True enough. Conversationally, let me ask you, just how do you view the 19th Amendment? Do you see it as the Constitutionally-provided-for method of changing the Constitution based on the new wisdom of a changed society (Living Constitution)? Or, do you see it as the correction of an inherent flaw in the Constitution that was truly inconsistent with the otherwise brilliant writings and beliefs of the Framers? (Insert slavery corollary here.) I've always thought that our position as conservatives was to adopt the latter view. It's interesting. Imagine legislation mandating a threshold IQ in order to obtain a license to bear children. What would a liberal or conservative Supreme Court do with this? Even though I'm not certain of the best arguments that would be made on either side, my gut tells me the result would be obvious. How do you see it?
If we are not going to institutionalize the imbecilic, should we then try to prevent the increase in their number by sterilization? Is this such a horrible alternative, especially in view of the fact that the insane or imbecilic becomes a burden on society?
Yes, it is a horrible alternative. I agree with you that it is wrong to simply let the severely mentally ill to just roam the streets. That solves nothing. However, in the controlled setting of a state institution, there is a big difference between discouraging procreative conduct and state mandated surgical sterilization. I don't believe it is in the state's interest to prohibit procreation based solely on IQ. Truly, if liberals were the ones in charge of making such decisions concerning me, neither of my two beautiful children would have ever been born.
But I know that you said earlier that you may agree with me morally, but that you were looking at it from simply a perspective of what is Constitutionally permissible. Regardless of what is "permissible" Constitutionally, we are allowed to hold opinions as to what is right and what is Constitutional. Even as a strict constructionalist, I would hold that forced sterilization is akin to slavery and (prohibition of) women's sufferage in that in view of "all-time" logic and "all-time" senses of liberty (as opposed to flavor-of-the-week contemporary judicial activism), regardless of specific Amendment, these rights (liberty irrespective of race, voting irrespective of gender, procreation irrespective of IQ) are all rights that are consistent with the ideal of the Framer's vision of ordered liberty and personal freedom. As you noted, there is a social cost (slavery - loss of free labor, women's suffrage - elected Clinton twice, mentally disabled procreation - burden to state if parents are unable to care for child). Unfortunately, the current liberal "judiciary" has increasingly been making value judgments in direct contravention to public will. I think we need more Article III judges who believe in the Framer's vision of ordered liberty. I think that such a result would be approved of by a majority of Americans even if they don'y understand why.
I am very firm on this because I view the Constitution as a contract between the people and its government. It is not only wrong, but immoral, for one party to change the terms of a contract unilaterally. That is what happens when the Courts – a branch of the government – change the basic meaning of the Constitution to adjust it to “the new wisdom of a changed society.” I believe that the people can be trusted to realize appropriate changes in society and to change the Constitution appropriately. Advocates of judicial activism do not believe that the people are smart enough – or enlightened enough – to do what is right. Therefore, in their view, these changes have to be made by the enlightened few (“the best and the brightest?”)
Today, we can point to the issues of female suffrage and slavery as defects in the Constitution. I would argue that both issues were settled by amendments (plus – in one case a war) not by judicial fiat.
When I speak of idiots, I am not referring to dumb people or individuals with a sub-par IQ, I’m referring to those with a medical condition. People who are literally not able to take care of themselves. Wards of their relatives – or of the state.
Perhaps in our modern “changed” society the right to fornicate with anyone or everyone, anytime and anywhere, drunk or sober, married or single to anyone of any gender or of an indeterminate gender – as long as they have either an orifice or a member is found in the Constitution. I can’t find it in mine, but it may very well be there, lurking like a ghost in the penumbras and emanations.
But a case can be made, and should not be cavalierly dismissed, that if the public is going to support the result of these couplings through the public purse – filled by the forced extraction from your pocket and mine – that the public should have some say about the issue. And the proper venue for that are the peoples representatives, not those who sit above the fray wearing black robes and beyond the reach of the electorate.
Want a kid? Fine, find a partner, procreate, support the offspring until he, she or it can support himself or herself. That can be done be people who are high or low IQ. What I object to is the assumed “right” of two idiots (in the clearest medical use of the word) producing more idiots who are then supported by my tax dollars. There may be majority who disagree with me. In that case, laws can be passed either prohibiting or allowing these events. But I maintain that when the Constitution is silent on this issue, it becomes a matter for the legislature. Remember the 10th Amendment? That is what this dispute was intended to cover.
Regarding the question of who would be in favor and who opposed: I assume Libertarians would favor idiots reproducing (but objecting to tax money being used to support the offspring) I imagine the Liberals would also support it, with a special subsidy for the offspring. Conservatives, hardhearted beasts that we are, would have a problem with idiots mating, let alone reproducing.