"Scout" wrote
Everything was put here for a reason. Maybe one of the reasons is to help
us
enjoy life.

Watch out grin. Next you'll be saying it's OK to have sex other than to
produce a baby! Very unchristian!

"Horvath" wrote

God created evil, as well as the good.



Yes - but God did not want us to know the difference (Gen 2:17). Ain't that
a 'beach'? He also forbid eternal life. It follows that those who proclaim
this good and that evil, and offer everlasting life to those who believe
their definitions are in fact tools of Satan - right?

"Joe" wrote
Capt. Neal® wrote
But, how does one define a 'victim'?

Victim: Someone hurt by someones elses actions.!

In Compton (So of LA) it's any man less than 6' tall and under 240# who went
out without his gun (c:

"Capt. Neal®" wrote
By definition if there is a crime there is a victim or it would
not be a crime.

That's not what we learned in our criminal justice classes. Crimes are any
infractions of the law as it is written, victim or not.

Dave, is this the only decision you can cite? You keep mentioning this
opinion, but no other ones.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 21:20:27 -0600, "Michael"
said:

AS DID the curious
notion that a Supreme Court ruling is the final say so.

Far from a "curious notion," Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison is
little more than a rewrite of a portion of one of Hamilton's Federalist
papers. The problem is not in the principle of the case--that if there is
a
conflict between a statute and the Constitution the Constitution prevails.
It's in the application of that principle that allowed the Court to find
in
the Constitution whatever the majority of the nine wise men thought was a
good idea, and to "discover" rights hidden but never articulated in the
"penumbra" of the text.

Dave

"Dave" wrote
Far from a "curious notion," Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison is
little more than a rewrite of a portion of one of Hamilton's Federalist
papers. The problem is not in the principle of the case--that if there is
a
conflict between a statute and the Constitution the Constitution prevails.
It's in the application of that principle that allowed the Court to find
in
the Constitution whatever the majority of the nine wise men thought was a
good idea, and to "discover" rights hidden but never articulated in the
"penumbra" of the text.

The foundation of the country, the Declaration of Independence, predates the
Constitution and emphatically states that we hold certain things to be self
evident - that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable
rights.

The Court didn't "discover" anything. They looked at both the Constitution
and Common Law and reasonably decided that one of our inalienable rights is
the right to privacy.

AFAIK the court never said you have a right to have sex with a sheep, it
said that the Government could not violate your privacy to catch you.

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 13:13:08 -0500, "Vito" wrote:

"Dave" wrote
Far from a "curious notion," Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison is
little more than a rewrite of a portion of one of Hamilton's Federalist
papers. The problem is not in the principle of the case--that if there is
a
conflict between a statute and the Constitution the Constitution prevails.
It's in the application of that principle that allowed the Court to find
in
the Constitution whatever the majority of the nine wise men thought was a
good idea, and to "discover" rights hidden but never articulated in the
"penumbra" of the text.

The foundation of the country, the Declaration of Independence, predates the
Constitution and emphatically states that we hold certain things to be self
evident - that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable
rights.

The Court didn't "discover" anything. They looked at both the Constitution
and Common Law and reasonably decided that one of our inalienable rights is
the right to privacy.

AFAIK the court never said you have a right to have sex with a sheep, it
said that the Government could not violate your privacy to catch you.

Where do you find federal supreme court protection for a right to
privacy? There are huge numbers of areas where the government goes
out of its way to violate privacy in order to enforce victimless crime
laws and very rarely is this reigned in on the grounds of privacy.
Some sex laws were struck down because of equal protection issues -
where gays were prosecuted for something straights weren't prosecuted
for.

Some states have asserted on the state level a right to privacy, most
notably Alaska did this in the late 70's or early 80's to say that
marijuana use in the home was not the business of the state.

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 08:31:13 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

Dave, is this the only decision you can cite? You keep mentioning this
opinion, but no other ones.

No, I could mention Gomillion v. Lightfoot, the Slaughterhouse cases, Ex
Parte Yarbrough, Plessy v. Ferguson, Colegrove v. Green, Reynolds v. Sims,
Baker v. Carr, Gideon v. Wainwright, Miranda v. Arizona, and many others.
But except for Plessy and Miranda, they wouldn't be recognized by most
people, and they wouldn't be as relevant to the topic I'm discussing.

Seems to me you've been discussing the topic for a long time. Perhaps
it's time to move on.



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

wrote

Where do you find federal supreme court protection for a right to privacy?

Do a search. Laws against birth control were overthrown circa 1965 on that
basis.

There are huge numbers of areas where the government goes
out of its way to violate privacy in order to enforce victimless crime
laws and very rarely is this reigned in on the grounds of privacy.....

I agree, and I'm sorry. Trouble is the only way any court can enforce its
decisions is to refuse to admit illegally obtained evidence. You would
think that once the SC ruled it unconstitutional to, say, beat confessions
out of people that cops and prosecutors would quit doing it but no - we have
a criminal government that refuses to obey the law. Police believe it
perfectly legitimate to violate your rights so long as they don't need your
"confession" to convict - ie if they can find enough other evidence based on
your "confession" or their illegal search they're home free.

"Dave" wrote
Nice try, Vito, but you obviously didn't read Griswold v. Connecticut, the
case in which Justice Douglass created this purported Constitutional right
from whole cloth, as well as the more egregious notion that whatever the
nine wise men think is a good idea today can be found hiding in the
penumbra
of the 14th Amendment.

Should you read the case, you'll find that neither the Declaration of
Independence nor the common law is cited as precedent for the decision.

Thanks. I'll read it more carefully and get back.