Really? Then why do they provide curtains or other PRIVACY provisions at every polling place in the country?

Really? Two consenting adults, what business is it of anyone else what they do or why they do it?


Tell it too the food Nazis on the left who are banning it

Again, why isn't dealing a private matter? But if USING is a private matter, are laws banning the USE of drugs unconstitutional?

So, it is your informed and thoughtful opinion that the United States Constitution protects the right to engage in beasiality? Not what you think SHOULD be legal, but you believe it actually MUST be legal under our Constitution?

So, like with beastiality and drug USE you believe our constitution requires that these actions be completely legal?



Yes, they choose words both to include and EXCLUDE things. Please point to the part of the text that grants any general right to privacy, or to sodomy rights in particular.

Well, actually, all you've said is "what the words allow". Yet you seem to allow judges to give those words any meaning, however strained and ridiculous to arrive at their outcomes, without explaining why they apply the same words in inconsistent and often contradictory grounds with NO justification or rational from case to case.

You have simply ignored the FACT that the Cannons of Construction, the rules which judges are expected to follow in interpreting legal texts are in fact assumed in the phrase "Judicial Power".

__________________
"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

Who you vote for should be a private or, at least, anynomous matter but I believe the issue was "buying and selling votes"?

Really. As said, try buy her off with flowers. I'm sure the IRS and local vice squad won't lift a brow but her pimp and/or agency might.

Anyhow, purchasing sex is as private as purchasing any commodity, - whatever you buy and why you buy it may be private but the transaction is not a private matter as it involves a great deal other than yourself. Add to that that the transaction in itself is illegal and you get even more parties involved.

Again, see above regarding prostitution.

As for constitutional or not, I believe it's already been said that the "right to privacy" is a matter of court law. I haven't said that it's a constitutional right.

The "right to engage in beastiality"?? No no, the issue was "right to privacy" so let's stick to that, please. Anyhow, see above regarding "right of privacy" and court law (also see below).

Again, see above regarding "right of privacy" and court law.

Marcus1124, about human sacrifice, it is of course not a matter of privacy when such an action involves other than the consensual parties. And it usually does.

The same goes for beastiality. However, as hinted, it's a highly subjective term. For example, some around here would not hesitate to call certain sexual acts beastial without even witnessing it themselves (hell, they get traumatized by the very thought and, surely, thoughts are private, are they not?) Some acts may be seen as an expression of beastiality but are fully within the bounds of privacy.

Tthat brings me back to my early question, what is the fundamental moral or ethical distinction between voting for someone just because they promise to give you someone else's tax dollar using the power of government, and voting for someone because they have given you THEIR money (or money freely contributed to them by supporters) to do so?

And, what if the transaction itself is done in private? Is abortion a "public" matter if you are paying for it, and thus proscribable by law even if abortion in general is protected under the "right to privacy" Does it become no longer private because you are entering into a commercial arrangement for it?

Why does the exchange of money or other form of compensation fundamentally alter the relationship from being "private" to being "public"?

And the transaction being illegal is a moot point when what you are discussing is whether or not the constitutional says it can or cannot be MADE a crime. That is what the sodomy supporters are arguing. That because it is a "private" matter it cannot even be made against the law.

Courts don't have the power to "make" law, only to interpret and to apply it. The court is saying that anti-sodomy laws are PROHIBITED by the Constitution, what we are discussing is whether or not that is a reasonable and defensible interpretation of the constiuttion, or an example of judicial overreaching where the judges have simply substituted their own preferences for the expressed law of the people.

Jesus, if you're going to particpate in the discussion try to fucking keep up. The court has found that sodomy is a constitutionally protected right because it is protected under the also judicially made up "right to privacy". I have asked why beastiality, for which every "privacy" argument that can be made regarding sodomy can equally be made would not also be a constitutional guarantee under the EXACT same reasoning.

Except the courts have said the constitution (under its "right to privacy") DOES include some acts between consenting adults (because despite how often people tell one another to "go fuck themselves", I have yet to meet anyone that can actually DO IT).

Also, so long as they are doing it without exchanging money (which you inexplicably seem to think has some bearing on how "private" a transaction is)

__________________
"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

Abortion stood during Roe vs. Wade as a battle between what the US Supreme Court recognized as the right to privacy and all other interests. The latter as expressed by the "interest of the state". Since the right to privacy came out on top, even when abortion involves other interests such as the transaction you mention, the right to privacy trumps those interests. It doesn't mean that the transaction itself is private.

Because it involves other parties, or, to stay in the terminology from above, it involves other interests than those belonging to your private sphere. For example, other interests require that you register a fire arm even though you have a constitutional right both to property and to bear arms.

The transaction being illegal is not a moot point. It's an interest that removes the act from your privacy.

Correct, the courts don't have the power to make law. That's why interpretation and applying the interpretation is called court law.

The US Constitution is a law like any other except it can't be altered by the judicial powers. But it can certainly be interpreted when interpretation is warranted. However, since it can't be altered, an interpretation only exists by the power of legal precedent.

Have a good day, sir.

Which brings me back to why is abortion under the umbrella of the "right to privacy" and not beastialty, etc.

Well, doesn't the act of having an abortion affect the rest of society? It cheapens the value of human life, it has resulted in a lower population then their would otherwise have been. Aborting babies has a significant impact on our economy in the long run. Beasiality has no impact on ANYONE, so why is it not a protected matter under the "right to privacy"?

That is my point. Every argument you provide in FAVOR of abortion as a right can be EQUALLY applied to many other things which you are nonetheless arguing is NOT a right for some inexplicable reason. Sometimes you say it isn't a right because money changes hands, making it no longer "private", but other times the exchange of money is irrelevant for no clear reason other than you have arbitrarily decided it isn't.

But what we are discussing here is the defensibility of those interpretations. Meaning that the issue of court precedent has NO relevance, when that is the VERY thing we are discussing the justification for.

__________________
"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

Not being English speaking and not having gotten any hints here on what bestiality means, I looked it up and concluded that you must mean zoophilia. Am I right?

Whatever it is, if an act that you consider to be an act of bestiality is not illegal *) and it does not infringe on other peoples rights and privileges then it poses no legal issue. It may involve some moral issues but what that has to do with any legal aspects solely depends on how smart the defendant's lawyer or the prosecutor is.

*) For the 20 or so states where there are no bestiality laws (i.e., zoophilia), laws regarding animal cruelty can be applied and, so, it can still be found illegal and therefore remove such an act from the realm of privacy.

I just said in the previous post that multiple interests are at play with regard to abortion. Just because Harry Blackmun et al decided that the ultimately private issue that the body of a human being is trumps all other interests, as they were presented in the case of Roe v. Wade, doesn't mean that all other interests suddenly go away. Just like the gun registration is a weighed compromise between various interests, abortion is a weighed compromise and, in this case, the right to privacy has not only been recognized but has come out on top of all other interests. It's not that complicated.

Well, to repeat from above, bestiality (i.e., zoophilia) has an impact if the act involves illegal activities, such as animal cruelty. Heck, it can even infringe on the right to property if the offender uses the neighbors dog

I believe you're absolutely right if your argument is that once the right to privacy is recognized judicially then laws regarding sex acts within the boundary of privacy (i.e., no abuse, no infringement), such as sodomy laws and zoophilia laws, should be repealed.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled certain things as "unconstitutional" according to the United States Constitution. Some view this as "legislating from the bench." It is actually a function of the "checks and balances" which are written into the United States Constitution.

Agreed. Phrasing it the way I did was contradictory. Could it be said that "legislation from the bench" is based on interpretation of existing legislation rather than the actual process of legislation?

In the case of the United States Supreme Court, they are Constitutionally authorized to rule in cases of "law or equity" based on the text of the United States Constitution.

They have a case of law, for example, brought before them and they will rule whether the law in question is consistent with principles or wording of the United States Constitution. If they rule that it is not, then the law in question is "struck down" either in whole or in part.

Oh ok, that. That's different from the effect of precedent I was on about.

Precedent does have effect. It can effect how future cases are decided and/or how laws are written.

This is completely inaccurate. No less an originalist than Antonin Scalia recognizes the power of the Supreme Court to delcare statutes unconstitutional based on the fact that they are inconsistent with any reasonable interpretation of the Constitution. The disagreement or debate over "activist" judges is what constitutes a "reasonable" interpretation or method of doing so.

I would hope we can all agree as a base, that the intent of the founders was not to create a nation ruled by philosopher kings from the bench on high. Judges are not free in exercising "judicial authority" to simply give the law any meaning that they want. There are constraints.

My question for those who REJECT the traditional rules which include:
1. When the words are unambiguous, they are supreme (not every part of the constitution is bathed in ambiguity--in fact NONE of it is made intentionally vague--take capital punishment, there is NO ambiguity in the fact that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights clearly provides for the existence of "capital" crimes, and thus cannot be reasonably interpreted as having banned capital punishment)

2. Every part of a law must be read as having substantive meaning or purpose, if there are two possible interpretations, one which renders a part of the text without any substantive effect or purpose, one that gives each part effective meaning, the latter must be applied

3. Unless specifically indicated otherwise in the law, words are to be given their ordinary and common meaning at the time of the creation of the law.

4. No legal text should be interpreted in such a way that results in one part of the text contradicting another part. And no two legal texts should be interepreted to contradict each other if there is another reasonable interpretation of one or both which does not result in a contradiction. If there is no reasonable interpretation of two different legal texts which produces no contradiction, the more recent (if the texts in question have the same legal weight--two statutes for example) the more recent is controlling.

5. Where general words are followed by an enumeration of more specific terms, the later is to be read as qualifying the former

6. (Refering to #5) Items not on the list are not covered or included under the law (unless there is an affirmative indication that the list is illustrative rather than inclussive--such as being preceeded by "including", or "such as", etc...

7. When ambiguity exists, its meaning may be determined by looking at how similar or identical language in contemporary legal texts or documents defined those terms.

8. When a portion of a text is ambigous, its meaning can be determined by its relationship to the rest of the text

9. When a list of words has a modifying phrase at the end, the phrase only refers to the last item listed unless clearly indicated otherwise

10. Texts may not be reasonably interpreted in a manner r which conflicts with the fundamental societal values of those who wrote and gave it effect

11. In criminal matters, ambiguity should be interpreted in favor of the defendant

12. The the underlying reasoning supporting an interpretation, consistently applied would yield absurd outcomes, it is an unreasonable interpretation

13. When an interpretation would result in abridgement of long-held rights or powers of the state, or result in a substantial policy change, the court will not hold that interpretation unless clearly stated by the legislature.

Those who support many of the most onerous and constitutionally baseless acts of judicial abuse (Roe v. Wade for example)

Originalists, like Scalia, believe that the objective of these interpretive rules/tools is to guide and constrain a judge in determining what a legal text was reasonably understood to mean by those from whom its power and effect was derived. That a legal text does not change in meaning merely by virtue of the passage of time. It means today, what it has always meant, changeable ONLY by an act of the people, and not from the Bench.

Some argue that the constitution was left intentionally vague to facilitate "change", yet this is belied by the very words of the founders, who while they may--even amongst themselves--have had some disagreement over what the reasonable meaning of certain parts were, they believed that WHATEVER that meaning was, it was fixed and immutable absent an Amendment pursuant to Article V.

What the founders DID intentionally do is--in those areas where they felt in neccesary--leave the scope of specific powers rather broad, while some were made very narrow. There intent (along with the power to formally amend the document) was not to create a "living" document that morphed and changed in meaning, but rather a "living" document due to its ENDURANCE (with the inherent flexibility within the scope of powers granted and the ).

Among those justifications given for the constitution being maleable in meaning rather than fixed those mentioned here include:
1. Unforseen changes in technology
2. Changing "times" (presumabley changes in society-at-large's preferences and values)
3. General arguments for "flexibility"


The problem with these justifications is that they are not relevant (or flat out contrary to) the actual cases that we are talking about.

Take Roe v. Wade, there is NO honest debate over whether or not the constitution was understood to prohibit restrictions (if not outright bans) on abortion, it was not, period, anyone who says otherwise is being willfully ignorant of flat out dishonest. So, how does Roe v. Wade fare with regard to the usual justification given for judges to ignore the clear historically accepted understanding of the Constitutions meaning?:

1. Modern science has also given no definitive answers which remove any of the moral questions which have always been the basis and rational for state. As a strictly scientific question, human life absolutely begins at conception. As the right-to-life crowd likes to say "it isn't a 'potential' human life, it is a human life 'with potential'".

2. "Changing times" - Clearly Roe v. Wade, when it was decided cannot claim to be reflecting changing attitudes by society at large, the whole reason it was before the court was because an insufficient number of people supported it as a "right" to have it reflected in the law through the democratic process.

3. General Flexibility - Ask yourself this, was our constitution MORE or LESS flexibile after Roe v. Wade was decided? It was undeniably LESS flexible, before Roe the people of each state could decide for themselves whether or to what extent abortion should be legal. Now we have had a one-size-fits all law imposed on the whole of the country. No support from the people, no basis in the clear understanding of the constitution by those who ratified it, no basis in the history or traditions of our society. No real justification beyond a majority of the member's of the Supreme Court willed it so because it is what they think the constitution SHOULD say, and not because of any defensible argument that it DOES say that.

I am still waiting for opponents of Originalism to tell me what they think SHOULD constrain judges in how they interpret a legal text other than simply allowing them to make it up to suite their personal views.

Please explain to me what rational there is for sodomy being constitutionally protected under the "right to privacy" that does not equally apply to beastiality, drug use, adult incest, 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

Science won't ever give answers with regard to ethics or morality. You can at the very most state that technology will (technology is not science) but that's only via its application within society, - society being the only arbiter of ethics.

And as a strictly scientific question, human life absolutely continues at conception. There is no loss of life anywhere between the production of gametes to the complete and functional zygote. The beginning of a human individual is quite another matter, which science shall not even attempt to resolve because that question is way beyond the capabilities of science.

PS. I'm not trying to make this an abortion thread, - I'm only replying to your posts.

Two points. First of all, science not providing answers was my point, Scientific change does not provide a basis for the courts to ignore the clear understanding of the Constition--which left the legality or illegality of abortion entirely to the states to decide, each to their own--in favor of a judicially created "right" with NO basis in anything other than the personal moral and policy preferences of the justices who ruled on it.

And technically LIFE continues at conception, but HUMAN life begins. The constituent parts are not themselves HUMAN life, they are merely living organisms, neither on its own has the capacity to ever become more than what it is.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are