1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Chron: Until Justice O'Connor Changes Her Mind Again

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by GladiatoRowdy, Jul 6, 2003.

Tags:
Page 2 of 2
  1. WhiteMagic02

    WhiteMagic02 Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2001
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    0
    The right to privacy is not explicit in the constitution's text, but it can be inferred from what is expressed. When the state wants to limit the people's rights, they must show a compelling interest, which would be impossible to do in the sodomy case. However, the state could easily show a compelling interest to abrigde the right to commit crimes in private, such as pot smoking, rape, etc. So this would negate the pot smoking argument.

    BTW, I'm sure you guys are aware the right to judicial review is expressed nowhere in the Constitution either, but you John Marshall and the other Federalists thought it to be necessary.
     
    #21 WhiteMagic02, Jul 7, 2003
  2. WhiteMagic02

    WhiteMagic02 Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2001
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    0
    [DELETE]
     
    #22 WhiteMagic02, Jul 7, 2003
  3. giddyup

    giddyup Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,466
    Likes Received:
    488
    puh-tay-to, puh-tah-to, tay-tur
     
    #23 giddyup, Jul 7, 2003
  4. DaDakota

    DaDakota Balance wins
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 1999
    Messages:
    128,979
    Likes Received:
    39,443
    Uh oh,

    I agree with AndyMoon...I need a drink.

    DD
     
    #24 DaDakota, Jul 7, 2003
  5. Woofer

    Woofer Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2000
    Messages:
    3,995
    Likes Received:
    1
    That's not as hilarious as letting beady eyed Republicans re-write the whole thing, even though many are sympathetic to fascism.
     
    #25 Woofer, Jul 8, 2003
  6. MadMax

    MadMax Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    76,683
    Likes Received:
    25,924
    congratulations...you win the cigar! this is one of the smartest posts i've seen here...

    absolutely...the framers would never have envisioned the 14th amendment. never. they thought very locally, and in less than 100 years, the next generations completely gave up on their states rights mentality. had the framers wanted the states to be held to the same standard of the federal government, they would have said so. they were careful not to.

    now, i'm not saying the 14th amendment was a mistake...it wasn't. but it simply wasn't something the framers envisioned.
     
    #26 MadMax, Jul 8, 2003
  7. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    The right to privacy is a strong argument against prohibition, yes, but that is an issue for another thread.
     
    #27 GladiatoRowdy, Jul 8, 2003
  8. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution was passed by both houses on 8th June and the 13th June, 1866. The amendment was designed to grant citizenship to and protect the civil liberties of recently freed slaves. It did this by prohibiting states from denying or abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, depriving any person of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denying to any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    What does this have to do with the Supreme Court or their power?

    Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

    Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.


    The Constitution says that all laws will be overseen by the Supreme Court. Who else did the framers want to be in control of this?
     
    #28 GladiatoRowdy, Jul 8, 2003
  9. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    Actually, they have never shown such a compelling interest at any time. But, again, that is another thread.
     
    #29 GladiatoRowdy, Jul 8, 2003
  10. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    LOLOL!!!

    I agree with DD, if I drank, I would go get smashed.

    As it is, I will just have to down another Mountain Dew!
     
    #30 GladiatoRowdy, Jul 8, 2003
  11. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    I'm telling you, DD, our philosophies are not that far apart. It is just that one issue.
     
    #31 GladiatoRowdy, Jul 8, 2003
  12. Mr. Clutch

    Mr. Clutch Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2002
    Messages:
    46,550
    Likes Received:
    6,132
    Which is why I don't think ANYBODY should rewrite it. Thanks for making my point, Woofer.

    (BTW, which Republicans were sympathetic to fascism?)
     
    #32 Mr. Clutch, Jul 8, 2003
  13. outlaw

    outlaw Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 1999
    Messages:
    4,496
    Likes Received:
    3
    John Ashcroft :)
     
    #33 outlaw, Jul 8, 2003
  14. Joe Joe

    Joe Joe Go Stros!
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 1999
    Messages:
    26,389
    Likes Received:
    16,725
    The constitution did not forbid encroachments of civil rights by a state legislatures as it was written by framers. The framers wanted the people to rule themselves and didn't anticipate all the problems of a representative democracy.

    I love the way the court overrules unconstitutional laws and don't see evidence that the framers intended laws to be passed that were unconstitutional. Without political parties, this would be very dificult to do.

    Thanks, MadMax. I like the 14th Amendment as well. I do like State Specialization ideals, but you can't beat the guarantees in the 14th.
     
    #34 Joe Joe, Jul 8, 2003
  15. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    Man, you must be on something psychedelic. The framers WANTED unconstitutional laws to be passed? Is it mescaline or LSD?

    The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution was passed by both houses on 8th June and the 13th June, 1866. The amendment was designed to grant citizenship to and protect the civil liberties of recently freed slaves. It did this by prohibiting states from denying or abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, depriving any person of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denying to any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Where in the 14th amendment do you see the right of the states to trump the constitution?

    The only guarantee here is that freed slaves cannot be enslaved by state governments.

    The 14th amendment guarantees that every person living in the US enjoys equal protections to life, liberty, and property. Since privacy falls under the heading of liberty (see definition of liberty on page 1), the 14th proves that the court was absolutely justified in striking down this discriminatory law.
     
    #35 GladiatoRowdy, Jul 8, 2003
  16. MadMax

    MadMax Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    76,683
    Likes Received:
    25,924
    andy -- you're totally misunderstanding.

    the 14th amendment applied concepts like due process to the states. the constitution previously defined and limited the powers of the FEDERAL government only. it was not a constitution or contract between the people and their respective states. the various state constitutions provided for that. many mirrored the US constitution...some didn't.

    but the 14th amendment made it very clear that the courts were now going to apply concepts like due process and equal protection to state governments. we fought a war over that, basically.

    the 14th amendment says things like, "no State shall..." previously in the Constitution it said things like, "Congress shall not..." the 14th amendment defined what it was to be a state actor...you no longer had to be the federal government to come under constitutional question...the states themselves could come under the same scrutiny.

    it was the 13th amendment that prohibited slavery. the 14th amendment protected freed slaves by making state governments subject to concepts like equal protection and due process. it ended the big ticket arguments over states rights there and then.

    the need for the 14th amendment some 80 years after the signing of the Constitution tells you a little bit about what the Founders actually had in mind...they did not envision the 14th amendment...or if they did envision it, they knew they couldn't get the Constitution ratified with it because of its effect on southern states and slavery.
     
    #36 MadMax, Jul 8, 2003
  17. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    So, the 14th amendment gives the federal government the right to limit states rights based on the impact that their laws have on human rights.

    Sounds like the justices made the right decision on this one based on that.
     
    #37 GladiatoRowdy, Jul 8, 2003
  18. MadMax

    MadMax Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    76,683
    Likes Received:
    25,924
    neither me nor Joe Joe is disagreeing with the decision...at least i know i'm not. we're simply talking about the 14th amendment itself...its history and purpose. and saying that it's inaccurate to say the framers envisioned this.

    not human rights per se...specifically as to due process and equal protection.
     
    #38 MadMax, Jul 8, 2003
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 2 of 2

Share This Page

Style
ClutchFans Dark

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Rockets Content

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now