"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:35:05 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:30:23 -0500, Marty said:

Has the Supreme Court amended the Constitution? If so what are the
Amendment numbers please?

You can identify some of them pretty easily. Just do a search for the
words
"privacy," "penumbra," "first trimester," "sodomy" and "one man one
vote."

What's that you say? You can't find those words? Well, I'll be damned!


The Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated,
and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.

?????
You're becoming less rational with each post, Karin

Not at all. The right of privacy is implicit in the first 24 words of that
Amendment. You seem to have a real problem with "sodomy." I'll bet you
dollars against donuts that you've committed it yourself. Wanna go to prison
for it? Do you think it's anyone's business what you do in the privacy of
your own bedroom with a consenting adult of your choosing?

Since you seem to be focusing on the exact words of the Constitution, rather
than its meaning, do you find anywhere within that document a right to own
clothing? I submit that no such right exists, as the words "right to own
clothing" appear nowhere within the Constitution. You are therefore required
to go naked.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:42:40 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

Not at all. The right of privacy is implicit in the first 24 words of that
Amendment. You seem to have a real problem with "sodomy." I'll bet you
dollars against donuts that you've committed it yourself. Wanna go to
prison
for it? Do you think it's anyone's business what you do in the privacy of
your own bedroom with a consenting adult of your choosing?

Typical muddle-headed reasoning. You confuse the question whether
something
is desirable with the question whether that something is guaranteed by the
Constitution. It may or may not be desirable to allow a State to prosecute
Barney Frank for cornholing his boyfriend in the privacy of their bedroom.
But I'm reasonably sure that those ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment (the
Fourth applies directly only to the federal government) didn't think they
were guaranteeing Mr. Frank the right to cornhole his boyfriend without
State interference.

Since you seem to be focusing on the exact words of the Constitution,
rather
than its meaning, do you find anywhere within that document a right to own
clothing? I submit that no such right exists, as the words "right to own
clothing" appear nowhere within the Constitution. You are therefore
required
to go naked.

Another typical fallacy. You assume that unless the government has
explicitly said one may do something, he may not do it--all that is not
explicitly permitted is forbidden. Worse, you assume not only that some
part
of the government must explicitly say I may do something, but that the
Constitution must say I may do it--if the Constitution doesn't say I may
own
clothing I may not own clothing.

You're really going off the deep end.

Ever hear of "enumerated powers"? With thinking like yours about, I guess
the founding fathers were not at all far afield in deciding the Tenth
Amendment was needed.

Actually, I was using sarcasm to defeat your position. Sorry you missed it.
On the one hand you assert that no right to privacy exists because the word
"privacy" doesn't appear in the Constitution; on the other, you assert that
the right to wear clothing doesn't have to be enumerated in order to exist.
I assert that in BOTH cases, the right is implied within the Constitution
itself, regardless of enumeration. See the fourth amendment, the ninth and
the tenth.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:24:01 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

I assert that in BOTH cases, the right is implied within the Constitution
itself, regardless of enumeration.

I can only throw up my hands in disbelief at the ignorance evinced by such
a
"Captain may I?" mentality.

Whereas I think you need to add another layer to the tin foil in your hat.

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:44:25 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:24:01 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

I assert that in BOTH cases, the right is implied within the Constitution
itself, regardless of enumeration.

I can only throw up my hands in disbelief at the ignorance evinced by such
a
"Captain may I?" mentality.

Whereas I think you need to add another layer to the tin foil in your hat.


The problem with his tin foil hat is that it is too small and is
cutting off important circulation.