Beware What You Pray For:courts Weren't Meant To Play Santa Claus

[2dogs]

http://www.etherzone.com/2003/batt070103.shtml

BEWARE WHAT YOU PRAY FOR
COURTS WEREN'T MEANT TO PLAY SANTA CLAUS

By: Joan E. Battey

The Supreme Court ruling which is being termed a victory for homosexual rights via the invisible "right to privacy" in the Constitution should not be argued against mainly on the basis that it protects sexual activity that has long been assumed to be, shall we say, not in the best interests of a family-based society.

Why is no one looking beyond this ruling that now specifically protects a home against "invasion" in search of a long legally-frowned-upon behavior? Will previous arrests for bigamy be grandfathered in as okay earlier, and still not to be viewed as "consenting" behavior in private? Are lawyers now lining up to argue for a specific decision protecting bigamy, just in case any arguments might remain questioning it?




If the current ruling is based on "privacy" in one's home, then more laws and more lawsuits are going to be in everyone's future. Will we see added laws more finely define the most currently acceptable difference between legal and illegal activities in private homes? Will entering to protect children from abuse next have to be separated legally from entering to prevent parents from providing underage drinkers with alcohol? Will home open-bar-for-teenagers parents be getting their own legal lobbying under way? After all, everyone willingly participates in the drinking at a private party in a home, but an unruly child is not willing to participate in abuse? Why stop there - maybe go one step further and legally protect a child's right to smack a parent who doesn't (in the privacy of the home) shut up about getting home before 3 a.m. reeking of alcohol? When is the threshold sacrosanct and when isn't it? Shouldn't we have volumes of information available to make sure everyone has their rights?

Will domestic disturbances have to be more finely defined so that verbal arguments between two parties willingly shouting at each other over private disagreements won't bring the local constabulary, ordered up by 911 calls by neighbors? At what point can anyone determine what is justification for official intervention and what is covered by privacy of one's home exclusions, unless it's all spelled out in excruciatingly plain wording endorsed by the Supremes?

Will loud parties in which everyone is willingly participating in the privacy of a home be protected from legal intervention? Or, only if the type of noise is also legally defined? Is the privacy of a back yard legally separated from privacy of a home protection? Better get it defined, just in case!

Beware what you pray for and beware how you argue against overreaching, emotionally-charged decisions. The precedents which were sought for future expansions of the agendas involved will inevitably open up wholesale lots of legal cans of worms guaranteed to keep lawyers and non-profits busy for decades to come. What one agenda group sees as a great victory, is inevitably picked up by other agenda groups seeing it as an invitation to jump in, the water's fine and the swimming pool has been doubled or tripled in size.

Overlooked in the process is the fact that the more laws are specifically enacted and updated to endorse or forbid current behaviors or practices, the greater the perceived need to expand attention to other current behaviors or practices, good or bad, depending on which side of the argument you stand. Is it any wonder that trial lawyers are so valued as campaign contributors?

What wasn't broken or enforced except in egregious occurrences has now been "fixed" to ensure chaos and Big Brother-isms well beyond the foreseeable future. The well-funded and successful marketing campaign for what was euphemistically named "tolerance" has turned society's protections upside down. The full ramifications are slow to sink in, even among those who recognized the dangers implicit in the marketing. Marketing campaigns for the next agendas are already in the draft stage -- believe it!

Beware what you pray for -- you'll get the bill for the costs The Constitution does not require all of what is now done in the name of protecting rights. It doesn't say that the pursuit of happiness covers protection of whatever you want to do, no matter what the effect it has on others. And, it doesn't say that the Judicial Branch is to be the federal definer of what happiness is for each and every group.

In complaining about Big Brother activities of one kind or another, it is best to remember that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for all the younger Big Brothers wanting to ride on the coattails. In fact, many of the Big Brotherisms have been asked for, one by one, in order to validate demands for rights of various kinds, protections of various kinds, information of many kinds. The complaints don't come until Big Brother is threatening the block a person lives on.

Beware what you pray for. Unraveling the original legally finely crafted Constitutional protections and re-defining them to suit varying agenda demands is a very dangerous and expensive endeavor. The unravelers are sorting through and using the remnants for knitting a burial shroud for societal stability.

 

[Graystar]

Sounds like another person that should do more listening and less talking. I bet he didn't even read the decision.

This ruling appears to be a first step to the court adopting a very important concept...laws must have a really good reason to exist, or they can be declared unconstitutional. This is how it should be. Laws should *only* be passed in order to protect rights. A law should never be passed just because "it sounds like a good idea." Unfortunately there are way too many laws that are just that...they sound good but are actually deeply flawed. Such laws should be struck down as unconstitutional because they place restrictions on the people with no benefit.

Remember that this country was founded on the idea of living free...that government should only do what is necessary, and no more. I think the court's ruling can help us get back to that ideal.

 

[Sergeant Bob]

The Supreme Court ruling which is being termed a victory for homosexual rights via the invisible "right to privacy"

Another cafeteria Constitutionalist who thinks the BOR grants us the rights she thinks we should have. If she thinks we have no right to privacy, I guess she wouldn't be opposed to Big Brother putting cameras throughout her house.
Would she be singing the same tune if the case had been about a heterosexual couple commiting "sodomy", which is still against the law in 9 states? Of course not, because it would never have gone to court in the first place!
And all this tripe about it promoting the homosexual agenda. So what if it does? That's the way freedom works. If they made a favorable judgement on the 2nd amendment we all hold so dear, that certainly wouldn't fit alot of other people's agendas, but we'd be saying, that's the way freedom works.
I've been hearing alot about this on the so called Conservative (Constitution thumping) radio programs. Most saying it's going to lead to Goat love, child molestation, 40 wives, society is going to crumble!
Sort of like the Anti's saying CCW will lead to blood flowing in the streets.
Lotta hipocracy going on all over.
This ones not going to be around long so get your licks in while you can.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Graystar:

Well said.

 

[El Tejon]

Yes, but does this right to privacy extend to my guns? Maybe I can own untaxed machine guns only in my bedroom?

 

[Preacherman]

ET, you've left yourself wide, wide open with that comment... uncontrolled full-auto in the bedroom? Gadzooks!

 

[jimpeel]

This ruling is already having far reaching implicatuions. Molesters are being released in CA and a guy who had sex with a fourteen-year-old girl has been released because they were barged in upon by police in the "privacy" of his home.

If a person takes drugs in his home, is he exempt from arrest for drug violations because he is in the sanctity of the privacy of his own home? Is he potected under the tenets of Roe v Wade because his body is his to do with as he sees fit under the "privacy" provisions of the Constitution?

The fact is that the sodomy laws are not just out there to go after a select group of people for behavior that offends the sensibilities of those who are are opposed to those activities. The state is well within its purvue to limit these activities under the portion of the Constitution that requires them to "provide for the general welfare" of the citizens of the nation.

Homosexuals are not only the primary group most susceptible to the AIDS virus, they are also the primary group that is highest ranked for infection of Hepatitis A.

We have all heard the warnings on the news that if you ate at a particular restaurant you should get a gamaglobulin shot as a precaution because one of the workers was diagnosed with Hepatitis A. This disease is spread by poor toilet habits namely failing to wash the hands after using same. What effect does one beleive that analingus or post coital fellatio have on passing this infection? Because the passage of the virus is performed in the "privacy" of one's home does not preclude the passage of same when the person reports for work at the local restaurant.

Homosexual activity threatens everyone with the possibility of infection of Hepatitis A.

Hepatitis A Among Homosexual Men -- United States, Canada, and Australia

An epidemic outbreak of hepatitis A among homosexual men in Stockholm. Hepatitis A, a special hazard for the male homosexual subpopulation in Sweden.

Sexual transmission of hepatitis A in homosexual men: incidence and mechanism.


Outbreak of hepatitis A in Rotterdam associated with visits to "darkrooms" in gay bars

How is hepatitis A spread?

How is hepatitis A spread?


The virus lives in the liver and is passed in the stool.

The virus enters another person when hands, food, or objects contaminated with stool are put in the mouth. The amount of contamination needed to spread the infection is very small and is not visible to the eye.

Spread occurs when an infected person does not thoroughly wash his/her hands after going to the bathroom.

Hepatitis A can be spread through drinking water or eating shellfish contaminated with the virus.

Hepatitis A can also be spread through sexual activity if hands or mouth come in contact with stool or parts of the body contaminated with stool.

A person is most contagious during the 2 weeks before the illness symptoms begin.

Hepatitis A is not spread by kissing, sneezing, or by saliva.

 

[BigG]

Maybe the guy who advised a bad settlement is better than a good trial knew what he was talking about? Yathink?

 

[Sergeant Bob]

This ruling is already having far reaching implicatuions. Molesters are being released in CA and a guy who had sex with a fourteen-year-old girl has been released because they were barged in upon by police in the "privacy" of his home.

This ruling has nothing to do with child molesters being released. That is under a separate ruling about the California legislature changing the statute of limitations, then bringing criminal charges ex post facto .

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

STOGNER v. CALIFORNIA
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. 01—1757. Argued March 31, 2003–Decided June 26, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



In 1993, California enacted a new criminal statute of limitations permitting prosecution for sex-related child abuse where the prior limitations period has expired if, inter alia, the prosecution is begun within one year of a victim’s report to police. A subsequently added provision makes clear that this law revives causes of action barred by prior limitations statutes. In 1998, petitioner Stogner was indicted for sex-related child abuse committed between 1955 and 1973. At the time those crimes were allegedly committed, the limitations period was three years. Stogner moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the Ex Post Facto Clause forbids revival of a previously time-barred prosecution. The trial court agreed, but the California Court of Appeal reversed. The trial court denied Stogner’s subsequent dismissal motion, in which he argued that his prosecution violated the Ex Post Facto and Due Process Clauses. The Court of Appeal affirmed.

Held: A law enacted after expiration of a previously applicable limitations period violates the Ex Post Facto Clause when it is applied to revive a previously time-barred prosecution. California’s law extends the time in which prosecution is allowed, authorizes prosecutions that the passage of time has previously barred, and was enacted after prior limitations periods for Stogner’s alleged offenses had expired. Such features produce the kind of retroactivity that the Constitution forbids. First, the law threatens the kinds of harm that the Clause seeks to avoid, for the Clause protects liberty by preventing governments from enacting statutes with “manifestly unjust and oppressive†retroactive effects. Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 391. Second, the law falls literally within the categorical descriptions of ex post facto laws that Justice Chase set forth more than 200 years ago in Calder v. Bull, which this Court has recognized as an authoritative account of the Clause’s scope, Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 46. It falls within the second category, which Justice Chase understood to include a new law that inflicts punishments where the party was not, by law, liable to any punishment. Third, numerous legislators, courts, and commentators have long believed it well settled that the Clause forbids resurrection of a time-barred prosecution. The Reconstruction Congress of 1867 rejected a bill that would have revived time-barred treason prosecutions against Jefferson Davis and others, passing instead a law extending unexpired limitations periods. Roughly contemporaneous State Supreme Courts echoed the view that laws reviving time-barred prosecutions are ex post facto. Even courts that have upheld extensions of unexpired statutes of limitations have consistently distinguished situations where the periods have expired, often using language that suggests a presumption that reviving time-barred criminal cases is not allowed. This Court has not previously spoken decisively on this matter. Neither its recognition that the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination does not apply after the relevant limitations period has expired, Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 597—598, nor its holding that a Civil War statute retroactively tolling limitations periods during the war was valid as an exercise of Congress’ war powers, Stewart v. Kahn, 11 Wall. 493, 503—504, dictates the outcome here. Instead, that outcome is determined by the nature of the harms that the law creates, the fact that the law falls within Justice Chase’s second category, and a long line of authority. Pp. 3—26.
STOGNER v. CALIFORNIA
Child molestation is still against the law.

 

[jimpeel]

Sergeant Bob

I stand corrected.

Apologies to all.

J

 

[TheOtherOne]

Yes, but does this right to privacy extend to my guns?

While we should all be familiar with our guns. I don't think we should be that familiar with them.

 

[Sergeant Bob]

Sergeant Bob

I stand corrected.

Apologies to all.

No problem at all. The two decisions were released quite close together and the outcomes of one could easily be confused with the other.

As for ex post facto ruling, I am not particularly happy with the outcome (child molesters being released, I think they should be thrown into a deep dark hole never to see light again) and feel there should be no statute of limitations on it. But if they are allowed to change the statutes after the fact, they could probably go back about 30 years and nail some of us for youthful indisrections (such as tampering with the US Mail, ie, felonious assault on a mailbox) we have long since learned better of.

 

[rock jock]

laws must have a really good reason to exist

Yup. And who decides if they have a good reason? You?

Laws should *only* be passed in order to protect rights

From New Webster's Dictionary:
"right" - that which one is morally or legally entitled. Sounds to me like like a community has rights, too and therefore should be able to pass laws to protect those rights.

that government should only do what is necessary, and no more.

Yup again. Apparently, the people of Texas felt this law was necessary.

Another cafeteria Constitutionalist who thinks the BOR grants us the rights she thinks we should have.

No, another person who reads the Constitution, not reads into the Constitution to suit their own preconceived ideals and definition of "rights".

And all this tripe about it promoting the homosexual agenda. So what if it does? That's the way freedom works.

Oh, I see. Promoting a homosexual agenda is good, but promoting a traditional family agenda is bad. Thanks for clearing that up. Interesting definition of freedom there.

 

[Sergeant Bob]

Yup. And who decides if they have a good reason? You?

Well, I guess the answer to that one would be...you?

Yup again. Apparently, the people of Texas felt this law was necessary.

AWB of 1994? NFA 1934? GCA 1968? Apparently, people of the United States felt these laws were necessary.

You say the Constitution gives no Right to privacy. I guess you would have no problem with the government (or your community) installing cameras in your home and bedroom to ensure you are fully complying with the "Traditional Family Agenda" laws? After all

a community has rights, too and therefore should be able to pass laws to protect those rights.

No, another person who reads the Constitution, not reads into the Constitution to suit their own preconceived ideals and definition of "rights".

I guess I missed the part of the Constitution which says homosexuals have no right to exist.

If you read down past the 2nd Amendment (or is that part missing?), you'll eventually come to the 9th Amendment. Just in case, here it is...

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

Should we post that one on the cafeteria wall for you?

Oh, I see. Promoting a homosexual agenda is good, but promoting a traditional family agenda is bad. Thanks for clearing that up. Interesting definition of freedom there.

You said that, not me. There are alot of people who don't agree with the freedoms you have and would take them away. What do you say to those people? If you're not too busy dictating (a. To prescribe with authority; impose) what consenting (1. To agree in opinion or sentiment; to be of the same mind; to accord; to concur.) adults do in their own bedrooms, maybe you could repeal the AWB?

You see, one of the problems with freedom is, sometimes it's going to benefit people and causes you don't agree with. That is the nature of freedom.

 

[LoneStranger]

While we should all be familiar with our guns. I don't think we should be that familiar with them.

I'm confused??

Isn't this what Mexican Carry is all about? I mean what could be wrong about having an Intimate(?) relationship with your gun??

 

[Gray Peterson]

Homosexual activity threatens everyone with the possibility of infection of Hepatitis A.

Which is easily vaccinated, of which I've gotten vaccinated for Hep A AND B.

So let me get this straight:

Some idiot uses the restroom, and does not wash their hands taking a crap and wiping up.

If they are employees of the place, that is a violation of health codes in EVERY state. Most states require you to wash your hands for nearly 30 seconds, thoroughly, as an employee.

When I was a food handler for McDonalds, not only did I wash my hands for 30 seconds, and thoroughly, I used Purell too to sanitize my hands before handling food after using the bathroom. I went above AND beyond the state requirements, because I set an example and I did not want to myself be subject to poor hygiene by other workers.

 

[Gray Peterson]

a community has rights, too and therefore should be able to pass laws to protect those rights.

WHAT??!!

Rock Jock, come on here. Communities have rights? Excuse me? No offense, but you could take that even further and say that communities have the right to take away your right to self defense and to own firearms, too.

 

[Gray Peterson]

Yup again. Apparently, the people of Texas felt this law was necessary.

So did the people of many of the southern states when they resisted racial integration and passed laws banning sex between two people of different races.

Sorry, Lester Maddox, Orval Faubus, and George Wallace destroyed any legitimacy to the state's rights arguments.

 

[Glock Glockler]

Sounds to me like like a community has rights, too and therefore should be able to pass laws to protect those rights

They do, but the rights of any collective unit spring from the rights of the individuals that comprise them.

So did the people of many of the southern states when they resisted racial integration and passed laws banning sex between two people of different races.

Obviously the state is superceeding it's boudaried by doing so, but that does not invalidate the idea of state rights in relation to the Federal govt. If the states are exceeding their duties by passing such laws than it shuold be the people of that state that correct the situation, not the Feds.

 

[Zundfolge]

Homosexual activity threatens everyone with the possibility of infection of Hepatitis A.

No, Homosexual activity threatens other homosexuals with the possibility of infection of Hepatitis A. Just keep you mouth and hands away from a homosexual's "stool contaminated" body parts and you should be fine (thats a creedo I live by )


Thing is it's promiscuity (heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise) which promotes disease ... but I sure don't want the government deciding whom I can and can't sleep with (I'm married so I've made a choice to be exclusive to one woman ... but it was my decision, not the state's).

 

[rock jock]

Sgt. Bob,

This argument isn't going anywhere. We simply have a different reading of the Constitution. The 9th Amendment, as I have said before, does not specify the certain other rights that we enjoy because those are left up to the states. And the states, in turn can pass whatever standards they want as long as they don't conflict with the BoR. The standards they pass are going to reflect the cultural, moral, and political beliefs of the population of that state. Some will use the non-aggression principle to guide them; others will use a more (or even less) restrictive set of standards. I think that you just can't stand the fact that a good number of folks in this country don't share your own personal standard for defining "rights". I have met quite a few religious zealots in my time and you definitely meet the criteria. Note that this is not an insult - it can quite admirable to hold strong fervent beliefs, but as often noted on this board (although typically directed at Christians or sometimes, Muslims), the danger becomes when you will not recognize that other folks belief systems are just as valid as your own in a representative government.

BTW, drawing any parallel to the so-called infringment of homosexuals and the 2A is ridiculous. See my note above on why states cannot violate the BoR in setting standards within their borders.

Lonnie, we have already discussed discrimination laws against blacks do not apply. I know this is a tactic of the gay community (i.e., identifying yourselves with minorities to gain acceptance of your lifestyle and engender sympathy for discriminatory laws), but I think most Americans see right through this.

 

[chickenfried]

Oh, I see. Promoting a homosexual agenda is good, but promoting a traditional family agenda is bad. Thanks for clearing that up. Interesting definition of freedom there

How does infringing on the rights of gays promote a traditional family agenda? How high is the national divorce rate? How do gays have an affect on that? It may not float our boats, but if two people love each other who are we to stand in their way? I've known gay couples that are committed to each other. I've also known straight guys that'll tell me how they received oral sex in the parking lot of a club from a girl they just met, then the next week they're getting engaged to their girlfriend. Sexual orientation does not define morals or character.

 

[Gray Peterson]

I know this is a tactic of the gay community (i.e., identifying yourselves with minorities to gain acceptance of your lifestyle and engender sympathy for discriminatory laws), but I think most Americans see right through this.

I am so sick and tired of you and people like you calling my sexual attractions a "lifestyle". Lifestyle implies a conscious choice to be this way.

Do you really think I would chose to be homosexual, considering the environment of certain areas of this country? 5 years ago, Matthew Shepard died because he was gay. He was beaten to a pulp and left to die. 4 years ago, Billy Jack Gaither was murdered in rural Alabama. He was beaten with an ax handle, his throat was cut, and then, he was thrown on top of a bunch of tires, and then lit on fire.

Do you REALLY think ANYONE would actually consciously chose to be gay in such an environment? You'd have to be massive issues to actually chose to be gay in this country, and you'd have to be absolutely psychotic to choose to be gay in the middle east, where they still decapitate men for being homosexual.

Your mindset is like someone that takes what American Family Association says as gospel. These people have identified homosexuals as "The Enemy". Do you really think they, or anyone they fund or are allied with, will EVER post anything that goes against their cause? No. AFA, and other groups like it, are obsessed with making all gay men look like potential pedophiles, just like anti-gunners try to make every gun owner look like a potential school or workplace shooter.

Both the "anti gay lobby" and the "anti-gun lobby" uses the same tactics: False Studies, Fear, Uncertainty, and generally, lie about a group that you're targetting whenever possible. It's too bad that you would so easily see through the lies and BS of the anti-gun groups, but when the exact same tactics are used by groups like AFA and the Christian Coalition, you seemingly ignore it.

 

[Preacherman]

Folks, we're into an area now that is generating rather more heat than light. It's OT for The High Road. Lights out, as Lawdog would say...