Ron Paul - Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution

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

[inquest]

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

Wrong. You quoted his indication that Texas has a right to pass its law, which as I carefully explained to you, is not an expression of approval.

Once again: Saying that a person or a state has a right to do A is not the same as approving of A.

[tpaine]

Parse it as you wish.
Specious word games do not change the facts of what he wrote. The reader can decide what he expressed.

[inquest]

The reader can decide what he expressed.

Sounds good to me.

[FreedomCalls]

Texas cannot make the very same activity legal for some and not others.

"...while a 20-year old can't drink, a 21-year old can..."

ALL 20 year olds can't, ALL 21 year olds can. Not different at all.

ALL men, homosexual or heterosexual, were prohibited from receiving anal sex, ALL women of both orientations were permitted.

[rcofdayton]

There is no realistic solution. We will continue to slide into tyranny. There are not enough to take up arms and successfully protect the rights granted under the Constitution. The ballot box offers no hope because Americans are so dumbed down they do not understand the Constitution. So its goodbye to the Constitution and freedom and hello to the Empire.

[mrsmith]

"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. "

There is no problem subjecting Ninth Amendment rights to the tests of the Fourteenth.
The Fourteenth says nothing about what these privileges etc are, but the Ninth says they are retained by the people- and that is where the court must look to for their definitions.
Once defined, the court can test them by the Fourteenth. But if the court just makes up it's own definitions it can always define them in a way that will give them cause to act as they wish. That is no rule of law at all.
In Griswold and in Bowens the court looked to the record of the people, as the Ninth requires, to tell what the unenumerated right is. That is how they had decided all questions of rights- even the enumerated ones when it wasn't clear.

The striking aspect of Lawrence was the total disregard for the Ninth amendment. Their dicta basically said "we don't care what rights the people have had or that they think they have", going so far as to cite European rulings for the court's new definition of liberty.

It seems they have finally given up trying to incorporate the Ninth into the Fourteenth, and have decided to ignore it. But an honest examination of the record to see the rights retained by us, including the majoritarian ones, solves all these questions of privileges and immunities.

Of course, getting answers from the people instead of from law-school theories doesn't offer much opportunity for aggrandizement.

[rcofdayton]

You are confusing a Constitutional issue with a political issue. The Constitution does not forbid the states (or Congress) from passing stupid laws. The issue of sodomy laws is a political argument, not a Constitutional one. The Constitution does not forbid states from outlawing sodomy.

[rcofdayton]

You are confusing a Constitutional issue with a political issue. The Constitution does not forbid the states (or Congress) from passing stupid laws. The issue of sodomy laws is a political argument, not a Constitutional one. The Constitution does not forbid states from outlawing sodomy.

[jmc813]

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".

What if illegal drugs are involved?

[jmc813]

The best thing about this thread is that your hero, Ron Paul, says you are a tin-plated idiot.

Not that I expect an answer, but do you agree with the general gist of this article?

[inquest]

There is no realistic solution. We will continue to slide into tyranny. There are not enough to take up arms and successfully protect the rights granted under the Constitution. The ballot box offers no hope because Americans are so dumbed down they do not understand the Constitution. So its goodbye to the Constitution and freedom and hello to the Empire.

Despair helps no one. Don't give in. There's no reason to.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"ALL men, homosexual or heterosexual, were prohibited from receiving anal sex, ALL women of both orientations were permitted."

That's not true at all, you don't even know the law, do you?

Texas statutes defined sodomy as "deviant sexual intercourse", sodomy being defined as any contact between one person's anal/oral cavity, and another person's genitalia.

What was prohibited was same-sex couples engaging in deviant sexual intercourse.

Your argument was debunked many, many times...including by the Supreme Court, only homosexual individuals would engage in same-sex sodomy, so the law as written was a targeted law.

To illustrate just how ridiculous your spin of the Texas law is, imagine that in Texas, the legislature decides to make participating in or conducting Jewish religious rituals illegal, and their argument to avoid the anti-semitic charges is that the law is equal for everyone, because it makes performing or engaging in Jewish religious rituals illegal not only for Jews, but for Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, and all other denominations as well.

[Luis Gonzalez]

My non-existent point Tommy?

The idea that only those rights listed in the Constitution are the only rights we have is the very thing that you are arguing against here.

Try a good twelve steps program, will you?

[tpaine]

The idea that only those rights listed in the Constitution are the only rights we have is the very thing that you are arguing against here.
-luis-

Of course it is, luis. Why do you find it necessary to belabor an obvious point that I've been making here since day one?

[inquest]

only homosexual individuals would engage in same-sex sodomy, so the law as written was a targeted law.

Yeah, it's "targeted" towards those who would be inclined to break it, as are all laws.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You dweeb, I was trying to halp you make the point to the hoi polloi, and got caught in friendly fire.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Yeah, it's "targeted" towards those who would be inclined to break it, as are all laws."

Laws are not targeted at anything other than an act. Obviously, Texans don't have a problem with sodomy, they made it legal for 97% of the population.

Laws do not target anyone, they apply equally to all. It does not matter what your sex, race, age, social status, religion, nationality, or whatever ckassification you may find, murder laws apply to you if you commit murder.

[inquest]

murder laws apply to you if you commit murder.

And same-sex sodomy laws apply to you if you commit same-sex sodomy.

[tpaine]

'Thanks' luis, but no thanks. -- Everyone here, to you, -- is a "dweeb".

Go patronize someone else.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Which is wrong, because the act itself is sodomy.

Texas criminalized the pairing of the participants making this an unequal law.

Imagine that we make murder only a crime if males commit murder.

Is that an equitable l;aw?

Of course not.

If sodomy, what Texas statutes described as "deviant sexual intercourse" was bad, then it should have been bad for anyone to do it.