Ron Paul on Lawrence v. Texas and 'penumbras of the Constitution'

[Fr3shjive]

http://www.24hgold.com/english/contributor.aspx?rss=true&article=2276860090G10020&redirect=false&contributor=Ron+Paul

Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution
by Ron Paul - Daily Paul
Published : August 11th, 2003

It’s been a tough summer for social conservatives, thanks to our federal courts. From “gay rights” to affirmative action to Boy Scouts to the Ten Commandments, federal courts recently have issued rulings that conflict with both the Constitution and overwhelming public sentiment. Conservatives and libertarians who once viewed the judiciary as the final bulwark against government tyranny must now accept that no branch of government even remotely performs its constitutional role.

The practice of judicial activism- legislating from the bench- is now standard for many federal judges. They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as hopelessly outdated, instead treating the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case. For judges who see themselves as social activists, their vision of justice is more important than the letter of the laws they are sworn to interpret and uphold. With the federal judiciary focused more on promoting a social agenda than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office.

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.

Similarly, a federal court judge in San Diego recently ordered that city to evict the Boy Scouts from a camp they have run in a city park since the 1950s. A gay couple, with help from the ACLU, sued the city claiming the Scouts’ presence was a violation of the “separation of church and state.” The judge agreed, ruling that the Scouts are in essence a religious organization because they mention God in their recited oath. Never mind that the land, once privately owned, had been donated to the city for the express purpose of establishing a Scout camp. Never mind that the Scouts have made millions of dollars worth of improvements to the land. The real tragedy is that our founders did not intend a separation of church and state, and never envisioned a rigidly secular public life for America. They simply wanted to prevent Congress from establishing a state religion, as England had. The First amendment says “Congress shall make no law”- a phrase that cannot possibly be interpreted to apply to the city of San Diego. But the phony activist “separation” doctrine leads to perverse outcomes like the eviction of Boy Scouts from city parks.

These are but two recent examples. There are many more, including the case of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who was ordered by a federal court to remove a Ten Commandments monument from Alabama courthouse property.

The political left increasingly uses the federal judiciary to do in court what it cannot do at the ballot box: advance an activist, secular, multicultural political agenda of which most Americans disapprove. This is why federal legal precedents in so many areas do not reflect the consensus of either federal or state legislators. Whether it’s gun rights, abortion, taxes, racial quotas, environmental regulations, gay marriage, or religion, federal jurists are way out of touch with the American people. As a society we should reconsider the wisdom of lifetime tenure for federal judges, while Congress and the President should remember that the Supreme Court is supreme only over other federal courts- not over the other branches of government. It’s time for the executive and legislative branches to show some backbone, appoint judges who follow the Constitution, and remove those who do not.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm a huge RP supporter but I found it very surprising that RP doesn't recognize a right to privacy or the right to do what you want in the privacy of your own home. For somebody who champions freedom as much as he does this seems like a huge contradiction in his beliefs.

Do you guys agree with RP's reasoning here?

[t0rnado]

Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution.

There's clearly no right to breath either found anywhere in the Constitution. I don't know if he really believes this since he always fights for the right to privacy.

[Matthew Zak]

http://www.24hgold.com/english/contributor.aspx?rss=true&article=2276860090G10020&redirect=false&contributor=Ron+Paul

Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution
by Ron Paul - Daily Paul
Published : August 11th, 2003

It’s been a tough summer for social conservatives, thanks to our federal courts. From “gay rights” to affirmative action to Boy Scouts to the Ten Commandments, federal courts recently have issued rulings that conflict with both the Constitution and overwhelming public sentiment. Conservatives and libertarians who once viewed the judiciary as the final bulwark against government tyranny must now accept that no branch of government even remotely performs its constitutional role.

The practice of judicial activism- legislating from the bench- is now standard for many federal judges. They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as hopelessly outdated, instead treating the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case. For judges who see themselves as social activists, their vision of justice is more important than the letter of the laws they are sworn to interpret and uphold. With the federal judiciary focused more on promoting a social agenda than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office.

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.

Similarly, a federal court judge in San Diego recently ordered that city to evict the Boy Scouts from a camp they have run in a city park since the 1950s. A gay couple, with help from the ACLU, sued the city claiming the Scouts’ presence was a violation of the “separation of church and state.” The judge agreed, ruling that the Scouts are in essence a religious organization because they mention God in their recited oath. Never mind that the land, once privately owned, had been donated to the city for the express purpose of establishing a Scout camp. Never mind that the Scouts have made millions of dollars worth of improvements to the land. The real tragedy is that our founders did not intend a separation of church and state, and never envisioned a rigidly secular public life for America. They simply wanted to prevent Congress from establishing a state religion, as England had. The First amendment says “Congress shall make no law”- a phrase that cannot possibly be interpreted to apply to the city of San Diego. But the phony activist “separation” doctrine leads to perverse outcomes like the eviction of Boy Scouts from city parks.

These are but two recent examples. There are many more, including the case of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who was ordered by a federal court to remove a Ten Commandments monument from Alabama courthouse property.

The political left increasingly uses the federal judiciary to do in court what it cannot do at the ballot box: advance an activist, secular, multicultural political agenda of which most Americans disapprove. This is why federal legal precedents in so many areas do not reflect the consensus of either federal or state legislators. Whether it’s gun rights, abortion, taxes, racial quotas, environmental regulations, gay marriage, or religion, federal jurists are way out of touch with the American people. As a society we should reconsider the wisdom of lifetime tenure for federal judges, while Congress and the President should remember that the Supreme Court is supreme only over other federal courts- not over the other branches of government. It’s time for the executive and legislative branches to show some backbone, appoint judges who follow the Constitution, and remove those who do not.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm a huge RP supporter but I found it very surprising that RP doesn't recognize a right to privacy or the right to do what you want in the privacy of your own home. For somebody who champions freedom as much as he does this seems like a huge contradiction in his beliefs.

Do you guys agree with RP's reasoning here?

Maybe I'm just tired, but the point of the article seems to me to be about states rights. The context he talks about sex is similar to me how he talks about prostitution. No matter what the subject is, leave it to the states, through their elected officials, to make policy, and not the federal government. He even agrees in the article that sodomy laws are ridiculous.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Incredibly BAD title!

[Fr3shjive]

Incredibly BAD title!

"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."

I'd say it's pretty accurate. Unless somebody can clear this up, I think this is the only issue that I strongly disagree with RP on.

[MelissaWV]

"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."

I'd say it's pretty accurate. Unless somebody can clear this up, I think this is the only issue that I strongly disagree with RP on.

It isn't accurate, no. Changing "The" to "State" would make the title accurate.

In fact, he's correct. States can decide how to regulate social matters, if they are to regulate them at all. This would include any number of things. Without the Government's force behind it, though, how long would the laws last? Why would a state do this? What would the advantage be? How likely is it that even a majority of states would do this?

Other social matters that should be left up to the state include age of consent (this is how it is now), but we don't label people who think that way as being pro-molestation.

[FrankRep]

"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."

I'd say it's pretty accurate. Unless somebody can clear this up, I think this is the only issue that I strongly disagree with RP on.

States are allowed to have sodomy laws. (Not the Federal Government)

[Fr3shjive]

States are allowed to have sodomy laws. (Not the Federal Government)

I think the issue is that RP doesn't recognize the right to privacy in the constitution. Sodomy laws really aren't that big of an issue to me but if two consenting adults chose to engage in that activity shouldn't they have the right to, regardless of who made the law, state or federal government.

[FrankRep]

I think the issue is that RP doesn't recognize the right to privacy in the constitution. Sodomy laws really aren't that big of an issue to me but if two consenting adults chose to engage in that activity shouldn't they have the right to, regardless of who made the law, state or federal government.

I bet Ron Paul knows the Constitution better than you do.

[Sola_Fide]

Wrong title, great article.

[FrankRep]

he First amendment says “Congress shall make no law”- a phrase that cannot possibly be interpreted to apply to the city of San Diego. But the phony activist “separation” doctrine leads to perverse outcomes like the eviction of Boy Scouts from city parks.

The separation of church and state is fictional, not in the Constitution

Thank you Ron Paul. :)

[123tim]

Incredibly BAD title!

Agreed.
Very misleading.

I actually Googled the exact term "Ron Paul: The government has the right to regulate social matters like sex " and I found that this title originates from a site called mynucleus.com which seems to negatively re-title and link to positive articles. One other article linked is called "Paulsterbators regroup as money bomb falls 9 million short of Romney" and then links to a positive money-bomb report.

Unfortunately, the only other complete link of "Ron Paul: The government has the right to regulate social matters like sex" is the first hit and it leads directly to this forum.

Would I be out of line to suggest that the title of this post be changed?
No offense to the original O.P.

[Tonewah]

Where is the original of this article? I looked on the Daily Paul, which is where the website linked to in the original post (24hgold.com ?), and I saw no sign of this article, nor any original articles written there by Dr. Paul. Ever. Just sayin'.

[Brett85]

I think the issue is that RP doesn't recognize the right to privacy in the constitution. Sodomy laws really aren't that big of an issue to me but if two consenting adults chose to engage in that activity shouldn't they have the right to, regardless of who made the law, state or federal government.

There is no general right to privacy in the Constitution. There's a specific right to privacy contained in the 4th amendment, but the 4th amendment doesn't give people the right to engage in sodomy. The idea that the Constitution should strip power from the states is a very liberal interpretation of the Constitution. There are clearly states' rights found in the Constitution, as articulated in the 10th amendment. However, there is no right to privacy.

[Peace&Freedom]

Should the Bible belt impose its values on San Francisco? Should San Francisco impose its values on the Bible Belt? Paul has always championed local or states rights as a means of keeping regulation (including decisions about whether or not, or how to regulate) outcomes decentralized. Libertarians in fact have conflicting approaches on abortion, homosexuality, God in government, etc, especially as to whether a third party is involved in allegedly "personal" matters.

There is no one-size-fits-all way to reconcile the application of the non-aggression principle on social issues that will fully reconcile social-left leaning libertarians with social-right leaning libertarians. It's better to recognize the sovereign right of area X to work out the best local solution, and give the dissenters the freedom to seek what they think is a better solution elsewhere in area Y.

[sailingaway]

There's clearly no right to breath either found anywhere in the Constitution. I don't know if he really believes this since he always fights for the right to privacy.

You will notice that the real point here is that the FEDERAL government DOESN'T have the right to get involved. It was a federalism issue. I don't know, I think those laws are stupid and wrong, and he implies he thinks so too, but to say they are unconstitutional is a different issue. It is the means of analysis. And he is right that since the federal government has no right to regulate this, it is left to the states if there is any right at all. Given that there were tons of these laws at the time of the constitution, it is hard for a strict constructionist to say it is the Constitution that bans them. But that doesn't mean the Constitution SHOULDN'T ban them just as it was amended to ban slavery. I think the distinction is not if he thinks the law is ok, but if his reading of the Constitution says the Constitution addresses it. Overall, having activist judges is a bad thing.

I'm torn on this, because I 'could' read the fourteenth amendment differently if I ignore history and a hundred years of interpretation before the activist judges came on board. I don't think there should be laws like that, certainly. But if you give an expansionist reading one place, do we accept a precedent everywhere? I wouldn't mind being convinced on this one that the precedent wouldn't be damaging, to be honest.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I bet Ron Paul knows the Constitution better than you do.

Pony up an argument, provide evidence for your argument, but that kind of appeal to authority fallacy attacking people has no place.

Ron Paul has emigration positions that contradict the constitution that have been empirically demonstrated. The federal political subdivision doesn't automatically derive de facto sovereignty on anything much less border sovereignty that has not been expressly delegated.

Contrary to what is often advocated. The tenth amendment reserves power to the states AND the people respectively. That is because states do not have unlimited sovereignty either as state constitutions are mandates of political powers a state may exercise.

If a state decided it wanted to adopt Sharia Law instead of Common Law in it's state constitution would you be openly supporting so called state rights? :rolleyes:

[Sola_Fide]

Key excerpts...



Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had 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. state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.



The political left increasingly uses the federal judiciary to do in court what it cannot do at the ballot box: advance an activist, secular, multicultural political agenda of which most Americans disapprove. This is why federal legal precedents in so many areas do not reflect the consensus of either federal or state legislators. Whether it’s gun rights, abortion, taxes, racial quotas, environmental regulations, gay marriage, or religion, federal jurists are way out of touch with the American people. As a society we should reconsider the wisdom of lifetime tenure for federal judges, while Congress and the President should remember that the Supreme Court is supreme only over other federal courts- not over the other branches of government. It’s time for the executive and legislative branches to show some backbone, appoint judges who follow the Constitution, and remove those who do not.


Secularists are going to hate Ron's advice here, but it is airtight reasoning constitutionally speaking. This is why I am a Ron Paul supporter. He understands the original intent....many of his "supporters" do not understand original intent.

[ExPatPaki]

If a state decided it wanted to adopt Sharia Law instead of Common Law in it's state constitution would you be openly supporting so called state rights? :rolleyes:

Well FrankRep hates Muslims because he's bigoted and supports Israel because they shoot at innocent Muslim protesters, so no.

[sailingaway]

The link doesn't work, bolstering the idea that this came via a hack job site, and I think it is fair to say this site doesn't want to borrow hack job titles against Ron from some hack job site so I'll change that. However, in a quick legal google, this case is highly controversial as an 'expansionist case' precedent for rewriting the Constitution overall, rather like that case about the federal government regulating the farmer's wheat when his own cattle ate the wheat they grew. That and my own reading makes me believe strongly that Ron's concern here was states rights and strict construction of the Constitution, and his own 'silly' applied to sodomy laws makes it clear that in 2003 his views weren't different from what they are now about the government staying out of these things.

You can buy this LexisNexis article for $12 or so if you want, but the lead in language framed by the gender issues paper at Harvard Law school makes it clear why this case is controversial as a LEGAL precedent:


Three years after Lawrence v. Texas 1 was decided, the jurisprudential significance of the case has not faded, and the political passions it initially evoked have not cooled. In particular, critics continue to charge the Lawrence Court with intervening directly in the ongoing "culture war," grossly overstepping its proper role of enforcing the people's own armistice lines by enforcing existing law. 2 In a show of unabashed hubris and hypocrisy, we are told, the majority relied upon its own judgment as to the scope of the "liberty" John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner were "due," rather than on any constitutional rule proscribing sodomy laws. 3 In effect, the Court's detractors argue that the Constitution is simply silent on the question of same-sex intercourse, yet the Justices presumed to speak in its name anyway--with a nominal nod to the most general, and therefore the most plastic, of all constitutional clauses. 4

https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=30+Harv.+J.L.+%26+Gender+203&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=5501a4e4bfcfe1fd36d9fba099ba7ee0

I'd certainly support getting rid of any and all sodomy laws or similar infringements on what I consider to be personal choices, but if the Constitution is flawed, you need to deal with it head on, if you want to keep it intact as a shield on other issues. As I said, I'd love to find an exception for this one that doesn't create a bad precedent, and I don't have a real conviction here. But I'm pretty clear that that is what Ron was saying.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Well FrankRep hates Muslims because he's bigoted and supports Israel because they shoot at innocent Muslim protesters, so no.

No offense, but that post is as poorly worded as the FrankRep post I criticized. Hate is a strong accusation to level against someone. What is the evidence of hate?

If someone repeatedly complains about something that can be demonstrated false with evidence... that is pretty good evidence of fear, but hate?

[cjm]

One can recognize that a State has a certain power and that this power is consistent with the views of the Citizens of that State without personally endorsing those views or the exercise of that power. I didn't read any endorsement of anti-sodomy laws here, only that the federal government is out of its jurisdiction. But I can say that it was phrased in a way that should appeal to social conservatives that might be voting in a GOP primary next year.

[ExPatPaki]

What is the evidence of hate?

You can look at the threads FrankRep starts, which are completely full of biased propaganda articles against Islam and Muslims.

I have yet to see one thread by FrankRep against Christians or Jews.

[teacherone]

thanks for the title change most omnipotent mods!

[sailingaway]

You can look at the threads FrankRep starts, which are completely full of biased propaganda articles against Islam and Muslims.

I have yet to see one thread by FrankRep against Christians or Jews.

I suspect you could find a less inflamatory way of wording your concern, though, and I'd appreciate it if you would.

[YumYum]

Should states have fornication laws if they want?

[sailingaway]

Should states have fornication laws if they want?

It isn't whether they should have them but whether they are covered by the Constitution that is the issue. There are all sorts of things that are important that are not covered by the Constitution. The Constitution was not designed to address all ills but to restrain federal government to a small list of places where it could act. States have to be dealt with at the state level. If we say we want the Constitution to force states in areas where we want the Constitution read differently, how do we STOP it from being read differently when OTHERS want it read that way? The Constitution needs a clear and nonexpansionist interpretation, and needs to be amended to change it. Those procedural protections are very important.

To paraphrase a line by Ron Paul in 'Revolution', "A Constitution that can be read to say anything you want might as well be blank."

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

You can look at the threads FrankRep starts, which are completely full of biased propaganda articles against Islam and Muslims.

I have yet to see one thread by FrankRep against Christians or Jews.

I don't have a problem with bias in and of itself because everyone has a bias whether they acknowledge it or not. I am opposed to inaccuracy and have been critical in many of the threads you refer to. When there was a case here in Florida of a court arbitrating a private agreement, based on the agreement, between two people of Muslim faith, who created a thread complaining about it? Yup... I get your point...

But despite all of those threads that have been created I can't think of any that have ever been created calling for bombimg people in the middle east.

Unfortunate an organization such as JBS, which is the source of many articles cited by FrankRep, that claims to be a faith based organization advocating liberty... demonstrates no interest or initiative building faith based liberty coalitions. There is a very strong liberty coalition that could be created between Christians and Muslims. Building such a coalition fosters trade, communication, and good will among men. If there was such a coalition you likely wouldn't be articulating the point you just did because the articles or writings would not be so one sided and there might even be articles or writings from the opposing viewpoint or dissent.

[YumYum]

It isn't whether they should have them but whether they are covered by the Constitution that is the issue. There are all sorts of things that are important that are not covered by the Constitution. The Constitution was not designed to address all ills but to restrain federal government to a small list of places where it could act. States have to be dealt with at the state level. If we say we want the Constitution to force states in areas where we want the Constitution read differently, how do we STOP it from being read differently when OTHERS want it read that way? The Constitution needs a clear and nonexpansionist interpretation, and needs to be amended to change it. Those procedural protections are very important.

To paraphrase a line by Ron Paul in 'Revolution', "A Constitution that can be read to say anything you want might as well be blank."

I see your point. This is why I feel the Constitution is so ambiguous and has failed us miserably. The Constitution should be "cut and dry, in black and white", with no room for "second guessing". If the Constitution hasn't failed us, why do we have a $14.5 trillion debt? Why are politicians allowed to continue as crooks and hurt Americans and destroy our future? We praise the Constitution, and then argue about what it means. Even the founding fathers argued about what it meant. So, what is the point? The "general welfare clause" can be, and has been, interpreted to mean just about whatever people want it to mean.

As far as the states having the right to make sodomy laws, my question is: where does it end? Can the states rob us of our freedoms and liberties, while the Federal government is condemned for doing so?

[sailingaway]

I think a strict interpretation of the Constitution makes it clear, and then it can be amended as necessary, where sufficient consensus exists.

As to sodomy rights, I think what we do with our own bodies voluntarily is something the government should stay out of except in extreme circumstances that don't occur to me at the moment, and sodomy isn't one of them. But I don't think the Constitution addresses it.

[FrankRep]

No offense, but that post is as poorly worded as the FrankRep post I criticized.

I just said Ron Paul knows the Constitution better than Fr3shjive. You disagree with my statement?

[Pericles]

The US Constitution only limits the states in 3 ways:

(1) Power removed from the states (Article 1 Section 10) No state shall ...

(2) Supremacy of the US Constitution over state Constitutions and laws (Article VI)

(3) Rights reserved to the people (Amendments)

The "right to privacy" is an implication from the text, but is specifically designed in limiting the ability of the government to discover evidence that it does not already have:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That this text means that I have a right to have any form of sex with anyone who consents to do so, is a creature of a Constitution different from the one I have.

[Peace&Freedom]

One nice thing about the Lawrence decision from the point of view of deflating the "precedent is God" status of the Supreme Court, is the fact that it essentially reversed a SC decision from just decades prior that upheld the right of states to have sodomy laws. In other words, decisions that social liberals don't like can be reversed or overturned. That takes away their argument that decisions they do like (such as Roe, Dalton e al) can't be overturned because they are "superprecedents."

[123tim]

thanks for the title change most omnipotent mods!

Yes, thank you.
Best Mods in the world. :)

[jmdrake]

There's clearly no right to breath either found anywhere in the Constitution. I don't know if he really believes this since he always fights for the right to privacy.

He always fights to prevent the federal government from violating its constitutional limitations. But I've never seen him adopt the supreme court view that states couldn't, for example, ban birth control because of some unenumerated right to privacy. Ron Paul isn't a pure libertarian. He's a states rights - constitutional conservative - libertarian.

[jmdrake]

There is no general right to privacy in the Constitution. There's a specific right to privacy contained in the 4th amendment, but the 4th amendment doesn't give people the right to engage in sodomy. The idea that the Constitution should strip power from the states is a very liberal interpretation of the Constitution. There are clearly states' rights found in the Constitution, as articulated in the 10th amendment. However, there is no right to privacy.

Here's something people ignore about Lawrence v. Texas. This case could have had the same result for the parties involved without striking down the Texas state sodomy laws. The Supreme Court already applies the 4th amendment to state and local police. (And that's a good thing IMO because I'm far more likely to be stopped by a state or local officer than I am by the FBI or IRS). Well in Lawrence v. Texas the police were called to the house on false information. You see one gay man was mad that his lover had dumped him for another man, so he called the cops and said he heard shots inside the house. Upon finding the two men in bed the police charged them on sodomy laws. But say if they had been smoking pot instead of having sex? The Lawrence holding wouldn't have helped them. But a holding that the police can't bust into your house for one reason and then arrest you for something else would protect both the gays and the pot smokers and everybody else. That's the problem with "special rights". They allow the police state in general to move forward unabated.

[aGameOfThrones]

Here's something people ignore about Lawrence v. Texas. This case could have had the same result for the parties involved without striking down the Texas state sodomy laws. The Supreme Court already applies the 4th amendment to state and local police. (And that's a good thing IMO because I'm far more likely to be stopped by a state or local officer than I am by the FBI or IRS). Well in Lawrence v. Texas the police were called to the house on false information. You see one gay man was mad that his lover had dumped him for another man, so he called the cops and said he heard shots inside the house. Upon finding the two men in bed the police charged them on sodomy laws. But say if they had been smoking pot instead of having sex? The Lawrence holding wouldn't have helped them.But a holding that the police can't bust into your house for one reason and then arrest you for something else would protect both the gays and the pot smokers and everybody else. That's the problem with "special rights". They allow the police state in general to move forward unabated.

So what you're saying is...don't call the police? :p

[jmdrake]

So what you're saying is...don't call the police? :p

LOL. Yeah. Except that in this case the jilted lover who called the cops was hoping for the arrest.

[Tax the Fed]

The US Constitution only limits the states in 3 ways:

(1) Power removed from the states (Article 1 Section 10) No state shall ...


for what itś worth . . . A former right a state had in the Union was to issue letters of marque,
and states like Virginia and Massachusetts did - but this was explicitly removed and denied them in the new Constitution.

[heavenlyboy34]

I see your point. This is why I feel the Constitution is so ambiguous and has failed us miserably. The Constitution should be "cut and dry, in black and white", with no room for "second guessing". If the Constitution hasn't failed us, why do we have a $14.5 trillion debt? Why are politicians allowed to continue as crooks and hurt Americans and destroy our future? We praise the Constitution, and then argue about what it means. Even the founding fathers argued about what it meant. So, what is the point? The "general welfare clause" can be, and has been, interpreted to mean just about whatever people want it to mean.

As far as the states having the right to make sodomy laws, my question is: where does it end? Can the states rob us of our freedoms and liberties, while the Federal government is condemned for doing so?
+999999999

[Feeding the Abscess]

Ron's rhetoric has shifted from a social conservative tone to a much more libertarian tone over the last decade. He's shifted from more of a states' rights position to more of a natural rights position (especially since he has been in the limelight the last several years). This is following the blueprint that Rothbard (and, presumably, Rockwell and likely Ron himself) cooked up 20+ years ago.

[FrankRep]

Ron's rhetoric has shifted from a social conservative tone to a much more libertarian tone over the last decade. He's shifted from more of a states' rights position to more of a natural rights position (especially since he has been in the limelight the last several years). This is following the blueprint that Rothbard (and, presumably, Rockwell and likely Ron himself) cooked up 20+ years ago.
Ron Paul better remember who is target audience is. The Conservative majority will reject him if he goes too Libertarian.