Santorum in defense of his beliefs - It is impossible for a law to be intolerant

[Ben Kenobi]

Half a post... more to come.

Korn:

Post in the gay marriage thread, then. That thread is starting to join into these issues, particularly concerning the rigidity of sexuality.

The issue isn't gay marriage, it's sodomy, and I think there is a big difference between the two.

Agreed. Two seperate issues, which is why Santorium's argument falls apart. His argument is a much better one against gay marriage, than for sodomy.

Sodomy has a specific target, homosexuals, and little to no justification on how it actually protects the public welfare from the consensual actions of adults, while similar actions of heterosexuals is completely legal; it appears to me that this is a highly intolerant law

Two seperate points to deal with here.

1. The bill may discriminate wrt sodomy among homosexuals and heterosexuals. This, if true, is unjustified and falls prey to your points.

2. Is sodomy the moral equivalent of sex outside the marriage relationship? If so, there are two positions we can take from this question.

First of all, both should be approved,
Secondly, both should not be approved.

I take the second position, but I am unsure of whether the state can regulate sexual conduct between consenting adults.

Berzerker:

Paul didn't encourage slaves to leave their masters. Can you answer my question now? If allowing polygamy means approving of polygamy, then did Paul approve of slavery when he allowed it?

Yes, he did. "if you can win your freedom, then do so."
We've been through this point before.

Paul condemned all sorts of behaviors, but not slavery.

Explicitly or implicitly? Implicitly, Paul absolutely destroys slavery. The whole concept of everyone being sinners and falling short of the law implies that all persons are equal.

Btw, monogamy doesn't ensure equality. Ever hear the phrases, "barefoot and pregnant" or "a woman's place is in the kitchen"?

Moreso than Polygamy. That is the point at hand.

That's up to the women to decide, not you or me.

So gender applies to moral decisions? Men cannot speak up for women, or defend women? I call BS.

[Berzerker]

Dinodoc -

Again, I fail to see how anyone with a reasonable grasp of grammar can interpret "Due Process" Clause of either the 5th or 14th amendment to assure anything but procedural rights.

I believe that's called judicial review and not Substantive Due Process.

Here is the definition of substantive due process:

"Substantive Due Process" is the fundamental constitutional legal theory upon which the Griswold/Roe/Casey privacy right is based. The doctrine of Substantive Due Process holds that the Due Process Clause not only requires "due process," that is, basic procedural rights, but that it also protects basic substantive rights. "Substantive" rights are those general rights that reserve to the individual the power to possess or to do certain things, despite the government’s desire to the contrary. These are rights like freedom of speech and religion. "Procedural" rights are special rights that, instead, dictate how the government can lawfully go about taking away a person’s freedom or property or life, when the law otherwise gives them the power to do so.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, states "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . " The facially clear meaning of this passage is that a state has to use sufficiently fair and just legal procedures whenever it is going to lawfully take away a persons life, freedom or possessions. Thus, before a man can be executed, imprisoned or fined for a crime, he must get a fair trial, based on legitimate evidence, with a jury, etc. These are procedural or "process" rights.

However, under "Substantive Due Process," the Supreme Court has developed a broader interpretation of the Clause, one that protects basic substantive rights, as well as the right to process. Substantive Due Process holds is that the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee not only that appropriate and just procedures (or "processes") be used whenever the government is punishing a person or otherwise taking away a person’s life, freedom or property, but that these clauses also guarantee that a person’s life, freedom and property cannot be taken without appropriate governmental justification, regardless of the procedures used to do the taking. In a sense, it makes the "Due Process" clause a "Due Substance" clause as well.

http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/sdp.htm

Now, as you can see, "due process" is, as you pointed out, the procedure for depriving the guilty of life, liberty, and property. But substantive due process deals with whether or not government had the authority to write the law in the first place.
To act as if substantive due process was just made up and has no constitutional foundation is to nullify the notion of constitutional limits on government power.

Imran -

If they wanted free flow of trade they easily could have written that states are not allowed to interfer in interstate commerce (which the court found under the 'dormant commerce clause'). HOWEVER, they gave the federal government the power to regulate! Regulation means barriers. It's simple as that.

Imran, the interstate commerce clause was established to do two things - create a free trade zone within the USA. You can look at the history of how the clause was used back then and see for yourself. Second, and the reason why your suggestion is invalid, when disputes between people engaged in interstate commerce arose, the Framers didn't want the plaintiff to have to travel to another state to sue for damages. So they gave the Feds the power to regulate interstate commerce so federal courts - ostensibly neutral arbiters - could be used to settle disputes. It is illogical to conclude that a power designed to prevent the states from creating trade barriers was added to the Constitution to create trade barriers, but be my guest, show us when the interstate commerce clause was first used to ban interstate trade.

I know it is difficult for you to read, but I never said the states can take away enumerated rights. I said the states can take away unenumerated rights, which the founders would probably agree with.

Unless you can quote them saying that, you're just putting your words in their mouths. Now, is liberty an unenumerated right? Just where do you think our unenumerated rights come from? LIBERTY! Of course, federalism under the Founders allowed the states to deprive us of our rights, but that doesn't mean the Founders wanted the states doing that. Federalism was a compromise to get the Constitution ratified and that changed with the 14th Amendment.

No it doesn't. I DARE you to find that line of reasoning in Lochner or Griswold, which created substantive due process.

Read my response to Dinodoc, I gave him the definition of substantive due process.

And btw, you can easily do things without constitutional authority. Doing things AGAINST constitutional authority is the problem. Silence does not restrict the states or people.

Wtf? Congress can't do whatever it wants unless the Constitution prohibits the action. Why would the Framers give Congress the power to set up a post office if Congress can do what it wants?

Substantive Due Process includes these unenumerated rights and basically makes them as powerful as enumerated rights. This is a bastard reading of the 9th Amendment.... Hell, it really isn't a reading of the 9th. It's the 'penumbra' of rights argument.

And just what did Madison say in the 9th Amendment? That the enumeration of certain rights should not be used to deny or disparage unenumerated rights!!! If you want to eat ice cream, isn't that within the "penumbra" of liberty? Liberals and social conservatives hate liberty, that's why they selectively argue against unenumerated rights (and enumerated) they don't like. Ever hear a social conservative say "liberty is not what you want to do, but what you "ought" to do"?

Congress can ban abortion by preventing hospitals or other institution from doing the act (commerce clause). Hospitals engage in interstate commerce.

You're a liberal now? That's the argument the left has been using to expand the interstate commerce clause to intrastate commerce and non-commerce. When was the first time the intertstate commerce clause was used to ban intrastate activities? Sorry Imran, this is gibberish and you should know better.

A law against abortion violates substantive due process because 5 justices decided there was a right to abortion somewhere in the Constitution. If one majority justice went the other way, then it would be declared that there IS no right to abortion.

Oh, now you're complaining about the SCOTUS interpreting the Constitution, but when the court adopts your liberal interpretation of the ICC, that's the gospel? Btw, I never said abortion was a right so I don't know why you're running off on that tangent.

I'm glad you are in favor of legislating by the judiciary, but I'm not, and I'm sure most of your libertarian friends aren't either.

I'm not, I'm in favor of the courts knocking down unconstitutional legislation. But I'm not surprised you confused legislation with negating legislation.

REALLY?!

And you chastise me for an inability to read?

So the court can decide tomorrow there is a 'right to healthcare' and thus the court must provide for it? After all, that is a 'right' recognized by plenty of countries (and the UN).

Gee Imran, you maketh lotsa of strawmen today. Having debated me in the past, you should know that I use the Founders' definition of rights, not the definition created by the left.

If not, then why not?

Because no one has a right to the life, liberty, or property of another. I thought you were well versed in the Founder's ideas?

Hmmm, an amendment that deals with the right to full procedure in a trial allows the Imperial Judiciary to declare that there are certain 'fundamental' rights that the states or congress can't touch?!

If the courts can't touch those rights either, then they're hardly "imperial".

Sorry, can't see it... and neither did the court for almost 150 years (and after the 14th for about 50 years).

Wrong, the courts have been knocking down unconstitutional legislation from the beginning.

ZZZZT! Wrong!

Bill of Attainders are bills that declare someone is guilty.

Without a trial. I gave you the definition, do you have a different one?

You'd probably still go through a trial. You know, this why before the court invented substantive due process, the government could say, oh, being Thomas Jefferson from Virginia is a crime.

But the court's didn't invent substantive due process, it comes from the Constitution and a little logic.

People have no rights that the government does see fit to give them. The states sure didn't purposely want to give up all their rights and power, and neither did their represenatives in Congress.

Government is not the source of our rights, spend more time reading the Founders and not listening to your left wing law professor. Show us where in the BoR you found a right given to us by government.

Substantive due process deals with laws that some justices considered to be against the Constitution. Just because they believed it to be true, it doesn't mean they are. Of course, it is next to impossible to invalidate precedent these days.

Geez, Imran, you tell me I'm wrong and then repeat what I said. If they are wrong, then substantive due process was not violated. If they are right, it was violated. I'll get to the rest of your post later...

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'll just quote Berzerker's defintion and make a few points (I have no intention of getting involved in a typical 100 quote Berzerker debate where I get called left wing in 50 of them):

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, states "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . " The facially clear meaning of this passage is that a state has to use sufficiently fair and just legal procedures whenever it is going to lawfully take away a persons life, freedom or possessions. Thus, before a man can be executed, imprisoned or fined for a crime, he must get a fair trial, based on legitimate evidence, with a jury, etc. These are procedural or "process" rights.

However, under "Substantive Due Process," the Supreme Court has developed a broader interpretation of the Clause, one that protects basic substantive rights, as well as the right to process. Substantive Due Process holds is that the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee not only that appropriate and just procedures (or "processes") be used whenever the government is punishing a person or otherwise taking away a person’s life, freedom or property, but that these clauses also guarantee that a person’s life, freedom and property cannot be taken without appropriate governmental justification, regardless of the procedures used to do the taking. In a sense, it makes the "Due Process" clause a "Due Substance" clause as well.

Emphasis mine, of course.

It is 'facially clear' that it is about procedural rights, however, the COURT developed a broader interpretation, which in a sense makes the 'Due Process' clause a 'Due Substance' Clause.

When your OWN definition backs me and DD, how can you argue the opposite?

Btw, you may have never said abortion was a right, but the SCOTUS has, under substantive due process. Furthermore the 'Court' interpretation of the ICC has been so well settled, it is not only Constitutional (which is has been since Wickard v. Filburn), but immovable and thus, history made right. Also judicial review is that which has been done for 150 years, not substantive due process review... oh, and judicial review is also made up, but at least less people disagree with it.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Most people don't to the same degree you do. That's why libertarians are a fringe group pretty much everywhere in the world.

And for the record, I'm not debating your position, just pointing out some major stumbling blocks.

Yeah, I know you're not. arguing. You are trying to show the flaws and make my argument stronger by changing it.

[Giancarlo]

I read what Santorum said. He has the right to his voice. But he is wrong. I am sorry but the things he said just aren't true. Pure BS. I would have better time listening to the Iraqi Information minister to any of the stuff he spewed. He might be republican... well heck, both sides have their faults.

[uh Clem]

To act as if substantive due process was just made up and has no constitutional foundation is to nullify the notion of constitutional limits on government power.

Uh-huh. And that seems to be Imran's argument.

Santorum's too. Much attention has been focused on his comments about gays, but in his original interview he wasn't necessarily distinguishing between hetero- and homosexual sex. He said "consensual sex"; the "[gay]" part was added by an editor.

At first glance, Santorum comes across as merely a crackpot, but when you look more closely, you can see that he's a dedicated, principled, dangerous crackpot.

[DinoDoc]

Bump

[Ben Kenobi]

Thanks Dinodoc.

Forgot all about my half-post

Sikander:

Because marriage is a public institution as well as a religious and personal one. The state already has a long stated interest in marriage, whatever its makeup.

True.

Thus all laws related to marriage including those that ban polygamy / polyandry can't be challenged (successfully) on privacy grounds as these are considered public contracts.

State has right to regulate marriage. Again, I agree with you here.

You would be correct IMO if you were merely talking about relationships rather than marriages.

Thats sort of the point. Is the government right to regulate sexual conduct?

I'm going to defend the status quo, with the argument that I wanted to present against Imran.

1. I assume that homosexuality is morally blameworthy.
2. If this is so, what should the role of the state in regulating this activity.

What we get down into is the big question of the role of law. One function of law is to deter people from activities that can be harmful to their health. If the law is struck down, will this encourage people to participate in sodomy who would not do so otherwise?

I think that this will happen. By keeping the status quo, people are encouraged to live a moral life.

One thing that may be better, rather than an arrest, is a fine.

[Berzerker]

Imran -

I'll just quote Berzerker's defintion and make a few points (I have no intention of getting involved in a typical 100 quote Berzerker debate where I get called left wing in 50 of them):

I said your argument was the same used by the left to expand federal power via the interstate commerce clause, and that was in one post. Accuracy is not a sin, Imran. Btw, up until my last post, you were doing quite a bit of copying and pasting yourself. Another Agathon in the making, copies and pastes and complains when I do the same.

It is 'facially clear' that it is about procedural rights, however, the COURT developed a broader interpretation, which in a sense makes the 'Due Process' clause a 'Due Substance' Clause.

Developed from what? The principle that we are free and government must provide a constitutional foundation for legislatively taking our rights when writing laws, hence my question about whether or not Congress can write a law to legislatively deprive you of your right to life only to then judicially (physically) deprive you of your life. You say no because of Bills of Attainder, but that is a prohibition on federal power to punish you without a trial. I'm still waiting for your answer, Imran. If you agree Congress cannot write a law forbidding you to live and then have you convicted in court for living followed by the death penalty, then you will have stumbled upon the basis for substantive due process.

When your OWN definition backs me and DD, how can you argue the opposite?

The definition I provided explains the origin of substantive due process - the Constitution's protections of our life, liberty and property. Tell us, Imran, what good is life, liberty and property if Congress can simply write laws removing those rights from you and then use the courts to convict you for exercising/having life, liberty or property followed by the physical taking of your life, liberty, or property? It would be nice if you answered me this time...

Btw, you may have never said abortion was a right, but the SCOTUS has, under substantive due process.

So what? Either abortion is a right under substantive due process or it isn't. That depends on the meaning of "rights", not substantive due process. If it was a cancerous tumor instead of a baby, would you argue Congress has the constitutional authority to punish a woman for having it removed? If so, based on what? The interstate commerce clause?

Furthermore the 'Court' interpretation of the ICC has been so well settled, it is not only Constitutional (which is has been since Wickard v. Filburn), but immovable and thus, history made right.

Then you should have no problem with the SCOTUS claiming women have a right to abortion. You're wrong, just because the court has allowed Congress extraordinary powers under the ICC doesn't make it constitutional, the Senate confirms members of the SCOTUS, so the foxes are guarding the chicken coup.

Also judicial review is that which has been done for 150 years, not substantive due process review... oh, and judicial review is also made up, but at least less people disagree with it.

How many times do I have to explain to you that substantive due process only became important AFTER the 14th Amendment? Before that, the 10th Amendment allowed states to deal with our rights as they (and the people) saw fit. Once the 14th Amendment created dual citizenship for Americans, the states no longer had a green light to do away with our rights.

Clem -

Uh-huh. And that seems to be Imran's argument.

Yup, he doesn't understand that substantive due process comes from the fact Congress and the states cannot outlaw our freedom without constitutional authority. Here is the 9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Now, if Congress cannot write a law depriving us of our religious freedom - an enumerated right in the 1st Amendment -then why can Congress deprive us of the unenumerated right to eat ice cream or go to sleep when we want? All substantive due process says is that Congress cannot take away our rights unless the Constitution authorises the taking. I don't know why Imran and Dinodoc can't see that, it's quite logical.

[Berzerker]

Sikander -

Because marriage is a public institution as well as a religious and personal one. The state already has a long stated interest in marriage, whatever its makeup.

That "long stated interest" probably began with prohibiting black men from marrying white women. Are you sure you want to rely on the legislative history of marriage? And since when is marriage a "public" institution? When the public decided they had the power to determine who could marry whom? That's like arguing your house is a "public institution" because communists say so...

Thus all laws related to marriage including those that ban polygamy / polyandry can't be challenged (successfully) on privacy grounds as these are considered public contracts.

Are you married? If so, did you tell the public to come in and arrange your wedding because your marriage was a public contract? A public contract is what we agree to when we drive a car on public roads, not when we drive on private roads.

Obiwan -

1. I assume that homosexuality is morally blameworthy.

Based on what?

2. If this is so, what should the role of the state in regulating this activity.

If you believe in legislating morality, how do you explain the fact that enforcing laws require money stolen (legally of course) from others?

What we get down into is the big question of the role of law. One function of law is to deter people from activities that can be harmful to their health.

Did Jesus tell his followers to go around hurting or killing people for engaging in unhealthy activities?

If the law is struck down, will this encourage people to participate in sodomy who would not do so otherwise?

Yeah, as soon as I can legally have sex with another man, that'll be the first thing I do.

I think that this will happen.

Would you engage in sodomy if it's legal?

By keeping the status quo, people are encouraged to live a moral life.

"Encouraged"? Don't you mean threatened with violence, i.e., coerced?

One thing that may be better, rather than an arrest, is a fine.

More stealing.

[Al B. Sure!]

As a pennsylvania resident, I stand by Senator Santorum who effectively represents the majority of pennsylvanians in this regard. He is a relatively young man and is already the 3rd most important leader of the republican party... he has a several decade long career that could potentially be brilliant... I will vote for him in the next election.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I said your argument was the same used by the left to expand federal power via the interstate commerce clause

And your argument is the same used by the left to create new 'rights' out of nothing (like a right to healthcare which is being pushed). What you think the Warren Court was a bunch of conservatives?

Developed from what?

The courts mind.

If you agree Congress cannot write a law forbidding you to live and then have you convicted in court for living followed by the death penalty, then you will have stumbled upon the basis for substantive due process.

Can you please come up with a new example. You've used this Bill of Attainder example over and over and over again, and no matter how you spin it, it is a Bill of Attainder. This law specifically targets an individual and says that his action is guilty. Thus, when it goes through a court, it must follow the Bill of Attainder which made the individual guilty.

Bill. Of. Attainder.

Come up with a new example.

The principle that we are free and government must provide a constitutional foundation for legislatively taking our rights when writing laws

The states don't and never have had to.

Tell us, Imran, what good is life, liberty and property if Congress can simply write laws removing those rights from you and then use the courts to convict you for exercising/having life, liberty or property followed by the physical taking of your life, liberty, or property?

It is as good as the democratic process is, and the enumerated rights of the Constitution.

Life, liberty, and property can be taken away if there is a fair trial. That's the consequence of the due process clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments.

Btw, legislatures can't write laws criminalizing conduct, and then arrest you for doing that conduct before the law was passed, that's an ex post facto law.

If it was a cancerous tumor instead of a baby, would you argue Congress has the constitutional authority to punish a woman for having it removed?

No, but they could punish the medical surgeon which removed it (based on the ICC).

States can punish whoever if they want. States don't have to have constitutional justifications before they pass their laws. They just have to make sure their laws don't violate it.

If it was a cancerous tumor instead of a baby, would you argue Congress has the constitutional authority to punish a woman for having it removed?

Yes it does. Anything the court rules is constitutional.

Once the 14th Amendment created dual citizenship for Americans, the states no longer had a green light to do away with our rights.

No ****, sherlock, but those 'rights' didn't include that which the court made up under the rubric of substantive due process.


Let me get this straight, you are willing to take a phrase that says 'life, liberty, and property shall not be denied without due process of law' and expand it to mean that the legislature can't pass certain laws, but you aren't willing to say that 'regulation of commerce' can mean 'ban' sometimes (which is definetly more clear based on the text)? What are you on crack?!

[Berzerker]

Imran -

And your argument is the same used by the left to create new 'rights' out of nothing (like a right to healthcare which is being pushed). What you think the Warren Court was a bunch of conservatives?

Is that how you admit making a false accusation? Now you're arguing that the left's invalid definition of rights invalidates my acceptance of substantive due process, sheesh! The left doesn't use my argument, their definition of rights and mine are like night and day. Do you believe in liberty, Imran? If so, what rights do we have by virtue of our liberty? Only those enumerated in the BoR? If so, would that mean we have no right to smoke tobacco or sleep when we want? If not, what is the name of the judicial process for determing what rights we have? The answer: substantive due process (or as Dinodoc says, judicial review which really is no different). Check out the origin of substantive due process:

In the late 19th century (in its "laissez-faire" era), the Supreme Court said that (business) corporations were "persons" within the meaning of the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment ("nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law") and said that many state laws setting maximum working hours, maximum prices, minimum wages, etc., deprived corporations of property without due process of law and thus were unconstitutional. Thus the Supreme Court interpreted the due process clause as putting substantive limits on the power of states to regulate business. This is referred to as "substantive due process."

http://research.umbc.edu/~nmiller/POLI100/Q&A.htm

That followed the 14th Amendment which obliged the state's to respect our rights too. Notice how the left would have strongly opposed the application of substantive due process then?

The courts mind.

Then what did the Framers mean when they said no one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process if Congress can legislate away our life, liberty, and property on a whim and have the courts enforce - due process - their legislation? Doesn't the 5th Amendment presume we had life, liberty, or property in the first place?

Can you please come up with a new example. You've used this Bill of Attainder example over and over and over again, and no matter how you spin it, it is a Bill of Attainder. This law specifically targets an individual and says that his action is guilty. Thus, when it goes through a court, it must follow the Bill of Attainder which made the individual guilty.

I gave you the definition of Bill of Attainder and you keep ignoring it because you're trapped. Bill of Attainder prohibits Congress from declaring you guilty of a crime WITHOUT a trial. If you get your trial, Bill of Attainder no longer applies. Got that?
But you want another example? Here, Congress doesn't want people getting fat, so they write a law requiring everyone exercise 5 hours every week (even if they can't). You say that violates your liberty even though you have no right (in the BoR, excluding the 9th Amendment and substantive due process of course) to not exercise. You're convicted in court of violating the law and punished. Due process deals only with the procedures by which you were found guilty in court, but substantive due process deals with whether or not Congress had the constitutional authority to write the law in the first place, i.e., take away your right to not exercise.

The states don't and never have had to.

Wrong on both counts, the states have their own constitutions limiting their power and the 14th Amendment obliged them to respect the BoR. If you don't think the 14th Amendment didn't put restraints on state power, you need to do some reading.

It is as good as the democratic process is, and the enumerated rights of the Constitution.

So Madison was just playing with the alphabet when he authored the 9th Amendment? And where did you find this "democratic process" in the Constitution regarding our liberty?

Life, liberty, and property can be taken away if there is a fair trial. That's the consequence of the due process clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments.

You're still avoiding my question. Can life, liberty or property be taken away for no reason other than congressional whim as long as you have a fair trial?

Btw, legislatures can't write laws criminalizing conduct, and then arrest you for doing that conduct before the law was passed, that's an ex post facto law.

I never said they could nor does my question.

No, but they could punish the medical surgeon which removed it (based on the ICC).

Why him and not her? What if he did it for free? And since when does the transfer of money between two people living in the same state constitute interstate commerce? My God, Imran, you're a conservative?

States can punish whoever if they want. States don't have to have constitutional justifications before they pass their laws. They just have to make sure their laws don't violate it.

Ah, so the states cannot write laws that violate the federal constitution (bout time). Does a law banning you from smoking pot as part of your religion violate the Constitution?

Yes it does. Anything the court rules is constitutional.

Where in the Constitution did you find that gem, specifically? When the Framers devised an oath of office, did they ask officeholders to uphold whatever the court said was constitutional or did they ask them to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic (which could include judges)?

No ****, sherlock, but those 'rights' didn't include that which the court made up under the rubric of substantive due process.

You're the one with a mental block, not me. Now read the links I offered, one deals specifically with the era following the 14th Amendment and substantive due process.

Let me get this straight, you are willing to take a phrase that says 'life, liberty, and property shall not be denied without due process of law' and expand it to mean that the legislature can't pass certain laws, but you aren't willing to say that 'regulation of commerce' can mean 'ban' sometimes (which is definetly more clear based on the text)? What are you on crack?!

I'm not expanding the due process clause, I'm using the simple logic that says if the 5th Amendment presumes we have life, liberty, or property before due process is used to take them away for committing a crime, then they cannot be taken away legislatively except when the legislation is authorised by the Constitution. Why are you having so much trouble understanding that?

Btw, here's a link to show that your ICC interpretation is bogus, a product more of FDR and his left wing agenda than true conservatism:

http://www.ninjalawyer.com/writing/original.html

A couple quotes from the link:

Throughout the nineteenth century and into the twentieth, the Court took a very narrow view of the Commerce Power, insisting that activities must have a direct effect on commerce for Congress to assert authority.

Railroads were quickly acknowledged to be subject to federal regulations under the “Shreveport Rate” case,[7] but production (in the form of manufacturing, mining, and agriculture) was considered an exempt intra-state activity. The 1895 case of United States v. E.C. Knight[8] kept manufacturing free from federal regulation until the 1930s, holding that although E.C. Knight controlled 98% of the sugar refining industry, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act did not extend because the manufacturers were not directly involved in commerce.

The requirement that an activity directly affect interstate commerce led the Court to invalidate much of Roosevelt’s early New Deal legislation.

Yeah, Imran "New Deal" Siddiqui.

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=717

Or try that one, not a bad summary, and shows why Clarence Thomas is probably the best judge on the court (although the competition he has is pitiful).

[uh Clem]

As a pennsylvania resident, I stand by Senator Santorum who effectively represents the majority of pennsylvanians in this regard.

Well, as long as he sticks to queer bashing, maybe. I thought the Keystone State was a bit better than that.

But I doubt that most people in any state in the Union would be much in agreement with Santorum if they read the complete transcript of what he said.

Santorum considers it appropriate for a state to ban any sex "that's antithetical to strong, healthy families," whatever the **** that's supposed to mean.

And Santorum does not exclude consensual oral sex between married couples (which some states include in the definition of "sodomy") in his definition of antithetical.

(Adultery is a crime, too, obviously. Given that, aside from war, the only way Republicans can get an erection is by contemplating Bill Clinton behind bars, you know they'll go for criminalizing this one. Who knows, the Big Dog might have Newt Gingrich or Rudy Giuliani as his new First Lady.)

If it walks like a crackpot, talks like a crackpot, and quacks like a crackpot, it's a crackpot. Santorum's a crackpot.

Oh, let's not forget, he's a self-righteous bigot and a totalitarian, as well. And he's against man-on-dog sex. This must be what Ari Fleischer meant when he called Santorum "an inclusive man."

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
As a pennsylvania resident, I stand by Senator Santorum who effectively represents the majority of pennsylvanians in this regard. He is a relatively young man and is already the 3rd most important leader of the republican party... he has a several decade long career that could potentially be brilliant... I will vote for him in the next election.

All those surprised by this statement, identify yourselves.


........


I thought so.