NationStates Jolt Archive

Thought these might get a discussion going:

1. Moral right and wrong and legal right and wrong are not the same things.
2. The Bill of Rights does not give you any rights at all. Rather it assumes you posses rights by virtue of your existence and it limits the ability of the government to infringe on those "natural rights." It does not operate to bar private infringement of those rights. However, statutes can operate to bar private infringement of constitutionally protected rights.
3. You have a right to pursue happiness, but no right to obtain it.
4. There is no legal right to be unoffended by others.
5. No rights are absolute, they are are all subject to reasonable limitation. The debate is on what is a "reasonable limitation."
6. The U.S. Constitution limits the powers of the Federal, not state, government with the caveat that certain rights originally protected from federal infringement are also, by operation of the 14th Amendment, now protected from state infringement.
7. Sexual orientation is not a constitutionally protected status like race, religion, ethnicity, gender, etc. are.
8. Being found liable in a civil suit is not the same thing at all as being found guilty of a crime.
9. You must prove guilt of a crime "beyond a reasonable doubt." Not "beyond all doubt" or "beyond a shadow of a doubt."
10. You have no constitutional right to vote for president.

discuss

7 seems a bit iffy, you certainly can argue the equal protection clause applies to sexual orientation.

7 seems a bit iffy, you certainly can argue the equal protection clause applies to sexual orientation.

You can argue that, but the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to find that the equal protection clause grants protected status to sexual orientation.

well they finally threw out the sodomy laws.... give 'em times, they're old and increasingly reactionary but in the end they'll do the right thing... in a generation or two.

this is just one of the many instances in which the constitution mentions a citizen's right to vote.

Amendment XVII - Senators elected by popular vote. Ratified 4/8/1913. History

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

this is just one of the many instances in which the constitution mentions a citizen's right to vote.

Amendment XVII - Senators elected by popular vote. Ratified 4/8/1913. History

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

Sorry, you're right, I meant vote for president. I've edited the original post to fix that.

This should be a sticky. On my forum I've put the US Constitution as a sticky in the politics and news rooms. Its hard to debate with people who lack basic knowledge of the issue being debated. For example, I'm sick of people trying to convince me that O.J. Simpson was a victim of double jeapordy. When there was a lot of debate in here about freedom of expression regarding the cartoons it was clear that many people in here didn't understand hwo to apply the first amendment to the debate. Some people even said that publishing the cartoons represented a "clear and present" danger to public safety. [/rant]

I'm sick of people trying to convince me that O.J. Simpson was a victim of double jeapordy.

I've never heard anyone try to make that arguement but I'll join in laughing at them if I ever hear it.

7 seems a bit iffy, you certainly can argue the equal protection clause applies to sexual orientation.
Actually it's pretty much true. Had the ERA been passed in the '70's? things would be quite different, but it didn't. The equal protection clause really doesn't apply as the law would be applied to all equally, even though the law itself is barbarous.

7. Sexual orientation is not a constitutionally protected status like race, religion, ethnicity, gender, etc. are.

The U.S. Supreme Court and the Supreme Courts of several New England States and the West Coast beg to differ.

You can argue that, but the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to find that the equal protection clause grants protected status to sexual orientation.

Sodomy laws are unconstitutional, so the State cannot make it illegal to be a homosexual or engage in homosexual activities in the privacy of ones home (or the home of a willing partner). Seems sexual orientation has been granted some protection on the Federal level.

Sodomy laws are unconstitutional, so the State cannot make it illegal to be a homosexual or engage in homosexual activities in the privacy of ones home (or the home of a willing partner). Seems sexual orientation has been granted some protection on the Federal level.

Sorry, no, Lawrence v. Texas said that private, sexual activity could not be criminalized due to a protected right of privacy. Sexual orientation had nothing to do with it.

Sorry, no, Lawrence v. Texas said that private, sexual activity could not be criminalized due to a protected right of privacy. Sexual orientation had nothing to do with it.

Its defacto protection of sexual orientation (and the reason the Fourth Amendment applied in that case was the 14th amendment). Not complete protection, but still protection nonetheless.

Its defacto protection of sexual orientation (and the reason the Fourth Amendment applied in that case was the 14th amendment). Not complete protection, but still protection nonetheless.
No it's not. It could still be constitutionally outlawed in public places.

Its defacto protection of sexual orientation (and the reason the Fourth Amendment applied in that case was the 14th amendment). Not complete protection, but still protection nonetheless.

It is a protection for an activity that is practiced by male homosexuals. However, it is also an activity that is practiced by some hetrosexuals as well. Protecting the activity is not the same thing as protecting the sexual orientation that gives rise to it. It means you can't arrest anyone (homo or hetro) for engaging in sodomy, it doesn't mean that homosexuals can't (for example) be denied employment when the basis for the denial is their homosexuality alone (Likewise, hetrosexuals have no protection either, they can be denied employment based on their sexual orientation alone as well). The decision is neutral on the issue of orientation, it only protects an activity. Whether this is morally right or wrong is another issue (see true-ism #1).

I see no need for debate on these matters

I see no need for debate on these matters

Then why did you post? :p

Its defacto protection of sexual orientation (and the reason the Fourth Amendment applied in that case was the 14th amendment). Not complete protection, but still protection nonetheless.

Defacto is meaningless.... many things are subject to defacto protection based upon the enumeration of other elements as rights; however, this does not itself enumerate the resultants as rights. Sexual orientation is not enumerated in the Constitution, but the capacity of choice in the matter falls within the fabric of privacy rights, which is enumerated. No future court rulling will change this fact, the courts (not even the U.S. Supreme Court) have the power to enumerate rights, only merely to set precedent establishing a particular element within the pervue of an existing definitive right (such as determined sexual orientation as being a matter of privacy right, and enforcement impossible except through violation of an said existing right....)

Defacto is meaningless.... many things are subject to defacto protection based upon the enumeration of other elements as rights; however, this does not itself enumerate the resultants as rights. Sexual orientation is not enumerated in the Constitution, but the capacity of choice in the matter falls within the fabric of privacy rights, which is enumerated. No future court rulling will change this fact, the courts (not even the U.S. Supreme Court) have the power to enumerate rights, only merely to set precedent establishing a particular element within the pervue of an existing definitive right (such as determined sexual orientation as being a matter of privacy right, and enforcement impossible except through violation of an said existing right....)

Wow, very good. I do have to disagree with you on one point though. You said "No future court rulling will change this fact, the courts (not even the U.S. Supreme Court) have the power to enumerate rights, . . ." However, the so called "right of privacy" (which Lawrence is based on) is no where in the Constitution. Rather, it is a right that the SCOTUS has enumerated and declared does in fact exist despite the lack of any mention thereof in the Constitution.
That said, I find everything else to be "on point" and correct.