Subject:
|
Re: Liberterian comes through for the Bill of Rights (was a slur
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Oct 2001 16:38:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
395 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> I didn't see this original note...that's not a bad idea actually! I think we
> need more nudity. :-)
Go to Iceland. They have that there. According to _Maxim_ (not the worlds
most reliable source) anyway.
> > > But it's a *silly* idea. That was the *point*... it stops a class of
> > > hijackings (the class that required a weapon concealed on your person) yet
> > > it *nevertheless* is unconstitutional and is a *bad idea*.
>
> Well, there is that...I guess...actually, how is it? Do we have ninth
> amendment rights to clothing?
Implied right to privacy makes it unconstitutional for government to require
it, I think. (anyway it's required to make the example make sense) No
problem if private airlines require it, though: "Fly Virgin... we're NAKED
and we LIKE IT!"
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
49 Messages in This Thread:
   
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
