Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General GWL Questions' started by Shoottilempty, Mar 2, 2007.
Are people convicted of misdemeanor posession barred from obtaining a concealed carry permit?
O.C.G.A.16-11-129(b) bars them from receiving a license. There is an AG opinion on it, too.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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? 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.
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.
Just because a Right was not stated explicity in the BOR does not mean that it does not exist.
You see. SCOTUS thinks that the federal government has the power to regulate such behavior.
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).
To quote myself from a previous topic
Clayton Cramer on the Lawrence v. Texas decision's false historical claims.
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!
So explain to me again what is the compelling State interest in controlling the private sexual encounters of two (or more) consenting adults?
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:
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:
Is this the same thing as saying that the Texas law is a good law?
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
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?"
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.