GOP Tries Blocking Libertarian Candidates

http://www.ny.lp.org/news/2006.gopblocks.htm ^ | 8 31 06 | lp.org

[freepatriot32]

LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF NEW YORK (516) 767-4688 http://www.ny.lp.org/ Contact: Richard Cooper, State Chair nylibertarian@hotmail.com John Clifton www.electclifton.org; Michael Sylvia mike@mikesylvia.org www.mikesylvia.org; Eric Sundwall info@sundwall4congress.org www. sundwall4congress.org; Steve Finger 917-623-0652 Finger4Congress@aol.com, www.fingerforcongress.org FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE GOP Tries Blocking Libertarian Candidates

Albany, NY 8/31/06 Libertarian Party of New York State Chair Richard Cooper reports that general objections have been filed against both the statewide Libertarian petition and that for Eric Sundwall in the 20th Congressional District. Cooper asks “Are the Republicans and lobbyist John Faso desperate to keep the Libertarians out of the race? They know we won’t hesitate to expose Republicans as deceiving the public with less government rhetoric and big government practice.” The 20th District seat held by Republican John Sweeney is thought to be one of the more competitive this year.

A GOP Town leader from north of NYC approached Libertarian Party gubernatorial candidate John Clifton with a proposition: Clifton should publicly praise Faso for his conservative stands on gun control and other issues. In other words, the GOP leader sought an endorsement in all but name from the competition. Undisclosed future benefits would result. Clifton was not interested. He declines to name this political activist he has known for some time. Cooper says the same person tried to have the Libertarians nominate Faso when Weld dropped out of the race. The approach took place at a recent gathering of the Foundation for Economic Education in Irvington-on-Hudson. Cooper declares that “This refusal by Libertarian gubernatorial candidate John Clifton to play political games shows that the Libertarian Party is the Party of Principle.”

Cooper notes that Comptroller candidate John Cain from Congers in Rockland County wore a microphone for investigators when offered a bribe, resulting in convictions. Besides Cain and Clifton, the Libertarians are running Jeffrey Russell for US Senate, Donald Silberger for Lt. Governor, and Christopher Garvey for Attorney-General. On the Congressional line, the Libertarians are running Michael Sylvia in the 24tth District and Dr. Steve Finger in the 11th. –30-

-30-

[JeffAtlanta]

Yup, just let the Democrats win. Great Work! Some people actually care about America, I guess you're not one of them.

Yep, if the GOP actually cared about america then they would govern as christian-socialists and repel a large block of their voters.

If the democrats win, which is pretty likely, the fault lies solely with the GOP.

[supercat]

1. Stop supporting policies that undermine the Fourth and Fifth Amendment in "support" of Prohibition II.

Why don't you give some concrete examples instead of blanket generalizations?

I believe it was Republicans who passed statutes allowing people's propety to be confiscated by the state on suspicion of wrongdoing, without having to convict the people of wrongdoing; a judge appointed by (IIRC) GHWB found that police don't even need probable cause sufficient for arrest to justify such a taking. For the government to hold the property of someone who was under indictment for a particular crime may be reasonable, but to declare that the government can keep property without even having to charge its owner with something is horrible.

I don't think the Republican Party has been complaining about "sobriety checkpoints" and such, even though the logic used to justify them is truly bizarre (somehow the fact that a driver was the fifth person past a checkpoint represents probable cause!?)

The Republican Party, and judges appointed thereby, have not so far as I can tell raised any particular objection to the widespread use of no-knock raids in even minor drug cases, despite the harm that such raids cause to many innocent people.

Should I go on?

All laws legislate some kind of morality, and perversion that breeds in Private seeps into and destroys the Public.

The only way laws which legislate private acts can be effectively enforced is by giving the government the power to monitor people's private activities. I would posit that the harm done by granting the government such power exceeds the harm done by allowing people to engage in such activities in private.

I think it's also important to consider that many people do many things which are not illegal, or even immoral, which they have good reason not to want other people to know about. Government agents who are allowed to discover such things will be in a position to blackmail such people. Best not to give them such power. So please tell us, what is the clear meaning of the Second Amendment? (FYI: I already know the answer to this, but I want to see if the libertarian answer squares with reality.)

All free persons have the right to keep and bear arms of any and all such types as might be useful in a well-functioning group of citizens joined for the defense of themselves, their community, their state, or their nation. The first part of the Second Amendment makes abundantly clear that the right to keep and bear arms is not just for "hunting or sporting purposes".

What party gave us the tax cuts?

Which party gave us the Medicare prescription drug plan?

[JeffAtlanta]

Yep, if the GOP actually cared about america then they would govern as christian-socialists and repel a large block of their voters.

Oops, I left out a "not" there. Should have read, "if the GOP actually cared about america then they would NOT govern as christian-socialists

[supercat]

You Have To Pick Your Fights. Until you win state legislature seats and accumulate the legislative experience that comes with those, you are only serving as a spoiler.

If the Republicans need that 2-3% of the vote, that will offer them some incentive to actually uphold the Constitution in some of the ways the libertarians want. If they'll get the vote of such people regardless, why should they try to be more than a sliver better than Democrats?

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

However, on Cultural and Foreign Policy issues, the Libertarians are largely Liberals.

This just ain't true. Government has no business being involved in people's bedrooms or legislating morality. Libertarians oppose government-enforced recognition and funding of same-sex marriages and other deviances.

On foreign policy, the Libertarian philosophy means staying out of world hellholes but defending ourselves when attacked. You can bet that after 9/11 a Libertarian President would have went after the terrorists just as much as Bush did.

[1035rep]

Bookmarked

[MassachusettsGOP]

Six-year fatigue is obviously affecting you. But its natural, when people don't get everything they want, they complain. I'm not 100% happy with our leadership, but I'm not going to punish the majority of Republicans that do a good job and put our nation in danger.

The way I see it, I'd rather have Arlen Specter run the Senate anyday than have Dirty Harry run it for two years. Just like i'd rather have Denny Hastert than Nancy Pelosi. But its a judgement call you have to make. If you think the Republicans are bad enough that you will let the Democrats have control for two years (by the way good luck getting it back in the future), go ahead its your vote, but I am sure as hell gonna tell you you are wasting it and hurting America in the process.

[MassachusettsGOP]

It is so. Liberaltarians want to deny the Constitution and grant Gays a special right of marriage, that is not only unconstitutional, but a slap in the face to the cultural and biological history of the Human Race!

Now I agree with you on the government has no buisness in a person's bedroom, but thats something you do that affects no one else. The institution of marriage on the otherhand is something that not only defines major portions of our legal codes, but the culture of our nation. And in my view, the government has no right in spreading a "special" culture for a "special" group of people.

And as for Foreign Policy, the last thing America needs is a bunch of dope-smoking ex-Hippies fighting a half-hearted war against our nation's enemies. We already have a party for those people, and thats the Democrats. And by the way, even Al Gore would have gone into Afghanistan, that ain't no proof of Conservatism.

[ghostmonkey]

Are you kidding here? You want "concrete examples?" How about the concept of "asset forfeiture?" Talk about bending the Constitution! They courts ruled that assets could be seized by the government ON THE SUSPICION that they were earned illegally. This is facilitated by NOT arresting and charging the rightful owner of those assets. The courts ruled that it wasn't the rightful owner of the property that was being arrested, but the property itself. Since the owner had not been arrested or charged with a crime, his rights have not been violated. Instead, the courts ruled, the property itself has been arrested, but since that property isn't a human being, the property has no rights under the Constitutional protections. So, the government seizes your property, and lets you go on your way. And if you want your property back, you need to sue the government to recover it.

How's that for just ONE concrete example?

Let me guess, you don't even know When the AFF program was enacted into law, and what President signed it? Hint, there were 269 Democrats and 166 Republicans in Congress when this occured.

Also, please tell me what party reformed asset forfeiture? (Hint: There were 228 Republicans and 206 Democrats when this occured.)

As for forfeiture itself:

Justice Thomas, concurring.

I join the opinion of the Court.

Mrs. Bennis points out that her property was forfeited even though the State did not prove her guilty of any wrongdoing. The State responds that forfeiture of property simply because it was used in crime has been permitted time out of mind. It also says that it wants to punish, for deterrence and perhaps also for retributive purposes, persons who may have colluded or acquiesced in criminal use of their property, or who may at least have negligently entrusted their property to someone likely to use it for misfeasance. But, the State continues, it does not want to have to prove (or to refute proof regarding) collusion, acquiescence, or negligence.

As the Court notes, evasion of the normal requirement of proof before punishment might well seem "unfair." Ante, at 11. One unaware of the history of forfeiture laws and 200 years of this Court's precedent regarding such laws might well assume that such a scheme is lawless--a violation of due process. As the Court remarked 75 years ago in ruling upon a constitutional challenge to forfeiture of the property of an innocent owner:

"If the case were the first of its kind, it and its apparent paradoxes might compel a lengthy discussion to harmonize the [statute at issue] with the accepted tests of human conduct. . . . There is strength . . . in the contention that . . . [the statute at issue] seems to violate that justice which should be the foundation of the due process of law required by the Constitution." J. W. Goldsmith, Jr. Grant Co. v. United States, 254 U.S. 505, 510 (1921).

But the Court went on to uphold the statute, based upon the historical prevalence and acceptance of similar laws. Id., at 510-511.

This case is ultimately a reminder that the Federal Constitution does not prohibit everything that is intensely undesirable. See, e. g., Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 428, and n. (1993) (Scalia, J., concurring). As detailed in the Court's opinion and the cases cited therein, forfeiture of property without proof of the owner's wrongdoing, merely because it was "used" in or was an "instrumentality" of crime has been permitted in England and this country, both before and after the adoption of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Cf. Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal., County of Marin, 495 U.S. 604, 619 (1990) (plurality opinion) (a process of law that can show the sanction of settled usage both in England and in this country must be taken to be due process of law) (citing Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 528-529 (1884)). Indeed, 70 years ago this Court held in Van Oster v. Kansas, 272 U.S. 465 (1926), that an automobile used in crime could be forfeited notwithstanding the absence of any proof that the criminal use occurred with "knowledge or authority" of the owner. Id., at 466. A law of forfeiture without an exception for innocent owners, the Court said, "builds a secondary defense" for the State "against a forbidden use and precludes evasions by dispensing with the necessity of judicial inquiry as to collusion between the wrongdoer and the alleged innocent owner." Id., at 467-468.

The limits on what property can be forfeited as a result of what wrongdoing--for example, what it means to "use" property in crime for purposes of forfeiture law--are not clear to me. See United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U. S. ___, ___ (1993) (slip op., at 2-5) (Thomas, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Those limits, whatever they may be, become especially significant when they are the sole restrictions on the state's ability to take property from those it merely suspects, or does not even suspect, of colluding in crime. It thus seems appropriate, where a constitutional challenge by an innocent owner is concerned, to apply those limits rather strictly, adhering to historical standards for determining whether specific property is an "instrumentality" of crime. Cf. J. W. Goldsmith, Jr. Grant Co., supra, at 512 (describing more extreme hypothetical applications of a forfeiture law and reserving decision on the permissibility of such applications). The facts here, however, do not seem to me to be obviously distinguishable from those involved in Van Oster; and in any event, Mrs. Bennis has not asserted that the car was not an instrumentality of her husband's crime.

If anything, the forfeiture in Van Oster was harder to justify than is the forfeiture here, albeit in a different respect. In this case, the trial judge apparently found that the sales price of the car would not exceed by much the "costs" to be deducted from the sale; and he took that fact into account in determining how to dispose of the proceeds of the sale of the car. The state statute has labeled the car a "nuisance" and authorized a procedure for preventing the risk of continued criminal use of it by Mr. Bennis (forfeiture and sale); under a different statutory regime, the State might have authorized the destruction of the car instead, and the State would have had a plausible argument that the order for destruction was "remedial" and thus noncompensable. That it chose to order the car sold, with virtually nothing left over for the State after "costs," may not change the "remedial" character of the State's action substantially. And if the forfeiture of the car here (and the State's refusal to remit any share of the proceeds from its sale to Mrs. Bennis) can appropriately be characterized as "remedial" action, then the more severe problems involved in punishing someone not found to have engaged in wrongdoing of any kind do not arise. [n.*]

Improperly used, forfeiture could become more like a roulette wheel employed to raise revenue from innocent but hapless owners whose property is unforeseeably misused, or a tool wielded to punish those who associate with criminals, than a component of a system of justice. When the property sought to be forfeited has been entrusted by its owner to one who uses it for crime, however, the Constitution apparently assigns to the States and to the political branches of the Federal Government the primary responsibility for avoiding that result.

Notes

* This is most obviously true if, in stating that there would be little left over after "costs," the trial judge was referring to the costs of sale. The court's order indicates that he may have had other "costs" in mind as well when he made that statement, e. g., law enforcement costs. See also Mich. Comp. Laws §600.3825(3) (1979) (costs of keeping the car to be deducted). Even if the "costs" that the trial judge believed would consume most of the sales proceeds included not simply the expected costs of sale, but also the State's costs of keeping the car and law enforcement costs related to this particular proceeding, the State would still have a plausible argument that using the sales proceeds to pay such costs was "remedial" action, rather than punishment.

[ghostmonkey]

Well, morality has a habit of evolving over time...

Absolute nonsense, and one that strikes to the heart of libertine ideology. Moral Standards are absolute, morality does not change because libertines degrade society to the point where they no longer recognize morality.

After all, some things that were once considered immoral are now though of as moral. And interestingly enough, some things that were thought of as moral at one time, are now seen as immoral. Slavery, for instance.

If I had a dollar for everytime a libertine brought up slavery...

NewsFlash: Even the people in the South thought Slavery to be a Moral and Political evil:

Robert E. Lee letter dated December 27, 1856:

I was much pleased the with President's message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war. There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Savior have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?

Using the above example, there's a serious difference between lying and fruad or purjury. In once case (lying), there may or may not be harm done to another. For instance, were I to say that your baby was cute, no matter how ugly the baby is, no harm is done. That's not indictable. On the other hand, were I to lie to you in a business transaction, or purjur myself in a court, then I am causing direct harm to another, and those would be cause for action by the government against me.

FYI: It's perjury. And you badly missed Justice Yeats' point.

Also, exactly when was the ruling you quote made. Was it while PA still had an official State religion?

1815. And again FYI: Pennsylvania never had an official State religion.

"Section. 2. That all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their Own consciences and understanding: And that no man ought or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship, or maintain any ministry, contrary to, or against, his own free will and consent: nor can any man, who acknowledges the being of a God, be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account or his religious sentiments or peculiar mode of religious worship: And that no authority can or ought to be vested in, or assumed by any power whatever, that shall in any case interfere with, or In any manner controul, the right of conscience in the free exercise of religious worship.

Today, that's known as a Theocracy, something that's decried by most thinking people in our society: But some people, who seem to denounce the muslim propensity towards theocracy the loudest often seem to look longingly towards a Christian based theocracy. So it's not the theocracy they hate: Just who's running it.

Oh, so now you run to "Theocracy" "Taliban" nonsense? Sorry, that won't work. Jasper Yeats wasn't advocating any type of Theocracy, instead he recognized that morality was vital to the function of government.

[ghostmonkey]

And which party has been spending like a drunken teenager at the Moonlight Bunny Ranch armed with daddy's Platinum card? I use that as an example, because no group of drunken sailors could possibly keep up with the spending spree that's been going on during the pubbies rule of all three branches of the federal government.

I am not happy with the Republican Spending, however, the Democrats would be far worse, and libertarians would be far, far worse on other issues.

I don't understand it. Maybe they thought that if they outspent the dems, the dems would like them.

[ghostmonkey]

And show me anywhere in the Constitution of the US where these federal government is allowed to make laws on these things. If you want the federal government involved in these issues, then the Constitution should have been amended to allow it, rather than allowing congress, the president, and the courts to just dance around the rules set down in the Constitution with a wink and a nod.

Why are you deflecting? Who said anything about the federal government, I'm talking about State laws, laws which libertarians ALSO oppose. (Oh look, There went your "State's rights" claim right out the window).

[ghostmonkey]

Laugh all you want, monkeyboy, but you completely misread (on purpose, I'm sure) that plank of the platform.

No I didn't. The platform is quite clear that libertarians oppose not only Federal Drug Laws, but also STATE drug laws. They are not for "State's Rights". I'll be honest with you, I am pretty strong on State's Rights myself. If California wanted to turn itself into holland tommorow I really wouldn't care. HOWEVER, libertines, just like liberals are really not in favor of State's rights. Not only do they want California to turn itself into holland, they want to force Alabama to do so as well.

I have to agree with the person you're trying to argue with (but since it wasn't directed to him, I can't refer to him directly). I don't know a single libertarian who actually smokes dope or takes drugs. But the fact that we oppose the criminalization has nothing to do with whether or not we take drugs. Do some people who claim to be L/libertarians do so simply because of the LP opposition to the WOD? You bet! The best example of such a person would be that idiot Bill Mahr. He claims to be a "libertarian," but as soon as you start looking at what he says and believes in, you realize that he's a big government leftist who only claims to be a libertarian because of the LP's stance on illegal drugs.

Thank you for your concession.

The fact is that while the LP stands for the decriminalization of what are now illegal drugs, they also stand for personal responsibility. Meaning that if you ruin your life using drugs recreationally, then it's up to you, your family, and or charities to try to put your life back together.

But you are not for State's Rights to criminalize illegal drugs if the people of that State so choose.

Have you noticed that as government has grown in every aspect of life, people have grown both more complacent and dependant on the government? A good example of this is with Social Security. When most people didn't survive long enough to receive social security payments, a family was expected to provide for the needs of the elderly parents. As social security has grown, and made it easier for families to fragment, we've seen the breakup of the family become more and more common.

I am in favor of privatizing Social Security. So are many Republicans.

1) Because according to the Consitution, the federal government has no authority to do so.

Whose talking about the Federal Government? You guys oppose STATE drug laws as well.

2) Because it infringes on the G-d given right that everyone has to be dumber than hell, and cause themselves all sorts of grief - But don't expect the rest of us to clean up your mess.

You forget that when libertines get cracked out, they do things that affect the rest of us.

3) By taking the profit motive out of the illegal drug trade, criminal activity surrounding the drug trade will dry up. After all, how many bloody turf wars have you seen in the news lately, regarding illegal liquor sales? More importantly, have you noticed that there have been increasing crimes in regards to moving "illegal" cigarettes? When government makes a product that people want illegal, it cuts down on supply, driving up the cost. That increased cost will eventually drive a profit margin high enough to be worth breaking the law. And often, that profit will be great enough for shootouts - Look at Nuevo Laredo as an example, or prohibition Chicago and NY.

This is a fantasy libertine utopia. To use your alcohol example, How many people use alcohol now? How many crimes are committed that are alcohol related? How many people are killed by drunk drivers. Put Crack, Heroine, Meth, PCP out on the street and just watch that problem magnify infinitesimally.

[ghostmonkey]

I guess that explains why Tom Tancredo is in the leadership of the republican party, and why he and Denny Hastert are constantly appearing together in press conferences... Are you out of your mind? The republican leadership has done just about all it can do to marginalize Tom Tancredo.

Considering that he might end up as the GOP nominee I think you are highly mistaken.

I think that I've finally figured you out... (Ghostmonkey's thought process) "Hey, if one person says it, that must mean that everyone claiming that same affiliation believes it!"

Now you retreat to childish nonsense? Thanks for the consession of your positions.

By the way monkeyboy, it's hard to respond to you when you don't refer your responses back to the person you're debating. But then I certainly understand why you wouldn't want to do so.

I am addressing my responses to everyone, not just you. I am not "debating" with you. But it figures that you would think that discussing something online is automatically some kind of "debate" where you can "win." LOL!!!! You don't know how many times I see this nonsense online. Discussion boards are really unhealthy for some people.

I have news for you:

[BigSkyFreeper]

Kos is actually a libertarianish democrat. For example, he supports the Second Amendment.

There is no such thing as a "libertarian democrat". Even if such a creature existed, I'd be curious to know which parts he supports.

To be honest though, some important issues like the 2nd Amendment and the issue of life or death (abortion), there is no middle ground. Either you're for gun ownership it or against it. Either you're for life or against it. The middle ground is for those who like to meddle around in gobbledygook.

[ghostmonkey]

Exactly which section or clause in the Constitution refers to marriage at all? The federal government has no authority here whatsoever.

Once again, why do you bring up the "Federal Government"? Libertines oppose STATE protection of marriage laws and STATE amendments. Further, a Federal Constitutional amendment by virtue becomes part of the Constitution. Finally, as for DOMA, Congress has express Constitutional authority to define the manner in which acts shall be proved under FF&C:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

The sentences are not exclusive of one another, instead they are necessarily mutually inclusive. The second sentence defines how the Congress can put the Full Faith and Credit Clause into practice. Congress has exercised this power with 28 U.S.C. §1738C.

The Courts have recognized this power:

"Article IV, 1 of the Constitution not only directs that 'Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and Judicial Proceedings of every other State' but also provides that 'Congress may be general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." Williams V North Carolina

However, the whole "Marriage Protection" rigamarole does come from something in the Constitution, which can impose one state's values on another. But it's not the equal protection clause. So it's being thrown back to the federal government, which really doesn't have the authority to make the decision either way.

You are referring to the FF&C clause, which coincidently does not authorize States to impose their values on another.

"[W]e think the conclusion is unavoidable that the full faith and credit clause does not require one state to substitute for its own statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the conflicting statute of another state, even though that statute is of controlling force in the courts of the state of its enactment with respect to the same persons and events." Pacific Employers Ins Co V Industrial Accident Commission of California 306 US 493 (1939)

"The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not compel a state to substitute the statutes of another state for its own statutes dealing with a subject matter concerning which it is competent to legislate." Sun Oil CO V Wortman 486 US 717 (1988)

“[T]he Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require a State to apply another State’s law in violation of its own legitimate public policy.” Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979)

The tack you're taking is an interesting one here... "No clause in the Constitution, none whatsoever, supports the homosexual agenda and it's attempts to redefine marriage, family and society." What you're saying is that "if it's not in the Constitution of the US, then the states and the public aren't allowed to do it." Sorry buddy, but that's 180 degrees out of whack with the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution. The Constitution of the US is a legal document granting certain powers to the federal government. If it's not in the Constitution, then the federal government (though it's also been extended to the states in some ways) shouldn't be doing it.

The 10th Amendment is quite clear on who gets to establish marriage laws. As for the 9th, libertines often misread it, most likely on purpose.

I first must ask, are you familar with the phrase "Designatio unius est exclusio alterius, et expressum facit cessare tacitum."? That phrase goes to the heart of why the 9th Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights.

James Madison made this clear when he stated:

It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration, and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the general government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the 4th resolution.

You see, the Libertine rewrite of the 9th Amendent was addressed and REJECTED by a Federal District Court in Alabama in 1980:

"In contrast to the first eight amendments, the Ninth Amendment does not specify any rights of the people, rather it serves as a savings clause to keep from lowering, degrading or rejecting any rights which are not specifically mentioned in the document itself. The Ninth Amendment does not raise those unmentioned rights to constitutional stature; it simply takes cognizance of their general existence. This is not to say that no unenumerated rights are constitutional in nature, for some of them may be found in the penumbras of the first eight amendments or in the liberty concept of the Fourteenth Amendment and, thus, rise to constitutional magnitude. It is only to say, however, that unenumerated rights do not rise to constitutional magnitude by reason of the Ninth Amendment. The foregoing interpretation of the Ninth Amendment is supported by the history of that provision, which reflects that the Ninth Amendment was added to the Bill of Rights to ensure that the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius would not be used at a later time to deny fundamental rights merely because they were not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. 1 Annals of Congress 438-40 (1789); II Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 626-27 & 651 (5th ed. 1891). Therefore, this court is of the opinion that there is nothing in the Ninth Amendment to be incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment as the Ninth Amendment is merely a rule of construction. The alternative interpretation, which is unacceptable to this court, would be to construe the Ninth Amendment as incorporating all fundamental rights into the Constitution, although they were never intended to be rights of constitutional magnitude." CHARLES v. BROWN, 495 F. Supp. 862 (N.D. Ala. 1980)

The 6th Circuit adopted this reasoning in Gibson v. Matthews, 926 F.2d 532 (6th Cir. 1991):

We agree with the district court that the ninth amendment does not confer substantive rights in addition to those conferred by other portions of our governing law. The ninth amendment "was added to the Bill of Rights to ensure that the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius would not be used at a later time to deny fundamental rights merely because they were not specifically enumerated in the Constitution." Charles v. Brown, 495 F. Supp. 862, 863-64 (N.D. Ala. 1980). Accordingly, Gibson's ninth amendment claim holds no merit.

The reasoning of the Alabama Court is largely correct, allow me to explain why. If one trys to morph the 9th Amendment into a magic guarentee of a specific right that someone dreams up, then you run into a fundamental problem, Judges, not the people become the final arbiters on what is included in the 9th Amendment.

Let's say that an adult libertarian NAMBLA member claims a fundamental right under the 9th amendment to engage in sexual relations with an 8 year old boy. Where does the 9th Amendment say that this right doesn't exist? You might scoff at such an idea, and rightly so, but the NAMBLA member could use the 9th amendment, along with the aid of a sympathetic judge, to invent such a right out of thin air.

Used in that manner, the 9th Amendment would be nothing more than a Rorschach blot, one whose meaning would change depending on what creative "right" one could invent and attempt to invoke. What's dangerous about this is that it would be the unelected and largely unaccountable Judge, not the elected and accountable represenative, that would be making the final decision on the value of the claimed "right".

The fact of the matter is, [T]he Constitution's refusal to "deny or disparage" other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even afarther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges' list against laws duly enacted by the people." Troxel V Granville 530 US 57 (2000) (Scalia, J. Dissenting).

With all that said, I must add this caveat, please do not misinterpret what I am saying as to be "There are no unenumerated rights" as that reading would be patently incorrect.

It's just that the libertine rewrite of the 9th Amendment as actually granting substantive rights is patently flawed.

[RodgerD]

LOL !
Liberal Republicans on bong water = Libertarian.

[ghostmonkey]

Gee, no republicans support Roe either, do they? You do love your sweeping generalizations. Roe should never have happened. Abortion should be a states rights issue. There are pro-life libertarians, just like there are pro-abortion republicans. Maybe you like the way the democrats treated their pro-life governor at the DNC national convention, when he wasn't allowed to speak, and think that republicans should act the same way.

Libertarians are against making abortion a State's Rights issue. So what are you talking about? You also ignored the activist decision in Lawrence that I mentioned.

[ghostmonkey]

Marriage is a public act that requires statutory license...

That's correct. You see people fail to see that the only reason that Government grants marriage licenses is because of marriage's link to procreation. Absent marriage's link to procreation, there would be no need to grant marriage licenses in the first place. Marriage licenses are not about getting government goodies, or getting public affirmation of a behavior. Instead, marriage licenses are intended to provide for the best interests of children. When homo-activsts and their allies argue "But, But we don't force anyone to procreate" They sadly miss the point. The Vital purpose of Marriage is not to mandate procreation but instead it's to control its consequences, this is called the "private welfare" purpose. The insistance on maintaining otherwise is absurd, and purposely ignores that Central to the Institution of Marriage is indeed the act of procreation.

There can be no denying what is the underlying purpose of homo-activists on this issue. They are seeking public recognition and affirmation of a private relationship. It is the very essence of the battle that is being waged. Any talk of governmental benefits is necessarily a red herring. The real goal is changing the essence of marriage to seek societal and governmental approval of a particular type of relationship. Libertines are completely in favor of this.

What is interesting however, is that even libertines and homo-activists have acknowledged that marriage is much more than a merely private declaration, instead it is an act of public significance and consequence for which the State exerts an important regulatory role. Indeed the very fact that the homos are seeking official assent, recognition and approval of their relationship, by the state, is to concede the authority of those whose regard is sought. Throughout the history of our law, it is clear that marriage has secular implications (IE: governmental benefits) therefore State does have a legitimate interest in determining eligibility criteria for entrance into that institution. As a result there are numerous reasons for limiting unfettered access to marriage. Otherwise, by allowing the multiplicity of human choices that bear no resemblance to marriage to qualify, the institution would become non-recognizable and unable to perform its vital function. This is the reason that the States can Constitutionally ban bigamous marriages, common law marriages, incestuous marriages, marriages to persons adjudged to be mentally incompetent, or even marriages that have a partner infected with a venereal disease in a communicable stage. The governmental interest in these restrictions has been repeatedly and widely recognized.

[JeffAtlanta]

Six-year fatigue is obviously affecting you. But its natural, when people don't get everything they want, they complain. I'm not 100% happy with our leadership, but I'm not going to punish the majority of Republicans that do a good job and put our nation in danger.

Am I the one punishing the majority of republicans. I'm pretty happy with the republicans that represent me so they will continue to receive my vote as long they continue in the trend. The three of them along with the governor are all newly in power though so lets see what happens once they are exposed to corruption.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of the rest of the party has gone the wrong way and become democrat-lite.

It is the GOPs job to get votes and they are doing everything they can to repel traditional republican voters - except for party cheerleaders and the moral majority types.

I actually think you are hurting the country by pushing the Republican party toward socialism. By continuing to vote for them no matter what, you are pushing them in that direction.