Strict Constructionists

I agree completely with and thoroughly enjoy your reasoned understanding of the
Constitution, JGrubbs.

Many of us have become corrupted in our thinking of our Constitution because of the long time abuse of its intent. Notice how the Supremes have abandoned the interpretation of laws in light of the Constitution, and have replaced it with rulings that agree with opinions or values held by the judges or their constituents. They today even go so far as foreign law to find corroboration for their treachery.

 

Johnv,

Wow, I pretty much agree with fromtheright's statement.

Yeah, scary, ain't it?

Perhaps I should clarify: I said that Texas's situation in L v. T was an example of my position, not the ruling itself; i.e., that they had a right to go in Lawrence's apartment as probable cause existed to believe that there was some type of assault or disturbance of the peace, or whatever, due to reports of noise from the apartment. Under a privacy right, they did not have a right to go into that apartment to investigate whether homosexual activity was going on.

Still agree?

BTW, this is one of my biggest disagreements with Robert Bork, who viewed the Ninth Amendment as an inkblot. I don't go nearly as far, though, as Randy Barnett, probably one of the biggest defenders of Ninth Amendment privacy rights, in that he defended the decision in L v. T and pretty much argues that the privacy right is absolute. Because he misses that balance with the Tenth Amendment, he argues for a "presumption of liberty", an interesting argument that he defends very well, but I think he is wrong. I greatly respect him, though, as he makes his argument from an originalist perspective. I think that Scalia's position, arguing from traditional practices is much more sound.