Lawrence v. Texas

[Bono]

Hugo Black? Perhaps the best justice to serve on that court? That's some powerful crack. That KKK member supported FDR's court packing scheme in 1937, pretended the New Deal was constitutional, and started this ridiculous notion that the Bill of Rights is incorporated against the states by the privileges and immunities clause.

Nclib and 'Pym Fortuyn' are two illiterate jokes who base nothing on an actual legal argument of any kind and just support blatantly activist court rulings to get the results they want.

I'll take that as an admission that the ruling was complete bunk.

Being the lone dissenter doesn't make you an activist. Quit commenting on stuff you know nothing about.

Why did you put my name in quotes? Do you think I'm not a real poster or something?

Yes I'm sure conservatives have a wonderful "legal arguement", its the bible, not the constitution. And I hope you guys don't oppose this decision because of the marriage issue. The 2 are seperate, it was Scalia who brought it up in his dissent.

If you oppose Lawrence then that means you want police to break into people's homes in the middle of the night and throw them in jail for having sex. The case had nothing to do with marriage. Maybe in the future it could be used as a basis for that, but obviously gay marriage will be banned for a long time so I don't know why this libertarian ruling got the right so upset, unless it was a campaign ploy.

This ruling is not libertarian, for libertarianism requires decisions to be taken at the lowest government level possible.
You just show your ignorance by making comments like that.

[Alcon]

Hugo Black? Perhaps the best justice to serve on that court? That's some powerful crack. That KKK member supported FDR's court packing scheme in 1937, pretended the New Deal was constitutional, and started this ridiculous notion that the Bill of Rights is incorporated against the states by the privileges and immunities clause.

Nclib and 'Pym Fortuyn' are two illiterate jokes who base nothing on an actual legal argument of any kind and just support blatantly activist court rulings to get the results they want.

I'll take that as an admission that the ruling was complete bunk.

Being the lone dissenter doesn't make you an activist. Quit commenting on stuff you know nothing about.

Why did you put my name in quotes? Do you think I'm not a real poster or something?

Yes I'm sure conservatives have a wonderful "legal arguement", its the bible, not the constitution. And I hope you guys don't oppose this decision because of the marriage issue. The 2 are seperate, it was Scalia who brought it up in his dissent.

If you oppose Lawrence then that means you want police to break into people's homes in the middle of the night and throw them in jail for having sex. The case had nothing to do with marriage. Maybe in the future it could be used as a basis for that, but obviously gay marriage will be banned for a long time so I don't know why this libertarian ruling got the right so upset, unless it was a campaign ploy.

This ruling is not libertarian, for libertarianism requires decisions to be taken at the lowest government level possible.
You just show your ignorance by making comments like that.

Actually, your definition is extreme libertarianism.  That is like saying liberalism is by definition communist immorality or conservatism pro-market authoritarianism.  There are moderate stances that do not necessarily involve the least amount of government possible, and the definition of "least amount of government" possible varies heavily.

But fundamentally, I agree; this isn't necessarily a libertarian decision.  Holding the opinion that anti-sodomy laws should be voluntarily repealed is, on the other hand, one.

[Bono]

Hugo Black? Perhaps the best justice to serve on that court? That's some powerful crack. That KKK member supported FDR's court packing scheme in 1937, pretended the New Deal was constitutional, and started this ridiculous notion that the Bill of Rights is incorporated against the states by the privileges and immunities clause.

Nclib and 'Pym Fortuyn' are two illiterate jokes who base nothing on an actual legal argument of any kind and just support blatantly activist court rulings to get the results they want.

I'll take that as an admission that the ruling was complete bunk.

Being the lone dissenter doesn't make you an activist. Quit commenting on stuff you know nothing about.

Why did you put my name in quotes? Do you think I'm not a real poster or something?

Yes I'm sure conservatives have a wonderful "legal arguement", its the bible, not the constitution. And I hope you guys don't oppose this decision because of the marriage issue. The 2 are seperate, it was Scalia who brought it up in his dissent.

If you oppose Lawrence then that means you want police to break into people's homes in the middle of the night and throw them in jail for having sex. The case had nothing to do with marriage. Maybe in the future it could be used as a basis for that, but obviously gay marriage will be banned for a long time so I don't know why this libertarian ruling got the right so upset, unless it was a campaign ploy.

This ruling is not libertarian, for libertarianism requires decisions to be taken at the lowest government level possible.
You just show your ignorance by making comments like that.

Actually, your definition is extreme libertarianism.  That is like saying liberalism is by definition communist immorality or conservatism pro-market authoritarianism.  There are moderate stances that do not necessarily involve the least amount of government possible, and the definition of "least amount of government" possible varies heavily.

But fundamentally, I agree; this isn't necessarily a libertarian decision.  Holding the opinion that anti-sodomy laws should be voluntarily repealed is, on the other hand, one.

Lowest level I mean like Federal vs State.
Lowestis what's closer to the people.
Unless you are trying to say that libertarianism defends centralization.

[Peter]

"Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress." -- Justice Kennedy, for the Court in Lawrence.

I would, of course, concur in the Court's judgement.

[A18]

There is no right to liberty in the Constitution. Kennedy is easily one of the dumbest justices on that court.

[Emsworth]

The decision was most certainly correct, and was constitutionally sound. States, in my view, are prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause from arbitrarily depriving people of liberty, as was done in Texas.

An equal protection argument can also be made in this case, insofar as the actual enforcement of the law is concerned.

[Bono]

The decision was most certainly correct, and was constitutionally sound. States, in my view, are prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause from arbitrarily depriving people of liberty, as was done in Texas.

An equal protection argument can also be made in this case, insofar as the actual enforcement of the law is concerned.

So they can't deprive them from the freedom to murder?

[Peter]

So they can't deprive them from the freedom to murder?

Libery isn't the freedom to do whatever the hell you want, it is as Justice Blackmun said in Bowers (echoing Justice Brandeis), "the right to be let alone."

Laws prohibiting sodomy in this context were outlawing consensual behaviour between adults, done in private with no commercial element. If there is no right to this contained in Liberty then there is truly nothing contained in Liberty.

[A18]

Liberty is freedom, as Bono said. If you can't deprive someone of liberty, you can't deprive such person of freedom.

However, there is obviously no right to liberty in the Constitution.

EDIT: And Justice Blackmun was an idiot with a split personality and inferiority complex. Who cares what he had to say?

[Bono]

So they can't deprive them from the freedom to murder?

Libery isn't the freedom to do whatever the hell you want, it is as Justice Blackmun said in Bowers (echoing Justice Brandeis), "the right to be let alone."

Laws prohibiting sodomy in this context were outlawing consensual behaviour between adults, done in private with no commercial element. If there is no right to this contained in Liberty then there is truly nothing contained in Liberty.

If such is true, and it applies to be left alone, why can't you be left alone to grow weath on your own farm to feed your own hogs, or to saw off your shotguns?

[Peter]

why can't you be left alone to grow weath on your own farm to feed your own hogs

Presuming you mean wheat, then I think you should be able to do so free of state interference provided that these hogs do not become involved in acts of commerce at some later stage.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Right to bear arms is otherwise protected by the Constitution, so the point is moot.

[A18]

A fifth amendment right to liberty would supercede the commerce power of Congress. Not that it matters, because it doesn't exist.

[Bono]

A fifth amendment right to liberty would supercede the commerce power of Congress. Not that it matters, because it doesn't exist.

Exactly, becuase the bill of rights presents exceptions to powers granted(and sometimes to powers not granted).

[The Duke]

"Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress." -- Justice Kennedy, for the Court in Lawrence.

I would, of course, concur in the Court's judgement.

My answer to Justice Kennedy is to direct all our attention to Raich v. Ashcroft.  Kennedy ruled against Raich because he despises narcotics, even though by his standard one would have to admit that "the right to be let alone" includes exactly this.  In Roe v. Wade, a decision Kennedy has upheld this "right to be let alone" is extended to medical procedures (even when commerce is involved and money changes hands).

If Justice Kennedy really believed in Blackmun's "right to be let alone" he'd have ruled in favor of Raich.  His decisions in Roe and Raich are irreconcilable with his views on Lawrence not because there is some universal Constitutional standard he's applying, he's simply mutating the words of the 14th Amendment to enshrine what he approves of and ban whatever he doesn't approve of.  Since Kennedy has no intellectual consistency, its hard for me to take him seriously.  Though this certainly does point out the fatal flaw in the penumbras idea, that judges are not forced to derive their decisions from the text of the Constitution, they can simply recite the liberty clause and declare damn near anything a fundamental liberty interest.

I don't know your own view on Roe or Raich, so I can't say this refutes you but I think Justice Kennedy has some answering t do.

[Emsworth]

A18, of course there is no "right to liberty," just as there is theoretically no "right to life." Technically, there is only a right "not to be deprived of life or liberty without due process of law." Otherwise, capital punishment and imprisonment could conceivably be declared unconstitutional.

[A18]

Correct, so quit talking about how the government can't deprive someone of liberty just because you consider it arbitrary. It doesn't say arbitrarily, which is nothing but a matter of policy, it says without due process of law, and we've already gone through what due process means.

[Emsworth]

Correct, so quit talking about how the government can't deprive someone of liberty just because you consider it arbitrary. It doesn't say arbitrarily...

If I might crave your indulgence for one more moment, I feel compelled to point out that I was using "arbitrary" in the same sense as "without due process." I am sufficiently literate to comprehend that "it doesn't say arbitrarily." Naturally, I do not feel that the government cannot deprive one of liberty "just because consider it arbitrary," as you put it in your, shall we say, refreshingly blunt fashion.

[A18]

You were using arbitrarily to denote a test of legitimate government interests. And the legitimate government interests are those you consider legitimate.

[Schmitz in 1972]

I dislike the decision because it in effect set a precedent that morality cannot be used as a basis for a law, state or federal. Also, I quite agree with Bono's assertion that it infringes on the state's rights.

[Peter]

I don't know your own view on Roe or Raich, so I can't say this refutes you but I think Justice Kennedy has some answering t do.

My own view on Roe is that it is unsound constitutional law, though if I were a legislator, I could not see myself legislating much beyond what is presently allowed under Roe. Though I don't base my view of abortion regulation on the fact of money changing hands, but on the fact that I don't consider regulating it an arbitrary removal of liberty under any reasonable standard.

Medical procedures are generally protected under the right to life clause, even though there are acts of commerce occuring. However, abortion (or other procedures) for "social" reasons is not pursuant to protecting such life and is such unprotected. Obviously abortion for a health or life reason is protected under the right to life doctrine.

When you say Raich v. Ashcroft, I think you mean Ashcroft v. Raich (later Gonzales v. Raich). In this case there is no need to explore an arbitrary denial of liberty, though I think a point was raised earlier in the case. The question presented is: Did Congress abuse the Commerce Clause in prohibiting CA from allowing persons to use their homegrown cannabis for medicinal purposes? Of course it did is my answer.

Since California wasn't attempting to regulate these people's right to use their own homegrown cannabis, then theres no need to explore a liberty interest in the case.

[Bono]

I don't know your own view on Roe or Raich, so I can't say this refutes you but I think Justice Kennedy has some answering t do.

My own view on Roe is that it is unsound constitutional law, though if I were a legislator, I could not see myself legislating much beyond what is presently allowed under Roe. Though I don't base my view of abortion regulation on the fact of money changing hands, but on the fact that I don't consider regulating it an arbitrary removal of liberty under any reasonable standard.

Medical procedures are generally protected under the right to life clause, even though there are acts of commerce occuring. However, abortion (or other procedures) for "social" reasons is not pursuant to protecting such life and is such unprotected. Obviously abortion for a health or life reason is protected under the right to life doctrine.

When you say Raich v. Ashcroft, I think you mean Ashcroft v. Raich (later Gonzales v. Raich). In this case there is no need to explore an arbitrary denial of liberty, though I think a point was raised earlier in the case. The question presented is: Did Congress abuse the Commerce Clause in prohibiting CA from allowing persons to use their homegrown cannabis for medicinal purposes? Of course it did is my answer.

Since California wasn't attempting to regulate these people's right to use their own homegrown cannabis, then theres no need to explore a liberty interest in the case.

The federal government was.

[Peter]

The federal government was.

I'm not sure what your point is. I already stated that I don't believe that Congress had the power to do what ultimately the Court has allowed it to do.

[A18]

The right to be alone should include all drugs, not just marijuana for medical purposes. You're inconsistent.

That, and you don't understand there's no right to liberty in the Constitution, and that it actually specifically states liberty can be taken away with due process.

[Peter]

The right to be alone should include all drugs, not just marijuana for medical purposes. You're inconsistent.

How have I been inconsistent? I don't believe I've ever stated anything to the contrary to my above statements. Of course, the State may regulate any commerce that goes on involving the drugs, but the drugs in question in Raich were homegrown and were not in anyway involved in an act of commerce.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Due process of Law seems to indicate that a rational decision is being taken on some level with discernible logic. Removing a liberty simply because the "majority doesn't like it" is not due process of Law and is simply an arbitrary grab of liberty not supported by the Constitution.

[A18]

The fifth amendment supercedes the commerce power of Congress. Thus, Congress can not regulate commerce if it takes away liberty without due process.

Due process of law is being treated in accordance with the law, rather than an arbitrary standard of the executive power. That is the true, historical, factual meaning. Your version of due process of law is a joke, because it's all subjective preference whether a law is rational or not.