In response to:

Restraining Arizona, Unleashing the President

Richard31 Wrote: Jun 29, 2012 3:33 PM
OK, I'll agree with you that they are "natural" rights, and even with the Judge. But - and a big BUT - as it has been said, the Constitution is NOT a suicide pact. My "freedom of movement" does not extend into walking into the White House at 2 AM in the morning, or entering any part of it that is not opened to the public (even though it is, in a sense "my" property). My "freedom of speech" does not extend to calling for the murder of a public official (or, indeed, anyone). Illegals do have the right to reasonable trial (however, NOT with decades of appeals) - to determine whether they are actually illegal. They are protected from "cruel and unusual" punishment. BUT - if they are illegal, the prescribed remedy (in the absence of other...

The legislation created two conflicts that rose to the national stage. The first is whether any government may morally and legally interfere with freedom of association based on the birthplace of the person with whom one chooses to associate. The second is whether the states can enforce federal law in a manner different from that of the feds.

Regrettably, in addressing all of this earlier in the week, the Supreme Court overlooked the natural and fundamental freedom to associate. It is a natural right because it stems from the better nature of our humanity, and it is a fundamental...