Quarantines may be justified [Santorum]

[Major Variola (ret)]

At 08:51 PM 4/26/03 +0000, Justin wrote:
>At 2003-04-26 17:38 +0000, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
>
>> At 05:41 PM 4/25/03 +0000, Justin wrote:
>> >At 2003-04-25 16:31 +0000, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
>> >
>> >> But, Santorum needs to be tried & hung for what he meant.
>> >
>> >Do you have plans to try and hang the Supreme Court Justices who
>> >upheld Sodomy laws in Bowers v Hardwick?
>>
>> Violating the constitution is treason.  Only state actors can violate

>> the constitution.
>
>Where'd you get that idea that private citizens can't violate the
>Constitution?  Take a look at 18USC241, 242.  Regardless, federal
judges
>are certainly state actors, or at least they were when they committed
>treason and a change of status shouldn't make them immune to
>prosecution.

Because the Constitution prohibits certain govt actions, not private.
You can't post a sign on my property without my permission,
but if the state allows signposting somewhere then they can't censor
content.

>> >What about the significant minority of Americans who'd completely
>> >agree with Santorum's remarks?
>>
>> I don't care if its a *majority*, the Constitution trumps democracy.
>> Democracy is merely mob rule.
>
>I'm well aware.  I was only suggesting that there are many other people

>beside the not-so-distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania who are in
>desperate need of trial, rope, and tree.

Its perfectly acceptable to agree with Santorum.  It is unacceptable
to initiate force to impose your tastes on others.  Santorum speaks
as one who can steer the State to initiate force.

Mere voters don't.   They get to pick which vermin to send to
Congress, but these vermin are constrained by the Constitution,
xor treasonous.

>I'm confident that in a wide
>sampling of religiously-motivated fanatics in the U.S.,

Who gives a whit if they don't like fudgepackers personally?
That's a private affair.  If they don't hire or associate with
folks they don't like, reasonably or not, that's what liberty is about.

"Hate speech", hate thought, private discrimination is not a crime.
Its a difference of taste amongst free peoples
interacting mutually consensually.  Ergo no legal state interest.

Unconstitutional actions by state actors is treason.