Republicans branching out to old Dem stronghold.

Scrat, you fail to notice, and continue to fail to notice--the origin of the contention i make that you are disingenuous--that the contsitution is not mute on the subjects of persons being secure in their person, their papers their homes and their effects; that the constitution is not mute on the subject of equal protection under the law. So the opinion i offered was that the Court had addressed issue of constitutional significance, and that therefore, it is not correct to characterize their decision as one upon which the constitution is mute. You have avoided discussing that issue, and, of course, attempt to improve the force of your feeble arguments here by sneers and ad hominem. My original response to your post was based upon your specious contention that the Court had made a finding of law in a matter upon which the constitution is mute. Nothing could be further from the truth. So, the only opinion i expressed here is that the Court has made a finding of law based upon the constitution, and that this is a refutation of your statement on matters about which the constitution is mute. I don't know anyone named Jimbo, but perhaps you're simply confusing me with one of your friends . . . if you have any.

Please, their names are William and Clarence ---------

Setanta

I know we've not seen eye to eye on many things lately, but you last post to Scrat was a gem. It was well reasoned; it was logical; it was respectful -- and it had an ending line that was, in the words of the currently popular TV ad, priceless.

If it were not for the issues you raised, the Constitution would "be mute" on almost all the issues that come before it. But as you noted, it is not mute on those matters at all. One just has to listen carefully.

Having read through all of this (and being appalled, once again, by a certain level of childishness on the part of our resident houyhnhnm), I have to express surprise at the topsy turvy nature of so-called conservatism these days. Isn't the statism of Scrat's responses a surprise to anyone else? Aren't those guys the ones who are supposed to be saying, Keep the government out of our lives? Aren't we liberals supposedly ghastly and untouchable because we always seem to Want More Government? Shouldn't we reexamine --- well, boot out -- the cliches, and take notice of the fact that liberals are standing up for personal freedom and responsible, debt-free government, while these self-described conservatives are spending us into out-of-control debt while trying to control and punish the humble penis?

I want government out of my pockets, out of my pants, and so efficient and humble that, when driving from Maine to North Carolina, the Potomac swamp property also known as Washington would have one stop-light.

scratch the stop light and install a yield sign

BPB - Whatever happened to your sunny, civil demeanor? It is missed.

Oh
My
God


Hypocricy lives . . .

I note once again that you are incapable of discussion without insult and rancor. I won't give you opportunity for much longer, but need to set the record straight on one or two items you keep thinking to spin...

The Constitution does not guarantee (as you offer above) "persons being secure in their person, their papers their homes and their effects", rather it guarantees (as you quoted earlier) "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, ...". I do not argue with that at all. I do however argue the notion that a law banning sodomy automatically leads to abridgement of this right to be safe from unreasonable searches and seizures. (This, I believe, is the point you keep pretending not to notice.) If the law expressly calls for some action that amounts to an unreasonable search or seizure, that's a different matter; but it does not.

Once again for the hard of hearing.... PLEASE explain--as I have challenged you repeatedly to do--how laws against beating one's wife or children do not run afoul of the 4th amendment if it is to be read to offer a blanket right to privacy of one's person, home and bedroom, as you claim.

Of course, you are free to simply keep repeating yourself, but I have not failed to understand what you have written; I have failed to find it valid, I have failed to agree with it. So, either you can leave off with the broken record act and discuss the points to which this disagreement leads and which might illuminate the flaws in one or both of our positions, or you can keep complaining about how wrong I am and leave it at that.

It is obvious that some people don't truly understand the underlying principles of what the framers of the Constitution were trying to do when they wrote that document.

Working under the constraints of society as it existed then -- the framers attempted to construct a document which would insure reasonable freedom from unreasonable intrusion of government into the lives of the people who live under the document's protection. Part and parcel of that notion, obviously, is to protect the minorities from the unwarranted and unreasonable demands the majority from time to time attempt to assert.

Don't get me wrong -- the document means to insure that majority rules. I am not trying to deny that. But an important ingredient in its provisions is to protect the minorities from the occasional unwarranted intrusion of the majority's desires.

There were things the framers had to deal with in light of what WAS at that time -- the question of rights of women and the ordeal of slavery, for example.

But they tried -- and although they came up short in some respects, they pretty much devised a body of principle that succeeded in doing what they wanted done.

My guess: If the framers lived today -- they would want to protect the rights of people to bond in more or less permanent committed relationships - the subject being discussed here.

Frankly, I'd like to see the government get out of the marriage business completely. Marriage should be a religious exercise -- and the government should be able to insure the kinds of things they attempt to insure via civil matrimony -- in other ways.

But so long as the government is going to demand that it have a say in the matrimonial process -- it should be blind to things like color, ethnicity, gender, or any of the other variables that go into the composite that is marriage.

The strict construction arguments of Scalia, Thomas, Renquist and the several people in this forum who parrot their nonsense -- are used to justify a mindset that would be, in my opinion, abhorrent to the framers.

It makes no sense to argue this thing.

Decency and fair play require that we extend to all peoples the same privileges and rights others enjoy.

The fears driving these others to do their well-rationalized mischief should not even be a part of the equation.

Frank
Marriage is just as much a civil matter as it is a religious one. They cannot and should not get out of as you say the marriage business.

Wholly disagree with Au there. I think the recent "sanctification" of marriage and family by the state (by the STATE!) -- this whole "family values" thing -- is ridiculous. Not because there's anything wrong with marriage and family but because a) it's not the business of the state (which should respect, protect and/or tax all citizens equally), and b) it's a political ploy, playing to a religious group... for.... MONEY AND POWER.... having nothing to do with marriage as a secular or spiritual institution.

Tartarin
What recent sanctification of marriage? For as long as I can remember marriage licenses have been issued by the state. I have no doubt that as many marriages are civil ceremonies as are religious ones. I would imagine that it is the same in most of Europe. I would ask if the state did not keep records who would? Could we depend on the multiplicity of religions and religious organizations?
The state records births, deaths, and marriages as IMO they should.

No, au, you are wrong here -- particularly if we are saying that "marriage" must be between a man and a woman -- and that two men or two women cannot participate.

The only reason for those prohibitions are religious -- or religious motivated.

If the government is interested in protecting property rights -- it can do so without marriage.

The government would do well to get out of the marriage business all together -- but if it chooses to remain in it, it should be blind to things like race, ethnicity, gender and the like.

The state should do nothing to assist or prevent a union between two people. There are customs which those two people might like to observe, but that is not a matter for the state. Can't think off hand what is served by a couple having a marriage license. Can't think why advantageous insurance and other benefits might be extended to families or couples more than to individuals. Can't think why, in our free, secular society, children should be registered as "legitimate" or "illegitimate" by the state. Can't think why two people who want to go through a religious ceremony shouldn't, or indeed why they shouldn't follow the customs of their religions with respect to sexual activities, legitimacy of children, etc. etc. Anyone think of any reason why any of these aren't perfectly appropriate in a secular democratic republic?

The only civil thing I can think of that the state does is to insure that a VD test is done and there is a specific time lag between the decision and the act - like that really helps. Seems to me the interference of the state is archaic and should go the ways of all archaic things - buh-bye!

This is so hypocritical, as to be breathtaking. I have criticized your forensic style, whereas you have weighed in with comments to the effect that i lack "mettle" and "act the coward" -- remove the beam from thine eye before the mote from mine . . .



As i had offered the Amendment in its entirety in my original post, i thought it unnecessary to rehearse it in full in this case. I will try to recall in future that you apparently are possessed of an extremely faulty short-term memory, and disinclined to scroll back for such things--and try to remember that i must quote things in full for you. If you "argue the notion that a law banning sodomy automatically leads to abridgement of this right to be safe from unreasonable searches and seizures," then we have no argument between us. As you insist, however, that such an argument exists, i will assume, trepidatiously, that you "argue against the notion . . . " -- and to which i would reply as i have done all along, that the argument you have is with Justice Kennedy, and not with me. Your original post contends that the ruling enters an area in which the constitution is mute; i have replied that the Court has not considered this to be the case, and that the case concerns the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. That you disagree is of little import, unless you think you have a legally unassailable argument and the time and resources to pursue the case. Otherwise, on the basis of the jurisprudence of this nation as practiced since Marshall ruled in Marbury v. Madison, you have no ground to stand on. Without stating this as my opinion--apparently such disclaimers are necessary here--Justice Kennedy in the majority opinion holds that the law is not enforceable without such unreasonable search; the argument runs as follows: to enforce the law, it would be necessary to identify those persons who would engage in homosexual sodomy; in order to do so, the state would be required to make inquiry into the personal lives of any putative violator of the law to an extent which would constitute an unreasonable search. I don't necessarily agree with or disagree with Justice Kennedy in this matter. I've scanned a text of the opinion; if you have ever read such an opinion, you'll know that it requires more than one careful reading to absorb and fully understand the opinion. When i first heard on the news that the Court had rejected the Texas law, and the commentator noted that the majority opinion was based upon the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, my immediate resonse was to wonder why the Fourth had been chosen, but also to automatically understand that the reference to the Fourteenth would be on the basis of the "equal protection" clause of Section I. I take the same line on this as Justice O'Connor, and am unwilling to either endorse or condemn the opinion of Justice Kennedy without more than one careful readings. I wonder if you have read, or intend to read, the opinion.



As a matter of fact, i am hearing impaired. This does not affect my ability to read. I have made no such claim--your beef is with Kennedy. In fact, one can beat one's wife and children in the privacy of the home with impunity, unless and until such time as your activity leads to a breach of the public peace which will result in the arrival of the police. That such things occur on a daily and widespread basis is not to be doubted by anyone familiar with criminal statistics on that horrible abuse, and the anecdotal accounts of women and children in shelters, and the employees of such shelters, and the accounts of police officers. They hate domestic violence calls, because they stand on such shifting ground, and have almost no authority without a direct appeal from a victim, or finding the alleged perpetrator in flagrante delicto. As i have already noted, however, this is a non issue, both because i was challenging your assertion that the constitution is mute on the issue addressed in Justice Kennedy's opinion, and because, as i've noted above, i have reserved my personal judgment on that opinion, but immediately recognize and agree with Justice O'Connor's reference to the Fourteenth Amendment.



To point out that you are wrong is not of necessity to complain of the fact. You are wrong in that you have consistently attempted to assert that it is i who have derived an opinion on the basis of the Fourth Amendment. As for broken records, i'll once again note that you might recite your remarks before a mirror to achieve a more valid effect. From the outset, i have objected to your unsupported contention that the Court addressed this issue in the absence of constitutional reference. To argue against the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment by Justice Kennedy by no means validates a conention that the constitution is mute in this issue.

Given the nasty remarks you have made about me and about BPB, it is gross hypocricy to have complained of how i've addressed you. To throw an expression right back at you, you need to get over yourself.

Setanta, once again I truly admire your patience!

Frank


There are no restrictions relative to race or ethnicity. As for gender as long as there is one of each it is perfectly acceptable. If not a trip to Canada is in order.

Setanta

Thanks to your patience (and knowledge), I know now more about US-American constitutional law then hearing the short introduction at university (admitting that I missed the following lectures when discovering, they weren't examined :wink: ).

I didn't mean to post that yet . . . the ungodly long and boring post which i had intended follows Snood's post on the next page . . .

Snood, it's hear hear--you had it right the first time . . . it is a call from the crowd to assert that all should heed the speaker as someone speaking truth . . .