Not quite anything at all, since we have enumerated rights. But the constitution does have that pesky "general welfare" clause, and Hamilton clearly states that it's whatever is considered for the public good.
Then it has those pesky enumerations that apply to that clause. General welfare is not a license to do anything and no matter how people try and twist it. If what you are eluding is true, what the hell was the rest of the constitution for. They should have made it one line.
As I said, public need is asinine. Simple test: what rights do you violate of others when you do a line of blow? Answer: none. There is no basis to illegalize it unless you want to use 'general welfare' or 'public need.' When you go down that road you end up with asinine things like illegal alcohol and illegal drugs. Both asinine concepts.
OK, you provide some clarification on your position with that point. There is no public purpose for laws saying how people can and cannot get fucked up. There's a clear public purpose of penalizing them for driving while fucked up. Do we agree on that point?
Absolutely! In the instance of driving while under the influence of drugs/alcohol you are placing OTHERS rights at risk (the right to life). Taking drugs at home simply places yourself at risk- something you have the natural right to do.
Make congressional/presidential pay permanent set at 100 percent until death but also make it illegal to ever, in any shape or form, earn money from any other source. Once a servant at that level, you would remain a servant.
I think you'll have a constitutional issue with that, especially the right to petition the government. It gets a bit blurry when we talk about lobbyists. They're essentially paid people, by third parties, to advocate positions. There, I find it reasonable to regulate, who and who can not participate as a paid advocate.
I think we're now pretty much in agreement on reproductive rights.
? How does that stop you from petitioning your government? It stops you from bribing them but you can petition all you want. The idea only applies to the congressmen themselves. A senator or a Representative would be unable to garner another source of income.
So no laws against murder?
Theft?
Assault?
Rape?
Try reading the actual OP where I specifically mentioned murder and theft and you won't look like such an idiot when posting. The concept applies to assault, rape and a huge host of other things as well.
You look like an idiot if you don't think that stealing something can and is classified as an immoral act in the moral codes of most civilized societies.
And? This has nothing to do with my supposition in the OP. The laws against stealing have nothing to do with the immorality if it, they are there to protect your rights. Simple as that.
Every piece of legislation and policy decision is a KIND of moral decision.
There's really no avoiding that.
The key is to determine at the outset what code of morality we are trying to uphold.
That is a key that will never fit and is destined to failure. It is far better to let people determine their OWN morality and let the government stick to protecting your right to do so.
Some states make it a crime for an adult to have sex with a 16 year old. In other states it's legal.
Is the former legislating morality, and thus by the OP's standard, the government is doing something it has no business doing?
It depends on how they're justifying the law. They could, arguably, be claiming that the rights of a minor are being violated - that he or she is being deceived by an an adult.
If, on the other hand, the state is making it crime just because people think it's 'naughty' - that would be something they have no business doing.
Bingo. It has been found that persons at a very young age do not have the capacity to give consent and are, therefore, being violated when having sex. Just as 'icky' and also 'wrong' is a 70 year old man having his way with an 18 year old. The difference is, no matter how wrong it may be, the 18 year old has the capacity for consent and can do whatever they please with the other consenting adult.
I'm guessing that if you ask people if they consider a 30 year old - for example - having sex with a 15 year old moral or immoral or neither/no opinion,
the response would be overwhelmingly 'immoral'.
Sure, but the morality of the act has NOTHING to do with the legality of it. It has everything to do with the capacity for consent and in this case, consent cannot be given.
The left has no problem with morality. They have a very strict moral code, one they would like to see codified. And in some cases HAVE codified. Wear your seat belt, recycle, stop denying global warming, restrictions on property rights, respect to "diversity". An entire codebook of "hate" speech laws. The "war" on obesity. The left intends to enforce morality, just their morality.
And the right is just as guilty. I would guess that you are against gay marriage? I am sure that your position on such has nothing to do with whether or not you see such acts as moral....
If morality is the basis of the law, then the question is: Whose morals should be applied ( your morals, my morals, Justice Antonin Scalias morals - the so-called moral majority)? Its impracticable - it simply doesnt work. The problem is that people dont understand this, and insist that it be otherwise.
Bingo. People are always trying to push their own morality into law and they quickly forget that, if they are able to justify doing so, someone else will do the same with disastrous consequences to what you think of as moral.
There is no war on women's reproductive rights, at least not in the way you are framing it. If you are talking about BC pills then the right is spot on. If you are talking about abortion then the extremes on both sides are dead wrong and the answer lies in the middle. Strangely enough, that happens to be close to where the line is anyway and the solid truth is that abortion is not going to change anytime soon.
There is a desire to undermine or eliminate the right to privacy by many social conservatives and Christian fundamentalists, and overturn the case law underpinning that right, namely
Griswold/Roe/Casey, allowing the states to ban abortion. This is clearly motivated by morality, not an objective understanding of the Constitution or its case law.
Your point. Such has nothing to do with my statement. There are crazies all over the place, that does not mean there is some vaunted war on women.
Read them, as well as the anti-federalist papers.
As have the justices of the Supreme Court for more than two centuries theyve been taken into consideration along with other evidence when deliberating cases where appropriate, and the Courts rulings are the final authority as to the original intent of the Framers and the meaning of the Constitution.
I grow tired of the constant pointing you do to one case or another and assume that simply because it was the SCOTUS that said so it is correct and beyond reproach. We all realize that the SCOTUS makes such rulings but that does not make them correct. My guess is that you certainly would not simply accept the court's word if they slapped their foreheads tomorrow and said gee, we were wrong, white people DO have the right to own black people.
What people are challenging is the interpretations that the court has made as we damn well should when the court has made a decision that is wrong. The SCOTUS makes mistakes all the time and even overturns some decisions they make when they recognize such mistakes.
