Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,657 Posts
O.C.G.A.16-11-129(b) bars them from receiving a license. There is an AG opinion on it, too.

Click here
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,798 Posts
Malum Prohibitum said:
O.C.G.A.16-11-129(b) bars them from receiving a license. There is an AG opinion on it, too.

Click here
Which is a damn travesty.

Any adult should have the right to put any substance they want in their body so long as their actions do not hurt another in any way.

On a side note, does the Georgia Constitution have an explicit right to privacy like the Alaskan Constitution?
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,657 Posts
Rammstein said:
On a side note, does the Georgia Constitution have an explicit right to privacy like the Alaskan Constitution?
No. But the same Supreme Court that could not find any application of the Second Amendment to the State of Georgia pretended there is a right to privacy, anyway, so as to also find that the Georgia Constitution contains a right to engage in homosexual sodomy. No, that is not explicitly in there, either.

Of course, the U.S. Supreme Court did the same thing.

So, let me see. :-k

What was universally a fundamental right at the time of the nation's founding (i.e., the right to keep and bear an unregistered military rifle) is now universally a felony.

What was universally a felony at the time of the nation's founding (i.e., homosexual sodomy) is now universally a fundamental right.

:?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,798 Posts
Interesting.

Malum Prohibitum said:
What was universally a felony at the time of the nation's founding (i.e., homosexual sodomy) is now universally a fundamental right.

:?
Slavery was the status quo at the time, so not everything at the time was pro freedom.

America should progress towards more freedom, not less.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,657 Posts
Rammstein said:
Interesting.

Malum Prohibitum said:
What was universally a felony at the time of the nation's founding (i.e., homosexual sodomy) is now universally a fundamental right.

:?
Slavery was the status quo at the time, so not everything at the time was pro freedom.

America should progress towards more freedom, not less.
Rammstein, the Constitution was specifically amended to abolish involuntary servitude. I do not recall any such amendment regarding homosexual sodomy.

Are you arguing for the concept normally called "judicial activism," where the judge substitutes his personal policy preferences (things like, America should progress towards more freedom, not less) for what the document actually says?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,798 Posts
True, there is no amendment to allow homosexual sodomy. However, there is clearly an implied right to privacy, not to mention the 9th Amendment. So two adults having sex is no body else's business.

I am more or less a strict constructionist, but I realize the intent of the document within the scope of supporting documents of the time from the framers.

I do not agree with judicial activism, but is it wrong to always err on the side of liberty? I think not.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,657 Posts
Nice try. :wink:

We must look to what the words say, first. If the meaning is not clear, then we must look to the intent of the people who wrote and ratified those words for clarification, where such is available and relatively clear from conflicting constructions.

I am aware of no authority for thinking the Founders intended for the Ninth Amendment to protect acts of sodomy as some sort of constitutional right, which probably explains why mostly the same people made such acts felonies in all of the former colonies.

This does not mean perhaps that you should not lobby your legislature to decriminalize such acts, should you deem that prudent, but simply "making up" whatever you want in the Constitution even when it is not found there eventually destroys the document itself, as it robs the document of any real meaning.

This is a dangerous attitude to have. In the end, it is dangerous to liberty, to have judges accept the principle that their policies preferences may be called "constitutional law" when those preferences appear nowhere in its text and would not have been recognized as familiar by those who wrote and ratified the text.

There are only two types of constitutional interpretation: Strict construction and no construction. I prefer the former.

Leave "policy" to the legislatures. Judges should not become politicians and should resist the temptation to become politicians in robes.

I'm guessing you have not yet gotten to The Tempting of America, by Robert Bork, yet? :D This is a whole book on the subject of judicial restraint, whether the judge wishes to read liberal, conservative, or libertarian views into the Constitution that the text and original understanding do not support.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,798 Posts
While it may not be the Ninth Amendment, how about the Fourteenth?

The SCOTUS decided in Lawrence v Texas that sodomy is protected under the Fourteenth by the implied liberty rights of the Due Process clause.

Have not read the book yet. Too many others on the list in addition to school books.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
994 Posts
In Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), Chief Justice John Marshall ruled ... "Commerce, undoubtedly is traffic, but it is something moreâ€"it is intercourse"
You see. SCOTUS thinks that the federal government has the power to regulate such behavior. :rotfl:
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,657 Posts
Fourteenth Amendment.

So, THAT is what all those Congressmen in the 19th century were doing, creating a right to sodomy.

I thought they were protecting the rights of the newly freed slaves that were being violated by the southern states (through the nation's first gun control laws and other acts of repression).

Silly me! :D
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,460 Posts
To quote myself from a previous topic

Some people also forget that the BoR protects unlisted rights as well.
Those enumerated rights and the reasons provided are not the end all list of rights we have as humans.
I have heard arguments against various findings of SCOTUS ruling something as a right that was not contained in the BoR. Because it was not in the BoR does not mean it is not a right. Right to Privacy, Miranda Rights, and Abortion Rights are a few that come to mind. Whether you agree with one of those or not, the fact that a right is not contained in the BoR does not mean it does not exist.

While it is usually the job of SCOTUS to figure out if a law violates the BoR, it is also their job to make sure those rights not listed are also not violated, which means from time to time they will be called on to recognize those unlisted rights. Some will call what SCOTUS does as inventing new rights, which to me is incorrect since the BoR already said that there are many other rights that the people have that were not listed. It is only newly recognized as a right, just like when written the BoR was newly recognized but those rights themselves were not new.

Now you can disagree with SCOTUS on why they recognized something as a right when they should not have, it is incorrect to claim a right recognized by SCOTUS is wrong becuase it does not appear in the BoR.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,657 Posts
Folks, just because the Constitution does not say, does not mean that a law is a good idea.

A criminal law may even be stupid, but it is not "unconstitutional" just because you do not like it!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,798 Posts
So explain to me again what is the compelling State interest in controlling the private sexual encounters of two (or more) consenting adults?
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,657 Posts
Rammstein said:
The SCOTUS decided in Lawrence v Texas that sodomy is protected under the Fourteenth by the implied liberty rights of the Due Process clause.
I have to side with the dissent on that one. Rather than interpret what they found in the Constitution, the judges merely imposed their policy preferences. I will defer to the more articulate Scalia in stating my own position:

But there is no right to "liberty" under the Due Process Clause, though today's opinion repeatedly makes that claim. . . . The Fourteenth Amendment expressly allows States to deprive their citizens of "liberty," so long as "due process of law" is provided:

"No state shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Amdt. 14 (emphasis added).
So, if it is not the text of the Constitution leading them to this conclusion, what is it? Again, I turn to Scalia's dissent:

Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct. I noted in an earlier opinion the fact that the American Association of Law Schools (to which any reputable law school must seek to belong) excludes from membership any school that refuses to ban from its job-interview facilities a law firm (no matter how small) that does not wish to hire as a prospective partner a person who openly engages in homosexual conduct.
Is this the same thing as saying that the Texas law is a good law?

Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But persuading one's fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one's views in absence of democratic majority will is something else. I would no more require a State to criminalize homosexual acts--or, for that matter, display any moral disapprobation of them--than I would forbid it to do so. What Texas has chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new "constitutional right" by a Court that is impatient of democratic change. It is indeed true that "later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress," ante, at 18; and when that happens, later generations can repeal those laws. But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best.
All emphasis is mine.

Perhaps you wish to be ruled by an oligarchy of nine robed figures that are unaccountable to you, but I do not. That is certainly not the system of government that our Founders set up.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... vol=02-102
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,798 Posts
Gotta love Scalia.

"Perhaps you wish to be ruled by an oligarchy of nine robed figures that are unaccountable to you, but I do not. That is certainly not the system of government that our Founders set up. "

Well, are we talking about the Supreme Court that was created under the Federal Constitution or the Supreme Court that came to be after Marbury v. Madison? I don't see anything in Article III that explicitly states the Supreme Court has the power to strike down acts of Congress.

I would also like an answer to:
"[W]hat is the compelling State interest in controlling the private sexual encounters of two (or more) consenting adults?"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
994 Posts
Probably the same compelling State interest involved in controlling the height of the grass in my front yard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,798 Posts
geaux_tigers said:
Probably the same compelling State interest involved in controlling the height of the grass in my front yard.
That is probably something that your HOA dreamed up. Oh how I loath the HOAs.
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top