>Bob Tiernan <zulu.pacifier.com@no-spam> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.53MAILDIR.0307282348540.10024@no-spam>...
>> > I believe that the laws on such conduct should be enacted
>> > by state-by-state legal process, not by 6 judges in DC.
That's one way to handle it, certainly, but the stance can be
pre-empted two ways:
* Someone opposing a permissive State law could try to make a Federal
Case out of it, and appeal it to the feds, or
* Someone opposing a prohibitive State law could do the same thing,
via the appeal route.
The question at that point would be whether, after going through the
federal appeals system, the Supremes would grant cert, and take the
case for review. But either way, there'd be a problem with the
applicability of the outcome, unless the Supremes were to say that the
matter is one left to the several States, and that no Constitutional
matter was involved either way.
>> Heck's Kitchen wrote:
>> Would you say the same thing if a majority of the USSC
>> refuses to overturn a state gun control law and says that
>> such laws ought to eb "enacted by state-by-state legal
>> process"?
Dunno what he would do, but I think that's Precisely what the outcome
ought to be. There is no federal question wrt state gun control laws.
On 29 Jul 2003 10:13:08 -0700, hlillywh@no-spam (Hal Lillywhite)
wrote:
>That is if you think the constitution really protects homosexual sex....
I think the Constitution is indifferent to the specific matter
altogether. I also think the Constitution provides for a Right of
Privacy, and homosexual sex is Private entirely. If homosexual sex
falls within the Privacy discussion, then it's no different from a
whole raft of other private matters.
The State has no obvious interest in trying to control private actions
between consenting adults that I can see. (No, BT -- that does not
cover prostitution, which is a question of Commerce.)
Don Homuth <enough@no-spam> wrote in message news:<16bdivc67vpjktf7bm20efm2fuih2kr9ho@no-spam>...
> Dunno what he would do, but I think that's Precisely what the outcome
> ought to be. There is no federal question wrt state gun control laws.
??? AFIK, the supremes have never ruled on the issue. There is
definitely a question till they do. The rest of the Bill of Rights is
now pretty much interpreted to apply to states as well as the feds,
can't have a state religion nor can a state ignore the Miranda warning
etc. By extension one would think the second would also. Yes, I know
there is a controversy about if it applies only to state controlled
militia or to private citizens but that hardly nulifies the question,
just casts it in different terms. You may think the second doesn't
apply to states but plenty of people disagree with you so yes, there
is a question.
> On 29 Jul 2003 10:13:08 -0700, hlillywh@no-spam (Hal Lillywhite)
> wrote:
> >That is if you think the constitution really protects homosexual sex....
>
> I think the Constitution is indifferent to the specific matter
> altogether.
Agreed.
>I also think the Constitution provides for a Right of
> Privacy...
Which right is not mentioned therein nor was it found for nearly 200
years after the constitution came into existance. And is applied
rather selectively as you would learn if you got caught doing
something like producing and consuming hard drugs in the privacy of
your home.
I think the privacy issue is a matter for legislation, not judical
decree. The nearest I can see to it in the constitution is the
prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure. I think it is
dangerous to allow judges to read into the constitution what they
think it should say instead of what it says.
