North Carolina Woman Invites "Judicial Activism"

A law barring unmarried couples from cohabitating is patently unconstitutional. After Lawrence, the state doesn't even have a colorable claim of constitutionality, and I think it would be frivolous to defend it.

I hope this dispatcher prevails quickly, and I hope she wins damages high enough to force the Sheriff to sell his own patrol car to pay her off.

There is no such thing as "public morality". Morality is a personal decision about how one views one's actions and how one beleives they ought to live their life. It is inherently a personal thing, therefor the notion of "public morality" is an empty one. "Shared morality" would be the closest thing to actually meaning what this phrase preports to mean.

Just some mid-day thoughs...lol

How come when I use the Typekey signon link, it returns this message after entering my password?

The site you're trying to comment on has not signed up for this feature. Please inform the site owner.

Whatever. It's just been reported that the pope's body is dead. Of course, his brain died years ago, but what the heck. The ghouls keep 'm alive until they can't even gurgle any more.

Do you think they'll shove in some tubes and keep him "alive" for 15 years? And if they don't, is it a moral outrage?

I think this is a ridiculous law, but I also think it's a constitutional one. I just don't see it being the court's place to overrule this. Because the courts will be under Lawrence precedent, they won't be as activist. But if they were to overrule it on their own Constitutional interpretation, I would freely give them an "activist judges" label.

Let's see. I wonder. If two women were to share an apartment, would that be a crime under NC law? If not, it strike me that it would be sex discrimination to suggest that a man and a woman sharing an apartment would be crime. Now, I admit, that, just because something might be sex discrimination, doesn't mean that it is unconstitutional, but one might seriously ask...what would at least a rational basis be for the sex discrimination?

If they held themselves out as being married, when they aren't, that's one thing. That's fraud. But merely living in the same abode?

It strikes me that this is probably a case of sex discrimination, pure and simple. Regardless of what they might have done between the sheets. Or might not have done.

As my mother in law says, "Die Amerikaner, die gehen rueckwaerts, nicht vorwaerts" (the americans, they're going backwards, not forwards). We'll be glad to finally get out of this place. It's become a joke. And an expensive one, at that, given the property taxes

ruidh-
Because Typekey seems to work when it feels like working. Sometimes people can sign in just fine with it, other times it says I'm not signed up. I signed up for the service a long time ago, and it's set up correctly. But their service is intermittent at best.

I think this is a ridiculous law, but I also think it's a constitutional one. I just don't see it being the court's place to overrule this. Because the courts will be under Lawrence precedent, they won't be as activist. But if they were to overrule it on their own Constitutional interpretation, I would freely give them an "activist judges" label.
I would disagree, of course. I'm not sure exactly what you mean here by it not being as "activist" now that the Lawrence decision is there. Are you referring only to the lower courts? If so, that strikes me as odd. Do you think the Lawrence decision was itself "activist" and hence wrong?

It strikes me that this is probably a case of sex discrimination, pure and simple. Regardless of what they might have done between the sheets. Or might not have done.
I don't think we even need to go that far. I would make the same argument that Justice Kennedy made in Lawrence - the law violates a basic right to liberty.

The attention, or lack thereof, in the last couple of days regarding the various "rights" of pharmacists to withhold prescription medications if the using of these medications implies behaviors and actions that the pharmacists find personally offensive to their own personal moral codes, needs to be applied here as well. A law that proscribes against cohabitation, must be based on some consensual group belief that cohabiting outside of marriage is offensive. Will pharmacists in NC, who favor such laws, be justified in withholding various prescriptions from people living in circumstance they find offensive???

Ed - What about First Amendment freedom of association? Unless there's a case I missed, the right to live with someone is clearly the right to associate with him (or her).

Raj - Do you mean you live in North Carolina and you're moving? Or did you mean a bigger slice of the U.S.?

Ed - What about First Amendment freedom of association? Unless there's a case I missed, the right to live with someone is clearly the right to associate with him (or her).
Well, freedom of association isn't actually mentioned in the first amendment. It was put there by "activist judges" seeking to subvert the "will of the people." (wink, wink). I think a good case could be made there, but I think in light of Lawrence, we don't even need to get that specific.

Yes, I know that about the text. But I was wrong about my assumption that the cases would protect purely personal association; they do not seem to do that. At least, I can't find a case standing for the proposition that it extends beyond associating "for the purpose of advancing ideas and airing grievances".

So, I'm wrong. Hey, it happens.

Raj - Do you mean you live in North Carolina and you're moving?

No, we're in Massachusetts. But we're beset by the wacko christians in other parts of the country. By the wacko Bushies and by the wacko carpetbaggers that the mormon Mitt "The Snitt" Romney governor has tried to import into Massachusetts to run for the Republicans. Fortunately, his strategy hasn't gone anywhere.

Shortly, we'll be in a country that has become civilized in the last few decades. Germany. In stark contrast to the US of A. As the Bavarians would say, die USA ginge rueckwaerts, nicht vorwaerts (the USA is going backwards, not forwards). I agree. Not only on gay issues. But also on evilution (misspelling intentional). Good luck, guys.

Buy Euros. And learn a foreign language.

I hate sodomy laws; I find them to be in opposition to everything America represents (freedom, kinkiness, etc.). But at the same time I don't understand why, after 200 years of it being constitutional, the Constitution suddenly forbids them. It seems to me that we the people have come to disown these types of laws, and that therefore we the people have an obligation to ensure they're overturned.

If Lawrence had not been decided I would say this N.C. law was constitutional. But under Lawrence I think this court is bound to overturn it, so I think (and hope) that's what they'll do.

P.S. The kinkiness was a joke, but I do think we Americans are more kinky than people give us credit for.

But at the same time I don't understand why, after 200 years of it being constitutional, the Constitution suddenly forbids them.

Um, 200 years of being constitutional? I do believe you mean to say "200 years of being on the books." There's a difference. Just because a law is "on the books" doesn't mean that the law is constitutional.

Hey, raj, at the risk of annoying Ed by being rude on his site:

Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

I hate sodomy laws; I find them to be in opposition to everything America represents (freedom, kinkiness, etc.). But at the same time I don't understand why, after 200 years of it being constitutional, the Constitution suddenly forbids them. It seems to me that we the people have come to disown these types of laws, and that therefore we the people have an obligation to ensure they're overturned.
Well, I think raj is right to point out that 200 years of being on the books does not mean they are legitimately constitutional. Of course, this conversation could go a whole lot deeper into theories of constitutional legitimacy (is the constitution legitimate because of the consent of the governed, or is it legitimate because it provides the legal framework to protect inalienable rights that pre-exist the law?) and into theories of interpretation. But the mere fact that laws are traditional and have been on the books for a long time was rejected by the court as an argument for presumed constitutionality quite a long time ago. I would simply make the argument that if the 9th amendment does not cover something as basic and private as the decision of whom to spend your life with, in the absence of a compelling interest in prohibiting such, then it essentially covers nothing. If that isn't legitimately considered an unenumerated right, then what else could more legitimately be considered one?
P.S. The kinkiness was a joke, but I do think we Americans are more kinky than people give us credit for.
LOL. I agree completely. I always laugh at the debates over "community standards". Does that mean what the "community" says its standards are, or what they actually do? Because pornography didn't become a mult-billion dollar industry because a few perverts bought 4000 DVDs a week.

Raj--Man, I was right there with you in these posts...right up until the point that you announced you're bailing out. For a few minutes, I thought you were a patriot. I guess I was wrong.

Here's some friendly advice for your newly discovered "civilized" country: If they wake you up in the middle of the night and put you on a train, it's probably not headed for a free SPA vacation.

And if fascism ever rises again, it won't be here, and it certainly won't be the wacko, lefty, isolationist ANTI-Bushies who stop it.

I'll take crazy Jesus followers over crazy Hitler followers any day of the week

I'll take crazy Jesus followers over crazy Hitler followers any day of the week

Why choose? Stay in America and have both.

Crazy Hitler followers? I guess the poster was referring to Henry Ford, Charles Lindberg and Thomas J. Watson (of IBM fame). Oops, they're Americans.

BTW, more than a few of the British "upper crust" were Nazi sympathizers, too.

Sure, raj, America had all the Nazis. Tell us all about it.

What did you do, come here for an education? Come here to earn some money? Why didn't you go to Europe for that?

Go ahead and travel back across the ocean with your new diploma (or your new bank account) and sit around bad-mouthing us. We can take it. Just don't bother coming back, please.

Missed this: For a few minutes, I thought you were a patriot

PATRIOT, n.
One to whom the interests of a part seem superior to those of the whole. The dupe of statesmen and the tool of conquerors.
PATRIOTISM, n.
Combustible rubbish read to the torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name.
In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.
--Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

Sure, raj, America had all the Nazis. Tell us all about it.

It should be evident to any intelligent person: Not all Germans were supporters of Hitler, and not all of Hitler's supporters were German. The post that I responded to most certainly implied that all Germans supported Hitler, with the implication that only Germans supported Hitler. The latter is false. I cited a few non-Germans, who were supporters of Hitler. Why did the non-Germans support Hitler? I have my suspicions. I suspect that the American industrialists, such as Henry Ford, supported Hitler because he opposed the trade unionists. Remember the Reverend Niemoller's famous incantation "First they came for the Jews....Then they came for the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist, so I kept silent"? I doubt that you do remember it.

And that ignores the support given the Nazis by some rather prominent Catholic clergy. Like Father Coughlin in the US. And the supporters of the Croatian Ustasha. And, quite frankly, Pius XII.

In the other direction, the poster who implied that all Germans supported Hitler would be well advised to educate himself. He can start by googling "white rose society."

Sorry "Sure, raj, America had all the Nazis. Tell us all about it" should have been in italics

Well, that certainly changed the topic from the fact that you dislike this country, but are happy to take advantage of its education system (or maybe capitalist system).

As for all Germans not being Nazis, that's true. But the vast majority either were, or went along without resisting.

Thanks for the Niemoller quote, but I know it well. And when I forget, I can find it two blocks from my office on the Holocaust memorial. (By the way, it's generally a bad idea to lecture about remembering when the topic has anything to do with Nazis. You might be lecturing a Jew.)

As for Americans like Ford who supported Hitler, I suspect the reason was simple: they hated Jews.

Patriotism means many things, and varies according to time and place. I assume the poster meant that you don't really support America because it harbors thinkers you dislike. Well it harbors thinkers I dislike, too, raj. But I'm staying. And if I were a guest here, I wouldn't be bad-mouthing the place.

We should probably wrap this up. It's Ed's forum, and I'm not sure he wants it to be used this way. You may have the last word. Then get on a plane.

carpundit at April 3, 2005 03:19 PM

As for all Germans not being Nazis, that's true. But the vast majority either were, or went along without resisting

Some of us actually had fam'ly members in Nazi Germany. For some of us Nazi Germany was a reality. The idea that the vast majority of Germans were Nazis is about as dumb as suggesting that the vast majority of American Republicans are "compassionate conservatives."

As for Americans like Ford who supported Hitler, I suspect the reason was simple: they hated Jews.

Probably. But they hated the trade unionists even more. That should be clear.

(By the way, it's generally a bad idea to lecture about remembering when the topic has anything to do with Nazis. You might be lecturing a Jew.

Actually, I might just be lecturing a queer. Sorry, I am one--a queer, that is. It's interesting that the American military, after it liberated the Konzentrationszentren (German concentration camps) sent off the queers to civil prison in Germany. So much for Freiheit. And so much for "liberty."