PDA

View Full Version : Civil Liberties: Did Dr. R.P. write "Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution"?




sdeev
01-02-2012, 02:07 AM
The question's on the title. If someone knows whether he really wrote it or has it been altered, please let me know.

I saw this on some other forum and not sure how i should go about explaining this.

click here (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/12/why-arent-the-gays-attacking-paul-ctd.html) for the quoted article

Ron Paul does not advocate for leaving gays alone. He simply advocates for the states to be able to oppress them instead of Washington. Take, for example, this 2003 article. Paul decries the Supreme Court's Lawrence v Texas decision that eliminated state sodomy laws:

"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' rightsórights 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."

Essentially, Paul has no interest in leaving anybody alone. He only wants to get rid of one government scared into submission by oppressive douchebags and replace it with 50 governments scared into submission by oppressive douchebags. That's not really any better, and I think you may have missed that in your statement to Dave Weigel.

ronpaulitician
01-02-2012, 02:22 AM
Yes, I do believe Paul's interpretation of the Constitution differs from the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution. In this case, it differs on the interpretation of the 14th amendment.

What I often find missing in Paul's rhetoric is that if something is not in the Constitution, and should therefor not be a federal power but a state power, if the public deems that it should become a federal power, the Constitution should be properly amended.

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

Then, Dr. Paul, would you support properly amending the US Constitution to include a right to privacy?

Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html)

Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

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.

August 12, 2003

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

PS Ignore the posters who will accuse you for being a troll. (New posters questioning a Paul viewpoint typically receive that treatment.)

Travlyr
01-02-2012, 02:27 AM
The strongest governing body should be local. Competition between governance would force honesty because people would move away from or demand local officials not mistreat your neighbors or yourself.

GunnyFreedom
01-02-2012, 02:32 AM
I think the important thing is that a State House Representative that does something stupid is ONE HECK OF A LOT EASIER to remove from office than a member of the US House. So no matter how it's spun, the reality is you are WAY less likely to maintain oppression at the State level because it's only a fraction of the effort to recycle the government.

That's WHY the Founders put controversial stuff at the local level, so when you encounter a bigot in office you can much more easily fire them.

Feeding the Abscess
01-02-2012, 02:37 AM
The right to privacy line is in reference to jurisdiction of federal courts, not as a critique of natural rights. Ron has spoken many times about how privacy is sacred, and that property rights are the only way to secure that right. There is zero question that he opposes sodomy laws on any level, just like with drug, marriage, and myriad other laws. Lawrence v. Texas was merely an instance of Ron expressing federalism.