Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (6695)	7/2/2003 12:09:36 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

I agree with you. There is nothing in the Constitution that grants men the right under the Constitution to engage in sodomy.Can anyone argue with a straight face that there is any provision in the Constitution which the drafters created in order to protect and guarantee that right? This is a social question, and the Constitutional structure leaves social questions up to the states. Whether or not one believes that sodomy should be illegal or legal, to accept that five life appointees should preempt the decisionmaking which is constitutionally vested in the hundreds of legislators duly elected by the voters is a horribly dangerous priciple to adopt. It is clear example, IMO, of absolute power corrupting, of those justices who know they cannot be overturned by the voters and are not subject to recall by the voters deciding that they will take social policy out of the hands of elected legislatures and take it into their own hands. We have to decide, quite simply, whether our form of government should be a democratic republic, or an oligarchy. This decision moves us very far in the latter direction. Edit: Egad -- a second grub in one day. Far from being my usual total non-grubber, I'm one away from a trifecta!