Ron Paul - Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution

House Web Site ^ | 8-11-2003 | Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

[jmc813]

You can't seem understand the concept that our individual constitutional rights take precedent over both federal and state governmental powers that were granted to 'regulate' behavior.

The "right to privacy", being unenumerated is up for discussion as to whether it is indeed a constitutional right or not. That is where you and I disagree.

[tpaine]

Why do you reject the concept of a 'right to privacy'?

[jmc813]

Why do you reject the concept of a 'right to privacy'?

It's not that I reject it as a concept, but have trouble considering it a constitutional right. For instance, how would phone-tap warrants fit in your concept of a constitutional right to privacy?

[tpaine]

tpaine:
"You can't seem understand the concept that our individual constitutional rights take precedent over both federal and state governmental powers that were granted to 'regulate' behavior."



To some degree they do, until our behavior infringes on the rights of others and needs regulating. But that is a difficult discussion to have because the "line" is defined differently by every air-breather in this forum.
100 -Gum-


The line has just been defined by the USSC as at finding proof for a compelling reason to infringe & regulate.

No such reason could be found in Lawrence.
No such reason will be found in assault weapons laws.
No such reason will be found in drug prohibition laws.

The USSC has backed itself into a corner for liberty, imo. It will be interesting to see them try to squirm out.

[tpaine]

"Why do you reject the concept of a 'right to privacy'?"

It's not that I reject it as a concept, but have trouble considering it a constitutional right.

Why? Whats the 'trouble'?
Your example below is just a dodge to avoid answering, imo.

For instance, how would phone-tap warrants fit in your concept of a constitutional right to privacy?

Not an issue. Legal search warrants are no problem whatsoever.

[jmc813]

OK then, income tax returns. Could one claim a "right to privacy" and tell the government it's none of their damned business how much they make?

[inquest]

Defending the constitutionality of something is not the same thing as advocating it. There are plenty of constitutional laws that I'd personally be adamantly opposed to (such as certain types of moronic traffic laws), and I think the same can be said for many other people.

[Oberon]

Get a grip on yourself Ron.

Actually, it's the sodomite couples who are "getting a grip on themselves."

[tpaine]

Not until we repeal the income tax amendment.
Why do you reject the concept of a 'right to privacy'?"

It's not that I reject it as a concept, but have trouble considering it a constitutional right.

Why? Whats the 'trouble'?
You're still just dodging to avoid answering, imo

[A2J]

Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights- rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards."

Wow. Ron's finally growing up and becoming less libertarian.

[jmc813]

You're still just dodging to avoid answering, imo

Answering what?

[jmc813]

Wow. Ron's finally growing up and becoming less libertarian.

States rights are a very libertarian concept. Do you have evidence that Paul ever felt differently than he does now?

[tpaine]

inquest wrote:
"Defending the constitutionality of something is not the same thing as advocating it."

It was as Ron Paul wrote it.
-- Essentially, - you're playing a word game by denying the clear meaning of his statement.

[A2J]

States rights are a very libertarian concept.

Libertarians believe so until the state says they can't do a certain thing, like smoking marijuana or making whoopee with your dog.

[inquest]

He said that Texas has a right to pass these laws. He didn't say he approves of their passing these laws.

Likewise, when you say that men have the right to copulate in their own homes, I doubt you'd appreciate it if someone were to conclude that you approve of their choice of recreation.

[tpaine]

"You're still just dodging to avoid answering, imo"
-109-

Answering what?
-jmc-

Why do you reject the concept of a 'right to privacy'?"

It's not that I reject it as a concept, but have trouble considering
it a constitutional right.
-jmc-


Why? Whats the 'trouble'?


If you can't, or won't answer, just say so, --or-- don't respond.
Saves face. [not that you seem to care]

[inquest]

Ron Paul has always been a scrupulous adherent to the Constitution, regardless of whether he agrees with it or not. That's something that many people have a hard time understanding about him.

[jmc813]

Libertarians believe so until the state says they can't do a certain thing, like smoking marijuana or making whoopee with your dog.

What the hell are you talking about? I'm a libertarian and I think those laws SHOULD be up to the states, not the feds. Have you been listening to the Christian Socialist libertyphobes again?

[jmc813]

Why? Whats the 'trouble'?

The trouble is the vagueness of the term and the trouble it would be to accurately define it. There have been countless examples of such confusion floating around FR since the Lawrence decision. Furthermore, the Lawrence case in reality had nothing to do with privacy whatsoever, as there was no mechanism in the anti-sodomy law allowing for breaches of privacy via enforcement.

Does THAT answer your question?

[jmc813]

That's something that many people have a hard time understanding about him.

It really sucks that $hitting on the Constitution has become so comonplace in both the Dem and Rep parties that the above statement is true.