Ron Paul - Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution

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

[CWOJackson]

"Do you think the state has the mandate to debate behaviors that could impact on others?"

Not when it's done in the privacy of my own home between two consenting adults...not at all. The state has no right to trample my Constitutional rights in that way.

[Scenic Sounds]

Of course.

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?

[jmc813]

Not when it's done in the privacy of my own home between two consenting adults...not at all. The state has no right to trample my Constitutional rights in that way.

If one was sitting in the privacy of their own home smoking a joint with a consenting adult and someone called a bogus report into the police causing them to break in and see you smoking, should they let you go?

[jmc813]

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?

Good question.

[Scenic Sounds]

And would it be fair to assume that Mr. Paul also feels that New Jersey should be able to implement laws designed to prevent the Boy Scouts from discriminating against gay scout leaders?

[Dead Corpse]

If the University of Michigan were a private institution, most certainly they could set their own admission standards.

[xzins]

So, if one of those 2 individuals has a new strain of totally anti-biotic immune syphilis, then you don't think that's a concern for the rest of us?

[Dead Corpse]

Once again, if the Boy Scouts are a private organisation, then they could prohibit anyone they want. Last I heard, the Boy Scouts were not a government funded entity.

[CWOJackson]

What "if" a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump it's tail so much.

[Scenic Sounds]

Once again, if the Boy Scouts are a private organisation, then they could prohibit anyone they want. Last I heard, the Boy Scouts were not a government funded entity.

Well, as I understand it, Mr. Paul is making a states' rights argument. He believes that, under our Constitutional system, the State of Texas should be permitted to determine for itself whether or not private acts of sodomy are legal or illegal within the State of Texas. Can he take that position and consistently argue that the State of New Jersey should not be entitled to decide for itself whether the Boy Scouts can or cannot discriminate against gay scout leaders?

[LiberalSlayer99]

Its been a pretty brutal summer for fiscal conservatives as well.

However, I hear the Republicans are doing Great!!!

I'll be honest here. I am so very fed up with the Republican party, I may end up voting Libertarian from here on in.

Reagan, who I voted for in 1984 (my first year voting), was great. I was hoping that Bush would keep that momentum.

In 1988 and 1992, I was active in politics and was elected precinct delegate...and I campaigned actively for George H.W. Bush. He let me down, both by raising taxes and his appointment of Justice Souter.

In 1996, I jumped on the "Contract with America" bandwagon and inevitably was let down (though they did provide a decent counter-balance to Commie Clinton).

Finally, in 2000 I voted straight ticket Republican again, hoping that if we had the White House and the House and Senate, we'd finally do something right. Bush goes ahead and increases spending on social programs, doesn't fight the left side of Congress on his judicial appointments, and doesn't cut taxes enough. I can't blame him for the Supreme Court, because he hasn't appointed anyone yet. If this is what the GOP has turned into...a moderate wing of the DemonRats, I'm finished with them.

[Dead Corpse]

Neither of which are under the Federal governments realm of responsiblity according to the Constitution.

[xzins]

Wrong, my friend.

It's a real case. The infected person was quarantined.

Besides, you dodged the question.

So, if one of those 2 individuals has a new strain of totally anti-biotic immune syphilis, then you don't think that's a concern for the rest of us?

[CWOJackson]

"It's a real case. The infected person was quarantined."

If they were quarantined then they should be in a controlled environment, not in the privacy of their own home. What goes on inside the home between consenting adults is none of the state or Ron Paul's concern.

[Scenic Sounds]

Neither of which are under the Federal governments realm of responsiblity according to the Constitution.

If that were the case, then both the Texas sodomy case and the New Jersey Boy Scout case were decided incorrectly by the U.S. Supreme Court and sodomy would still be illegal in Texas and the Boy Scouts would have to accept gay scout masters in New Jersey.

Right?

[LiberalSlayer99]

I guess that would also include the states' rights to ban smoking mj in the privacy of one's home?

My response is somewhat off-topic, but what the heck.

No, most Libertarians would support someone doing drugs...so long is it doesn't affect anyone else. For example, just as you can't drive drunk or show up to work drunk, you can't drive drunk or show up to work high. Face it the so-called War on Drugs is a dismal failure. My guess is that in the near future a state vote on legalizing marijuana would pass in a majority of states, just as sodomy would. Personally, I could care less if my neighbor engages in sodomy and smokes pot...so long as he isn't hurting anyone else with his behavior. I just don't want to know about it.

Of course, there are those of you that make the argument that the person will harm himself. People do things to harm themselves all the time. Smoking, drinking, sex w/o condoms, etc. 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.

Protect me from my neighbor that may try to steal from me or kill me, protect me from terrorists that may try to kill me, but do not try to protect me from myself. It's my life.

[Dead Dog]

That is between you and your state.

The feds have no jurisdiction:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If you can find a "right to privacy" in this then you can also find a right to a state funded abortion, you could also find seperation of church and state in the first, and you'll find that "the right of people to keep and bare arms" only applies to the National Guard.

[Dead Corpse]

If that is what the State courts decided. It would depend on whether the State courts violated their own Constitutions in deciding as they did.

Just for clarification. I hold the view that the Boy Scouts should be able to hire, or deny hire to, anyone they want since they are a private organization. By the same token, they should recieve no public tax money. As for gay sex, as long as it is between consenting adults I couldn't care what they do in their bedrooms.

[xzins]

You realize, of course, that your answer makes absolutely no sense. They were only quarantined after they were found to be a carrier of such a potentially harmful germ.

As long as disease can be passed via sexual contact, then what you do in your bedroom is not private business, and it SHOULD be debated and controlled.

Homosexuality, e.g., is an especially infectious behavior.

[CWOJackson]

Sorry, but my Constitutional rights aren't subject to the dictates of the local bedroom police.