Quote:
Originally posted by yatzr
wtf??? did this line make sense to anybody? I think i know what he's trying to say, but to me it sounds like he's contradicting himself maybe? Maybe i'm just really starting to lose my reading skills.
|
The problem with this Supreme Court edict is that it's based on a right to privacy which is noticeably undefined in the Constitution. Nowhere in the constitution is it mentioned, specifically. The closest mention it gets is in Amendment X:
Quote:
|
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
|
This Supreme Court has effectively disregarded this Amendment by
taking away a right from the states. By making a false assumption that the states do not have a right to enforce the lawful acts of their legislatures in the home of an individual and within the realm of the powers expressly given to it (or denied it) by the Constitution, the Court is reduced to a role of "judicial activism", not "Defender of the Constitution".