| PeterB 2006-08-01, 4:40 pm |
|
Mark Probert wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
>
>
> Now we are somewhere. You have made a clear statement of what your
> premise is. Cloud you be so kind as to provide a reference?
"The right to family autonomy and privacy acknowledged in the common
law has been recognized as so fundamental as to merit constitutional
protection." Castagno v. Wholean 684 A.2d 1181, 1186 (Conn.1996)
"The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care,
custody, and management of their child is protected by the Fourteenth
Amendment." Santosky v. Kramer 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982)
If a law "impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly
secured by the Constitution [it] is presumptively unconstitutional."
Harris v. McRae 448 U.S. 297, 312 (1980)
> Being the ever helpful person that I am, I will post the URL of the
> Annotated US Constitution, and some others:
Proving that Markey knows how to post links, but has a problem
understanding them.
> http://www.eco.freedom.org/ac92/
>
> or
>
> http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/
>
> or
>
> http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pu...onstitution.htm
>
> If you find that you cannot cite chapter and verse of the provisions of
> the Constitution barring the State from acting, I will provide some more
> links for you.
You're forgetting something, Markey. The state will not, in fact,
force chemo on Abraham. Rather, it will detain Abraham against his
will, preventing him from receiving the treatment of his choice. It's
*your* burden to show how such restraint serves to either protect, or
leave unfettered, individual rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
Well?
PeterB
|