Dr. Paul and the 14thSubmitted by rokdevil on Fri, 06/20/2008 - 15:34
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.