kujo Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 [quote name='Socrates' post='1485411' date='Mar 26 2008, 11:25 PM']Oh, so you're an anarchist? Should we get rid of all laws? All laws "enforce morality" to some degree. Or are you saying that laws should only force immorality? By that logic, we should abolish laws against murder, rape, and theft. After all, these would "remove the free will of our peers" who would wish to commit such acts, and you "cannot coerce people into morality." Why should we trust the agents in our government to be the articulators of these principles, such as that rape is wrong? Since the time of the American founding, most states had laws against sodomy, and this hardly led to the creation of some totalitarian hell with cops in bedrooms, etc. The laws would really only be enforced if the sodomy was in some way made public. (Gay swingers clubs, etc.) Openly promoted and practiced homosexuality and other sexual vices does in fact affect all those who have to deal with it, directly or indirectly, and has helped contribute to a breakdown in public morality. While the federal courts may have plenty of concern for the "rights" of homosexuals to openly practice and promote their vice, what about the rights of parents who don't want to raise their children in a moral open sewer? While you may not agree with sodomy laws, there is certainly no reason for the federal courts to forcibly (and unconstitutionaly) override these state laws (as they have done with abortion, and other things as well). When we give federal courts the power to basically overturn any state or local laws or customs (such as displaying the ten commandments) they don't like, [i]that[/i] is a risk we should be worried about.[/quote] I don't contend that the states don't have the right to ban sodomy. I think you misunderstand my argument. I am saying that they shouldn't. It's not a constitutional issue, for the states maintain the right to legislate how they please. I'm saying that, in the state I live in, if such a law was proposed, I would be against it. I am hardly an anarchist. I am saying that laws should protect my life, my liberty and my property. My moral well-being, and that of my family, is not the responsibility to of my state or our federal government to protect. That's MY responsibility and the responsibility of our parish priests. I think that there is an obvious distinction between murder/rape/theft/fraud and sodomy. So please...be rational. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkwright Posted March 27, 2008 Author Share Posted March 27, 2008 [quote name='Socrates' post='1485351' date='Mar 26 2008, 09:06 PM']That's the judicial tyranny I am referring to. There is aboslutely no "right" to sodomy listed in the Constitution, nor is a "right to privacy" anywhere mentioned (whatever that might mean). The so-called "Constitutional right to privacy" is completely bogus, an invention of activist judges used as an excuse for federal courts to overrule any state laws which disagree with a liberal social agenda. That was the basis for the Roe v. Wade ruling which declared abortion a "Constitutional right." Most states had laws restricting both abortion and sodomy, and no one saw them as contrary to the Constitution until the late 20th century. In the meantime, the federal government has made more and more restrictions on our [i]legitimate[/i] freedoms.[/quote] Regardless of the outcomes, do you really believe that you don't have a right to privacy thats implicit in the Constitution, or perhaps under the 9th Amdt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 [quote name='kujo' post='1485435' date='Mar 26 2008, 09:41 PM']I don't contend that the states don't have the right to ban sodomy. I think you misunderstand my argument. I am saying that they shouldn't. It's not a constitutional issue, for the states maintain the right to legislate how they please.[/quote] Ok, seems we agree on that point. I wasn't perfectly clear where you stood regarding the Constitutional issue. [quote]I'm saying that, in the state I live in, if such a law was proposed, I would be against it. I am hardly an anarchist. I am saying that laws should protect my life, my liberty and my property. My moral well-being, and that of my family, is not the responsibility to of my state or our federal government to protect. That's MY responsibility and the responsibility of our parish priests.[/quote] I don't think there is such a clear-cut distinction between laws regarding morality, and laws not regarding morality, and you have not really given any reason why you think the law should be divorced from moral principles. I believe law can never entirely be divorced from moral principles - which is a modern liberal notion our forefathers would have balked at. "The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.” ~ John Adams "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798 "Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." ~ Charles Carroll - (Catholic) signer of the Declaration of Independence “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” ~ James Madison [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia] “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.” ~ George Washington [quote]I think that there is an obvious distinction between murder/rape/theft/fraud and sodomy. So please...be rational.[/quote] Do you believe government has the right to tax the incomes of citizens? To maintain building codes? Regulate the sale of any weapons? Impose any health or environmental regulations on businesses? Have seatbelt or helmet laws? (Nt saying I support all those things, but just curious where you stand) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 [quote name='rkwright' post='1485597' date='Mar 27 2008, 07:12 AM']Regardless of the outcomes, do you really believe that you don't have a right to privacy thats implicit in the Constitution, or perhaps under the 9th Amdt?[/quote] An "implicit right to privacy" is certainly a vague thing, and is nowhere explicitely stated in the Constitution. The fourth amendment rules against unreasonable search and seizure, but there's certainly absolutely nothing even implying an absolute and all-trumping "right to privacy" which means a person may do absolutely whatever he wants so long as it is of a "private" nature - including abortion and sodomy. This notion of "implied privacy" is so vague and ill-defined that it seems that it can be used to justify almost anything. The fact that this was not seen to be the case until the 1970s should tell you something. But, oh well, who am I to question the unfathomable wisdom of federal judges or the ever-so-rapidly "evolving constitution"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 [quote name='Socrates' post='1486308' date='Mar 27 2008, 11:40 PM']Ok, seems we agree on that point. I wasn't perfectly clear where you stood regarding the Constitutional issue. I don't think there is such a clear-cut distinction between laws regarding morality, and laws not regarding morality, and you have not really given any reason why you think the law should be divorced from moral principles. I believe law can never entirely be divorced from moral principles - which is a modern liberal notion our forefathers would have balked at. "The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.” ~ John Adams "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798 "Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." ~ Charles Carroll - (Catholic) signer of the Declaration of Independence “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” ~ James Madison [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia] “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.” ~ George Washington Do you believe government has the right to tax the incomes of citizens? To maintain building codes? Regulate the sale of any weapons? Impose any health or environmental regulations on businesses? Have seatbelt or helmet laws? (Nt saying I support all those things, but just curious where you stand)[/quote] Wow, a lot to digest here. Forgive the answers in list form... 1. I believe laws should maintain the safety of the public while protecting the freedom guaranteed to them prior to their codification in the Constitution. I believe in natural law and that the government's job is to protect your life, your liberty and your property while abiding by the limitations set forth in the Constitution. Which brings me to my second point... 2. I believe that seatbelt and helmet laws are carp! I actually had an argument with my Constitutional Law professor the other day about this very issue. If I want risk my life and not wear a seatbelt while I'm driving or a helmet when I'm riding a bike, who can tell me to do otherwise? Why do state governments get to tell me how to live my life? It's my life, and if I am going to be stupid and risk it in such an idiotic manner, so be it. The same goes for those who would support laws banning smoking...GET OFF OF MY BACK! If I want to do it, I will. 3. State governments can trounce on our rights just like the federal government, except in a more specific way. 4. I agree that all laws assume a certain inherent morality, for in order for something to be "right" or "wrong," there must be a benchmark for which to examine issues. I just don't believe laws prohibiting an action between 2 consenting adults are legitimate. I fail to see how it endangers my physical or economic safety; however, I do see how it abridges the liberty of another. My question to you, Soc, is why do you feel this law, and others like it, present a danger so great that we must prohibit the action? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 (edited) [quote name='Socrates' post='1486326' date='Mar 27 2008, 11:54 PM']An "implicit right to privacy" is certainly a vague thing, and is nowhere explicitely stated in the Constitution. The fourth amendment rules against unreasonable search and seizure, but there's certainly absolutely nothing even implying an absolute and all-trumping "right to privacy" which means a person may do absolutely whatever he wants so long as it is of a "private" nature - including abortion and sodomy. This notion of "implied privacy" is so vague and ill-defined that it seems that it can be used to justify almost anything. The fact that this was not seen to be the case until the 1970s should tell you something. But, oh well, who am I to question the unfathomable wisdom of federal judges or the ever-so-rapidly "evolving constitution"?[/quote] I agree with your first point, that the Constitution is virtually mute on the subject of privacy. But I would assert that we have the right to expect the government to stay out of our houses (both in the literal and metaphorical sense) unless it has a just cause (i.e.- a warrant). This right comes not from the Constitution, for the document itself does not [i]confer[/i] rights, but rather [i]enumerates[/i] [b]SOME[/b] (not all) which exist prior to its creation. Now, I do not believe that we have the "right" to kill someone "in the privacy of our own homes" because, of course, the laws of this country do not start and end on our doorsteps. Similarly, there is no inherent "right to privacy" when it comes to abortion for similar reasons. Murder is murder, no matter what the scene of the crime is--a street corner, a bedroom, a deli or a doctor's table. Edited March 28, 2008 by kujo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkwright Posted March 28, 2008 Author Share Posted March 28, 2008 (edited) Edit: Double... Edited March 28, 2008 by rkwright Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkwright Posted March 28, 2008 Author Share Posted March 28, 2008 [quote name='kujo' post='1486651' date='Mar 28 2008, 10:35 AM']2. I believe that seatbelt and helmet laws are carp! I actually had an argument with my Constitutional Law professor the other day about this very issue. If I want risk my life and not wear a seatbelt while I'm driving or a helmet when I'm riding a bike, who can tell me to do otherwise? Why do state governments get to tell me how to live my life? It's my life, and if I am going to be stupid and risk it in such an idiotic manner, so be it. The same goes for those who would support laws banning smoking...GET OFF OF MY BACK! If I want to do it, I will.[/quote] We had this same discussion this week in my con law class also... Thus the topic being posted (we just finished up on substantive due process stuff). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 [quote name='rkwright' post='1486685' date='Mar 28 2008, 12:59 PM']We had this same discussion this week in my con law class also... Thus the topic being posted (we just finished up on substantive due process stuff).[/quote] Haha. Have you studied economic substantive due process? If not, prepare to be lulled into a coma because that stuff, while important, is incredibly boring. And don't be fooled by names of cases like "The Slaughterhouse Cases"...trust me....there's no slaughtering....just limiting of working hours and minimum wages.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkwright Posted March 28, 2008 Author Share Posted March 28, 2008 [quote name='kujo' post='1486691' date='Mar 28 2008, 11:04 AM']Haha. Have you studied economic substantive due process? If not, prepare to be lulled into a coma because that stuff, while important, is incredibly boring. And don't be fooled by names of cases like "The Slaughterhouse Cases"...trust me....there's no slaughtering....just limiting of working hours and minimum wages....[/quote] Yea we started with those ones... actually I got behind and didn't read slaughterhouse, but we read Lochner... I think we had one other one I'm forgetting the name of... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 [quote name='rkwright' post='1486695' date='Mar 28 2008, 01:06 PM']Yea we started with those ones... actually I got behind and didn't read slaughterhouse, but we read Lochner... I think we had one other one I'm forgetting the name of...[/quote] Munn v. Illinois is a particularly bland one.... Are you pre-law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkwright Posted March 28, 2008 Author Share Posted March 28, 2008 No I'm in law school, a 1L. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 [quote name='rkwright' post='1486706' date='Mar 28 2008, 01:11 PM']No I'm in law school, a 1L.[/quote] Excellent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkwright Posted March 28, 2008 Author Share Posted March 28, 2008 We had Nebbia v. New York (milk prices) and Williamson v. Lee Optical Co. We didn't have the IL. case? Oh well talk about muddy water... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkwright Posted March 28, 2008 Author Share Posted March 28, 2008 (edited) [quote name='kujo' post='1486710' date='Mar 28 2008, 11:14 AM']Excellent.[/quote] Why are you pre-law? Or in law school... if so I might hit you up for some outlines Edited March 28, 2008 by rkwright Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now