PRESTOPUNDIT -- A Good Blog at a Great Price. Guaranteed.

Andrew Sullivan posts this email from a reader on Lawrence v. Texas:

The majority failed to ground its decision in any established rule of constitutional law, but its outcome implies one of two things: 1) morality is never a "legitimate state interest" and thus all morality-based laws fail a rational-basis test OR 2) any activity valued by an individual and done in private is a "fundamental liberty" protected by the constitution as much as enumerated rights such as freedom of speech or the right to a fair trial. Either way, the Lawrence v. Texas decision has fundamentally altered constitutional interpretation and could be the basis for striking down an extraordinary number of laws--not just about sex--throughout the United States.

The stronger implication seems to be #2, because the case labors over the evidence which led the Bowers Court to declare homosexual sodomy is not a fundamental right. As a person with libertarian sympathies, I am strongly tempted to cheer a decision that could serve to invalidate all victimless crimes. But as a student of Constitutional law I must be distressed that the libertarian principle has been shoehorned into the tiny phrase "due process" and not based in representative democracy, or legitimate interpretation or amendment of the Constititution. Even worse, the Court partially based its "fundamental liberty" declaration on the decision of many states and *Europe* to get rid of such laws. So now, if the Blue States and Brussels decide that something is a fundamental right, it will suddenly be read into our Constitution?!?

My email address is there in the upper right-hand corner.