From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Jul 02 2003 - 01:46:10 BST
Hi again Rick,
> > So, Rick, does this mean it's LEGAL to walk around with a bag of weed
>tucked
> > in your pocket? And legal to take it out and smoke it or sell it when
>you
> > get inside a friend's house?
>
>R
>No. Possession of marijuana is a federal crime and a crime in all 50
>states
>(although Oregon, I believe, has decriminalized very small quantities
>possessed for personal use, but I'm not terribly familiar with how that law
>works). Anyway, to greatly oversimplify, the 4th amendment guarantees
>against unreasonable search and seizure are a limitation on the
>government's
>power to enforce the criminal laws. If you possess the weed in your own
>home it's still illegal, but the government would (usually) need a warrant
>to come in and look for it (which they can only get if they have probable
>cause).
Why is it illegal though? How can it be, now, if it is in private? If the
state were to try and justify it somehow, they'd end up bringing up the
morality that people shouldn't burn themelves out on marijuana, it harms
them somehow. But pot smokers deny their loss of health and potential is
harm just like gays deny that their loss of human potential is harm. Or
even if it is harm, so is working too much, it is just a choice of how to
harm yourself, and who else to harm in some indirect way. So I still don't
get it.
>J
>I don't see how "zones of privacy" become
> > "zones of legality".
>
>R
>Under the due process clause of the 14th amendment every person has a right
>against deprivations of life, liberty or property without due process of
>law. The 'zones of privacy' are the starting point for the court's
>analysis
>when determining what process is due before the government can deprive you
>of your fundamental right to liberty. The right to privacy is seen a part
>of this liberty interest so therefore in your home, the process due is much
>more rigorous than that due when you're in public.
huh? In public the police don't need a warrant, but they do to enter a
private home. What does that have to do with legaliity of behavior in the
home? To me, it says, if you want to do something illegal, you'd better do
it in your private home, if you don't want to get caught. But now if it is
legal in the private home, and even legal to talk about it, to have parades
announcing that you are doing it, I don't see how it can still be illegal in
public.
I do think this has a lot to do with the immense self-righteousness of
people today, no one can stand to be a criminal, to have any judgement
placed on them. So rather than curtail that behavior, they just insist that
the judgement be rescinded, since they know they are a "good person" in some
inner (but really superficial) sense.
> > I've never been a stickler for legal consistency, I feel that the
> > legistature can make whatever laws it wants, regardless of the "logic"
>or
> > consistency. This court is saying Texas's morals aren't the country's
> > morals, and therefore we will impose the country's morals (or actually,
>the
> > court's elitist cosmopolitian dinner-party media-ready morals).
>
>R
>Well okay then...the legislature has made laws which empower the courts to
>protect the interests of individuals and minorities against the tyranny of
>the majorities, which is exactly what this court did. I agree with Oliver
>Wendell Holmes (famed Justice, Pragmatist, and a personal hero of mine) who
>said, "The life of the law has not been logic, but experience."
There is no law that says Supreme Court decisions become the "law of the
land", all that happened in this case was Lawrence got his $200 back. It is
a power grab by the courts, oversteppig their intended bounds.
>J
> > I think they are just relying on the fact that most people probably
>won't
> > want people looking at them. But there will be a few "nudists" and
>public
> > sex lovers who will be emboldened by this decision (and Scalia's
>invitation)
> > who will question the right of a state to discriminate against them,
>while
> > allowing straights to walk around anywhere they want. There are lots of
> > people who only enjoy sex in public, for them "regular" sex is not at
>all
> > interesting. This is a class of people.
>
>R
>To oversimplify once again, whether or not a class of people (for legal
>purposes) can be defined solely on the basis on a shared behavior has yet
>to
>be determined at the ultimate level.
So how did a class of people defined solely on the basis of shared behavior
figure so prominantly in this decision? That was the stunner to me, that
Kennedy actually created two distinct classes of people, with different
rights and responsibilities, out of nothing, like Loving v Virginia in
reverse.
R:
>Moreover, even if the 'nudists' could
>unite as a class of people to make an Equal Protection challenge to public
>decency laws that prevent public nudity, the state would only need to show
>that the laws it made is rationally related to a legitimate state end (in
>Supreme Ct history, I believe only about 2 or 3 laws have ever been struck
>down at this level of scrutiny... the recent Lawrence opinion representing
>one of them). To get a higher level of scrutiny, the class would have to
>show either how it has been politically disadvantaged somehow by the
>majority and why it can't take advantage of the regular legislative
>processes OR that there exists under the Constitution a fundamental liberty
>interest in being nude in public which the framers intended to be protected
>by judicial power.
Yeah, I don't think nudists are motivated that much, and the only people who
want them to now, don't actually want them to. We are just trying to make a
point about how rights but up against morality all the time.
>J
> > This is an example of how I think people ought to be make it judgements
> > "ahistorically" and absolutely. No one should say this is "true for
>now",
> > no one should say this is "currently just", a court should assert truths
> > that stand for all time, not temporary ones. They aren't Alan
>Greenspan,
> > adjusting the pruience rate of the nation.
>
>R
>That's pretty much what they do J. The Supreme Court interprets our laws
>in
>accordance with the "ahistorical" principles found in the Constitution.
Well, Kennedy's and O'Connor's opinions were all about "at this time", we
will deal with gay marriage and other things when their time comes. It was
a very post-modern decision. And they pretty much admitted that they had to
throw out everything but the last 50 years of history. It was funny to
hear them say that Bowers was wrong when it was decided. What a joke.
Johnny
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 02 2003 - 01:52:16 BST