[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by alphamale

More baloney. The 14th amendment was enacted precisely to protect blacks from such acts by government.

Then along came the Hayes-Tildon presidential election of 1876. To appease Southern Democrats for the abominable shenanigans that went on there, the federal government ended Reconstruction, looked the other way and thereby set the stage for a hundred years of Jim Crow legislation within the boundaries of the former CSA.

Keep in mind that segregating blacks from whites wasn't ruled a violation of the Equal Protection Clause until 1954. Before that, the Supreme Court formally sanctioned segregation. Even after 1954, it took decades of formal compulsion -- up to and including military intervention -- to force places like Montgomery, Alabama to comply with the "black and white clear text" of the Fourteenth Amendment.

And now, on to the "late 20th century USSC amazing carnival stunts."

Originally Posted by alphamale

(1) Deleting the second amendment

Still there, as far as I know. The Supreme Court has pretty much ignored the Second Amendment, and what little they've said is open to varying interpretations. For example, there's a difference of opinion among federal appellate courts about whether the Second Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms or whether, as the text itself suggests, the right is limited to the context of service within a "well-regulated militia." Both sides of the issue cite the same Supreme Court case as support for their positions.

Originally Posted by alphamale

(2) Deleting the free expression of religion clause of the first amendment

If you're talking about the Free Exercise Clause, it's still there as well. The protections aren't as expansive as they once were, but we have Antonin Scalia to thank for the "neutral laws of general applicability" test.

Originally Posted by alphamale

(3) using the interstate commerce clause to extend federal control over anything that strikes the imagination of an 80 year old drooling lib

I'm down with you on this one, except that nowadays it's also drooling faux conservatives trying to take advantage of the Court's expansive readings of the Commerce Clause. Some Republicans actually believe that the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to enact national tort reform legislation! Utterly ridiculous.

Originally Posted by alphamale

(4) mirabile dictu, a right to privacy, and (gasp!) watch their hands! - a right to abortion!!!

As a general matter, the Court's right-to-privacy cases operate primarily as a limit on government's power to legislate the details of one's personal life. Isn't that a good thing? As for the so-called "right to abortion!!!", I join in Scarlatti's implicit invitation to read Roe and its progeny for yourself.

Just out of curiosity, do you also oppose the Supreme Court decisions holding that the Due Process Clause imposes substantive limits on the amount of punitive damages awards in civil cases? After all, those cases are based on essentially the same theory as Roe et al.