Ron Paul - Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution

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

[tpaine]

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



Yes, he did. In affect, you and he are playing word games about "approve":

"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."
-Ron Paul-

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Would it be fair to assume that Mr. Paul also feels that Michigan should be able to write its own admissions standards for the University of Michigan?"

Or how about the State of New Jersey having the right to punish the BSA for not allowing homosexual Scout masters?

[Scenic Sounds]

Or how about the State of New Jersey having the right to punish the BSA for not allowing homosexual Scout masters?

LOL. See post 25.

How've you been? ;-)

[kkindt]

The vast plurality of people in the US DO NOT WANT us to have to amend the constitution - they want to impose upon the rest of us their so called politically correct morality using 5 people in the US to do it. Hence the whole idea of a written constitution being binding on sinful populations is ridiculous. The judges that pander to this crowd share this crowd's ridiculous version of morality that approves of the legalization of sodomy and the persecution of those who think sodomy is morally evil and bad for public health. The constitution of the United States was only the consitution as long as the vast majority of the people who vote were intelligent enough to understand it and had the backbone to make sure it would be enforced and held the morality that undergirded the document. None of that is the case anymore. So we are ruled by 5 people.

[mrsmith]

Often the problem with Ron Paul is that he doesn't realize the Anti-federalists lost most of their arguments.

In this case he is defending the one great shining success of the Anti-federalists: the Bill of Rights, and specifically those two restrictions on the federal government that survived the Fourteenth amendment.

There are obviously a very few loud jackboot libertarians around FR who advocate the use of government force to impose libertarian ideals upon an unwilling populace, but most FR libertarians are modern day Anti-federalists like Ron Paul.

[inquest]

From past posts, I know you believe that people have a right to engage in private consensual sex of any kind. Does that mean you approve of such activity?

[Constitutional Patriot]

f"...ederal courts recently have issued rulings that conflict with both the Constitution and overwhelming public sentiment. "

This is what happens when socialists take over the judiciary. No more left-wing appointments!!!

[tpaine]

Why? Whats the 'trouble'? [with a right to privacy]

The trouble is the vagueness of the term and the trouble it would be to accurately define it.

More dodging. "Privacy' is a simple word for a simple concept. Being left alone in a private home to do as you please [within the bounds of criminal law], is a basic right.

There have been countless examples of such confusion floating around FR since the Lawrence decision.

Another generalization, an attempt to dodge the issue.

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.

Sheer denial of the circumstances. More doding of the issue.

Does THAT answer your question?

You didn't answer.
What is your constitutional basis in objecting to our right to privacy?

[tpaine]

From past posts, I know you believe that people have a right to engage in private consensual sex of any kind. Does that mean you approve of such activity?


My approval/disapproval of various sexual acts is immmaterial to the constitutional issue of upholding individual rights.

Mind your own business, I'll mind mine.

[jmc813]

More dodging.

I'm not dogdging $hit.

"Privacy' is a simple word for a simple concept. Being left alone in a private home to do as you please [within the bounds of criminal law], is a basic right.

Therein lies the problem right there. I have no problem with what you mention above. However, in this case, sodomy WAS NOT within the bounds of criminal law. Do I think state sodomy laws are stupid? Yes. Do I want to go down the road of having the supreme court legislate state laws? No.

[inquest]

My approval/disapproval of various sexual acts is immmaterial to the constitutional issue of upholding individual rights.

I see, so you say that they have the right to engage in these acts, but refuse to say whether you actually approve or disapprove of those acts, thus leaving open the possibility that you can disapprove of what you say they have a right to do.

That perfectly illustrates my point, namely: Saying that a person (or a state) has a right to do something is not the same as actually approving of it.

[tpaine]

"Privacy' is a simple word for a simple concept. Being left alone in a private home to do as you please [within the bounds of criminal law], is a basic right."

Therein lies the problem right there. I have no problem with what you mention above.

Yet you contradict yourself in your next sentence.

However, in this case, sodomy WAS NOT within the bounds of criminal law.

How so?

[jmc813]

How so?

Because there was a Texas criminal law against it.

[tpaine]

My approval/disapproval of various sexual acts is immaterial to the constitutional issue of upholding individual rights.

I see, so you say that they have the right to engage in these acts, but refuse to say whether you actually approve or disapprove of those acts, thus leaving open the possibility that you can disapprove of what you say they have a right to do.

My personal disgust of their acts does not stop me from defending their rights.

That perfectly illustrates my point, namely: Saying that a person (or a state) has a right to do something is not the same as actually approving of it.

Not at all.
The state is attempting to criminalize the disgusting acts, without reason. No level of government has the power to jail anyone for a non-violent private consensual act, -- lest 'they' next decide, arbitrarily, that my acts are 'disgusting'.

The state must show proof of a compelling reason to infringe upon our liberty.

[tpaine]

"Privacy' is a simple word for a simple concept. Being left alone in a private home to do as you please [within the bounds of criminal law], is a basic right."

Therein lies the problem right there. I have no problem with what you mention above.

Yet you contradict yourself in your next sentence.

However, in this case, sodomy WAS NOT within the bounds of criminal law.

How so?

Because there was a Texas criminal law against it.

You are using circular logic .
The issue at hand is that the Texas criminal law was unconstitutional.
- Thus, you DO have a 'problem' with what I mentioned above.
IE, that:

"Privacy' is a simple word for a simple concept. Being left alone in a private home to do as you please [within the bounds of {constitutional} criminal law], is a basic right."

[CWOJackson]

They'll loose their grip when the morales gestapo kick in their door.

[billbears]

I'm a libertarian and I think those laws SHOULD be up to the states, not the feds

Well said. My state's sodomy law was overturned in this fiasco as well, contrary to the Tenth Amendment

[tpaine]

Yep, because Pauls belief they are ridiculous does not alter his support for them, a strange & illogical position, imo.
Life, liberty & property rights cover a lot of unenumerated ground, to me. The 'strict constructionists' notion that privacy rights are somehow 'new' is just a dodge to cover their moral opposition to abortion, imo.
Justices aren't finding new rights. The courts are being forced to enumerate formerly unenumerated rights that are being violated. IE- That a mans home is his refuge from the arbitrary regulations of public society has long been a part of common law.

There is a difference between supporting a law and opposing a SCOTUS ruling striking down the law. For example, if New York decided to lower their maximum speed limit to 45 MPH, it would restrict my liberty (to drive a safe but reasonably fast speed) and I would oppose the law, but I would not support striking it down on Constitutional grounds.

I, & many others, [and I bet Ron Paul] opposed the Feds 55 MPH limit on constituutional grounds. Why not?

Clearly it is not the job of the Federal government to set state speed limits by judicial fiat. I feel similarly about sodomy laws.

The USSC, [not the 'Fed-Gov'] is setting constitutional limits on a states powers to violate individual rights. That's their job.

We can disagree about whether the SCOTUS should strike down sodomy laws based on a right to privacy, but I (and Ron Paul) still oppose the sodomy laws. If Ron Paul were in the Texas government, I have no doubt he would be one of the biggest opponents of the law.

Yep. That's exactly what makes his position so strange & illogical.

[tpaine]

Why do you want your state to have the power to violate your right to close your bedroom door?