, was within its powers even if no such power had been specifically enumerated.

That was the reason for the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. There were included to avoid the miscontruction of the Bill of RIghts as inferring MORE rather than LESS power to the Federal government.

Finally, even if the Ninth Amendment WERE intended to be an ongoing fountain of NEW rights, it is hardly an invitation for courts to impose their notion of these new rights with no textual, historical, or public support for them. In fact, most of the "rights" that the court has made up have been completely contradicted by the text, history, and public.

People often confuse the practical legal IMPACT of Supreme Court rulings as being legally binding on lower courts (although NOT on the other branches) as meaning the constitution was meant to mean whatever judges want it to. But


And what exactly do you think all of that means? Has it occured to you the "the judicial power" has a meaning and limitations?

The rules I have cited regarding how judges are supposed to interpret ambiguities in legal texts far predate the founding of the Republic and were assumed to be followed in exercising "The judicial power". Ergo, any interpretation of the constitution which clearly ignores or violates those cannons would be abuse of power, and impeachable offenses.

The very premise that the Court may declare laws unconstitutional (Marbury v. Madison) is based on the notion that the Constitution IS just like any other legal text, with a set meaning that is to be reasonably applied by the courts in given situations, they do not GIVE meaning to it, they are supposed to do their best to determine the meaning given it by those who gave it effect.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

No. The U.S. Supreme Court is not bound by "the reasonable meaning of those laws as they were understood by those who gave them effect." That is an appeal to tradition and is irrelevant.

No one is arguing that they can give "ANY" meaning to the text.


Your point about sodomy is missing the point. The United States Supreme Court in saying it is protected (by declaring unconstitutional) indicates that this right never should have been proscribed by law. But among those "retained by the people."

If it is not law, then it is not a legal requirement.

Article III section 2 of the United States Constituion confers this authority.

Well, if they are not bound by what it was reasonably understood to mean by those who gave it meaning, then what...other than their own personal views (which is basically saying they can give it ANY meaning they like) ARE THEY bound by?

Based on WHAT though? What rules do you believe constrain judges in how they may interpret a legal text? Think long and hard about how you answer that given your claim that you are NOT arguing that judges may give the law ANY meaning they personally want to.

My point is that it IS the law. That words have meaning, and the words "Judicial power" were understood to mean the traditionally understood role of judges, which included being constrained by the Cannons of Construction when interpreting legal texts.

But if the Constitution has no fixed certain meaning, how can they claim power from a document the meaning of which is not fixed?

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

I'm a sucker for bullet lists.

1. Voting is not a private matter
2. Prostitution is apparantly not a private matter. Try give her flowers instead and you might find out what makes it non-private.
3. Eating trans-fats? Knock yourself out.
4. I honestly don't know. Dealing is not a private matter but using the stuff should be private under the circumstances that are otherwise considered private.
5. If agreed upon by consensus, I don't see why not. Usually void of consent, though, beastiality is very subjective. Some consider themselves victims of a gruesome kind of beastiality just by walking in on two people having sex.
6. Again, if done by explicit consent then the privacy shouldn't be a problem. However, since one party kinda forfeits the opportunity to defend the case, you'd be an utter fool to comply and engage in the act. Personally I think that alone should be enough to send you away for life

As I said, what the language allows. This is a reason for those who write laws to choose language with care.