Ron Paul on Lawrence v Texas (SCOTUS striking down sodomy laws)

[jmdrake]

I'm sure most have already read this speech by Dr. Paul. Some may not. Disclaimer, I disagree with Dr. Paul's position on this. At least, sort of. I think the Lawrence ruling would have had a higher "freedom index" if it struck down the conviction on the basis that police can't raid someone's home for one reason, and then convict them for something else. (In the Lawrence case a jilted gay man called the police and told him a shooting was occurring when in reality his lover was with another man. Those two men were arrested on sodomy charges). The reason I maintain the "freedom index" would be higher is that I don't think police should be able to arrest someone, say for drugs, if they come to a home for some other reason that turns out to be false. That said, I do think that it was right for the SCOTUS to strike down sodomy laws based on 9th amendment grounds (although those were the grounds used). So why am I posting this? I'm tired of people pretending that those who aren't jumping on the "gay marriage" bandwagon are somehow outside Ron Paul's views just because Ron Paul has said he doesn't care if gays get married. That's not the point. I'm pretty sure Ron Paul doesn't care if gays have sex either. Anyway, here's the speech. Read it and make your own decision.

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

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
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 They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as hopelessly outdated, instead treating the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case.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.

[Nickels]

I'm sure most have already read this speech by Dr. Paul. Some may not. Disclaimer, I disagree with Dr. Paul's position on this.


Is that allowed here?




At least, sort of. I think the Lawrence ruling would have had a higher "freedom index" if it struck down the conviction on the basis that police can't raid someone's home for one reason, and then convict them for something else. (In the Lawrence case a jilted gay man called the police and told him a shooting was occurring when in reality his lover was with another man. Those two men were arrested on sodomy charges). The reason I maintain the "freedom index" would be higher is that I don't think police should be able to arrest someone, say for drugs, if they come to a home for some other reason that turns out to be false.


You're talking about basically probable cause, and reasonable mistake?



That said, I do think that it was right for the SCOTUS to strike down sodomy laws based on 9th amendment grounds (although those were the grounds used). So why am I posting this? I'm tired of people pretending that those who aren't jumping on the "gay marriage" bandwagon are somehow outside Ron Paul's views just because Ron Paul has said he doesn't care if gays get married. That's not the point. I'm pretty sure Ron Paul doesn't care if gays have sex either. Anyway, here's the speech. Read it and make your own decision.


I'm pretty sure Ron Paul doesn't care if gays have sex, or sodomy, whatever you call it. But that's just it, he doesn't care for it. He also said he doesn't care for privacy and he doesn't have a problem with state laws violating it. That's the essence of his article, that state laws trump any alleged right to privacy and sodomy, because the Constitution does not mandate or prohibit it, isn't it?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Our nation is being deceived today because of the false dichotomies. Concerning this matter, the most audacious and strong minded of us will avoid even the liberal and conservative / Republican and Democrat paradigms. In solving our problems, there is so little effort and so much fishing that needs to be done.
Please, quit wasting your time.
Even Congressman Paul fails in this matter a lot. The reason he is so popular today isn't because he is a conservative or a former libertarian; but, it is because his character is admired for the way he avoids delving into the false dichotomies with the media the likes which are brought about by their lazy utilization of a left and right paradigm.

[jmdrake]

Is that allowed here?

LOLz. If it wasn't I'd be banned already.



You're talking about basically probable cause, and reasonable mistake?


Yeah, pretty much. I'm going from the 4th amendment.

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.[1]

My position is that if a police officer shows up to your house "particularly describing" a shooting, and instead he finds you smoking pot and it turns out the shooting was some video game (that has happened) then he doesn't have a legitimate reason to arrest you. I guess I have a problem with the "plain view" rule.



I'm pretty sure Ron Paul doesn't care if gays have sex, or sodomy, whatever you call it. But that's just it, he doesn't care for it. He also said he doesn't care for privacy and he doesn't have a problem with state laws violating it. That's the essence of his article, that state laws trump any alleged right to privacy and sodomy, because the Constitution does not mandate or prohibit it, isn't it?

Yep. That's the essence of the article. My alternative position, which I believe he would agree, is that if you push the 4th amendment to it's full extent then you have a super strong "zone of privacy" in your own home that can't be violated just on a whim. That would protect you for doing most anything you wanted to do "in the privacy of your own home" as long as nobody else got hurt. But if you decided to, for example, broadcast your pot smoking/sodomy/whatever outside your home then my interpretation wouldn't help. And that's why, pains me as it may, I kinda/sorta agree with the Lawrence ruling. At least I have not disagreed with it at this point.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

LOLz. If it wasn't I'd be banned already.



Yeah, pretty much. I'm going from the 4th amendment.

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.[1]

My position is that if a police officer shows up to your house "particularly describing" a shooting, and instead he finds you smoking pot and it turns out the shooting was some video game (that has happened) then he doesn't have a legitimate reason to arrest you. I guess I have a problem with the "plain view" rule.



Yep. That's the essence of the article. My alternative position, which I believe he would agree, is that if you push the 4th amendment to it's full extent then you have a super strong "zone of privacy" in your own home that can't be violated just on a whim. That would protect you for doing most anything you wanted to do "in the privacy of your own home" as long as nobody else got hurt. But if you decided to, for example, broadcast your pot smoking/sodomy/whatever outside your home then my interpretation wouldn't help. And that's why, pains me as it may, I kinda/sorta agree with the Lawrence ruling. At least I have not disagreed with it at this point.

Homosexuality versus heterosexuality is a false dichotomy argued in contempt of the people's Civil Purpose and their long-suffering quest to find a contentful life beyond the cruel business of survival.

[Nickels]

LOLz. If it wasn't I'd be banned already.

Yeah, pretty much. I'm going from the 4th amendment.

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.[1]

My position is that if a police officer shows up to your house "particularly describing" a shooting, and instead he finds you smoking pot and it turns out the shooting was some video game (that has happened) then he doesn't have a legitimate reason to arrest you. I guess I have a problem with the "plain view" rule.


I see what you mean, many people do.




Yep. That's the essence of the article. My alternative position, which I believe he would agree, is that if you push the 4th amendment to it's full extent then you have a super strong "zone of privacy" in your own home that can't be violated just on a whim. That would protect you for doing most anything you wanted to do "in the privacy of your own home" as long as nobody else got hurt. But if you decided to, for example, broadcast your pot smoking/sodomy/whatever outside your home then my interpretation wouldn't help. And that's why, pains me as it may, I kinda/sorta agree with the Lawrence ruling. At least I have not disagreed with it at this point.

I agree with the Lawrence ruling for personal and practical reasons, not legal ones. I believe Ron Paul is right, that the Constitution does not guarantee or protect either privacy or sodomy (or singing in the rain). And in order to rule in favor of privacy, the Court essentially had to make up their interpretation. This is good in result, and in light of Brown, Roe, or Civil Rights Act, is hardly news (people do things for good reasons, even if they know it's not legal or lawful). I recognize this is my personal problem, that you can either have the law as it was written, or privacy/sodomy/good things, but not both.

Let me ask you, would your "zone of privacy" protect Roe from being overturned?

[phill4paul]

That would protect you for doing most anything you wanted to do "in the privacy of your own home" as long as nobody else got hurt. But if you decided to, for example, broadcast your pot smoking/sodomy/whatever outside your home then my interpretation wouldn't help.

What is considered 'broadcasting?' Are you talking probable cause? Scenario: Two homosexual males are seen holding hands and acting 'intimate' in public. Would this be considered probable cause to stake out their home and use surveillance so they could 'catch them in the act?'

[Nickels]

What is considered 'broadcasting?' Are you talking probable cause? Scenario: Two homosexual males are seen holding hands and acting 'intimate' in public. Would this be considered probable cause to stake out their home and use surveillance so they could 'catch them in the act?'

To answer your probable cause question, I would say so (this is assuming sodomy is a crime, which is pretty sad). But I think jmdrake was specifically talking about , if somebody was stupid enough to open his curtains, then he can't argue privacy if he gave it up himself.

[dillo]

Wow I find the good doctor completely off base here. Am I wrong in assuming the states have to follow the U.S. constitution?

[LibertyRevolution]

Wow I find the good doctor completely off base here. Am I wrong in assuming the states have to follow the U.S. constitution?

Yep, the U.S. constitution only limits federal government power.
Your state government can be far more oppressive.

Same goes with towns.. You see these no cursing laws?
Feels like it violates the 1st amendment.. but it isn't because it is just a town ordnance.
When you look at cali with its pot laws and dispensaries, yet its a federal crime.

The 2 systems are really not compatible.. See the civil war..
It seems the Federal government won.. but they will still let states do somethings..

[Nickels]

Wow I find the good doctor completely off base here. Am I wrong in assuming the states have to follow the U.S. constitution?

No, you are not wrong on that. So it comes down to, does the Constitution mandate privacy or sodomy to be protected rights/activities which states are prohibited to ban or criminalize?

[jmdrake]

I see what you mean, many people do.


I agree with the Lawrence ruling for personal and practical reasons, not legal ones. I believe Ron Paul is right, that the Constitution does not guarantee or protect either privacy or sodomy (or singing in the rain). And in order to rule in favor of privacy, the Court essentially had to make up their interpretation. This is good in result, and in light of Brown, Roe, or Civil Rights Act, is hardly news (people do things for good reasons, even if they know it's not legal or lawful). I recognize this is my personal problem, that you can either have the law as it was written, or privacy/sodomy/good things, but not both.


Yeah. Lawrence is a tough one for me in general.



Let me ask you, would your "zone of privacy" protect Roe from being overturned?

I don't think so. It still comes down to "Is it a child"? Back to my "mistaken raid" scenario, if the police raided someone's house expecting to find drugs and instead found a kidnap victim, they should have the authority to rescue the kidnap victim and arrest those responsible.

[Nickels]

Yep, the U.S. constitution only limits federal government power.
Your state government can be far more oppressive.


So, no supremacy clause?



Same goes with towns.. You see these no cursing laws?
Feels like it violates the 1st amendment.. but it isn't because it is just a town ordnance.


Is it that simple? Is that why cities and states are free to ban guns too?



When you look at cali with its pot laws and dispensaries, yet its a federal crime.


When feds raid CA dispensaries, it's always 'supremacy clause'.



The 2 systems are really not compatible.. See the civil war..
It seems the Federal government won.. but they will still let states do somethings..
and it seems they reserve the right to enforce whenever they feel like it.

[jmdrake]

What is considered 'broadcasting?' Are you talking probable cause? Scenario: Two homosexual males are seen holding hands and acting 'intimate' in public. Would this be considered probable cause to stake out their home and use surveillance so they could 'catch them in the act?'


To answer your probable cause question, I would say so (this is assuming sodomy is a crime, which is pretty sad). But I think jmdrake was specifically talking about , if somebody was stupid enough to open his curtains, then he can't argue privacy if he gave it up himself.

Yeah. Nickels pretty much nailed it. Although I was thinking "webcam" more then curtains. As for the "holding hands and acting intimately" scenario, well depending on the sodomy law gays could be intimate without breaking the law. (And no I will not give examples). Here's another way to look at it. Let's say if an adult and a minor were doing the same thing? Is holding hands and acting "intimate" enough for a surveillance warrant? I honestly don't know the answer to that question. I could see truly innocent behavior getting someone watched and possibly raided. Tough question.

[Nickels]

Yeah. Nickels pretty much nailed it. Although I was thinking "webcam" more then curtains. As for the "holding hands and acting intimately" scenario, well depending on the sodomy law gays could be intimate without breaking the law. (And no I will not give examples).


http://preacherontheplaza.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/disappointment.jpg



Here's another way to look at it. Let's say if an adult and a minor were doing the same thing? Is holding hands and acting "intimate" enough for a surveillance warrant? I honestly don't know the answer to that question. I could see truly innocent behavior getting someone watched and possibly raided. Tough question.

fair enough. it's pretty scary to think that any nanny who takes a child out for ice cream can be suspected of being a pedophile.

[dillo]

No, you are not wrong on that. So it comes down to, does the Constitution mandate privacy or sodomy to be protected rights/activities which states are prohibited to ban or criminalize?

No I dont think the constitution protects sodomy, but I certainly think the framers would have been fine with 2 consenting adults in their own home being private activity. Also is sodomy strictly gay, or is it illegal for hetero anal sex? Are blowjobs banned in some states as well? To me it comes down to, are we really going to pay for police to raid peoples houses to prevent gay sex? I certainly hope not.

[Nickels]

No I dont think the constitution protects sodomy, but I certainly think the framers would have been fine with 2 consenting adults in their own home being private activity. Also is sodomy strictly gay, or is it illegal for hetero anal sex? Are blowjobs banned in some states as well? To me it comes down to, are we really going to pay for police to raid peoples houses to prevent gay sex? I certainly hope not.

Let's say I accepted your premise, that the framers would be OK with 2 consenting adults (I don't believe that, because slavery was legal, blacks were counted as 3/5, and interracial marriage was not recognized), it would still mean that intentions of framers were not fully reflected in the Constitution text. So the question is, do we go by the literal writing? Or the spirit behind it? If we go by the latter, how do you prevent people from making their own interpretations when they are in power?

Two other examples that come to mind are polygamy and marijuana. We all know it's fully illegal under federal law. But enforcement and started to take a 'practical' stance, which is, they will not waste resources to enforce stupid laws, if nobody is actually hurt, time to time, the government will remind us they can, just to scare people and torture some others.

[PierzStyx]

I disagree with the view that the Tenth Amendment prevents the states from having to protect people's individual liberties. Especially in something like this. No state or State had the right to legislate sex in any manner between to consenting adults. Texas was in the wrong. And the point of the Supreme Court is to provide a balance against state courts that are to exposed to the shifting opinions of the masses. It has a right to rule a law unconstitutional, even state laws as states agree to abide by the Constitution when they join the union. Its part of the federal system. If a state is systematically destroying the rights of a minority it is in the wrong and should be checked. And it is not always the case that justice can be had when the majority approves of the injustice being done by the legal law forces. Also, in cases like this where people are being imprisoned they can't "just leave and go to another state" either. There has to be a system that either protects their rights. The judicial system is far superior than open warfare which is really the only other choice.

[PierzStyx]

Let's say I accepted your premise, that the framers would be OK with 2 consenting adults (I don't believe that, because slavery was legal, blacks were counted as 3/5, and interracial marriage was not recognized), it would still mean that intentions of framers were not fully reflected in the Constitution text. So the question is, do we go by the literal writing? Or the spirit behind it? If we go by the latter, how do you prevent people from making their own interpretations when they are in power?

Two other examples that come to mind are polygamy and marijuana. We all know it's fully illegal under federal law. But enforcement and started to take a 'practical' stance, which is, they will not waste resources to enforce stupid laws, if nobody is actually hurt, time to time, the government will remind us they can, just to scare people and torture some others.

Just a small point, blacks were not considered 3/5 a person, but 3/5 of the black slave population was counted for census purposes and for number of representatives. Free blacks were technically equal to whites, until the Dred Scott Case anyway.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

I can't locate it now but this is why I enjoy Stefan Molyneux's take on the constitution.

[dillo]

Let's say I accepted your premise, that the framers would be OK with 2 consenting adults (I don't believe that, because slavery was legal, blacks were counted as 3/5, and interracial marriage was not recognized), it would still mean that intentions of framers were not fully reflected in the Constitution text. So the question is, do we go by the literal writing? Or the spirit behind it? If we go by the latter, how do you prevent people from making their own interpretations when they are in power?

Two other examples that come to mind are polygamy and marijuana. We all know it's fully illegal under federal law. But enforcement and started to take a 'practical' stance, which is, they will not waste resources to enforce stupid laws, if nobody is actually hurt, time to time, the government will remind us they can, just to scare people and torture some others.

So what is your position on government regulating morality? Also couldnt one argue that gay sex is freedom of expression?

[Nickels]

So what is your position on government regulating morality? Also couldnt one argue that gay sex is freedom of expression?

It's ridiculous to think government cannot or does not regulate morality. We all have some sense of morality, when people say "you can't legislate morality" they simply mean you can't legislate something that is solely moral without some other basis, such as consequences, order, or whatever justification is sexy. And yes, anybody can argue any crime is a freedom of expression, though only victimless ones will be taken as serious arguments.

[Nickels]

I disagree with the view that the Tenth Amendment prevents the states from having to protect people's individual liberties. Especially in something like this. No state or State had the right to legislate sex in any manner between to consenting adults. Texas was in the wrong. And the point of the Supreme Court is to provide a balance against state courts that are to exposed to the shifting opinions of the masses. It has a right to rule a law unconstitutional, even state laws as states agree to abide by the Constitution when they join the union.


I agree with you all the way up to here. I don't think anybody disagrees that it's both the duty and right for SCOTUS to strike down any unconstitutional laws. The only disagreement is whether sodomy laws actually are in conflict with the Constitution. Because like I said, Constitutional can mean 2 things, 1) strictly what the language says, no more no less 2) the spirit and intentions of what the law meant, for a just and free system of law.



Its part of the federal system. If a state is systematically destroying the rights of a minority it is in the wrong and should be checked. And it is not always the case that justice can be had when the majority approves of the injustice being done by the legal law forces. Also, in cases like this where people are being imprisoned they can't "just leave and go to another state" either. There has to be a system that either protects their rights. The judicial system is far superior than open warfare which is really the only other choice.

[dillo]

It's ridiculous to think government cannot or does not regulate morality. We all have some sense of morality, when people say "you can't legislate morality" they simply mean you can't legislate something that is solely moral without some other basis, such as consequences, order, or whatever justification is sexy. And yes, anybody can argue any crime is a freedom of expression, though only victimless ones will be taken as serious arguments.

who is the victim in a gay marriage?

[Philhelm]

who is the victim in a gay marriage?

The receiver?