0 votes

Dr. Paul and the 14th

I came across this article yesterday. After reading the article (which was pretty much poppycock ) I ended up in a short discussion with this guy. He started somewhat petty but corrected his manner and posted an interesting link to something Dr. Paul said.
And I quote (Dr. Paul ):
Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.

How does this jive with libertarianism? Doesn't an individual have the right to do whatever they desire, provided it doesn't affect the liberty of anyone else?
This seems to be something on which I don't agree with Dr. Paul (one of the very few ) but I've also found this article that shows a list of Dr. Paul's resolutions in congress that most libertarians would not agree with.

My final comment to the original article ended with:

Now, having said all of that I still have to say that the practical application of Dr. Paul in the White House would have very little negative effect upon the Constitution but would have a huge positive effect on our Foreign Policy and Domestic monetary Policy, the two areas where we desperately need help.

Any thoughts?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Judging from strictly a Constitutional position, without

regard to how Libertarian Dr. Paul is or isn't and without invoking biblical references (to which I have no objection), I would tend to side with Dr. Paul's assertion regarding the 10th Amendment, which has been essentially gutted over the past several decades along with the 9th Amendment. My reason for agreement with his construction is that the 10th Amendment, if it were actually followed, was intended as an important statement of the limitations on the powers of the central government. At the time of its adoption and ratification, the States (who mistrusted a central government only a tiny bit less than they mistrusted each other) had operated under a fairly similar provision in the Articles of Confederation which stated: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

An earlier supreme court actually put it much better when it said:

"The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered." (surrendered to the central government) U.S. v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941)

By constructing the argument on the 10th Amendment, Dr. Paul is, without specifically saying so, making reference to one of the most important principles of government addressed by the founders. The founders were only too aware of the dangers inherent in transferring power away from States and to a far away seat of the central government. In pushing the issue back to the States, the question then resides in a forum of government that is supposed to be "closer to the people".

Best regards.

_________________________________________
"An economy built on fiat money is a society on its way to ashes."

Ok, let's look a little deeper

Checkout this link and read Sec 3.

The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--

(1) shall not adjudicate--

(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;

(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or

(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and

Shouldn't the federal court have the power to keep states from making or enforcing laws that deal with sexual practices or choice? What about marriage rights?

Ron Paul is not Libertarian...

he is Republican. and i agree with him on this.

our rights do not come from the Constitution...but from the Creator. and the Creator said...

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

1Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate,

    nor abusers of themselves with mankind

,...
1Corinthians 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

2Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

Funny

I think it is funny when christians quote from the bible......

Knowing that the stories that lay within are no more true than that of the hobbit or old west tall tales......

JUst because you believe in a Christian God and he says that homosexuality is immoral...thats your position...but.....you have absolutley no right to force your beliefs on others......

Moral Fascism is becoming a sweeping trend in the CFL.....

Ron Paul is a christian but you noticed he never once used his religious beliefs to justify a position....i suggest we all do the same

Funny

I think it is funny when christians quote from the bible......

Knowing that the stories that lay within are no more true than that of the hobbit or old west tall tales......

JUst because you believe in a Christian God and he says that homosexuality is immoral...thats your position...but.....you have absolutley no right to force your beliefs on others......

Moral Fascism is becoming a sweeping trend in the CFL.....

Ron Paul is a christian but you noticed he never once used his religious beliefs to justify a position....i suggest we all do the same

The right to life is in the Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident... all men are created equal...are endowed by the creator with certain unalienable rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. ones liberty does not include the right to kill another person.

We have to live with the Constitution we have....

He right on the money but I'm sure we'll be hearing more about this... the 10th amendment says very clearly

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Mike
"Fire Team for Freedom" and "Operation Daily Paul"
on revolutionbroadcasting.com
or visit www.mikeandjake.com

Mike
"Fire Team for Freedom"
visit www.mikeandjake.com

In the quoted

text doesn't Dr.Paul seem to be saying that states have the right to legislate morality? And how does that fit in with his attempts to protect unborns? Couldn't that be considered a state issue?

Ron Paul's position on abortion has always been

Fortune Favors the Bold

While he is personally against it, the federal goverment has no jurisdiction on the matter, one way or the other. It is the role of the states to legislate that.

He is not saying the states have the right to legislate morality, he is saying the federal government, with the powers it currently has enumerated in the constitution, does not have the authority to prevent them from doing so.
It is a subtle but important distinction.
It is sort of like a police officer saying, I personally believe this person has committed murder, but I without evidence I can't arrest him. That doesn't mean he believes the murdered has the right to murder, but recognizes that it is important, as a member of the government, to not overstep one's legal authority.

Fortune Favors the Bold

Again

Fortune Favors the Bold

The implied right to privacy in the constitution is a restriction on government intrusion or surveillance.
The interpretations of right to privacy, with regard to states legislating criminal behavior, are an artifically derived power of the federal government given to it by the courts. Ron Paul is nothing if not consistent (this was a statement he made, keep in mind). It does not imply that Texas is right, or that the law Texas made was just, but rather that the constitution does not give the federal government the power it is being granted. One must be careful with this sort of thing, because when granting power in one instance where it is desirable, the same power can later be used for other purposes.
I would personally be in favor of a constitutional libertarian type guarantee of privacy and individual rights, but if you are following the rule of law, such a guarantee does not currently exist.

Fortune Favors the Bold

Is Dr Paul a libertarian?

Hm. Well most of those on the list are right to life issues, which are a matter of legal and moral definition. Dr. Paul's statement is correct, consider Justice Thomas' dissent on the vote:

"Justice Thomas, in a separate short dissenting opinion, wrote that the law which the Court struck down was "uncommonly silly" (a phrase from Justice Potter Stewart's dissent in Griswold v. Connecticut), but that he voted to uphold it as he could find "no general right of privacy" or relevant liberty in the Constitution. He added that if he were a member of the Texas Legislature he would vote to repeal the law."

(wikipedia)

Where the Federal constitution fails to protect individual rights by direct enumeration, it is the responsibility of the people to either enumerate the right by amendment, or for the states to protect the rights by further action within their respective constitutions.

shameless...

bump