SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: carranza2 who wrote (84697)11/7/2004 9:04:37 PM
From: Ilaine  Read Replies (1) of 793801
 
As you know, it was "well settled" that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states at all until the late 19th - early 20th century, when various justices began to argue that the 14th Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights. This position did not command a majority until Adamson v. California (332 U.S. 46 [1947]).

So your constitutional "right to privacy" came into being, as I posted earlier, in Griswold v. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479 [1965]).

These are recent doctrines, and I agree with those who say that they are not constitutionally sound.

I don't like the idea of federal judges telling me that it's ok for homosexuals to marry, either. I don't think there is a constitutional right for homosexuals to marry.

I don't think there is a constitutional right to use contraceptives. I don't think there is a constitutional right to have an abortion.

I think this is do-good, feel-good, top-down, Eastern establishment elitism.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News