The Absurd Reduction: Scalia Reaffirms Comparison of Homosexuality To Bestiality

AntoninScaliaU.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was at it again yesterday. I have previously criticized Scalia’s apparent insatiable appetite for public notoriety, including violating judicial ethical rules by discussing issues in pending cases. He is the very model of the new celebrity justice that I have criticized in past columns (here and here and here). Now, at Princeton while pitching his latest book, “Reading Law,” Scalia succeeded in not only discussing an issue in two pending same-sex marriage cases but reaffirming homophobic prejudices. Scalia was questioned about his controversial comments equating homosexuality with bestiality by a gay student. Scalia admitted that such comparison are “not necessary, but I think it’s effective.” That appears to be the standard used by this justice in using profoundly insulting language: whether it is effective prose or argument. I will be appearing on Lawrence O’Donnell tonight on MSNBC with the student, freshman Duncan Hosie.

Duncan Hosie asked a disarming question of whether it is really necessary to compare homosexuality to murder and bestiality to make his point. No, Scalia, responded, “I don’t think it’s necessary, but I think it’s effective.” He then reaffirmed his support for “morals legislation” and the right of states to criminalize whatever they deem immoral — the very issue that underlies two same-sex marriage cases accepted last week.

Scalia basically told Hosie that comparing millions of Americans to people engaged in murder or bestiality is justified because it is clever: “It’s a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the ‘reduction to the absurd . . . If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?” He then added the mocking afterthought that “I’m surprised you aren’t persuaded.” He certainly has, again, reduced this important human rights issue to an absurd level but I am unsure why that is effective as opposed to being obviously cathartic for Scalia.

I am not sure about Hosie, but I am not only unpersuaded but disgusted by the comments. For full disclosure, I represent the Brown family in the Sister Wives case in Utah challenging this type of morality legislation. As I have written in a prior New York Times column, Scalia is attempting to divide citizens with such arguments and he has been remarkably successful when it comes to gay and polygamy cases. In his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Antonin Scalia said the case would mean the legalization of “bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity.” It is a Scalia parade of horribles. However, it also equates homosexuality with crimes like bestiality which occur without the consent of the victims.

Of course, Scalia does not answer how the right to criminalize immoral acts has been previously used to prosecute marriage of mixed race couples. He repeatedly refers to the slippery slope once the Court strikes down morality legislation, but never discusses his own slippery slope of criminalization for any acts deemed immoral by a majority of citizens.

Scalia’s view of the law seemed perfectly captured in responding to whether the Constitution is a living document. He responded “[i]t isn’t a living document. It’s dead, dead, dead, dead.”

Source: ABC

87 thoughts on “The Absurd Reduction: Scalia Reaffirms Comparison of Homosexuality To Bestiality

  1. Scalia’s view of the law seemed perfectly captured in responding to whether the Constitution is a living document. He responded “[i]t isn’t a living document. It’s dead, dead, dead, dead.”

    Only if he gets his way it would seem.

  2. Geez, Fat Tony is unduly biased….just because having gay sex with HIM would remind some folks of bestiality…..I know, I know, spiteful and snarky of me, but he brings that out in me.

  3. Scalia is one of the most disgusting American Jurists in our history. For him to go on the record on this issue is a violation of judicial ethics and he should be impeached for just this latest abuse. This issue was just accepted for review by the Court and he has already decided the case without any briefs or arguments have been presented.
    The so-called originalist refuses to point to the section of the Constitution that allows gay people to be discriminated against! Whose morals will be affirmed by the Court? Are the morality police next?
    Good luck tonight Professor!

  4. I don’t think that being a bigot is, in and of itself, a high crime or misdemeanor, but applying that bigotry instead of the law in deciding cases is.

  5. I guess I was not paying attention, but I did not understand that the DOMA or the California Prop 8 cases were criminal matters.

  6. mahtso – since when has the USSC limited itself to criminal action? (although some USSC opinions are criminal thats a different matter ;) )

  7. Catholickass ‘Cork-sucker’…. if he wasn’t sitting on the ‘Little less than Supreme Court’ he’d be kneeling under the Pope, sucking on his balls…..

  8. Scalia’s point is lost on Turley. The point he is making actually concerns any historically immoral sexual relationship that society would seek to sanctify. Is Turley weeping for all the oppressed people who happen to be attracted sexually to an adult family member? Such people are not only forbidden to marry, but are punished criminally under the law in many states for simply being who they are and loving the person of their choice. Turley may not agree with Scalia but the argument is legitimate.

  9. Moral feelings

    So there is an equivocation in Scalia’s claim over “cannot.” You can have all the feelings you want against anything. Some of those might be morally justified, some might be legally enforceable. No law, however, can take away your ability to disapprove of things.

    As if this were not bad enough for a big mind such as Scalia’s, this equivocation is then used as a lever to push the little cart down the slippery slope: if we cannot ban homosexuality, then we cannot ban murder! That’s not reduction to the absurd, it’s just absurd.

  10. I do believe I previously stated that I expect Scalia to be on the wrong side of any given argument.

    As for this nonsense: “The point he is making actually concerns any historically immoral sexual relationship that society would seek to sanctify.”

    Our government is secular in nature. It was designed this way on purpose (the writings of Madison and Jefferson confirm this) and the jurisprudence that surrounds the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses confirm this legal fact. Ergo, the government isn’t in the business of sanctifying anything.

    sanctify /ˈsaŋ(k)tɪfʌɪ/, v.,
    set apart as or declare holy; consecrate: a small shrine was built to sanctify the site
    make legitimate or binding by a religious ceremony: their love is sanctified by the sacrament of marriage
    free from sin; purify: may God sanctify his soul
    cause to be or seem morally right or acceptable:

    Scalia’s argument is wrong from the start because for someone claiming to be an originalist, he’s doing ethical backflips (mostly in the form of multiple false equivalences and reductio ad absurdum) to make the Constitution say what he wants it to say rather than what it says. Marriage licensing is not a “holy act”. It sanctifies nothing. That’s for a church to do. What marriage licensing does is define a relationship for other legal purposes such as contracting, ability to speak for an incapacitated partner, and for testamentary purposes – all valid secular matters dependent upon recognizing a relationship, not morally approving of it. There are plenty of heterosexual marriages one could object to on “moral grounds” and if the government was in the business of telling you who you could marry? That’s not only unconstitutional, but I think a good cause for rebellion if you want to be blunt about it. Who you marry is nobody’s business but you and your partner as long as you are both of age and otherwise able to give valid consent.

    Scalia is a hypocrite and a theocratic fascist. He’s an originalist when it suits his desires, but the argument he makes isn’t originalist. The originalist argument is for recognizing the relationships as government isn’t in the moralizing business. He doesn’t care what the Constitution says unless he can make it say what he wants it to say. In this case, he wants to force his religious dictates upon others. Plain and simple.

    His logic is flawed. His “facts” are based on “because he says so”. Arguments rely upon logic and evidence. He has neither on his side in this instance, ergo, his argument is crap.

    The man and his argument are a disgrace to the bench, SCOTUS and the very notions of liberty and freedom the Constitution is designed to protect.

    Scalia may be the worst jurist to ever sit on the Supreme Court.

    And that’s saying something compared to Rehnquist.

  11. “It’s a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the ‘reduction to the absurd . . . If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”

    Using Scalia’s pristine argumentative logic then we can deem this Supreme Court Justice joins the ranks of some of the most horrific war criminals in history. If Scalia had not ruled for George W. Bush in 2000, going against legal principles that he had long espoused, hundred of thousands of innocent people in Iraq would’t have been killed. Logic is not Scalia’s forte, though he pretends it to be his strong-point.

  12. “Editors’ Note: Justice Antonin Scalia got more than he bargained for when he accepted the NYU Annual Survey of American Law’s invitation to engage students in a Q&A session. Randomly selected to attend the limited-seating and closed-to-the-press event, NYU law school student Eric Berndt asked Scalia to explain his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 Supreme Court case that overturned Bowers v. Hardwick and struck down the nation’s sodomy laws. Not satisfied with Scalia’s answer, Berndt asked the Justice, “Do you sodomize your wife?” Scalia demurred and law school administrators promptly turned off Berndt’s microphone. As Berndt explains in his post to fellow law school students, it was an entirely fair question to pose to a Justice whose opinion–had it been in the majority–would have allowed the state to ask that same question to thousands of gays and lesbians, and to punish them if the answer is yes.

    We reprint Berndt’s open letter below.”:

    http://www.thenation.com/article/debriefing-scalia

  13. ” In his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Antonin Scalia said the case would mean the legalization of “bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity.” ”

    Masturbation???!!! Fornications? I’d be way beyond “three strikes and you’re out” territory if these laws were past (outside of Yemen). I’ve read about the anti-catholic hand-wringing that went on when JFK ran for president. It appears that it now may be a political asset to appear to being orders from the Pope ansd basing US law on ecclesiastical mumbo-jumbo.

    I was talking about this stuff last night with my dad, who wnet to highschool with Scalia. The old man said he was a dick in highschool too.

  14. The venomous hate in the comments on this site tend to amaze me…attacks on both his professional abilities and personal life. Hate speech at its best.

  15. Beverellie,

    Comparing gay people with murderer’s, or people into bestiality is hate speech. But to you I bet it is the equivalence of wisdom. You protest venom, but I bet it is co-mingled with yours and his precious bodily fluids.

  16. All Scalia did was answer the question posed to him: “Why the rhetorical comparison?” He explained the rhetorical device – reductio ad absurdum – that he had previously used in his writings. The Professor is welcome to disagree with Scalia’s conclusion, but attacking the logical consistency of his reasoning is another thing, and I certainly don’t understand the fresh outrage and disgust in the slightest. What did Professor Turley expect? For Scalia to renounce his previous writings and sign on to the idea that the Supreme Court can and should strike down all morality legislation using non-textual judge-made constitutional doctrines the very existence of which he has never endorsed in any context? Forgive me if the Professor’s “disgust” seems a bit much.

  17. Ah, Beverelliee dahlin, reappears after her (?) recent cameo in the comments which displayed an incredibly deficient knowledge of the number of illegal Israel dwellings built in the territories or a familiarity of math bordering on fantasy, or both. Now we are left aghast that she ‘tends’ to be amazed. why not go the whole hog and actually BE amazed?

  18. I am going to go read my New York Dictionary (which explains Turdy Turd and a Turd as being 33rd Street and 3rd Avenue). I often use this book when I try to follow the Supreme Court oral arguments on C-SPAN. When Scalia, Ginsberg and Alito chirp one hears a lot of NewYorkese. I intend to look up “bestiality” and I will report back. Scalia may not be referring to humanoids porking animals. But he might be.

  19. I looked up the word “bestiality”. Here is the definitiion:

    bestiality

    bes·ti·al·i·ty
    [bes-chee-al-i-tee, bees-]

    noun, plural bes·ti·al·i·ties.
    1.
    brutish or beastly character or behavior; beastliness.

    2.
    indulgence in beastlike appetites, instincts, impulses, etc.

    3.
    an instance of bestial character or behavior.

    4.
    sexual relations between a person and an animal; sodomy.

    ——————————————————————————–

    The judge must be speaking of section 4. Sexual relations between a person and an animal.

    I was at the marina and a guy from Sicily was there so I asked him about the origin of the name Scalia. He says that back in the old country this was a reference to a seaside person who did not go out to sea but who scraped the barnacles off of boats. He says that was a front for low level mafia guys.
    “Beasts” he called them. So we have gone full circle.

    But if Scalia wants to equate a gay humanloid couple with a humanoid who porks an animal then he needs to be more expressive. After all, he is promoting a book and he is going on television and might run into the wrong dog who would get offended. Like a sea and eye dog.

    Origin:
    1350–1400; Middle English bestial(i)te (< Anglo-French, Middle French) < Medieval Latin bēstiālitās. See bestial, -ity

  20. Tony,

    As is demonstrated here quite often, reductio ad absurdum is not as easy a technique to master as it would seem. Scalia fails with it for the same reason many attempting it here fail. The item being carried to absurdity must be not just of the same type, but a close same type. Otherwise, the form itself is an absurdity because the form of argument plays to consequences, i.e. carried to a logical extrapolation, x leads to y leads to an absurd z. If the items compared are not close same types, the causality breaks down. Scalia starts with false equivalences thus his application fails from the start logically. He was wrong the first time he tried the argument. He’s doubly wrong in reiterating it as if his logic gets any better with repetition.

  21. Scalia: “If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”

    Just like the film Unforgiven; with Will Munny standing over Little Bill Daggett just before he pulls the trigger on the rifle pointed at Little Bill’s head…

    The Categorical Imperative says to Scalia: “Feeling’s got nothin’ to do with it.”

    To wit:

    Kant: ” For the pure conception of duty, unmixed with any foreign addition of empirical attractions, and, in a word, the conception of the moral law, exercises on the human heart, by way of reason alone (which first becomes aware with this that it can of itself be practical), an influence so much more powerful than all other springs* which may be derived from the field of experience, that, in the consciousness of its worth, it despises the latter, and can by degrees become their master; whereas a mixed ethics, compounded partly of motives drawn from feelings and inclinations, and partly also of conceptions of reason, must make the mind waver between motives which cannot be brought under any principle, which lead to good only by mere accident and very often also to evil.”

  22. shano
    1, December 11, 2012 at 4:18 pm
    When did masturbation become illegal and why did no one tell me about this?
    ==========================================================

    we did, but you were,ah, busy at the time.

  23. I would think his comments would be sufficient reason to have recused.
    (Love to have him recused form the SCOTUS altogether were it possible)

  24. Voluntary acts between consenting adults of the same gender? Scum Liar is against it.

    Sexual harassment and possibly rape going unpunished (re: Thomas)? Scum Liar is all for it.

    We know where he stand…up to his neck in filth. And he enjoys it.

  25. what’s in a name – Spot on. That question absolutely was fair because Berndt applied it to Scum Liar just as Scum Liar wanted it applied to gay people.

    Berndt wanted the same standard applied to all people so everyone has the same rights, Scum Liar wants a double standard to legalize discrimination and persecution.

  26. Has Scalia ever tried a jury trial as a counsel for a plaintiff or defendant, not as a judge? Inquiring minds want to know. How could that be you might ask. Well, these schmucks get good gradees at Harvard or Yale, and then go off to be a court clerk for some appeals court judge or supreme court judge. Then they get a job as an assistant attorney general. Then in some other government job. Then as district court judge or appeals court judge. Then, usually from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court. It is my belief that not one Supreme Ct justice has ever represented a criminal defendant in a criminal case and that seven have never tried a court case as a lawyer, not sitting as a district judge. Someone do some research and let us know. We need to know about “know it all Scalia”. Here is a guy who thinks that gay people all have sex with animals.

  27. “He is the very model of the new celebrity justice that I have criticized in past columns.”

    **********************

    Celebrities are showmen and showmen play to crowds. I don’t much like celebrities.

  28. Scaglia, studied to become a priest, obviously he was too Catholick even for them…. even though he stated in his resume, that he thought he would make an excellent replacement for the current NAZI Pope….

  29. There used to be laws in this country, preventing Catholickass people from running for public office….. SCAG-Lia is a prime example of why those laws should be re-instituted…. He is less than Human….

  30. So how does “one” effect Scalia’s recusal on these upcoming same-sex cases on which he so inelegantly and unethically has widely and publicly shared his prejudices? He is most assuredly not going to recuse himself unless threatened with expulsion from SCOTUS. There was a time when I actually respected members of the SC for what they tried to achieve in keeping with the law and Constitution.

  31. It is my understanding that recusal is left to the discretion of the Justices themselves.

    Yet some of us have concerns regarding their standards, judgment and sensitivity.

    What alternatives are there to make the decision to recuse a bit more objective and systematic?

  32. He responded “[i]t isn’t a living document. It’s dead, dead, dead, dead.” speaking of the US Constitution

    Well I guess in that light it there is no point in having a Supreme Court, or Congress and the legislatures of the states who might all want to amend the Constitution. How absurd, especially coming from a Justice. He might as well invalidate Marbury v. Madison while he is at it.

  33. It would seem that people of rational thought and a global view of how decisions guide MILLIONS of lives, that would FORCE FAT TONY to recuse himself from the two new cases the Supreme Court (now little more than a laughing stock) just accepted. If he refuses, CJ Roberts should be called upon by the President to force FAT TONY to the sidelines on these two cases.

    By any measurement, these are EXTREME circumstances.

  34. It is surprising that Scalia would suggest that ‘reduction to the absurd’ could be an effective argument in a case like this.

    I believe it was Scalia himself who, on NPR, pointed out that there are some things we take out of democracy meaning we don’t put constitutional rights to a popular vote.

    An example of this contention might be the immorality of and the right to free speech.

    One might reasonably debate whether there is a constitutional right to homosexual behavior or same sex marriage. But clearly the appeal to ‘reduction to the absurd’ is an attempt to avoid that discussion.

    The comparison with murder and bestiality also seem to unnecessarily inflame the issue.

    I also find it surprising that a thoughtful person like Scalia cannot distinguish murder from positive interactions between two fully informed adults of sound mind.

    All these years I thought Scalia was one of the truly great sophists of our time. Now it is revealed he is just sophomoric.

    What a national embarrassment!

    When we consider how inappropriate some of Scalia’s remarks have been for a person in his position, I think we really have to wonder if dementia is an issue here.

  35. This guy is a total embarrassment as a human being. How the hell could some one of this dismal caliber become a sitting supreme court justice of the United States. Very discouraging for most of us citizens.

  36. Luckily, when those of Sclia’s stripe keel over, they are not being replaced in near sufficient numbers. It will all be over soon enough.

  37. OK, here’s a real problem with the thinking process:

    “If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”

    Certainly, Justice Scalia, you “CAN” have moral feelings [which you refer to one phrase later as ‘it’ in the singular] against homosexuality. You CAN have moral feelings against red lipstick, too. But keep them the EFF to yourself. They are not laws and laws against them (for OTHERS to have to obey) simply because you have “moral feelings” against them are unconstitutional.

    If I were to be able to institute laws in accordance with my “moral feelings,” we would start at ground zero for RIGHTS accruing to any human being or animal. Infant humans would have the most RIGHTS and then it would decrease (evenly for boys and girls) until age 21. At age 21, nobody would have property rights (or property interests) greater than a need-based amount — the rest would be privileges. At age 21, everybody would have equal liberty interests and liberty rights and those would be self-executing. And at age 21 everyone would have life interests but those would be somewhat unequal between the genders for all people, in that the life interests of non-mothers (male and female) would be less than the life interest of mothers. So see, my “moral feelings” would not be very fair to Justice Scalia, would they?

  38. “Scalia succeeded in not only discussing an issue in two pending same-sex marriage cases but reaffirming homophobic prejudices”

    The word “homophobic” or “homophobia” is an obsolete, useless, meaningless word used only to stereotype and ostracize people with differing views on homosexuality. The word implies a phobia, or fear, but of the general consensus regarding homosexuality, the primary emotion is not of fear, but of disgust. The quicker these special interest groups stop using words like “homophobia” the better, since it’s an obscure obsolete word. Most people have an emotion of disgust regarding homosexuality, not some fear. Honestly, what would that fear be? Some have better interior decorating skills?

  39. “Most people have an emotion of disgust regarding homosexuality, not some fear. Honestly, what would that fear be?”

    Hubert,

    You know that fear, it’s deep in your gut, as dark desires run through your mind uncontrollably……..you need to keep praying about it, or face eternal damnation. Have a nice day. :)

  40. orolee,

    Thanks for suggesting the wonderful law review articles. I would say they are a must read for someone not only looking to get a handle on Scalia, but on SCOTUS in general.

  41. When MSNBC, or other news outlets schedule Professor Turley to be on a show, I wish they would not pair him up with other guests at the same time. I think this limits the dialogue. As is the case last night on The Last Word.

  42. Hubert, I am with Mike Spindell. Do I detect a note of cognitive dissonance there? A little feeling that is making you uncomfortable?

  43. Funny that people who do not support civil rights for teh gays just cannot stop thinking about what could possibly be going on in their bedrooms.

    No matter how hard they try, like Scalia, they cannot keep those visions away.

  44. The emotion of disgust I have is with you. If I recall you are a Bible thumpin’ kind of gu. y Remember these words “Judge not lest ye be judged, love one another as I have loved you” More important, you never know who is or is not homosexual; that person you feel ‘disgust’ for may well be your nephew, cousin, son, best friend, boss.

  45. “Homophobia” is exactly what motives hatred for gays. It is, strangely, one of the most accurate terms ever coined or used in our cultural discussion of prejudices. I had never understood what straight men had to fear from gay men until I began to ask. (I did not ask, “why are you afraid of gays?” I asked, “What is it about gays that bothers you the most?” Then, if they admitted that they were bothered by gay men, I drew them out, eventually asking, “Does it make you feel uncomfortable to be near gay men?”)

    Strangely, straight men did try to answer me: Here are the answers I got, basically in order of frequency/prevalence:

    ——————————————————-

    1. I’m afraid they will come on to me.

    2. I’m afraid they will think I AM GAY!

    3. I’m afraid of AIDS. (huh?) Most of them have it.

    4. I’m afraid that’s all they ever want to talk about, so I don’t want to have anything to do with them.

    5. I’m afraid that if they will do THAT, they will do ANYTHING.

    ———————————————————

    I did not argue with any of the men who answered this way to me. I was just trying to learn what was the root of their homophobia.

    Answer #2 was first told to me by a 16-year-old African kid who had been in this country for 9 years when we spoke about this. He knows me well and knows that I am liberal, left-leaning, and not knowingly homophobic. When I asked him questions about his feelings, I expressed them differently, as:

    1. Is it true you don’t like gays? [Yes]
    2. If you had a friend you thought was straight and then you found out he was gay would you drop him? [I don’t know]
    3. What do you think would happen if you DID have a friend who was gay? [HE MIGHT THINK I WAS GAY!!!] (very alarmed and frightened look on his face)

  46. Gene:

    Thank you for the endorsement – now the others might read the articles.

    The following is a link to Nathan Newman’s article “Lincoln and the Founding of America’s Second Republic,” wherein he declares that the United States has two constitutions: the old, colonial constitution and the new, post-Civil War Constitution; that the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments are game changers vastly expanding the power of two branches of the federal government and the direction of America’s democracy while limiting that of the judicial branch to interfere with such power:

    “That ‘states rights’ was the key issue in this Constitutional change is understood, if disputed by some, but the latter point of giving Congress, not the Supreme Court, the responsibility for enforcing equality is less recognized. With the current Supreme Court reviewing whether Congress exceeded its powers under the 15th Amendment in renewing the ‘preclearance provisions’ of the 1965 Civil Rights Act, the film is a strong reminder that constitutional drafters like Thaddeus Stevens (played by Tommy Lee Jones in the movie) were determined to challenge the power of the Supreme Court, which had essentially launched the Civil War by overturning Congressional legislation in the Dred Scott decision.

    “All three post-Civil War amendments provided — crucially, in the minds of Stevens — that ‘Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.’ Note that these were the first Amendments to the Constitution that specified not limits on Congressional power but instead its expansion — with not a word about a judicial role in limiting that power. That’s not accidental, for the Supreme Court was seen as the enemy of freedom in the nation at that point, having not only struck down Congressional limits on slavery in Dred Scott but also having expanded the power of slave-owners to recapture runaway slaves in cases like Prigg v. Pennsylvania.”

    Sorry, but all I have is a Huffpo cite:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-newman/lincoln-and-the-founding_b_2277918.html

    The following is law review article which I believe demonstrates the manner by which the Supreme Court is making value based decisions that are contrary to the spirit of the Republic’s “new” constitution to the detriment of the common man and the benefit of The Entitled (aka 1%).

    http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Kairys.pdf

  47. THAT WHICH MAKES AMERICA EXCEPTIONAL —

    AMENDMENT XIII.
    SECTION 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
    SECTION 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    AMENDMENT XIV.
    SECTION. 1. 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.
    SECTION. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twentyone years of age in such State.
    SECTION. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
    SECTION. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
    SECTION. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

    AMENDMENT XV.
    SECTION. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
    SECTION. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-1992/pdf/GPO-CONAN-1992-7.pdf

  48. Scalia: “If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder?”

    It is so ironic that Scalia here implies that morality, and with it law, should be based on feelings. This is exactly what so many critics of secular morality allege of their opponents; that they base morality on nothing more than feelings, which are relative or subjective rather than objective.. Yet here is Scalia suggesting that community feeling is a proper basis for morality and law. So why are the anti-secularists such fans? Could it be because it is their feelings he supports?

  49. Scalia: “If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”

    And now, with a tragic shooting fresh within our minds we’ll see “moral feelings” and its attendant appeals to emotion dictating the dialogue on gun control.

    Feelings have nothing to do with it.

    Kant: ” For the pure conception of duty, unmixed with any foreign addition of empirical attractions, and, in a word, the conception of the moral law, exercises on the human heart, by way of reason alone (which first becomes aware with this that it can of itself be practical), an influence so much more powerful than all other springs* which may be derived from the field of experience, that, in the consciousness of its worth, it despises the latter, and can by degrees become their master; whereas a mixed ethics, compounded partly of motives drawn from feelings and inclinations, and partly also of conceptions of reason, must make the mind waver between motives which cannot be brought under any principle, which lead to good only by mere accident and very often also to evil.”

  50. Bob, Esq.:

    Ditto. “Moral feelings” are the stock in trade of lynch mobs, vigilantes and the occasional Supreme Court justice.

Comments are closed.