Ron Paul - Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution

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

[CWOJackson]

Then perhaps in your state there should be mandatory blood tests for everyone before they have sex. I can't speak for you but that would kind of ruin the mood for me.

[CWOJackson]

Pssst, Honey...you in the mood for a little blood test tonight? Yes! Alright, I'll notify the local board of Sexual Practises and Polices and tell them we're going straight missionary, alright?

Great, now you turn on the remote monitors so what we do can be monitored and verified as legal.

[xrp]

How about commit any act that doesn't interfere with the rights of other people?

For instance, if someone owns a tract of land 10 miles by 10 miles and no one else has access to it, would you have a problem with someone paving their own road and driving 120 miles per hour on it?

[xzins]

Again you miss the point.

The point is that sexual behavior is a legitimate issue for a legislature to discuss. They might decide that there is not danger clear and frequent enough for them to issue restrictions. They could decide there is a danger and issue restrictions.

It's no different than any other restriction.

[xrp]

mandatory blood tests for everyone before they have sex. I can't speak for you but that would kind of ruin the mood for me.

Shoot, the way legislation is going, we're approaching the point where you'll need consensual documents signed by both parties before engaging in sex. Otherwise, like in Illinois, it can be rape if sex is in progress and one individual says "NO, STOP" but the other party doesn't stop fast enough...

[Scenic Sounds]

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.

Well, the problem, though, is that in the Boy Scout case, the Supreme Court of New Jersey had held that under New Jersey law, the Boy Scouts could not discriminate against gay scout masters. The United States Supreme Court did not (and really could not) dispute that determination. Instead, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the New Jersey law was unconstitutional, i.e., that the State of New Jersey had no right to decide for itself that the New Jersey Boy Scouts had to accept gay scout leaders. Similarly, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a few weeks ago that the Texas sodomy law was unconstitutional, i.e., that the State of Texas had no right to decide for itself that private acts of sodomy are illegal.

Both decisions had a negative impact on states' rights. There were a lot of folks who applauded when the Supreme Court ruled against New Jersey and then were unhappy when the Court ruled against Texas. Aren't such folks being a bit inconsistent in attempting to pick and choose when they are fans of states' rights?

[Dead Dog]

And they sure the heck aren't the dictates of an attourny with impared English comprehension.

By the dictates of the English language, your "Constitutional Rights" are found in the 9th and 10th Amendment.

i.e. Talk to your state SC about it.

[AdamSelene235]

I think my Constitutional rights do provide me privacy in my own home, privacy that no state has a right to infringe upon.

Well you have a right to be free from warrantless *unreasonable* search and seizure but nowhere do I see a explicitly enumerated "right to privacy" that many claim to be Constitutional. I wish there were such a thing as I am a privacy freak.

To which amendment are your referring?

[ModernDayCato]

Careful. That's the kind of post that will get you suspended or banned here in Conservative paradise.

[AdamSelene235]

It is highly unusual for entrenched political instutions to reform themselves.

I very much doubt America is capable of any meaningful political reform at this point in her history.

Heck, a man who was on the Saudi payroll was appointed head of the 911 investigation and nobody batted an eyelash. If Saudi tyrants can murder thousands of our citizens and still remain "our friends" I seriously doubt political reform is a viable option.

No matter where you prod the state these days with even the shortest stick, its not just disfunctional its putrescent.

[Dead Corpse]

I'm aware of how screwed up the USSC, our legislators over-reaching their mandates, and for how long this has been going on. Starting back with Washington's abuse of the whiskey distillers.

[LiberalSlayer99]

Careful. That's the kind of post that will get you suspended or banned here in Conservative paradise.

I'll never abandon the Conservative movement. But can anyone deny the moderate tilt of the Republican party? I'm sure I'm not the first to express such doubts.

[Sandy]

The Court determined that...gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.”

Oh geez, not this again. How many times is this lie going to get repeated? The Court protected sodomy based on a right to liberty, not based on a right to privacy. I wish people could this straight.

[cinFLA]

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.

I really doubt it. The year 2002 was a 'disaster' for the pro-drug movement (head of NORML).

[xrp]

If you use Bush and the Republican Congress spending habits you could argue that they are to the left of Clinton.

Ouch.

[cinFLA]

On a Zogby poll (why America will not legalize marijuana)

I’ll begin with a June 24 Drug Policy Center press release that reports substantial support for legalizing marijuana: A poll by Zogby International released today found that 41% of Americans agree that “the government should treat marijuana more or less the same way it treats alcohol: it should regulate it, control it, tax it and only make it illegal for children.” This represents a striking increase from previous nationwide polls on making marijuana legal. . . . The poll released today interviewed 1,204 adults chosen at random nationwide. They were asked to agree or disagree with the following statement: “Some people say the government should treat marijuana more or less the same way it treats alcohol: it should regulate marijuana, control it, tax it, and only make it illegal for children.” The margin of error is +/- 2.9%. This is a poll based on a random sample, which is good (self-selected surveys, such as most Internet surveys, are bunk, because people who volunteer to answer such surveys are usually wildly unrepresentative of the population at large). And the question also seems pretty fairly worded. If you look closely, you see a possible glitch with the question: Literally, people were asked whether they agree that “Some people say . . . .” (I e-mailed the Drug Policy Center for the exact text of the question, and it confirmed this.) Some respondents might have said “Well, yes, some people do say that; I’ve heard them say it; so I’ll respond ‘I agree that some people say . . .,’ though I strongly oppose the pro-legalization sentiment itself.” So the text of the question is one possible source of error — but I suspect that most respondents (unlike law professors who, like me, used to be computer programmers) wouldn’t be that literal. And while the 41% is higher than I had expected, it’s not that far from the results that some other polls have shown (see, for instance, here, revealing a 34%-58% split on a more generally worded question in Fall 2002). Now I’m pleased by this 41% result, because I tentatively support legalization of marijuana. I say “tentatively” because I’m not an expert on the subject, and haven’t studied the important practical policy questions surrounding this issue. Still, my sense is that marijuana really isn’t any more harmful than alcohol, and the harms of outlawing it are greater than the harms of tolerating it. The experience of alcohol Prohibition suggests (though by no means proves) that marijuana prohibition is likely a mistake. And yet, if this is so, then why are there so few politicians who publicly support marijuana legalization in their campaigns? True, 57% of the public opposes marijuana legalization — but maybe that’s precisely because politicians haven’t really made the pro-legalization case yet, which provides an opportunity for savvy challengers. So you’d think that in at least some liberal areas, where the support is higher than 41%, pro-legalization candidates would try to make something of this issue. There are, however, two likely reasons why the picture is less bright for the legalization forces than one might think. First, I asked the Drug Policy Center for a breakdown of the results not just by agree vs. disagree, but also by the strength of agreement. (Many surveys, including this one, give people several options, and not just two.) Here’s what that breakdown ends up being:

Strongly agree with legalization — 23.5%.
Somewhat agree with legalization — 17.4%.
Somewhat disagree with legalization — 11.4%.
Strongly disagree with legalization — 45.3%.

Now that isn’t good news for the legalizers: Nearly half the public strongly opposes legalization, and less than a quarter strongly supports it.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Historically, there has been no practical relationship whatsoever between the concepts of "liberty" and "states rights", notwithstanding the claims of certain white trash politicians and pundits who somehow saw the systematic deprivation of voting and political rights to blacks as the highest expression of the freedom of whites.

[cinFLA]

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.

The Libertarian Party supports:

Same sex (whatever sex) unions

The right for a child to declare himself an adult at any age

Elimination of ALL drug laws (even for minors)

[jmc813]

So what do you think of this article? Agree with it?

[jmc813]

You sound like a bitter Gore supporter lamenting the Electoral College.