U.S. v. Kalash - Drug Law Constitutionality and Other Unconventional Defenses

[Kalash]

Apparently I misspoke.
The One-World Government isn't a danger - the danger is in not recognizing human rights being inherent in humans - rather them being inherent in some central head.
It is the philosophy of the U.N. that poses the danger - not the dissolving of nations.


I'm going to go look for the applicable statutes right now, but an example of "immediate ownership rights" inherent via creation exist in the copyright office;

When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”

So... there's your "rights exist from creation" thing.

§ 201. Ownership of copyright1

(a) Initial Ownership. — Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work. The authors of a joint work are coowners of copyright in the work. - Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code; Circular 92. Chapter 2 Copyright Ownership and Transfer

With trademarks, ownership comes from initial use of a logo or image in a particular manner in Interstate commerce...
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZA...ofTwBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2

So there are two sources of "origin" for rights thus far; creation of... or "first use of..."
Creation of is self-explanatory.
First Use Of seemingly would apply to any unclaimed property or resource that one USES before any other, and or converts to a use from its natural state.

If this is not the source of ownership, what law or clause anywhere states where ownership begins?

Even in property - tangible goods being created or invented - rights exist via creation first, and security by governmental regulations second;

Requirements for patentability

The invention must be useful, novel (new), and non obvious. If so, the inventor is entitled to patent protection, and the government is obliged to give it. Patent protection excludes all others except the patent holder from making, using, selling or offering to sell the patented invention. However if another invention which has patent is used in the actual physical creation of the new invention, the patent owner may have to obtain certain rights from the first patent holder.
http://www.jaredmore.com/internetlaw/patentlaw.html

Patent protection of rights (as listed; exclusivity in the: making, using, selling, or offering to sell) is just that - protection of a right existent at the time of government's MANDATORY recognition of that right.
Government cannot waive this right, though they can require certain restrictions in order to afford Governmental protection of them in civil suits, nor can government claim those rights for itself without the 4th Amendment provisions on TAKINGS and 5th Amendment provisions on DEPRIVATION.

If creation is NOT the source of ownership, what is this source?

Once more I turn to 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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

So again - where is Government's power in excess of the rights of the people established BY LAWFUL GRANT?
If it does not exist BY LAWFUL GRANT (Constitutional provision amounting to due process of law, by which the rights of all people are equally and consensually relinquished to Government), then how can Government infringe upon our personal liberty, subject our lives and livelihood, and take property from its owner - simply because the majority wills it?
Particularly in pursuit of a "legitimate state interest" - as the Declaration of Independence stats that the only purpose Governments are created is to protect the rights of the people...
And it is even more clear about the nature of Governmental acts which prove destructive of the rights of the people...

And the people - BY RIGHT - must abolish Government, which is a simple taking back of the privileged powers given in the first place.
A privileged granted power cannot exceed its source...
And again - I ask where Government's claim to a "higher power" than the rights of the people may come from.

And we're back again to the 5th Amendment...

It also prohibits government from taking private property for public use without "just compensation," the basis of eminent domain in the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution

PROHIBITS GOVERNMENT from taking private property.
And again, we're posed with the question, "What is private property" - and can there be a stipulation that this "private property" not be held in violation of any law in order to warrant its deprivation, or must a crime first be committed, due process followed, in order to allow for governmental deprivation of the property in question?

That we have a capitalistic economy dicstates that we have private property rights;

The institution of private property, in the full, legal meaning of the term, was brought into existence only by capitalism. In the pre-capitalist eras, private property existed de facto, but not de jure, i.e., by custom and sufferance, not by right or by law. In law and in principle, all property belonged to the head of the tribe, the king, and was held only by his permission, which could be revoked at any time, at his pleasure. (The king could and did expropriate the estates of recalcitrant noblemen throughout the course of Europe’s history.)

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal “What Is Capitalism?"

Property is one of the fundamental rights - it needs no source, as it is inherently held in all persons.

“Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: …[a right] to property; together with the right to support and defend [it] in the best manner they can.... Now what liberty can there be where property is taken away without consent?"--Samuel Adams

 

[Heuristic]

Okay, so we now have two statutes that link creation to copyright and patents. Note that Congress is specifically authorized to create such laws in Article 1, Section 8. The PURPOSE of such a grant of power is even stated there. And that purpose is NOT the protection of a fundamental right to property. Here is the exact wording of the clause:

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

And, as implied by this clause, patents and copyrights run out.

So, while we do have two instances of property in which your creation of the property can play a vital role in the acquiring of ownership rights to that property, even here we see that 1) the property right results from an explicit grant by government, and 2) that your property rights are limited. We so no mention or implication of any deeper fundamental right; instead, government's ability to grant such rights is yoked to the purpose of promoting the sciences and the useful arts.

You're after much bigger game, of course. You want to show that we have some fundamental right to property, NOT subject to regulation in the public interest. I think that your search will be difficult. You should also consider the implications of such a philosophy on society. Does this mean we can no longer institute minimum wage laws? After all, your labor is your own to sell, and government, by instituting a minimum wage, is limiting your ability to do so. How about minimum safe working conditions?

Would society really be better if we instituted your idea of a fundamental right to property, is my question, I suppose. I agree that we all need some measure of control over property if we are to be able to enjoy our liberty, and pursue happiness. But this does not require such stringent protections as you suggest. The fact that we've never needed such stringent protections before is powerful evidence, in my view, that we do not.

Anyway, I understand that your sentencing hearing is tomorrow, and I hope it goes well for you. But regardless, sometimes we win in court, and sometimes we lose; either way, you will be fine, and either way, you have a lot of life ahead of you. I know this is tough, but hang in there.

 

[chester mcgruder]

Good luck Kalash. I really hope you win. Its a long shot, abd I am not expecting the status quo to welcome. Hopefully others may see this and demand their rights. I know the founding fathers would not be in favor of the current legal system in this country. There is no reason I should have access to an assult rifle, but can't posess a psychedellic substance. I hope things go well for you. You are a brave man. You have my complete respect.

 

[Kalash]

Okay, so we now have two statutes that link creation to copyright and patents. Note that Congress is specifically authorized to create such laws in Article 1, Section 8. The PURPOSE of such a grant of power is even stated there. And that purpose is NOT the protection of a fundamental right to property. Here is the exact wording of the clause:

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

And, as implied by this clause, patents and copyrights run out.

So, while we do have two instances of property in which your creation of the property can play a vital role in the acquiring of ownership rights to that property, even here we see that 1) the property right results from an explicit grant by government, and 2) that your property rights are limited. We so no mention or implication of any deeper fundamental right; instead, government's ability to grant such rights is yoked to the purpose of promoting the sciences and the useful arts.

And here is where we disagree...
Nowhere in that provision does it say Congress is to "GRANT" any right to anyone - instead, Congress is tasked with "SECURING" rights already existent - to the creator for a limited period of time.
Government can still not GRANT rights - Government is a product of the inherent rights of the people, and its powers enable it only to secure rights which already exist.
Government is tasked with "securing" these rights - but only for a limited time. This doesn't nullify the RIGHT to the thing in question - rather it limits Government's responsibility under its privileged grants to secure that right, and relieves it of responsibliity after some time.

You're after much bigger game, of course. You want to show that we have some fundamental right to property, NOT subject to regulation in the public interest. I think that your search will be difficult. You should also consider the implications of such a philosophy on society. Does this mean we can no longer institute minimum wage laws? After all, your labor is your own to sell, and government, by instituting a minimum wage, is limiting your ability to do so. How about minimum safe working conditions?

Actually, only regulations which amount to a "taking" would count towards this.
Regulating a minimum wage denies no-one of anything and secures certain compenstation that Government feels is adequate to sustain satisfactory living conditions.
No one can be required to work for minimum wage, nor must one maintain "satisfactory living conditions" - and if this RIGHT is ever taken, Government will have definitely overstepped its bounds.
Minimum safe working conditions are the same thing - a regulation MAY EXIST, but one may not be deprived of their property if they are in violation of this regulation unless they FIRST go through the requisite due process of law.
A regulation requiring a minimum standard of safety is, again, not a TAKING by government, and is not inhibited by the 5th Amendment.
We're talking about completely different things...

Would society really be better if we instituted your idea of a fundamental right to property, is my question, I suppose. I agree that we all need some measure of control over property if we are to be able to enjoy our liberty, and pursue happiness. But this does not require such stringent protections as you suggest. The fact that we've never needed such stringent protections before is powerful evidence, in my view, that we do not.

And I disagree - as once we have stringent regulations by which Government may TAKE property without adherence to the rule of law, we have already lost our Lawful and Orderly society, and have descended into lawless chaos.
We HAVE needed such stringent protections in the past - but the Constitution was seen as being the embodiment of those protections - Government never even tried to undermine the rights protected by it.

These aren't stringent protections either - they are simply holding Government to be liable under the same laws it applies to everyone else.
How is this "stringent protection" of rights? It's merely equal protection under the law.

Anyway, I understand that your sentencing hearing is tomorrow, and I hope it goes well for you. But regardless, sometimes we win in court, and sometimes we lose; either way, you will be fine, and either way, you have a lot of life ahead of you. I know this is tough, but hang in there.

Thanks.
I will be fine. I'm just not ready to accept defeat yet.
I don't understand how you can claim that Government is tasked with "granting rights" when the quote you've posted claims the exact opposite.

You've definitely been my strongest opposition ANYWHERE, and I sincerely thank you for it.
You hold views of the modern American population, and while I must concede that the common beliefs today are strongly opposed to my arguments, and if the courts are affected by the majority, rather than the Constitutional restraints upon Governmental authority, I have little to no hope for my appeal.

I can only hope that the courts - being appointed for life terms - not subject to approval of the majority, nor anyone else - still remain independent and objective...
That someone, somewhere, remains loyal to the Constitution and the fundamental liberties it secures from the grasp of those given power under its provisions.

Sometimes we do win, and sometimes we do lose.
So far, I've done things that both my appointed counsel have considered impossible;
I've presented arguments clearly enough and strongly enough to elicit a written response from the court denying my motions - something my first appointed counsel said wouldn't happen - and my second counsel was shocked at.
I've persisted - against the wishes of my attorney - in my arguments long enough and sincerely enough to elicit a conditional plea from the prosecutor, which my appointed counsel said was highly irregular in the federal courts.
I've retained my downward departures and acceptance of responsibility while arguing the legal issues in this matter, even to the point of blatant self-incrimination, frustrating argumentative positioning, and blatant disrespect for the law (by defending the Rule of Law).

Inverse "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" analogy...
I've already won far more than anyone expected. After tomorrow, I'll have reached a "safety" level - a guaranteed "loss" no matter what further risks I take (in the legal system - not that all risks in life are voided).
Moving on to the appeal does not increase my risk - while allowing me to "go on to the next question" without any further consequences for trying - even if I guess incorrectly and am dropped back to the level I just left.

You haven't satisfied my mind legally, and that's a good thing in my mind). If you had, I wouldn't be able to go through with the appeal.
As it is, I can stand there tomorrow with complete honesty and tell the judge that my only request is for bail during the appellate process.

Hopefully I'll be updating this tomorrow afternoon

In case I'm not;
EVERYONE - thanks for the comments, notes, support, arguments, wishes, frustrations, fears...
Everything.
Without this thread, my arguments (as first proposed) would have fallen flat on their face and been dismissed without a second's thought.
I'll miss you all, and see you when I return to the "free" world.
Be good, be strong, and question everything others want you to simply accept on faith - or because "that's just the way things are" - because things will always remain that way if you don't challenge them.
~K

 

[Welderman]

And here is where we disagree...
Nowhere in that provision does it say Congress is to "GRANT" any right to anyone - instead, Congress is tasked with "SECURING" rights already existent - to the creator for a limited period of time.
Government can still not GRANT rights - Government is a product of the inherent rights of the people, and its powers enable it only to secure rights which already exist.
Government is tasked with "securing" these rights - but only for a limited time. This doesn't nullify the RIGHT to the thing in question - rather it limits Government's responsibility under its privileged grants to secure that right, and relieves it of responsibliity after some time.



Actually, only regulations which amount to a "taking" would count towards this.
Regulating a minimum wage denies no-one of anything and secures certain compenstation that Government feels is adequate to sustain satisfactory living conditions.
No one can be required to work for minimum wage, nor must one maintain "satisfactory living conditions" - and if this RIGHT is ever taken, Government will have definitely overstepped its bounds.
Minimum safe working conditions are the same thing - a regulation MAY EXIST, but one may not be deprived of their property if they are in violation of this regulation unless they FIRST go through the requisite due process of law.
A regulation requiring a minimum standard of safety is, again, not a TAKING by government, and is not inhibited by the 5th Amendment.
We're talking about completely different things...


And I disagree - as once we have stringent regulations by which Government may TAKE property without adherence to the rule of law, we have already lost our Lawful and Orderly society, and have descended into lawless chaos.
We HAVE needed such stringent protections in the past - but the Constitution was seen as being the embodiment of those protections - Government never even tried to undermine the rights protected by it.

These aren't stringent protections either - they are simply holding Government to be liable under the same laws it applies to everyone else.
How is this "stringent protection" of rights? It's merely equal protection under the law.



Thanks.
I will be fine. I'm just not ready to accept defeat yet.
I don't understand how you can claim that Government is tasked with "granting rights" when the quote you've posted claims the exact opposite.

You've definitely been my strongest opposition ANYWHERE, and I sincerely thank you for it.
You hold views of the modern American population, and while I must concede that the common beliefs today are strongly opposed to my arguments, and if the courts are affected by the majority, rather than the Constitutional restraints upon Governmental authority, I have little to no hope for my appeal.

I can only hope that the courts - being appointed for life terms - not subject to approval of the majority, nor anyone else - still remain independent and objective...
That someone, somewhere, remains loyal to the Constitution and the fundamental liberties it secures from the grasp of those given power under its provisions.

Sometimes we do win, and sometimes we do lose.
So far, I've done things that both my appointed counsel have considered impossible;
I've presented arguments clearly enough and strongly enough to elicit a written response from the court denying my motions - something my first appointed counsel said wouldn't happen - and my second counsel was shocked at.
I've persisted - against the wishes of my attorney - in my arguments long enough and sincerely enough to elicit a conditional plea from the prosecutor, which my appointed counsel said was highly irregular in the federal courts.
I've retained my downward departures and acceptance of responsibility while arguing the legal issues in this matter, even to the point of blatant self-incrimination, frustrating argumentative positioning, and blatant disrespect for the law (by defending the Rule of Law).

Inverse "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" analogy...
I've already won far more than anyone expected. After tomorrow, I'll have reached a "safety" level - a guaranteed "loss" no matter what further risks I take (in the legal system - not that all risks in life are voided).
Moving on to the appeal does not increase my risk - while allowing me to "go on to the next question" without any further consequences for trying - even if I guess incorrectly and am dropped back to the level I just left.

You haven't satisfied my mind legally, and that's a good thing in my mind). If you had, I wouldn't be able to go through with the appeal.
As it is, I can stand there tomorrow with complete honesty and tell the judge that my only request is for bail during the appellate process.

Hopefully I'll be updating this tomorrow afternoon

In case I'm not;
EVERYONE - thanks for the comments, notes, support, arguments, wishes, frustrations, fears...
Everything.
Without this thread, my arguments (as first proposed) would have fallen flat on their face and been dismissed without a second's thought.
I'll miss you all, and see you when I return to the "free" world.
Be good, be strong, and question everything others want you to simply accept on faith - or because "that's just the way things are" - because things will always remain that way if you don't challenge them.
~K

God-speed Kalash

 

[Kalash]

Well...
Not too bad. About what I was expecting.

21 months, self report in on July 6th. (19 months in prison (work camp suggested) with 2 months in a half-way house)
The judge wouldn't go lower because he wants me in the RDAP (drug) program - to get up to a year off the sentence....

It's better than the prosecutor's original suggestion (24 months) but the prosecutor is the one that requested the additional sentencing level reduction (per Booker).

The judge (and my attorney) are telling me to abandon the appeal, or I won't get into/will get kicked out of the drug program - and do the whole sentence.

I'm still not sure about that - and my attorney wants to talk to me about it before any kind of decision is made... 10 days before that window closes and the file cannot be filed.

 

[Heuristic]

That's not a bad outcome at all, considering the alternatives. There will be an adjustment period, but the time will go by quicker than you might think.

Well Kalash... if that's true, then you should certainly drop the appeal. I can guarantee you that, legally, it has absolutely no chance of succeeding. Do the time, and get on with your life.

I did a little checking on the rules for admission to the bar in the State of California. Moral character is such a requirement, and a felony conviction would hurt. This is what the state bar association has to say on the matter:

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/state/calb...&sCatHtmlPath=html/Admissions_MC-Factors.html

It seems that if you have committed a violent felony, a felony involving moral turpitude (a vague concept which generally means "shocking to the conscience"), or a crime involving breach of a fiduciary duty, the bar association presumes that you lack the requisite moral character.

But I do not believe that your crimes fall into any of those categories. You would nonetheless have to demonstrate a long period of exemplary conduct, etc., evidencing your rehabilitation. But all this means that, should you choose to pursue this course, you could embark upon a legal education, and, if you so wished, possibly practice as an attorney.

I'm sure there are numerous other options as well, but given our past discussion, this one seemed the most fitting.

There's a lot to look forward to Kalash, "slave theories" notwithstanding. I hope your father made it there for the sentencing, and it's good to still have you posting on here.

 

[Banquo]

The judge (and my attorney) are telling me to abandon the appeal, or I won't get into/will get kicked out of the drug program - and do the whole sentence.

If this is true and it bars any type of post-conviction action (there are many), then the benefits of not appealing are pretty clear. Definitely discuss this with your attorney, though, so that you can make the most informed choice possible.

I'm not in your position, so it's not possible for me to know how you feel, but I'm guessing that there must be at least a little relief with this recent chapter nearing a close. Best wishes as your work through this. One thing that no judge can order is for you to abandon your passion about justice and law, and I hope that in some way you will be able to carry these things with you.

 

[Kalash]

That's not a bad outcome at all, considering the alternatives. There will be an adjustment period, but the time will go by quicker than you might think.

Well Kalash... if that's true, then you should certainly drop the appeal. I can guarantee you that, legally, it has absolutely no chance of succeeding. Do the time, and get on with your life.

I did a little checking on the rules for admission to the bar in the State of California. Moral character is such a requirement, and a felony conviction would hurt. This is what the state bar association has to say on the matter:

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/state/calb...&sCatHtmlPath=html/Admissions_MC-Factors.html

It seems that if you have committed a violent felony, a felony involving moral turpitude (a vague concept which generally means "shocking to the conscience"), or a crime involving breach of a fiduciary duty, the bar association presumes that you lack the requisite moral character.

But I do not believe that your crimes fall into any of those categories. You would nonetheless have to demonstrate a long period of exemplary conduct, etc., evidencing your rehabilitation. But all this means that, should you choose to pursue this course, you could embark upon a legal education, and, if you so wished, possibly practice as an attorney.

I'm sure there are numerous other options as well, but given our past discussion, this one seemed the most fitting.

There's a lot to look forward to Kalash, "slave theories" notwithstanding. I hope your father made it there for the sentencing, and it's good to still have you posting on here.

Thanks.
I'm not sure about the legal course - though if I can get in some schooling while I'm locked up, that could springboard me into it.
I'm ok doing the research, but I'm not ok paying for law school. >_<

I already have student loans I can't take care of - adding more onto that doesn't seem like an option.
Of course - we'll see how things work out, and a slower pace in coursework after a job or something is still a viable option, but it's a bit remote - as the pay-off wouldn't come for years.

One thing the prosecutor said at sentencing was that if I wanted to change the laws, I could run for office...
I thought that was a certain prohibition...
I dunno.
It's stuff to think about, certainly, and I will - as soon as I figure out what I'm doing with the appeal (Yes >_< I know I shouldn't file it...) and get everything in order to report in.
After that I'll look into future options - and this will definitely be include in the list of potential paths.

Both my parents (and my sister) made it out here for sentencing. A couple of my friends showed up as well.

If this is true and it bars any type of post-conviction action (there are many), then the benefits of not appealing are pretty clear. Definitely discuss this with your attorney, though, so that you can make the most informed choice possible.

I'm not in your position, so it's not possible for me to know how you feel, but I'm guessing that there must be at least a little relief with this recent chapter nearing a close. Best wishes as your work through this. One thing that no judge can order is for you to abandon your passion about justice and law, and I hope that in some way you will be able to carry these things with you.

But... it doesn't bar anything...
The judge just seemed to be expressing that if I got into the drug program and was being counter productive to the program's aims (stop drug use) by arguing that the laws shouldn't exist, that they would kick me out of the program and I'd lose the benefit.

I don't think there would be a problem as long as I kept the two separate - comply and obey in the drug program (assuming I even get accepted, which isn't a certainty, even if I don't file the appeal), and do the legal research/anti-authority stuff on the side.
This shouldn't even be a problem with my positioning as the main purpose of the drug course is to rehabilitate addicts - and I'm all for assistance with addictions that have become destructive. I don't have to agree with the laws in order to agree that addicts, when becoming destructive of their lives to the point they are driven to crime, need punished for their ACTUAL crimes, as well as assistance with their addiction.

But anyway...
His recommendation for the program is on the record.
I'm supposed to apply for it when I first get to the prison.
And we'll see what happens with that when the time comes.

I think I should have my attorney begin preparations for the appeal (file the notice and everything) because there's only a 10 day window in which to file notice - 1 day has already passed.
I reserved that right through a long fight - and I don't want to waive it out of fear of a possible harm that may come if I pursue the appeal - and may not come.
If I wasn't willing to take a risk, I wouldn't have gotten this far with my legal arguments, nor would I have the right to appeal retained.

Why stop taking risks now - particularly when I do feel so strongly that the court's determination that no property rights exist is so intrinsically wrong that it doesn't stand a chance of being upheld at the appellate level.

Furthering my own sickness, the court's manipulation of myself, through fear and threats of a longer prison sentence if I challenge their absolute authority - with the "court's boss" so to speak - amounts to furthering the conspiracy under title 18 chapter 13 section 242.
There were a few times"respect for the law" were cited yesterday - and each time I wanted to speak out and challenge that they're not demanding I respect the rule of law, but that I respect The Rule.

Heuristic and I may still disagree on this point, but my belief remains that the Constitution is meant to be the Supreme Law of the Land - ensuring protection of the people from governmental usurpation and diminishing of their rights.
I have respect for the Rule of Law, but I have no respect for the Rule of the Lawless Legislature.
My dissent continues to be that the law itself is CRIME.
Theoretical "the law should be thus..." isn't part of my argument - though the court denying me the ability to introduce scientific evidence countering that which Congress based its determinations on (Dr. Ricaurte's retracted research) definitely is contention that the sentencing guidelines need to be revised based on legitimate research - and that Congress's findings relevant to the "bad research" cannot be applied with any sort of legitimate pursuit of justice.

And I don't even think that's theory.
If the facts of the case change, surely the court would not continue with the "old" facts - after they had been disproved.
How then, do the courts proceed with MDMA sentencing under Congress's findings based upon fictitious/withdrawn for error research?
Worse still - how can the court deny me the ability to challenge Congress's findings when they are not based on reliable information - stating that any finding of Congress is beyond judicial review - or challenge by those affected by Congress's decisions?

There's too much "law" here to let the opportunity for my appeal slip by.
Even if there are no rights in this country - the deification of Congress, making them both infallible and unquestionable is certainly grounds to appeal - and is another sign of the deeper sickness of this nation than my own personal destruction by "The System" for having cause no-one any harm, absent their consent.

 

[phactor]

Kalash, you and I have had our arguments, but I'm really glad to hear of the outcome of this. Its not that bad considering what it could have been. I would suggest you drop the appeal.

Also, whatever you do, do not start selling drugs again when you are out. They do not really give second chances when it comes to this stuff.

Best of luck

 

[tobala]

One thing the prosecutor said at sentencing was that if I wanted to change the laws, I could run for office...

So he was trying to say that criminals can't be lawyers BUT they can be politicians?

 

[AfterGlow]

Kalash... I hope that you do not abandon your appeal. The law need to be challenged. I find it deplorable that you are being threatened with jail for exercising your constitutional rights.

 

[Heuristic]

Well, see how it goes re the law school route. You might find financing easier than you think, at some point. And while I'm unsure about what legal courses would be available from prison, keep in mind that 1) you won't be there very long, and 2) you can still read and learn about the law.

I'm not sure what the law is regarding a felony conviction and eligibility for office. You can probably find the information in this article: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3736/is_200301/ai_n9198123/

It seems, just from a quick glance, that there are numerous states where someone with a felony conviction can vote, and run for office.

Now regarding your appeal. I want you to look carefully at two cases, Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905), and Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502 (1934), before you proceed.

The first, Lochner, essentially upheld the kind of libertarian argument you're making. It found the kind of fundamental right you're looking for in the 14th and 5th Amendments. But it's not remembered so much for the Court's opinion, as it is for Justice Harlan's and Justice Holmes's respective dissenting opinions--in part because Lochner was eventually overruled, beginning with Nebbia.

I'm going to quote at length (apologies) from Nebbia, since it addresses your view and since it remains good law:

These correlative rights, that of the citizen to exercise exclusive dominion over property and freely to contract about his affairs, and that of the state to regulate the use of property and the conduct of business, are always in collision. No exercise of the private right can be [291 U.S. 502, 525] imagined which will not in some respect, however slight, affect the public; no exercise of the legislative prerogative to regulate the conduct of the citizen which will not to some extent abridge his liberty or affect his property. But subject only to constitutional restraint the private right must yield to the public need.

The Fifth Amendment, in the field of federal activity,14 and the Fourteenth, as respects state action,15 do not prohibit governmental regulation for the public welfare. They merely condition the exertion of the admitted power, by securing that the end shall be accomplished by methods consistent with due process. And the guaranty of due process, as has often been held, demands only that the law shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, and that the means selected shall have a real and substantial relation to the object sought to be attained. It results that a regulation valid for one sort of business, or in given circumstances, may be invalid for another sort, or for the same business under other circumstances, because the reasonableness of each regulation depends upon the relevant facts.

The reports of our decisions abound with cases in which the citizen, individual or corporate, has vainly invoked the Fourteenth Amendment in resistance to necessary and appropriate exertion of the police power.

The court has repeatedly sustained curtailment of enjoyment of private property, in the public interest. The owner's rights may be subordinated to the needs of other private owners whose pursuits are vital to the paramount interests of the community. 16 The state may control the [291 U.S. 502, 526] use of property in various ways; may prohibit advertising bill boards except of a prescribed size and location,17 or their use for certain kinds of advertising;18 may in certain circumstances authorize encroachments by party walls in cities;19 may fix the height of buildings, the character of materials, and methods of construction, the adjoining area which must be left open, and may exclude from residential sections offensive trades, industries and structures likely injuriously to affect the public health or safety;20 or may establish zones within which certain types of buildings or businesses are permitted and others excluded. 21 And although the Fourteenth Amendment extends protection to aliens as well as citizens, 22 a state may for adequate reasons of policy exclude aliens altogether from the use and occupancy of land. 23

Laws passed for the suppression of immorality, in the interest of health, to secure fair trade practices, and to safeguard the interests of depositors in banks, have been found consistent with due process. 24 These measures not [291 U.S. 502, 527] only affected the use of private property, but also interfered with the right of private contract. Other instances are numerous where valid regulation has restricted the right of contract, while less directly affecting property rights. 25

The Constitution does not guarantee the unrestricted privilege to engage in a business or to conduct it as one [291 U.S. 502, 528] pleases. Certain kinds of business may be prohibited;26 and the right to conduct a business, or to pursue a calling, may be conditioned. 27 Regulation of a business to prevent waste of the state's resources may be justified. 28 And statutes prescribing the terms upon which those conducting certain businesses may contract, or imposing terms if they do enter into agreements, are within the state's competency. 29 [291 U.S. 502, 529] Legislation concerning sales of goods, and incidentally affecting prices, has repeatedly been held valid. In this class fall laws forbidding unfair competition by the charging of lower prices in one locality than those exacted in another,30 by giving trade inducements to purchasers,31 and by other forms of price discrimination. 32 The public policy with respect to free competition has engendered state and federal statutes prohibiting monopolies, 33 which have been upheld. On the other hand, where the policy of the state dictated that a monopoly should be granted, statutes having that effect have been held inoffensive to the constitutional guarantees. 34 Moreover, the state or a municipality may itself enter into business in competition with private proprietors, and thus effec- [291 U.S. 502, 530] tively although indirectly control the prices charged by them. Nebbia, 291 U.S. at 525-530.

This is the key part of the rationale: The Fifth Amendment, in the field of federal activity,14 and the Fourteenth, as respects state action,15 do not prohibit governmental regulation for the public welfare. They merely condition the exertion of the admitted power, by securing that the end shall be accomplished by methods consistent with due process. And the guaranty of due process, as has often been held, demands only that the law shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, and that the means selected shall have a real and substantial relation to the object sought to be attained. Id., at 525.

This is the law of the land, and the law that any appellate court will follow. If your appeal will in any way negatively impact you, then you should not proceed, because it does not have any chance of succeeding. The Court will not agree with your view of a fundamental property right.

Let me also just quote a small portion Justice Holmes's dissenting opinion in Lochner, since I think it is also relevant:

It is settled by various decisions of this court that state constitutions and state laws may regulate life in many ways which we as legislators might think as injudicious, or if you like as tyrannical, as this, and which, equally with this, interfere with the liberty to contract. Sunday laws and usury laws are ancient examples. A more modern one is the prohibition of lotteries. The liberty of the citizen to do as he likes so long as he does not interfere with the liberty of others to do the same, which has been a shibboleth for some well-known writers, is interfered with by school laws, by the Postoffice, by every state or municipal institution which takes his money for purposes thought desirable, whether he likes it or not. The 14th Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics. The other day we sustained the Massachusetts vaccination law. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 , 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 358, 49 L. ed. _____ United States and state statutes and decisions cutting down the liberty to contract by way of combination are familiar to this court. Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U.S. 197 , 48 L. ed. 679, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 436. Two years ago we upheld the prohibition of sales of stock on margins, or for future delivery, in the Constitution of California. Otis v. Parker, 187 U.S. 606 , 47 L. ed. 323, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 168. The decision sustaining an eight-hour law for miners is still recent. Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366 , 42 L. ed. 780, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 383. Some of these laws embody convictions or prejudices which judges are likely to share. Some may not. But a Constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory, whether of paternalism and the organic relation of the citizen to the state or of laissez faire. [198 U.S. 45, 76] It is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar, or novel, and even shocking, ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States. Lochner, 198 U.S. at 75-76 (Holmes, J., dissenting).

Today the courts do recognize a fundamental right to autonomy, and therefore recognize the liberty to engage in certain activities as fundamental, see, e.g., Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003); but they have long since expressly decided that the type of fundamental property right you claim exists is NOT such a fundamental right, and they show no sign of reversing the last 70 years or so of decisions.

And once one concludes that the right to possess or do commerce in MDMA (sorry about the meth reference) is not fundamental, and that restrictions are subject only to rational basis testing, you're left with a commerce clause argument; and you seem to have decided, rightly, that the commerce clause argument won't work.

Coming back around, I think the sentencing hearing went extremely well. I would not be so quick to dismiss some type of legal or political route, since neither option is foreclosed by the conviction. Your time in prison will be relatively brief. I would use it as best you can to augment the rest of your life.

Listen carefully to the judge's concerns about this drug program. They sound realistic to me, and there's no point in foregoing an opportunity to be released early, and therefore to move forward with your life, by filing an appeal certain to fail.

 

[Johnny1]

Kalash, congrats on the favorable result. I know it did not meet your ideal, but compared to what you were facing earlier I think you did well. It's doable, and you can move on with your life pretty quickly.

As far as appeals, I don't think you should compromise your ability to live your life and pursue your personal goals. All we've got is time, so don't give yours to the government for one day more than you absolutely have to. The law may not be fair, or even constitutional, but think of your own life first. Good luck, and I hope you get past this whole thing as quickly and easily as possible.

 

[tobala]

I'm in general agreeance here. You can more effectively further your agenda by keeping your jail term short, then getting out and work for change.

The odds that your appeal may set a precedent are quite small, while spending time as an activist when you are set free holds more potential, imo.

And am I the only one here who thinks that your dedication and willingness to fight for what you believe in may have had some influence with the judge and/or prosecutor on setting what is (to me) a remarkably reasonable sentence?

 

[Johnny1]

^ You're not the only one. I have suspected this as well.

 

[Mariposa]

And am I the only one here who thinks that your dedication and willingness to fight for what you believe in may have had some influence with the judge and/or prosecutor on setting what is (to me) a remarkably reasonable sentence?

This occurred to me as well. Kalash, at the beginning you were looking at a lot of years behind bars. You fought for an optimal result; what you got is a favorable result. I would, in your place, abandon the appeal, take care of personal business between now and July, and see about getting into a paralegal correspondence program. People become paralegals in prison ALL THE TIME - and since you'll be doing RDAP, you'll have the opportunity to show your new found skills and good behavior to get up to 12 months off that 21 month sentence. You may even be able to snag a place in a halfway house 6 months before your ERD.

Do you know where you'll be doing the time yet? FCI Terminal Island?

 

[Kalash]

This occurred to me as well. Kalash, at the beginning you were looking at a lot of years behind bars. You fought for an optimal result; what you got is a favorable result. I would, in your place, abandon the appeal, take care of personal business between now and July, and see about getting into a paralegal correspondence program. People become paralegals in prison ALL THE TIME - and since you'll be doing RDAP, you'll have the opportunity to show your new found skills and good behavior to get up to 12 months off that 21 month sentence. You may even be able to snag a place in a halfway house 6 months before your ERD.

Do you know where you'll be doing the time yet? FCI Terminal Island?

The probation office said it would be 6-8 weeks to place me - which is the reason for the 8 weeks before self-reporting. The court was going to make it "within 21 days" at first. My attorney said "Probably Lompoc" but nothing was guaranteed.

As for the sentence, yes - it's very reasonable... under the current laws...
It's asinine that they're using the sentencing guidelines post-2001... Based on retracted science - and denied me the ability to challenge Congress's findings based upon fictitious science.

But... whatever.
The general consensus seems to be to abandon the appeal, and I'm considering it, but I'm not completely sold yet.

Per Heuristic

And the guaranty of due process, as has often been held, demands only that the law shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, and that the means selected shall have a real and substantial relation to the object sought to be attained.

But the law is unreasonable - it is a bill of attainder (absolutely prohibited by the Constitution) - whereby one is deprived of their property rights without judicial trial, denied any rights of ownership of that property, and the property reverts to the "crown" - or in this case, Congress - and the "control" over the property exercised by this seizure is what makes the possession of CONGRESSIONAL property without consent (license) an actual criminal offense...

It is a seizure - unreasonable in nature - as no crime has been committed for which the property may be seized, and the deprivation is entirely inconsistent with the 5th amendment (providing that it is unreasonable), and demands that a license be obtained in order to engage in ANY exercise of ANY right of property - the property is not "regulated" but "seized" by government with privileges of "engagement in the exercise of property rights" being licensed back to the people.

This is why I'm having trouble accepting the regulations - not because I don't think drugs should be regulated, but that the manner in which this alleged regulation (which is truly de-regulation) has been done... as it is inconsistent with any concept of Rights, and a limited government of enumerated powers - derived from the privileged consent of the people.

Great lengths were taken by the government to vilify my activities - and the problem remains that my actions did not cause harm,* there were no victims, and no injury was caused to anyone directly nor indirectly (per the Government's position from all parties - the prosecutor, judge, and probation office in their pre-sentencing report)

NSFW:

*The harms received during the engagement in a consensual activity are no province of Government - with consent comes the ability to trespass upon a RIGHT of the person, and Government MAY NOT protect a right which one willingly waives. Lawrence v. Texas - to some extent, though I do take a few steps further. My lack of "negative experience" with drugs was used to justify a higher sentence than my attorney requested. If I had no negative experiences with drugs, the laws are not against any negative affects of drugs, nor the drug trade, but against ALL drug use/possession regardless of its negative affects. The law, again, exceeds Congress's powers by criminalizing activities which are not criminal themselves - Congress can in no way MAKE crime, as crime is the violation of another's rights.

All the negative claims of "drugs harms" are hypothetical and conjectural in nature - and the criminalization of drug commerce creates the actual harms associated with possession and distribution.
What law is reasonable in its purpose when it creates more dangers for society than it corrects? What law is reasonable when it CREATES or increases that which it is meant to prevent?

The offense is held only in the exercise of a right which Government claims to have prohibited - and this prohibition is beyond their powers, as it is legislated morality (prohibiting consensual conduct for reasons of an unaffected 3rd party) - which brings the commerce into the black market, unregulated, creating the conditions the laws claim to prevent against.
This also attempts to vest criminal powers in Government itself - as property owned by others cannot be possessed by them, and Government is claiming authority to take that property without consent via armed force.
Even during prohibition, federal prohibition agents were not empowered to commit any crime.
Here, the empowerment is obvious, and lethal to the concept of ordered liberty.


The regulations created in the exercise of Governmental authorities must yield to Constitutional limitations on those powers. (U.S. v. Schick - amendments control all provisions granting governmental power)
Legislation which amounts to a "taking" must be met with just compensation - not criminal punishment. (violating the "Reasonable" clause of Nebbia - on top of the creation of the problem the laws were created to eliminate (violence associated with distribution)) Restraint on the exercise of one's rights is a far cry from criminalizing ANY exercise of ANY right over one's property. This isn't restraint - it is claiming no right exists but by the grace of the entity granting the license... leading to the next point;
The act remains (in my mind) an unconstitutional licensing statute - proclaiming to license "Rights" of property ownership to the owner of the property in question (as well as licensing one's pursuit of happiness) - and the Supreme court makes it very clear that such a statute can be ignored with impunity. (Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham)
There is also no "real and substantial" relation to the laws (prevent unaware people from buying "dangerous" drugs - as the laws prevent people from becoming knowledgeable about drugs and then using them, prevents "safe access" to the items in question, prevents proper packaging and labeling, and prevents any regulation whatsoever), and the purpose of the law appears to be prohibition - or has been so construed by the courts - which, under the rulings regarding the Harrison Tax Act must be struck down as Unconstitutional for being legislated morality... Not attaining justice for "mala in se" acts, but "for the achievement of a social betterment" - things which are far beyond Government's authority to criminalize... lest we have a land where class jumping is, indeed, crime.

That block there - along with the sentencing guidelines per the 2001 determinations of Congress based upon Ricaurte's research - are the things I'm not willing to let go of just yet.

Come on Heuristic... convince me to let go

 

[Heuristic]

^ Kalash, all "reasonable" means is that the state can put forward some type of reasonable-sounding rationale for the law. In the case of MDMA, the state can simply say that it finds such economic activity a pointless diversion from more fruitful avenues, and therefore bans it; or it can say that in its opinion the use such a substance is harmful over time (there's no question that it is), and therefore it has decided to ban it.

That's it. That's all they need to say to satisfy a rational basis taste. Your close examination of whether the law is "reasonable" isn't what the Court in Nebbia meant. Essentially, Nebbia is saying that such a judgment is better left to the legislature; that in your view its not supported by scientific research into the effects of MDMA does not matter at this point. The courts are not going to second-guess as they did in Lochner. Your close examination--which is what the Court in Lochner did--is precisely what Nebbia was rejecting. Read Justice Holmes's dissenting opinion again, a little more closely.

 

[Kalash]

Essentially, Nebbia is saying that such a judgment is better left to the legislature; that in your view its not supported by scientific research into the effects of MDMA does not matter at this point.

Even when the research and science they used to come to their conclusions has been proved invalid, was retracted, and the policy still stands?

It is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar, or novel, and even shocking, ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States. Lochner

I still hold that these statutes conflict with the Constitution.
If, by reasoning that their powers may be unduly restricted by the rights of the people, the people's rights are forfeit. The constitution does not allow for this, and U.S. v. Schick contends that government CANNOT engage in any of its powers if they conflict with the rights of the people.

But now the argument becomes circular - do people have a right to property - or can the legislature, through enactments of law which are NOT due process, per numerous supreme court rulings, deprive persons of their property and license the "rights inherent in ownership" back to the people that own them.

These regulations - which would be permitted under the engagement in government's powers - go beyond reasonable in that they step too far in their dismantling of the people's rights.
The "regulation" amounts to a "taking" - a deprivation of one's property, and legislative acts cannot amount to due process... or they truly destroy and semblance of "rights" - in a conflict that does not exist within the limits of the Constitution - as the rights of the people must always triumph over the privileged powers of the legislature as they are the source of those powers, not derived from them.

Maybe I'm not reading things the same way you are;

The court has repeatedly sustained curtailment of enjoyment of private property, in the public interest. The owner's rights may be subordinated to the needs of other private owners whose pursuits are vital to the paramount interests of the community.

This isn't the case - drugs are not rights which are becoming subordinate to other rights - or there would be a direct conflict with drug use and the rights of others giving standing to raise issue with those using drugs.
This isn't the case - and while some crime may be associated with drug use, that crime does not justify the criminalization of a non-criminal activity that does not infringe upon nor compete with those interests.

16 The state may control the [291 U.S. 502, 526] use of property in various ways; may prohibit advertising bill boards except of a prescribed size and location,17 or their use for certain kinds of advertising;18 may in certain circumstances authorize encroachments by party walls in cities;19 may fix the height of buildings, the character of materials, and methods of construction, the adjoining area which must be left open, and may exclude from residential sections offensive trades, industries and structures likely injuriously to affect the public health or safety;20 or may establish zones within which certain types of buildings or businesses are permitted and others excluded. 21 And although the Fourteenth Amendment extends protection to aliens as well as citizens, 22 a state may for adequate reasons of policy exclude aliens altogether from the use and occupancy of land. 23

Restraint upon the engagement in absolute unrestricted rights of property.
I'm not saying some restraint nor restrictions cannot be placed upon one's property for public benefit - but that regulation must not amount to a total deprivation of the property one owns.

Laws passed for the suppression of immorality, in the interest of health, to secure fair trade practices, and to safeguard the interests of depositors in banks, have been found consistent with due process. 24 These measures not [291 U.S. 502, 527] only affected the use of private property, but also interfered with the right of private contract. Other instances are numerous where valid regulation has restricted the right of contract, while less directly affecting property rights. 25

Ah. While this is interesting, it is superseded and invalid.
Personal morality - or immorality - cannot be legislated...
At least - morality cannot play a part in the issuance of a statute, only a defining of liberty consistent with the principals of the Constitution.

NSFW:

Lawrence v. TexasResolution of this case depends on whether petitioners were free as adults to engage in private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause. For this inquiry the Court deems it necessary to reconsider its Bowers holding. The Bowers Court's initial substantive statement--"The issue presented is whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy ... ,"

This is precicely what the district court has done in my case - "Does one have a fundamental right to use MDMA, a "controlled substance"?
As the substance is controlled, no right can exist to use it - which renders any right invalid - seeing as all that must be done to eliminate any right is an enactment of Congress. If rights are so fragile that any whim of the legislature may supercede them, the Constitutional protections of those rights is meaningless.
The court claims that any "right" must be narrowly defined - so as to prevent unintended consequences and expansion of personal liberties.

which requires that this Court determine whether Pohlable had a fundamental
right to engage in the accused conduct. See Raich II, 500 F.3d at 863 (rights at issue must be
narrowly defined; rejecting broad definition of medical marijuana use). In order to be deemed
fundamental, a right mus be, “so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be
ranked as fundamental,” Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105, 54 S. Ct.
330 (1934), or “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Palko v. State of Connecticut, 302
U.S. 319, 325, 58 S. Ct. 149 (1937).

That the use and possession of one's property is not implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. If use and possession of one's property inside one's home is not a liberty that must be protected, what kind of order can society have - where the acquisition of property is meaningless, as there is no recognition of one's rights to possess nor use that property which they have acquired?
If there is no "right" to property one owns, what rights exactly is Government established to protect against? What manner of law can protect property interests when those interests are not inherent nor legitimate claims - but mere grants of privilege by Government itself?
Without a fundamental right to one's property - subject only to the limitations of use or distribution which prove destructive to the rights of others - there is no liberty. None at all.
This says even less for "ordered liberty" which is presumed to mean peaceful and regulated by the law. Without this liberty, order also necessarily perishes, as those with guns may come and take property of those without guns - the "weaker class" and subjugate them to their will.
This "lower class" without rights are being punished by bills of attainder - whereby their rights are taken, seized, and "controlled" by those seizing those rights.
They are then made to beg and plea for the privilege of a license by which they may, unmolested, engage in the rights that have been taken from them.

478 U. S., at 190--discloses the Court's failure to appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake. To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it said that marriage is just about the right to have sexual intercourse. Although the laws involved in Bowers and here purport to do not more than prohibit a particular sexual act, their penalties and purposes have more far-reaching consequences, touching upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home. They seek to control (behavior) a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. Pp. 3-6.

(b) Having misapprehended the liberty claim presented to it, the Bowers Court stated that proscriptions against sodomy have ancient roots. 478 U. S., at 192. It should be noted, however, that there is no longstanding history in this country of laws directed at homosexual conduct as a distinct matter. Early American sodomy laws were not directed at homosexuals as such but instead sought to prohibit nonprocreative sexual activity more generally, whether between men and women or men and men. Moreover, early sodomy laws seem not to have been enforced against consenting adults acting in private. Instead, sodomy prosecutions often involved predatory acts against those who could not or did not consent: relations between men and minor girls or boys, between adults involving force, between adults implicating disparity in status, or between men and animals. The longstanding criminal prohibition of homosexual sodomy upon which Bowers placed such reliance is as consistent with a general condemnation of nonprocreative sex as it is with an established tradition of prosecuting acts because of their homosexual character. Far from possessing "ancient roots," ibid., American laws targeting same-sex couples did not develop until the last third of the 20th century. Even now, only nine States have singled out same-sex relations for criminal prosecution. Thus, the historical grounds relied upon in Bowers are more complex than the majority opinion and the concurring opinion by Chief Justice Burger there indicated. They are not without doubt and, at the very least, are overstated. The Bowers Court was, of course, making the broader point that for centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral, but this Court's obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate its own moral code, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 850. The Nation's laws and traditions in the past half century are most relevant here. They show an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex. See County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U. S. 833, 857. Pp. 6-12.

"This court's obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate its own moral code."

How can morality be legislated when that morality is destructive to the liberty of the people?