Skip to main content

View Diary: Impeachment and the Original Intent of our Founders (108 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It is Constitution to leave that decision to (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jimdotz

    couples.  It is also constitutional not to.  That's the point.

    •  I disagree, it is Unconnstitutional for the state (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jimdotz

      Federal or state, to intrude into the privacy of any person.  It's non of the government's business.  There are Constitutional limits on the criminal law, and in the absence of real social harm, creation of a crime is unconstitutional.  Do you contend that the 9th and 10th Amendments do not protect against any government in the United States making it a crime to READ DAILY KOS.  AFTER ALL, the Constitution only guarantees the freedom of the press, i.e. to publish.  There is no explicit guarantee that reading published material cannot be prohibited and punished.

      Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.

      by StrayCat on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 10:15:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I do not see privacy rights to be (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jimdotz

        protected by the constitution.  I most certainly do not see the idea that absent social harm (in whose estimation, btw) it is illegal to criminalize something.

        Freedom to read Daily Kos is not protected by the 9th or the 10th Amendments.  It is protected by the First.  Freedom to publish, necesarily includes freedom to disseminate.  Press does not mean just impressing letters on paper.  It means (and always meant) publishing for public distribution.  Your argument on that point is rather silly.  And it is rather clear that the founders and ratifiers meant to protect exchange of ideas in enacting the 1st Amendment.

        •  Yes, they did "mean" to protect the exchange of (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jimdotz

          ideas.  However, where do you find those words in the Constitution?  It is from the history, the press of the time, and from Court decisions renderd over time.  Likewise, the 9th and 10th Amendments are not meaningless prose, to be ignored, or to be declared surplusage.  The same basis for understanding the Fisrt Amendment exists for understanding the 9th and 10th.
           On your other point, the existence of social harm is always a problem in legislating criminal law, and at the margins is a crazy undertaking.  However. from the statement "Armed Robbery is a social harm, and is criminalized, to fraud is a social harm and is criminalized then on to contraception is a social harm, and is therefoe criminalized is clearly moving into a different category.  There is a line there, which becomes cleare over time as legislatures stray less and less into our live and the freedoms explicit and implicit in the Constution become recognized and honored.  Remember, the constitution would never have been adopted absent the guarantee of all ten amendments of the Bill of Rights.

          Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.

          by StrayCat on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 10:34:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site