Chastising “social trend writers” for making blanket statements without reference to data while claiming :

“And the vast majority of this writing is, to put it frankly, complete and utter bullshit”

“Most social trends articles fall into the category of “stuff the writer heard people talking about when he or she was at a cocktail party somewhere in Manhattan the night before”.”

and to top it all off:

“When you don’t have data, your readers end up believing or disbelieving your argument based on whether or not it confirms their own intuitions and prejudices. ”

I mean don’t get me wrong I find this all very interesting and I do agree with you but as Bart Simpson said “the ironing is delicious” and I just couldn’t resist.

Also, can we really expect accuracy and statistical validity to be high on the list of magazines that are designed to sell lipstick and $1000 dollar chihuahua collars?

First, as you know, it’s uncertain (and even controversial) to what extent the Declaration can be used in analyzing the Constitution. This probably doesn’t have any effect on your deeper argument here.

Second, strictly speaking, it’s the Fourteenth Amendment that applies to the states. The Fifth Amendment applies only to the federal government. Again, this is a technical observation with no likely effect on your substantive argument. The Fourteenth Amendment also protects “liberty.” Maybe the only question would be: Could there have been a different understanding of “liberty” when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted (during Reconstruction) than when the Fifth Amendment was? Probably not, especially given that in this respect the latter amendment reproduces the terms of the earlier one verbatim. My reaction was that you were surely aware of the technical distinction between the amendments but elided it analytically to get at the root discussion of “liberty” and “right.” As an additional note, which again you surely know, the Bill of Rights has been largely applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. No relevance here, I think; just a closely related note.

Your point about strict-liability crimes (or torts) is correct. Strict liability typically governs highly regulated activity. The classic case in tort is blasting, which is taken to exemplify the class of “ultrahazardous” activity to which strict liability applies.

Finally, two substantive points. First, I don’t know that I agree that a fundamental “right to have sex,” by making questions of consent thornier, threatens sexual-assault laws. I’m not quite sure how to phrase this just yet. But I don’t see that recognizing this right somehow quickens consent in such a way as to make assault laws harder to enforce, or reach conviction on. Maybe at the margins.

Second, while I hope you’re right on this, I don’t know if I’m as confident that “there’s no going back.” This is a looser point, of course, which has to do with notions other than constitutional liberties. And I didn’t take it as your main conclusion, anyway, just a sort of wrap-up gloss. Besides, what one thinks about moral-legal progress probably has more to do with general temperament — or even what one had for breakfast. Temperamentally, I suspect we’re pretty close.

There have been recent studies showing how God’s wife Asherah was written out of history, facebook are following a noble tradition of trying to shape the world as they want. Not American, just two completely contradictory ways of looking at life!