Kevin Wayne Williams <nihongo> wrote:
> Brett Robson wrote:

>> Which misses the point entirely. It is no business of anyone what people do in
>> prvacy.

> I agree completely with that part, but KGII isn't wrong in one sense ...
> the reasoning of the decision was strained, at best. The 14th amendment
> is getting stretched to fit around this one. The consequences of this

The 14th Amendment is more relevant to ruling on affirmative action.

> things like adult incest are legal. Drug possession would be difficult
> to uphold as criminal under the logic of the decision. It basically sets
> a precedent that the government can't tell you what to do.

Um, no, not any more than, say, the 21st Amendment.

> In general, the US has been governed on a system that affords very few
> absolute rights, and allows the states free rein to regulate pretty much

Um, not quite. It was the intent of the Constitution to allow the greatest
amount of personal freedoms in the first place. It was never the intent
that something was possibly illegal simply because it wasn't explicitly
legal.

> everything else, regardless of motive. There is a "rational basis" test,

This really is more in line with "traditional" (ie, the framers of the 
Constitution) thinking.

Mike