2003, a great time for liberty and democracy in the Greatest Nation on Earth. Lawrence v. Texas was ruled. A landmark Supreme Court ruling that ruled that the ban on sodomy was unconstitutional; thus we see the fine work of constitutions in practice. The very fundamental laws that challenge not citizens but governments to protect the citizens against them. Well, it didn’t go right immediately, a similar case was tried in 1986 which ruled in the negative. Apparently the flaw was that the Supreme Court
[held] that it had viewed the liberty interest too narrowly.
Perfectly understandable looking at the text of the Fourteenth Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Hell, I would make mistakes interpreting that too. Because I have no idea what the fuck it actually is supposed to mean.
Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. What the hell is this shit even supposed to be telling me? Obviously if I make it a law saying that I can do it, then it is not without
due process of law therefore not unconstitutional?
liberty, the most vague term ever? So if without a due process some state stops me from walking around naked, that is unconstitutional? These words are so retardedly vague that you can conceivably argue any fucking law to be unconstitutional or constitutional given enough imagination.
But hey, let’s talk about another favourite, the second one:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Crystal clear honestly. So I take it that when I’m arrested on the streets with a nuclear bomb or an RPG, maybe a tank or whatever, then I could of course fall back to my constitutional right to bear arms right? Well, evidently not because it only goes so far. Great we established that obviously the letter of the law doesn’t mean to imply all arms, just some that don’t go too far. Great, vote for me for right honourable genetically engineered executive monkey of the US of A, I will just outlaw any piece of firearm except water guns. Constitutions: difficult is instant, the impossible takes five minutes. So obviously the truth is in the middle, as: What goes too far? which is going to be decided by someone. So in other words, if the constitution was there or not doesn’t make a flying fucking difference because the person who’s going to decide it is going for what he or she thinks goes too far anyway.
How about the first one, the holy grail:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Almost every piece of moral convention has a religious basis. Okay, so enforcing things like male circumcision would never fly because that’s enforcing religion? Great, let’s legalize murder while we’re at it, after all it clearly originates from the bible. You can argue in every single instance that whatever you’re doing isn’t because of your religion but something you’d do regardless of it. Freedom of speech is of course always a good one. For some retarded reason prostitution is illegal, except if you film it, because pornography is protected under the First Amendment. Okay, so apparently the First Amendment makes it legal to perform an unlawful act as long as I film it because freedom of speech? Cool, so why isn’t child porn legal to make or a good old fashioned snuff film? Of course, your opinion isn’t free if it’s ‘hate speech’ of course, where hate speech just means not liking some group where most people have no problem with them. I swear, if this piece of text did not exist wouldn’t make a flying difference, some Supreme Court justices were just okay with porn and decided to frivolously search in the constitution for a reason to make it legal.
Okay, so the US is basically the only western country that still actively practices capital punishment, so there’s the eight guy:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Are you shitting me? Did the grand minds that wrote this text down really think it would change any-thing.
excessive hmm? the vaguest term ever. I’m pretty sure what whoever imposes bails or fines imposes what is in his or her mind just right and not excessive? And
cruel and unusual? What kind of flying drooling retard actually authors laws with these vague kinds of words.
Which you can do with anything really because this entire piece of text is worded so purposefully vaguely that with enough imagination you can make pretty much anything legal or illegal on constitutional grounds.
And that brings us to the point of Judical Activism. Let’s face it, the fact that the constitution is so vague doesn’t help it and all 9 of those justices are massive judical activists. You don’t have to be a genius transform a list what