"Sneechres" <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1414fd53.0306292214.58c1aa9e@posting.google.com...

xanadu222@mchsi.com (Craig Chilton) wrote in message

news:<3eff04ed.501669@netnews.mchsi.com>...

On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 22:37:52 -0800,
Dana wrote:

Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote:

[ ... ]

The Constitution is just FINE. And *so* is the rule

law for REASONABLE laws.

Not when the USSC legislates from the bench. We are

longer a nation of laws.

It's called JUDICIAL LAW.

So if the Supreme Court ruled that Craig Chilton is no longer
allowed to post to Usenet, in violation of the First

would that be okay with you?

He's that effective a writer? ...I guess he is.

"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in message

"Sneechres" <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:

Do yourself a favor and read Clarence Thomas' dissent. Compare
it to Bader-Ginsberg's rationalization for the decision. See

if you

can tell which one is more Constitutional. Strictly

Constitutional.

Remember that law is not about your personal politics. See if

you

can be objective for even one second.

--S

Justice Thomas' separate opinion in Lawrence v Texas is sad.
Basically his argument is that there is no right of privacy in
the Constitution:

He's correct because there isn't one. There is protection against
unreasonable searches and seizures, which is not the same as what you
are advocating.

Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this
Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others
similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to "decide cases
'agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United
States.'
" Id., at 530. And, just like Justice Stewart, I "can find
[neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the
Constitution a] general right of privacy," ibid., or as the
Court terms it today, the "liberty of the person both in its
spatial and more transcendent dimensions,"

Maybe Thomas should go back to law school.

Why, has Harvard found something written in the texts of the
Constitution that the rest of us missed?

I agree that the

right is not specifically spelled out for Thomas,

Exactly, then see the tenth amendment. It's not specifically in there
*for anyone*. That means it is illegal to read things into it that
are not there based on your leftist politics.

but that does

not mean it isn't there.

Perhaps you should be more specific.

In effect Thomas is throwing out a long

history of judicial decisions which are based upon the right of
privacy.

Good. That's his job.

judicial tyranny and violations doesn't mean he has to do the same
thing.

For example, doesn't the First Amendment guarantee you

the right to privacy in your religious belief?

No. It guarantees you the right to practice your religious belief.

There is nothing in the first amendment about privacy.

The Third,

Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments have also been
cited as protecting your right to privacy.

The word "privacy" appears nowhere in any of the above amendments.

Article III:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without
the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be
prescribed by law.

Article IV:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article V:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except
in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when
in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any
person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of
life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a
witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Article XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several
States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole
number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when
the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for
President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in
Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the
members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male
inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens
of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation
in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein
shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male
citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one
years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress,
or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil
or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having
previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of
the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an
executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the
Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection
or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House,
remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States,
authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions
and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion,
shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State
shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of
insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for
the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations
and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Since the 14th Amendment doesn't bother to define specifically what
"priveleges" or "liberty" mean, the 10th Amendment still applies.

Justice Thomas' position that there is no "general right of
privacy" is incorrect.

No, it's not. Your interpretation of the undefined variables in the
amendments you cite is dangerous and creates a precedent to define any
human action as a "right" under the constitution which cannot be
violated, eg, a right to murder, molestation, theft etc--

are covered under STATE laws which the Supreme Court now has the power
to dispatch.

--S