[belverron]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Hmm, perhaps you should do some actual learning about the Constitution before you make such a judgment... Lawrence v. Texas says that, "right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them [citizens and the petitioners in the case] the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention."

Quote by: Justice Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions. ... In Griswold ... [t]he Court described the protected interest as a right to privacy and placed emphasis on the marriage relation and the protected space of the marital bedroom. ... After Griswold it was established that the right to make certain decisions regarding sexual conduct extends beyond the marital relationship. ... In those States where sodomy is still proscribed, whether for same-sex or heterosexual conduct, there is a pattern of nonenforcement with respect to consenting adults acting in private. ... The Casey decision again confirmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education ....

When you take more than a soundbite of this case, it doesn't say quite what you want it to, does it?

Quote by: tivodan1116 Whether or not the nation is obese is irrelevant.

Oh really? Because one of the elements lacking in the Texas sodomy statute was a compelling governmental interest. New York has a compelling governmental interest in the health of its citizens, and weight is an indicator of a problem there.

Quote by: tivodan1116 Wrong again. The rights protected in the Constitution have been incorporated to the states by the 14th Amendment. Since local governments exist under charter of their respective states, they, too, are subject.

You missed my point entirely. I meant that not only do I think the states, with their broad legislative power, could enact this law, I also think the federal government could do it through Interstate Commerce. They definitely could have before the Rehnquist Court.

Absolute majority rule only leads to the tyranny of the masses, as Madison said in Federalist #47.

Federalist #10, actually, although somehow I think that he, like Kennedy, didn't have trans fatty acids in mind when he wrote it.

By the way, tivodan, I'm currently enrolled in a constitutional law class, and I've completed one in civil liberties, which is more appropriate to this discussion in any case. And in case you were wondering, yes, I am smarter than you :rolleyes:

Quote by: brien [tivodan's] legal knowledge is once again very helpful in understanding questions for a legal POV.

Do you still think so, or do you recognize that he's taking legal soundbites out of context to promote his own beliefs?