From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Mon Jul 07 2003 - 21:18:29 BST
Hi Rick:
> P
> > I see what you're driving at. And I agree with the value of a place to be
> > alone and quiet, to let "the world . . . roll in ecstasy at your feet."
> > (Kafka). But I don't really see a connection to sodomy or how engaging in
> > sodomy is helpful in sorting out the problems of one's life.
>
> R
> Thanks for the Kafka (that's one of favorite quotes of all time :-). The
> relevance to sexual conduct I think comes in the part where he talks about
> his need to "be what he really was and not what he was thought to be or
> supposed to be." It is the freedom of being ourselves that we do our best
> work.
I see what you mean. Thanks to your explanations, I'm beginning to waiver
on my stand that individual privacy has nothing to do with intellectual
values. Further, I suspect Pirsig would agree with the Court's decision
revoking the Texas sodomy law. It still bothers me, and will continue to
bother me, for six individuals, on grounds that appear to be little more
than personal bias, to kill an entire state's moral code. As Justice
Scalia pointed out in his dissenting opinion, "Countless judicial
decisions and legislative enactments have relied on the ancient
proposition that a governing majority's belief that certain sexual
behavior is 'immoral and unacceptable' constitutes a rational basis for
regulation."
> P
> > I think the "people" means communities at a lesser level than the
> > state (as in 13/50 states) such as counties, towns, unions, etc. In fact,
> > I live in a little community that has its own set of rules and
> > regulations in which various individual liberties are restricted. If the
> > 10th amendment meant "individuals" it would have used the word
> > "individuals" or more specifically, "each citizen." The word "people"
> > refers to more than one person, i.e., groups.
>
> R
> Okay. That's a fair try but I don't think it will hold water. The first
> problem is that the counties, towns, unions, etc are all considered part of
> 'the State' from which they derive their power to govern (which would make
> the amendment redundant). Whenever one of those counties, towns, or unions
> acts... the Constitution treats it as "state" action. As used the
> document, "the state" is any level of governement that isn't federal. The
> second problem is that the word "people" is used all over the Bill of
> Rights and ALWAYS used to mean 'people as individuals'. For example, the
> 4th amendment states that "the right of the people to be secure in their
> persons, houses papers and effects, against unreasonable search and
> seizures, shall not be violated...". If "people" is being used in the
> document to refer to "lower levels of state government" than the 4th
> amendment becomes complete nonsense. The 1st amendment prevents the gov't
> from restricting "the right of the people, peacefully to assemble...", the
> 2nd protects "the right of the people to keep and bear arms...", the 5th
> says that "no person" can be held to answer for a capital crime without a
> grand jury indictment....etc, etc. In fact EVERY SINGLE ONE of the
> amendments in the Bill of Rights is bestowing some right on "individuals".
> Including the 9th, which makes it clear those rights aren't exhaustive...
> and the 10th, which protects the right of those same people to share in the
> unenumerated powers.
You've persuaded me. Your Bill of Rights argument was the clincher. If I
ever never a good lawyer, can I call on you? :-)
Platt
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 : Mon Jul 07 2003 - 21:16:18 BST