Replies

"...What these people "think" are damaging acts must be shown to be valid dangers. There has to be a compelling state interest proven, or due process is violated in the drafting of the law, and it becomes an 'arbitrary imposition and purposeless restraint'; -- a decree by majority rule...."

You have reached the root of the libertarian vs. conservative conflict on matters of law and society. Conservatives (and I consider myself one) have great respect for tradition. If something has been considered a danger to society since the dawn of Western Civilization -- polygamy, incest, canibalism, homosexuality -- conservatives generally conclude that there must be something to the taboo. They give credance to the "ick" factor, as Jonah Goldberg describes it. The "ick" factor is about all we need to identify a compelling state interest to prohibit a practice.

That doesn't mean that you have to be "pro-sodomy laws" to be a conservative. I'm not. But most conservatives are want to override the decisions that communities make about the moral standards they want to uphold in their communities.

Most libertarians (with the exception of the Lew Rockwell gang), on the other hand, don't put much value on tradition. They value personal freedom above all, and demand that the state meet a very strict test to any law that limits personal freedom when the exercise thereof doesn't harm a third party or deprive him of property.

Great. I don't support sodomy laws, but I support the people of the State of Texas if they want one.

I don't support drug laws, but I support the right of the people of the 50 states to have them.

I support free speach, but I recognize the right of the people of many communities to limit free speach as it relates to pornography and literature that incites violence.

There is nothing contradictory about these statements. I may disagree with the laws of some states, but I do not believe they are unconstitutional. If I wish them to be changed, I recognize that they should be changed through political action, not judicial fiat.

Which leads us to the Supreme Court. I want a Supreme Court that recognizes the rights of the states and the people to go their own ways on these issues, to work them out through political means. I think that's what the Founders intended. They recognized that the groups with unpopular habits would be made uncomfortable from time to time, and the Bill of Rights is intended to protect them. But it does not grant cart blanche license. No historical examination of the Founders would suggest as much. I question whether you could provide quotations from Tom Paine himself (considered a dangerous loose cannon by the Founders) that would support such a conclusion.

You obviously disagree with my reading of con law. That's great. I respect your views. But, I have to say your arguments supporting your views are not compelling to me. They are not compelling because they seem to read a libertarian interpretation into the thoughts and actions of the Founders without any evidence to support it.

Heres the 'ick' factor in ~your~ views as I see them.

You claim to support our constitutional principles, -- BUT, -- you want to let majorities rule in the states.

You say:

"There is nothing contradictory about these statements. I may disagree with the laws of some states, but I do not believe they are unconstitutional. If I wish them to be changed, I recognize that they should be changed through political action, not judicial fiat."

The BASIC principles of our constitution cannot be materially 'changed', even by amendment. Violating human rights voids the social contract of our union.
- IE, - if our RKBA's is basically violated, I, and millions of others will rebel, as is our self-evident right, [even our duty].

Another of the basic principles you ignore is Art IV, Sec 4, - wherein every state is guaranteed a republican form of government.

A republic needs more than the majority rule "ick" factor to
"identify a compelling state interest to prohibit a practice", dispite what your hero Jonah bleats.