Lawrence v. Texas – Liberty for All

My new favorite case is Lawrence v. Texas. After I  dug into this case, magical doors were opened. Lawrence is a game changer and my arsenal’s new favorite weapon.

In its most basic sense, Lawrence reasons that laws are invalid when it punishes ‘victimless crimes’ or actions which are deemed immoral by the majority. More, there is a presumption that we are free to do what we want as long as we don’t hurt one another. Lawrence quashed the reign of legislatures having the benefit of the doubt when examining constitutionality of legislation. Because of Lawrence, now, laws that restrict actions which do not harm others can no longer be presumed constitutional and must be justified by the legislatures to survive. The examination of laws’ constitutionality now has bite.

During the 20th century, laws only needed to be “rationally related” to a “legitimate” governmental reason, in order to survive a constitutional challenge or judicial review. The practical effect was that almost any law was considered constitutional. The ease of reasoning that a law in question is rationally related to a legitimate government reason, provided legislators a safe-harbor to enact moral and victimless laws, or more generally, laws that encroach upon our will without reason. These laws are in-opposite to the principles which founded our nation.

Aside, too many times overlooked, the now-unconstitutional laws devastatingly erode the balance of power between our three branches of government, and especially handicaps the judicial branch. If we allow laws based on morality or personal ends, it would be arduous, if not nearly impossible, for reviewing courts to review constitutionality of laws. As evidenced by the judiciary’s lack of respect prior to Justice Marshall’s Marbury v. Madison, without judicial review, the judiciary is significantly weak, and the regulative balance among all branches of government is lopsided. Without the delicate checks and balances between the three branches, the stronger branches are able to exert their will over weaker branches, and can do so without due process of law. The holding in Lawrence avoids these problems.

Thanks to Lawrence, tyrants are better restrained from enacting their will or moral righteousness through legislation. I believe that the majority opinion appreciates that laws are rather for protecting citizens from harm. The traditional standard of review (rational basis), which unfortunately is still followed by many, ignores that using the traditional standard of review empowers the one pervading evil of democracy, the tyranny of the majority.

Below is the opinion and a couple other interesting reads.  Enjoy!