5 votes

WOW! Some Libertarians Cheer Government Rule over Will of The People - Incredible

We usually call these people Liberal rather than Libertarian, because Libertarians usually don't allow emotion to sway them.

The bottom line is we have ways we make Constitutional changes on a state and federal level. We do not cheer Constitutional Tyranny.

The people of California passed Prop 8, the State refused to defend the will of the people, therefore those that backed Prop 8 had to defend it. That is not allowed and that's is why the SCOTUS sent it back to the lower court.

Talk about the equality clause, where is the protection for the will of the people of California?

Yet some Libertarians are cheering the government over the right of the people, people who followed the rules, followed the the constitutional pathway to create a Constitutional Amendment.

I'm sure they would feel different if it were the court voiding the right to smoke marijuana in Colorado.

A dangerous slippery slope is Libertarians picking and choosing issues based on emotion rather than be consistent about the Constitution and the will of the people to overrule their government.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

True

Good post!!!

Ron Paul made it perfectly clear.. we are for human rights, not rights for gays, rights for women, rights for races, rights for religion.. these are the rabbit holes we need to eliminate, correct with solid laws so we can be free from the games.

I read your post,

and I feel like I'm missing something.

Hmm, oh yeah... to what Libertarians are you referring?

"Some" doesn't tell me much.

Libertarians

Support the constitution, which is a republic. The founders hated democracy, because they knew it was mob rule. Remember, the Bill of Rights supports "individual" rights, not the will of the majority.

Do libertarians support the rule of law or not?

I'm not anti-gay; I support gay marriage and polygamous marriage--as a libertarian I think marriage is irrelevant to the state and the state should have no opinion on the subject.

But in this situation, the SCOTUS opinion is ludicrous and scandalous. If a state constitutional amendment is blocked by a federal judge, every single voter obviously should have standing to appeal.

The federal government should have to show compelling evidence that any state constitutional amendment violates the US constitution, and no matter the parties in the case, the case should make its way up to the SCOTUS to be decided, not to be thrown out on a farce.

Take back the GOP and Restore America Now.

An unjust law is no law at

An unjust law is no law at all. Don't even mention city, county & state laws. They can arrest anyone, at anytime for violations of "the law" you speak of. I believe the average american commits 3 felony's a day without knowing.

www.coinaxis.com - ~ Learn more about bitcoin/litecoin, and how they relate to the liberty movement.

Excerpt from "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" - MLK, Jr.

One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.

http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

What if the people of the

What if the people of the state you resided in decided that you no longer had free speech? What if they voted unanimously to withdraw your right to practice your religion?

Some things are not decided on by the majorities of the populace; we are a nation of laws, not men. Laws that include certain rights encoded in the bill of rights, incorporate against the states by the 14th amendment.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Anyone should have standing

I make no claim that Prop 8 is unconstitutional or not, but it's obvious that any person who voted in favor of it has standing to appeal when a federal judge blocks the amendment. The SCOTUS' decision is ludicrous. The burden is on a plaintiff to show the proposition is unconstitutional, and the right to defend the amendment should lie in the hands of any voter in the state.

Take back the GOP and Restore America Now.

Not trying to sound rude but

Not trying to sound rude but I guess you haven't read the Constitution in a while. People of my state can't vote against something specifically laid out in the Bill of Rights. *shrugs*

So then no libertarian

So then no libertarian should've been in favor of any part of the civil rights act, since the act itself didn't abolish unconstitutional institutions. No libertarian should've cheered the end of segregation in government jobs, since the end of segregation didn't fix the problem of government largess.

The logic in this conclusion is flawed.

"Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito."

Try to understand

The government exist (or it's suppose to) for one reason, to defend and enforce individual rights, liberty and life. Civil rights bill crossed the line when it interfered with individual rights. People have the right to be hateful, racist, and intolerant. What they don't have the right to, is to do something to someone else that deprives them of their right to exist and own property. In other words, you can do what you want, as long as you don't physically hurt someone or steal from them.

Although I'm a fairly young

Although I'm a fairly young (30) male of African descent, being born and raised in Birmingham, Alabama, I can tell you this; change through force didn't work well in the city.

The real issue here ...

... is dereliction of duty. The court did not rule on anything having to do with rule of the majority or whether the law passed was constitutional or not. They simply said the appellant had no standing in court. So, they had no issue before the court to decide.

When the People of California passed the law, it was appealed. The employees of California are duty-bound to defend the laws of the state. But since they did not like the law, they refused to do their duty.

Since the lawyers for the state refused to defend the law in court, the people who brought forth the law (via proposition) stepped in to make the defense. The SCOTUS ruled they don't have standing so they cannot be involved in the case at all. Case dismissed.

So, what do we do when the employees of the state are guilty of dereliction of duty?

What do we do when the state refuses to enforce immigration laws?

What do we do when the state refuses to enforce presidential eligibility provisions in the Constitution?

What do we do when if a state refuses to defend medical marijuana laws they don't like when the feds take them to court, and the feds win by default because the other side doesn't show up?

And the same question arises in this case.

This is why we need to enforce laws against government employees who violate the law.

In this case, there was no constitutional or rights issue involved. It was strictly the failure of the California Attorney General to do the job he was hired to do.

Strictly speaking, gay marriage should be banned in California due to the law passed and the Attorney General should be going to prison for a few years.

Rule of Law or Rule by Oligarchs? That is the question.

Not familar with the libertarian principle: "Will of the people"

However, I am familiar with the libertarian principles of:

"You own yourself"
"Non-aggression principle"
"Taxation is theft"
"Natural rights"
"Free markets"
"Global non-interventionism"

Please direct me to this "Will of the people" libertarian principle of which you speak?

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."
- Ben Franklin

How about Individual Rights to Life, Liberty & Property for All?

just saying...

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

Sure, add them to the list!

But I'm still waiting for a reference to the "will of the people" libertarian principle.

What you said.

Mob rule is bad. Democracy allows 51% of the people to trample the rights of 49%. That is why this is a Republic.

Prop 8

Prop 8 passed by the tyranny of the majority. It was democracy in it's purest form...the 51% rules over the 49%. The "will of the people", is fickle and tyrannical, and always will be.

The question is not the court ruling that went against the 51%. The question is: How is it possible that society can vote a majority, over the rights of the minority?

All voluntary, peaceful interaction & contracts should be allowed, regardless if 99% of the people disapprove. There might come a day when you are the next American indian, slave, jew, christian, muslim, hippie, pagan, gypsy etc... that's being voted against.

The reality is, when prop 8 passed, it was a sad day. Because our gov allowed the tyranny of the majority to be placed on the ballot. When the supreme court ruled in favor of doma, it was a sad day. Because we are sandwiched between the tyranny of gov. and the tyranny of the democracy. Here we are, still begging for scraps of freedom.

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. ~Lysander Spooner

www.coinaxis.com - ~ Learn more about bitcoin/litecoin, and how they relate to the liberty movement.

rights

what are these "rights" you talk "of the minority?" As Dr. Paul says (I paraphrase), forget about gay rights, religious rights, black rights, womens rights. The only rights that matter are your right to liberty.

Those are the rights I'm

Those are the rights I'm referring to. The right to be free...

Liberty: : the quality or state of being free:
a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e : the power of choice

www.coinaxis.com - ~ Learn more about bitcoin/litecoin, and how they relate to the liberty movement.

I'm not cheering this decision.

Contrary to some moon-bats who are likely Democrats by registration, I don't see this decision as good or in anyway solving the problem. The fact that marriage is a government regulated institution is what is poisoning it, not who is marrying who.

And for those who don't like Rand Paul's stance on this or the religious right, remember that liberty includes the right to not like what other people do, and speaking for myself, I draw the line at the supreme court making ANY determination on what constitutes a valid marriage. It reeks of a god complex that is usually reserved for petty tyrants like our current president and his predecessor.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

Really we need "Seperation of Marriage and State"

"Marriage" is just a dictionary term, a cultural institution about which there is disagreement.

Different entities can have different interpretations of the meaning of this term.

Laws shouldn't mention the term "marriage". We don't need government to write our dictionaries.

If the government chooses for some reason to bestow benefits on members of civil unions, it has a constitutional obligation to treat all civil unions equally. Just remove the controversial term "Marriage" from the books.

Of course this goes against the natural trend of government to assume its domain is boundless, with no regard to the social conflict it creates by picking winners and losers.

I like

your statement here, nicely put

Fair point...

People can debate DOMA on federalist grounds, but the projection that state sanctioned gay marriage is a victory is misplaced.

I will one up you though--if someone wanted to destroy emerging "gay" wealth--let them get married. Divorce (which will now include palimony and common law) should take a chunk out of that.

Just as legalized abortion will do to the homosexuals, what it has done to those with Down Syndrome.

Longtime Internet Poster

nice points

and interesting about abortion and homosexuals like downs syndrome. I never really thought of that, I can Definately see people using abortion that way.

It's already underway...

...that is the scary part.

Nobody knows for sure if there is a gay gene so it cannot be "pre-tested" like some genetic diseases, but it can be "looked at" in utero and odds/chances realized--like Down Syndrome.

Longtime Internet Poster