Ron Paul - Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution

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

[CWOJackson]

Feel free to allow the "state" to regulate your morality; what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is no concern on the "state".

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Present to me the right of privacy as stated in the Constitution of 1789 and the Bill of Rights in 1791."

Show me where in the Constitution your right to marry and raise children can be found.

[tpaine]

Where did Ron Paul find the words "States rights" in the Constitution?
-LG-



"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."


Read much Luis? -- Above's where he ~claims~ to have found them.
In one of those penumbra type thingys, no doubt...

[tpaine]

The right to privacy is not a constitutional right, and it is not an enumerated right. This however does not mean that it does not exist. It is an unenumerated right retained by the people.

"Ninth Amendment -- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
160 -LG-

There ya go luis, now it makes sense.

[Kevin Curry]

The USSC, [not the 'Fed-Gov'] . . .

LOL!

Hey, Mr. Constitutional Expert, the USSC is a branch of the federal government!

If you don't feel stupid, you ought to.

The best thing about this thread is that your hero, Ron Paul, says you are a tin-plated idiot. You're 180 degrees out from Rep. Paul. If he's conservative, and you're 180 degreees out, that makes you . . . . .

Well, we've long known about your anarcho-marxist Gramscian tendencies.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I read quite a bit Tommy, which is why I asked the question. The words "State's rights" are nowhere in the Constitution, and the Tenth talks bout "powers" not rights.

I guess Ron Paul finds things in the penumbra, yet he gives crap to others for finding stuff there as well.

[Luis Gonzalez]

In order for something to be a constitutional right, it has to be mentioned in the Constitution, or "enumerated" (that's why they call the constitutional rights).

Rights that we retain, but are not mentioned (enumerated) in the Constitution, are unenumerated rights.

Privacy is an unenumerated right.

[FreedomCalls]

Read the 9th & 10th amendments, then report back to me if & when you understand what they say

Are you daft? I simply restated the 9th and 10th amendments. The feds have the powers specifed in the constitution -- no more. The states retain all other powers unless the constitution prohibits them from retaining them. No where does it say the feds have any say-so over acts of sodomy. The states do, since it is not forbidden to them to regulate that activity. What's your problem with that interpretation?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights (Constitutional rights), shall not be construed to deny or disparage others (unenumerated rights) retained by the people."

Get it now?

Now, please answer my question.

Where in the Constitution can State's rights be found?

[FreedomCalls]

Feel free to allow the "state" to regulate your morality; what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is no concern on the "state".

That's your OPINION. That may even be my opinion, but that is not what is in the constitution. States have that power (or at least had it until the USSC Lawrence v. Texas ruling) and that is where the fight to remove those laws should occur. If you disagree with such a law on the books in your state, then you need to get your state legislators to alter or abolish it. You should not get the U.S. Supreme Court to issue new legislation abolishing it by dictat. They should not have that power.

[tpaine]

I guess Ron Paul finds things in the penumbra, yet he gives crap to others for finding stuff there as well.
-LG-


Boy Luis, you sure nailed that one.

Course, you've never given crap to others for doing as you do, -- have you?
- Here, -- let me [seeing I've never sinned] throw the first stone.

[nunya bidness]

Where in the Constitution can State's rights be found?

I'll take a shot. State's don't have rights. They have, through their legislature and executive branches, delegated authorities. These are specific and enumerated.

The notion of rights is quite simple. We the people have rights, not civil rights, not constitutional rights, not enumerated rights, but rights. That's it.

They aren't defined by government but rather despite it. Government, on the other hand, has limitations defined by us. This delegation of authority is the key to understanding rights but it is lost on most Americans due to apathy, lack of understanding, or both.

[tpaine]

Privacy is an unenumerated right.
167 -lg-


Yep. Privacy is a constitutional, -- unenumerated right.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"State's don't have rights."

Thank you.

Paul's entire article is based on a false premise.

[Luis Gonzalez]

To be a constitutional right, it has to be actually enumerated in the Constitution.

Privacy is not, so it is not a constitutional right.

It does not make it any less of a right, it's just not a constitutional right.

[tpaine]

The way Texas 'regulated' that activity was unconstitutional.

Read the Lawrence decision, and report back when you understand the concept.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Texas did not regulate sodomy, they in fact changed the older law and decriminalized it for the vast majority of the citizens, while keeping it a criminal activity it for the minority.

In doing that, Texas actually created the right to sodomy for the majority of its citizens, and denied it to others based on the sexual make-up of the couple involved.

Unconstitutional.

[FreedomCalls]

Read the Lawrence decision, and report back when you understand the concept.

My view is that the Lawrence decision was an unconstitutional overreach of federal powers into an area of states' rights (in fact just 15 years ago this same Supreme Court agreed with me). A fundamental bedrock of federalism is that there are areas where, even though the activity may be repugnant, the federal government is restrained from making laws to prohibit it. That is left to the states. I understand the concept of Lawrence -- I just disagree with it, as I disagree with the USSC Roe v. Wade decision that there is a "right to privacy" that allows a woman to have an abortion.

[Those_Crazy_Liberals]

"Well, we've long known about your anarcho-marxist Gramscian tendencies."

I'm more concerned with his Groucho-Marxist tendencies.