Is there Delegated authority in the U.S.  Constitution to make/force a FREE Human to have SEX, Yes or No?
86329
Rape? Constitutional? No... I would say that causes them to cease to be free. And disallows them dominion over their own body (privacy right: griswold v. CT) also, I would say there are some documents that address the question of non-consensual sex much better than the constitutuion (UN declaration of human rights for example)
1162331
The wording in the constitution is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".\n\nThere is no statement about freedom FROM religion, with good reason.  One can imagine that one is free from forceful imposition of religion, and therefore can choose "no religion" as your set of beliefs; but we can't enforce a rule that one is free from encountering religion.  In other words, the U.S. government can't establish a church or restrict others from doing so.  It also can't inhibit others from expressing their religion legally, even if it offends others.  That's the nature of freedom.  It works the same way with free speech...we don't restrict it even when people are saying things we don't like.  \n\nFreedom is an incredibly valuable thing, and it is threatened by those who rank their own feelings higher than the principles the nation was founded upon.  Freedom FROM religion, if broadly defined, is a threat to freedom OF religion.  Freedom FROM speech is a serious threat to freedom OF speech. FROM gives authority to restrict speech or religion.  People who don't understand that will lose freedom rapidly.
367444
Please be more specific.  \n\nRoe vrs. Wade gave a woman the right to suck a baby into a sink, ripping it from limb to limb.  \n\nThe 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote.\n\nNote to tulaksam: Less than 5% of all abortions are due to rape or the health of the mother.  All other abortions (including those conceived via incest) are abortions of convenience.  If women are so strong why can't they say "no" to sex when they do not want to carry the baby to full term?  If they get pregnant and don't want the baby, why are they not strong enough to give it up for adoption?  Roe v Wade will be overturned, because it is based on an erroneous interpretation of the Constitution. Abortion is an issue for each state to decide.  It is not a federal issue.  That is why it will be overturned.
818
"God" is not mentioned in the Constitution. And the Constitution forbids the making of any laws for OR against religion, which is pretty much the same thing as saying "all persons have freedom to worship as they please, and it's our job to make sure they keep that as a right." \n\nClosest thing to mention God is the Declaration of Independence, which says "...endowed by their Creator..."
1011614
Uhh...I think it is not a matter of religion but of a moral standpoint.  I do not believe there is anything anywhere that says "You cannot have sex untill you are married."  Like I said...maybe it was a moral issue in the 1900's.  You know what....I think you are on to something.  If people would wait until they got married to have sex there would be less spread of disease, abortion and teen pregnancy.  Plus...if you get AIDS could you imagine yourself saying that "The sex was WAY worth it!"  lol  Is it really so bad?  Half the time I think it is more fun on my own anyway.  hahahaha
187150
I don't think any state does. I think it's a federal law that they can't. Some states however can get civil unions.\n\nMy opinion is that not allowing gays and lesbians to be married is steping on our constitutional rights. The only way they can justify why they can't get married is what. Due to thier beliefs that it should only be man and woman. I'm sorry but this sounds like a religious view to me; and in the U.S. we have freedom of religion. We also have Seperation of church and state, so what is thier reason for this.
954054
(Ah, sounds like a homework question)\nIt depends upon how literal you want to go with "not listed in the Constitution."\nThe biggest one is the right to privacy, which includes right to contraception (Griswold v. Conn.) the right to an abortion (Roe v. Wade) and the right to consensual private sexual conduct (Lawrence v. Texas). \nNext, I'd say rights that "spring" from dileaneated rights.  For example, the right to have "Miranda" warnings springs from the 5th Amendment Self-Incrimination Clause.  The right to flag burning and other "expressive conduct" springs from the First Amendment Free Speech Clause.  The right to be free from state sponsored segregation springs from the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause.  The right to (basically) unlimited spending of money for political speech springs from the First Amendment Free Speech clause.  \nIn all of those in the above paragraph, there is nothing in the constitution about getting Miranda warnings, about schools not being segregated, or about getting to spend as much money as you want, but the Courts have interpreted concrete clauses in the constitution as providing those rights.\n\nPowers not in the Constitution that are returned to the States / People:\nPower to regulate real property and conveyances thereof (almost exclusively state controlled)\nPower to enact generally applicable criminal laws (almost all criminal law is state law)\nPower to decide how Presidential Electors are chosen.\nPower of localities to regulate business licenses and zoning laws (not in contradition with federal civil rights)\n\nJust a few.
443374
In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court struck down laws against miscegination, because "marriage is one of the `basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival." This right is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution, but the 9th Amendment specifically states that rights not mentioned are still held by the people.\n\nSince marriage is a fundamental right, the state should have a compelling reason to deny that right to any particular group. For instance, it can ban incestual marriage, because it causes birth defects and it is impossible to tell if there is some sort of coercion involved. There is no compelling reason to ban gay marriage. It does not harm the community nor does it harm children nor does it affect churches' ability to protect marriage, since any law allowing gay marriage would not require churches to recognize them. If there is no compelling reason to ban it, the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment as well as the fundamental nature of the right to marry, require that same sex marriages be allowed.
270166
Well, neither is condemned by society because in order to do so you'd be impeding on people's right to privacy or have it based on biblical scriptures; which the whole misunderstanding of "seperation of church and state" is kinda preventing.\n\nPersonally, I believe higher moral standards should be taught and demanded in regards to sexual modesty. It is ridiculous for me to see and hear about 14, 13, 12 year olds who have already become sexually active.
931760
U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick upheld Georgia's law against oral and anal sex, under which Hardwick had been arrested. Most states, however, including Georgia have repealed their sodomy laws. In fact, Georgia's own Supreme Court struck down the state's so-called sodomy law, noting, "We cannot think of any other activity that reasonable persons would rank as more private and more deserving of protection from government interference than consensual, private, adult sexual activity."\n\nSo the answer is, "Yes," but most of the time they won't and shouldn't. It is up to us as conscientious voters to make sure that remains true.
73503
Because that would be interfiering with the right you have to your own body and what you can/can't do to it.  The high court has already ruled the government cannot tell you to take birth control or not have kids.  This is part of that.  Once the right to dictate what you can/can't do with your own body is violated what is next?  Who can and can't be parents?  How they worship?  Stuff like that?
895761
Yes, but it will be more up to individuals to enforce Constitutional standards rather than relying on government intervention.\n\nIn the past, "separation of church and state" was used to defend religious practice of a Christian group from imposition by government. Today it is used to defend secular beliefs from perceived threats to impose Christian dominance.\n\nThe real issue is not "separation of church and state" but "consent of the governed."  Regardless of religious or secular views, no groups or individuals want their "consent" to be violated by an outside group or authority.  So that is the real issue, not freedom of religion but free will in general.\n\nIf we interpret religious freedom to mean free will and right of consent, people should have the right to govern and to be governed as they believe, without infringement on personal security by threat of censorship or oppression, as long as everyone respects the same of others so there is peace and justice.\n\nSo by this interpretation, of religious free exercise as free will, this has always been the struggle of humanity, and will continue to surface again and again until this issue is finally addressed and resolved.  Freedom is no more or less important as it was in the past, but will rise to a higher level of understanding as a universal right that all people require by nature, regardless if they call it religious or political or intellectual freedom.\n\nIt is the same argument, reincarnated over and over, until we establish mutual respect across all institutions and nations.\n\nBy its very nature, "consent of the govern" cannot be imposed by government force, but can only be established by free choice.  \n\nOtherwise laws contradict themselves, as in trying to separate "church and state" when all laws are, in fact, a form of moral code that reflects individual or collective values and beliefs.  Again, the issue behind "religious freedom" is whether or not individuals consent to the standards enforced.
169190
There's a law in Virginia that prohibits couples from having sex, if it's not in missionary position. I don't know if it's the most rediculous, but sounds rediculous enough.
989801
The Constitution of the United States of America, states that the people have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.  It is a right added to be a stop gap measure for the people to protect themselves from a corrupt government intrusion.  Due to the fact that at the time the King of England forced the colony folks to house the British soldiers, and were not able to stop them from unreasonable searches or siezures.  Our founding fathers determined that this was a violation of man's basic freedoms.  Not to be usurped by wicked men.  The right to be free from harm or intrusion was based on the unalienable rights granted to mankind by God.  This was codified in the Constitution for our protection and for our benefit.  It is up to us who live by it, to make sure it stays in force!  When we choose to allow it to be usurped we have effctively let the documnent become nothing but words on paper that are useless.
80977
They are people correct? Are we not all entitled to certian unalienable rights? The constitution protect everyones rights regardless of race creed or orentation.\n\nAs far as marrage goes why not,it is more of a sosciety issue not a right or legal issue, it is not really covered under the constitution.
877255
There is no where in the Constitution that says anything about "pursuit of happiness". I believe you are thinking of the Declaration of Independence ("We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.")
1059478
anything that is in the constitution..........