Ron Paul - Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution

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

[tpaine]

My point is, and has been, that you and the other poster have been arguing about a point when your definition of the word you are arguing about is different than theirs.
First, settle on the definition of the phrase "constitutional rights".
199


Tell me how my definition of the word differs from theirs. Two bits you can't.

[Sandy]

The real question is, are unenumerated rights supposed to be federally protected? Quite obviously the Supreme Court thinks that the liberty protected by the 14th Amendment includes unenumerated rights. But was that the intent of the 14th? Hell if I know, although I'm leaning towards no. What are the privileges or immunities of U.S. citizens, and what is liberty? These are the key words in the 14th Amendment, and their meaning is what the question boils down to. Brilliant minds have been arguing this issue for many many years. I'm certainly not about to stop scratching and give a definitive answer just yet.

[Sandy]

Correction: I'm certainly not about to stop scratching my head and give a definitive answer just yet.

[nunya bidness]

The real question is, are unenumerated rights supposed to be federally protected?

Marbury V. Madison says that rights are protected, or did I miss something?

[savagesusie]

"Seems like ron paul was pretty specific in saying the state has the right to regulate what is done in the privacy of my own home.

The STATE has the right to regulate actions that affect society. Are you insinuating that sodomy has no detrimental effects on society or the health system??? Are taxpayers NOT paying billions of dollars because of homosexual acts??? done in the "privacy" of their homes(not just in public restrooms and parks)???

[CWOJackson]

Magic Johnson didn't catch aides from gay sex; and how many hundreds or thousands of women did he infect? And how many more did they infect?

Perhaps you and your sex gestapo should just outlaw sex completely. We could always put cameras in everyones home to make sure they don't engage in nasty "sex".

[Sandy]

Of course rights should be protected, but by whom? I'm talking States versus Feds. Did the 14th turn all questions of rights into federal matters? It sure looks that way, but I don't think that was the intent.

[savagesusie]

When should the state regulate such behavior and when does it become personal responsibility? I'm of the opinion that government attempts to regulate personal responsibility intevitably fails.

The problem is that of the welfare state (communism) which makes the taxpayers pay for the results of sodomy which costs billions. If people take risks with their behavior--THEY should have to pay the costs. Then we need no laws on the reckless behavior done on "private property".

[tpaine]

Of course rights should be protected, but by whom? I'm talking States versus Feds. Did the 14th turn all questions of rights into federal matters?

No, it just reiterated the constitutions original intent, that we would have one "supreme Law of the Land", and that all states would be "bound therby".

It sure looks that way, but I don't think that was the intent.

The states are failing in their duty to check/balance federal power, and protect their citizens from federal abuse. This is a failure of our political systm, not one of our constitution.

[Sandy]

You are making the argument that Constitutional rights and unenumerated rights are the same

Actually, I believe tpaine is claiming that Constitutional rights include both enumerated and unenumerated rights.

[nunya bidness]

Of course rights should be protected, but by whom? I'm talking States versus Feds. Did the 14th turn all questions of rights into federal matters? It sure looks that way, but I don't think that was the intent.

I don't disagree. I think that the 14th is maligned. The 9th is further grist for the mill. Do you agree that it's as simple as the Feds providing protection for rights; I do.

It's a matter of semantics that protects rights and that should scare everyone.

[tpaine]

Luis wrote:
You are making the argument that Constitutional rights and unenumerated rights are the same... they are not.
-190-

Enumerated means "listed", unenumerated rights are not listed in the Constitution.
195 -Luis G-


Actually, I believe tpaine is claiming that Constitutional rights include both enumerated and unenumerated rights.
-sandy-


Bingo.
The ninth amendmend says that. I say that, and I can imagine only one reason why anyone would want to dispute that simple fact.

Luis, in his attempt to explain why all of our basic rights are not constitutional, simply belabors the obvious again at #195.

Enumeration has no bearing on a specific rights constitutionality. Rights are not to be denyed or disparaged.

Simple enough concept, unless you ~want~ to deny/disparage the right to privacy, for one specific reason.

[Luis Gonzalez]

F"Luis, in his attempt to explain why all of our basic rights are not constitutional"

Tommy, don't be an ass. If you are going to debate the legalities of things, the learn to use the correct terminology. Constitutional rights are those rights listed in the Constitution, these are also known as enumerated rights; the rest of our rights by the very fact that they are not listed in the Constitution are unenumerated. The fact that they are not enumerated does not make them any less viable or valid, and to drive that point home, the Founders wrote the Ninth Amendment.

In this thread you are arguing with people who do not understand that we have rights beyond those rights enumerated in the Constitution, and until the moment that you make them understand that unenumerated rights are as real and inviolate as those enumerated in the Constitution, you will neve make any one of them see the points you are trying to make.

Here I am trying to help you make your point and you turn into an ass.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Actually, I believe tpaine is claiming that Constitutional rights include both enumerated and unenumerated rights."

The correct phrase would be that fundamental rights include both Constitutional and unenumerated rights.

[MissAmericanPie]

It becomes the states business when what you do in the bedroom is not kept in the bedroom, but parades itself in black leather down main street demanding special rights.

[LiberalSlayer99]

The problem is that of the welfare state (communism) which makes the taxpayers pay for the results of sodomy which costs billions. If people take risks with their behavior--THEY should have to pay the costs. Then we need no laws on the reckless behavior done on "private property".

I agree with you wholeheartedly on this issue. People want to take risks, then they should be held accountable by incurring the costs that may arise from risky behavior. Of course, insurance usually ends up drilling people for risky behavior, but the state should not incur any costs for risky behavior (i.e. drug usage, sodomy, etc.).

[billbears]

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

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[inquest]

me: Saying that a person (or a state) has a right to do something is not the same as actually approving of it.

you: 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'.

Your response had absolutely nothing to do with my statement. Regardless of whether Paul's right or wrong in saying that the state has a right to pass these laws, his statement does not indicate that he approves of the passage of these laws.

[tpaine]

Here I am trying to help you make your point and you turn into an ass.
-Luis-


Here you are insisting upon trying to 'help' me make your non-existent point and you, as usual, try to turn it into a 'being an ass' contest.

Get help luis.

[tpaine]

Regardless of whether Paul's right or wrong in saying that the state has a right to pass these laws, his statement does not indicate that he approves of the passage of these laws.
-inquest-


See 121, where you made the same claim, and I quoted Pauls indication of approval.

You are going around in circles, denying that Paul is being irrational on this issue.