 |
|
Guynemer
|
|
Egads, Asher. You're mad.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
Ban women from wearing boxers? Okay, that I can get onboard with.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
MtG:
Had to come sooner or later.
|
But of course. Someone has to speak up for the notion that a legitimate state has fundamental limits in those matters it may regulate.
quote:
And neither justified, because minorities need to be protected. How is this situation comparable? Are homosexuals beaten in the streets by the police and the civil authorities? Are they denied the same basic rights as the blacks?
|
Why do minorities need to be protected if the democratic majority see otherwise? If the minorities don't like it, they can always change the laws or go somewhere else? 
The issue is that the "tyranny of the majority" should only come into being when there is a legitimate state interest being served.
quote:
I actually agree with both. Women and men in a marriage should abide to birth control by mutual consent.
|
And that is a private matter for them to decide, not for the state to impose it's views. Or do you see communism and collective property ownership as legitimate, as long as an elective majority supports the notion?
quote:
As for the latter, shouldn't actions have consequences? No one forces the woman to have sex.
|
And again, where is the state's interest in intruding in not only private, but privileged matters (doctor-patient privilege). Or should the state also prohibit smoking, not going to the church of your choice once a week, eating foods with saturated fat and drinking coffee? It seems you view is that the state has the power to impose it's will on the entire populace for any matter, regardless of state interest, as long as a majority of the current legislature decides to do so.
quote:
No, nor does it give the judiciary free reign to override the legislature. There have to be very good reasons to override the legislature.
|
Judicial review is a created concept, but one which has been explicitly accepted in the US system for 200 years, and implicitly accepted for another 8. The only reason to override the legislature is when the legislature exceeds it's authority explicitly, or by failing to demonstrate the required level of state interest in issues involving a balancing of rights of different parties.
quote:
That would be a good argument against making a law to favour Christians, but not so against a law already in place. Should we uproot the entire constitution because Christians made the laws?
|
It does not matter. The only laws that can be judicially reviewed in the US are those already in place - the judiciary has no power to preempt legislation, only to limit or void it (or uphold it). If a legislature wants to pass a state law that somehow manages to expressly violate every operative clause in the Constitution, it may do so - the judiciary only comes into the process after the law is passed, and generally only after it is somehow given effect.
You wouldn't be uprooting the Constitution because some of the framers were Christian - they very carefully included that Establishment Clause. As for legislation, if you can somehow show that antitrust laws or hours of work laws are based on imposition of Christian doctrine, and are not based on compelling state interests, then by all means invalidate them.
quote:
Is there a basic right to privacy, on the same level as the right not to be discriminated against found within the constitution that renders this law unconstitutional?
|
There is a clearly implied limit (actually, a number of them) on the powers of government in general. One need not find a "right to privacy" to recognize a limit on the state's power to regulate matters in which the state has no compelling interest.
quote:
If not, then you have an excellent argument to take the case to the legislature and to make such a right available. |
There are a number of privacy laws on the books - for example, relating to disemination of personal data and financial information. Those laws were created to address privacy concerns ancillary to public activities falling within the nexus of state interests, eg regulation of commerce.
Last edited by MichaeltheGreat on 27-06-2003 at 02:01
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
It was "democratic" practive to allow courts to enforce covenants on the sale of real property to prevent selling to non-whites and Jews. It was "democratic" practice to forbid doctors from prescribing birth control to unmarried women at all, and to married women without the husband's permission. It was "democratic" practice to keep "niggers" on the back of the bus, out of our white children's schools, and in their own section in restaurants, public parks, restrooms, community pools and the like.
"Democracy" under the US Constitution does not give a majority of the electorate an unconditional fiat to impose it's world view on the entire populace in the absence of a legitimate state interest.
Christian morality does not create a legitimate state interest under the restrictions of the Establishment Clause. So if you can tell me, outside a Christian or religiously based "moral" context, why the state has a legitmate interest in what goes up the rectum of a consenting adult in that adult's own home or other location where privacy is reasonably expected, then let's have it. |
Well said, MTG -- as usual.  
It looks like the United States might catch up with the rest of the Western world in terms of human rights and civil rights.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-06-2003 01:14
. Sava (the master of the idiot analogy) strikes again.
|