Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« WStv: Soharwardy drops complaint (CBC) | Main | No raves for Rove »

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Ban on Sale of Sex Toys Overturned; Ron Paul Dismayed

...but not in time for Valentine's Day, unfortunately.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cited Lawrence v. Texas in its ruling against the Texas statute. Here's a nice quote:

"Just as in Lawrence, the state here wants to use its laws to enforce a public moral code by restricting private intimate conduct," the appeals judges wrote. "The case is not about public sex. It is not about controlling commerce in sex. It is about controlling what people do in the privacy of their own homes because the state is morally opposed to a certain type of consensual private intimate conduct. This is an insufficient justification after Lawrence."

This is excellent news, and implies Lawrence is as significant as some suggested. As some many recall, in Lawrence v. Texas the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas law prohibiting gay sex, decisively overturning the Court's previous ruling on the issue in Bowers v. Hardwick. The decision in Lawrence was based on the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment.

As for the significance of the ruling, Cato scholar Randy Barnett explains here that

"Contrary to how their decision was widely reported the Lawrence majority did not protect a 'right of privacy.' Instead, quite simply, they protected 'liberty.'

[...]

Although he never acknowledges it, Justice Kennedy is employing here what I have called a 'presumption of liberty' that requires the government to justify its restriction on liberty, instead of requiring the citizen to establish that the liberty being exercised is somehow 'fundamental.' "

What can justify such a restriction? In Lawrence, the Court quoted Justice Stevens' dissent in Bowers: on its own, "the fact that the majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice."

Thus, in the case at hand, the belief that the sale and/or use of sex toys is immoral is not enough to justify a statewide ban on the practice. Such a ban, whether enacted in Kansas or California, violates the liberty guaranteed to all persons under the 14th Amendment.

A libertarian revolution is truly in the works, and it's flying in the teeth of Ron Paul's failing "rEVOLution" -- a movement that would have stripped federal courts of the power to strike down oppressive laws like the one in Texas.

Good for the court. Too bad for Ron Paul. The individual's right to live her life as she sees fit trumps the "liberty" of the mob to tell her what to do in the privacy of her own home.

Since Ron Paul is all about amending the Constitution to fight the hordes of pregnant brown women streaming over the Mexican border, why hasn't be proposed an amendment explicitly saying that the Bill of Rights applies to the states as much as to the federal government?

Think what that would do to ensure freedom of the individual. Think about what an amendment enshrining Barnett's "presumption of liberty" into law would do.

As a libertarian, I'm glad Ron Paul's bid for the Republican nomination is circling the drain.

Hat tip: A Stitch in Haste

Posted by Terrence Watson on February 14, 2008 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e5504a2ee68833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ban on Sale of Sex Toys Overturned; Ron Paul Dismayed:

Comments

Huh? You are delusional; Ron Paul stands for individual freedom and ending the government's intrusion into personal matters.

Apparently you are getting your information from MSM and are guilty of journalistic malpractice as a result.

Get a clue!

Posted by: Rolland | 2008-02-14 4:30:50 PM


You're a fairly confused young woman, aren't you?

It's not a buffet. You don't get to pick and choose when it suits you to have federal control of state issues.

"I don't want the federal government telling me I can't 'Die with Dignity" with Oregon's assisted suicide law", you might say. ... and you would be right to say it. But then you turn around and say, "I want the federal government to punish any state that passes abortion legislation". Sorry, you can't have it both ways. Pick one. Oh, that's right, we already did.

In your case, you're applauding the federal court for interfering in a state's right to license businesses within it's borders. Congratulations, you got what you wanted. But you just became a little less free, since yet another precedent has been set, robbing a community of people (a state) the autonomy they were promised.

Why don't you have a big old party?

It's not enough to get what you want. The end does not justify the means. But, hey, you got what you want, so who cares, right?

Posted by: Tom | 2008-02-14 4:44:29 PM


Great attempt at poor journalism and speaking for a candidate instead of trying to get his actual position on the issue.
And what a lame attempt at editing for the sake of sounding unbiased. Next time leave out the strike-through and simply remove the word.
"Ron Paul's failing "rEVOLution"

You should hope for our country's sake that the Revolution does not fail, otherwise we will all be telling our grandchildren how America used to be a free country.

Posted by: brian | 2008-02-14 4:47:34 PM


I agree Rolland. Ron Paul has consistently voted for freedom for many decades. There's no way he wouldn't connect privacy to liberty. This is an amateur hit piece.

Posted by: Veteran | 2008-02-14 4:47:51 PM


You're wrong, Ron Paul's movement is exactly the opposite as you describe. The federal government under a Ron Paul administration would also see this as a right to privacy case and protected by the Constitution and would still have found against the State of Texas. You confuse his desire to overturn Roe v. Wade and return the abortion decision to the States. Why don't you ask Ron Paul how he feels about this decision instead of misinterpreting his stance. Ron Paul can't make it clear enough for idiots like yourself.

Posted by: scott | 2008-02-14 4:59:07 PM


I have met a lot of Libertarians, and you maam are no Libertarian.

Posted by: David P | 2008-02-14 5:03:14 PM


this a sh!t article... waste of my time reading..

Posted by: mark | 2008-02-14 5:05:02 PM


this a sh!t article... waste of my time reading..

Posted by: mark | 2008-02-14 5:05:47 PM


Exactly the opposite? So, Ron Paul is all about tyranny?

Shake your head, Scott. Does it sound like a BB in a box car? Who's your guy? Barak or Hillary?

Posted by: Veteran | 2008-02-14 5:07:10 PM


This is ridiculous. The Revolution has just begun and RP could care less about sex toys.
How Dangerous is Obama?

This article proves that he's merely a tool for the world government and promoter of a tax to be paid to the UN to fuel its totalitarian control over us and to redistribute the wealth to other countries.  
"A nice-sounding bill called the "Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations."
"The bill defines the term "Millennium Development Goals" as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000)."
"In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning "small arms and light weapons" and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child."
An Obama presidency would be racist and a disaster for the USA.
In one of Obama's campaign offices, there is even a flag with a picture of a murderous Marxist dictator on it!

Read the rest here:  http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/ckincaid/2008/ck_02131.shtml 

Posted by: NH | 2008-02-14 5:15:51 PM


Why do I get the embarrassing feeling that too many Libertarians just can't get through that in-your-face, kinky sex and drugs as the only game in town priority. No argument with the logic of the post (other than questioning the necessity to slag RP), it just seems that by focusing at the margins of maturity aren't we leaving the conservatives slightly under-equipped to do the heavy lifting when in comes to taxation, health care, city hall fascism, regulation and commercial strangulation, Nanny state, education, property rights, transportation, protectionism, you know, mundane adult issues.

Posted by: John Chittick | 2008-02-14 5:21:12 PM


I believe that there is an Amendment that makes the Bill of Rights apply to the states. Not in the explicit wording of it, but in the interpretation of it by the Supreme Court. It's the 14th Amendment. Please try to get your facts straight before you spout nonsense on trying to pass another amendment to the constitution on something that is already in it.

Madness, sheer madness.

Posted by: Vertical Void | 2008-02-14 5:36:17 PM


Huh? What an absurd post! You've no clue about Ron Paul's position on this, do you?

And BTW, YOU are no libertarian.

Posted by: Seawalker | 2008-02-14 6:03:36 PM


Vertical,

Obviously, the Supreme Court thinks the 14th Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the states. The only problem is that Ron Paul doesn't read the 14th Amendment that way. He accuses the Supreme Court of inventing an "imaginary constitution."

Fair enough, I say. So why not pass an amendment that more explicitly applies the Bill of Rights to the states? That's not sheer madness. If the Supremes are making something up that is otherwise desirable, then why not amend the Constitution so they no longer have to make something up?

And Tom: "But you just became a little less free, since yet another precedent has been set, robbing a community of people (a state) the autonomy they were promised."

You think robbing a state of its liberty to interfere with the way its individual citizens run their lives makes those citizens less free?

Oh. I get it. For you, the only kind of freedom that matters is the freedom to tell other people how to run their lives. That's the kind of freedom fascists and bigots tend to favor.

I, on the other hand, care about individual liberty.

As for the person who has never met a libertarian like me, you might look up this organization called the Cato Institute. It's FULL OF US. Lew Rockwell calls us "cosmopolitans," whatever that is supposed to mean.

Look, it's actually very simple: either you think the mob has the right to dictate what people should be allowed to do in the privacy of their own homes, or you're a libertarian. There's no middle ground. If you side with the mob, you don't side with individual liberty.

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-02-14 6:04:30 PM


Seawalker,

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html

There you go. Ron Paul on Lawrence v. Texas, in his own words.

"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."

Except, of course, the 9th and 10th Amendments don't mention "states' rights." Be that as it may, in this quote, RP plainly affirms that Texas ought to have the power to prohibit gay people from having sex. I don't think it ought to have that power. I don't think ANY government ought to have that power.

And RON PAUL is on the side of individual liberty, and I'm not? Again, you only seem interested in one liberty: the liberty to be able to tell other people what to do, who they may sleep with, and how they must live their lives.

YOUR liberty is the opposite of REAL liberty.

Chew on that, you fascist-in-training.

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-02-14 6:09:58 PM


"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."

That's Ron Paul, misapplying the 9th and 10th Amendments. Now here's Justice Kennedy in the Lawrence decision:

"The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime...

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom."

So: Ron Paul or Justice Kennedy. Your choice. Who sounds more like a libertarian?

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-02-14 6:15:09 PM


I think you're confused on Ron Paul's stances. You're making assumptions. Wrong ones. Ron Paul is about freedom fom government intervention. As for illegals,all hes proposed is use the laws in place, get rid of the free ride, and the baby lottery isn't going to make you an instant citizen.
Not exactly bleeding heart, but hey, it beats illegals fearing for their life and holing them selves up for a few years in religious sanctuary.(but Canada wouldn't ever do something like that, now would it?)

As for abortion, Roe vs Wade isn't on steady ground. It's based on privacy issues that could easily be overturned. After all you can't kill a baby in the privacy of your own home and get away with it.

Every generation has it's bigots to deal with that want to exclude certain people legally.
In the 1800's it was African slaves. In the 1900's it was women. And today it's fetuses. And like every other generation, the only way to find consenses is to appease the bigots along with enlightened people. State's rights. Enlightment among the masses takes time. Perhaps in this century or the next, there will be consenses that, like women and african americans, that the unborn are people too. Untill then, states rights is the only way to find a working comprimise.

As for Ron Paul, he's the only one fighting to keep government out of individuals lives. You've picked 2 very controversial subjects to make cheap shots about sex toys. You haven't a clue about what this guy is all about. You should educate yourself.

Posted by: Leanne | 2008-02-14 6:22:01 PM


Dear writer,

I am not a journalist but I can write better than you. In Canada, we are taught to do honest, substantiated research before presenting a written material. Anyway, that's not the point. The point is you should get ready for the fall of your country. The only candidate (Ron Paul) that could cure America is being marginalized. MOst people in Canada that I talk to thinks that America nowadays is a big joke. If such a thing like going to war without due cause happened in Canada, politicians involved would be literally thrown into the streets.

Posted by: Jas | 2008-02-14 6:25:18 PM


I've heard Ron Paul say that gays should have the right to do whatever they want in the privacy of their home and that they should be allowed marriages or unions if tehy so choose, but what Terrence Watson presents in his post are accurate and disturbing and of no small matter. To agree that the State of Texas or any State should have the right to take these liberties away from a citizen is in my view against the Constitution. I certainly agree with the judge's decision in this case and not Ron Paul's. Thanks for presenting this Terrence.

Posted by: scott | 2008-02-14 6:38:33 PM


It would be best to check Ron Paul's position instead of supposing what it "might" be. He's a strong libertarian, coming out against the war on drugs. It would be hard to conceive of him opposing drug laws but allowing bedrooms to be invaded. As for the abortion, though, I don't agree with it being illegal, I understand a person feeling morally that abortion is wrong. Ron Paul doesn't pander on these issues. He delivers it, the way he sees it.

Posted by: Andrew Panken | 2008-02-14 6:40:19 PM


Forget Paul. What's Huckabee saying?

Posted by: Fred | 2008-02-14 7:44:26 PM


The Constitution is a contract between the states and the federal government. The states all ratified the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. By doing so, they agreed to abide by the Bill of Rights. The founders never intended or attempted to regulate social behavior. Any laws passed in a state can only be challenged in federal court as they pertain to the Constitution.

They gave individuals the tools that they needed to fight for their rights and what they believe in in their states without being imprisoned. It's up to you to make your case as to whether or not what you want pertains to the Constitution. Ron Paul would not be against this as long as you are not attempting to get the federal courts or government to assume power not specifically given to them by the Constitution. In that case, you must go through the political and legal process of having the Constitution amended.

Posted by: Web Smith | 2008-02-14 8:03:36 PM


Watson,

Please quit with the "...as a libertarian, I ..." blah, blah, blah.

Libertarians don't spend their every waking hour poring over Ron Paul's platforms and positions in an effort to find some tid bit, so rarefied, as to justify your righteous pseudo-libertarian wrath.

Maybe take some time out, grab a life, learn a little about the US, and stop letting the Best (at least as you see it in your precious world) be the enemy of the Good. You really are a tiresome twit.

Posted by: Fip Bevis | 2008-02-14 8:12:01 PM


And btw -- SEX toys?!? That is your issue? Sex toys?

Oh well.

Watson, come quickly -- I need you!!

Posted by: Fip Bevis | 2008-02-14 8:15:59 PM


why don't you take the sex toy and stick it up you're ass. Ron Paul would approve of this message to a dumbass!

Posted by: Joe | 2008-02-14 8:22:16 PM


Leanne,

Alas, I am afraid I am not the one confused about Ron Paul.

"Ron Paul is about freedom fom government intervention." No. It would be more accurate to say that Ron Paul is about freedom from the intervention of the federal government.

As his reaction to the Lawrence decision indicates, he has no problem with the state of Texas banning gay sex on the basis of its local moral standards. He has no problem with the loss of liberty as long as it is a state government taking the liberty away.

My response to Web Smith is as follows:
There are two recurring questions in my post: The first is the question of whether a statewide ban on sex toys or a ban on consensual gay sex are IN FACT constitutional. The Supreme Court ruled the latter kind of ban unconstitutional in the Lawrence decision, and the ruling was based on the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment.

That clause says that no state shall deprive persons of liberty without due process of law. As you said, "Any laws passed in a state can only be challenged in federal court as they pertain to the Constitution." The 14th Amendment is in the Constitution. Challenging a ban on sex toys in federal court on 14th Amendment grounds is thus legitimate, which is just what was done.

Ron Paul doesn't agree with the way the Supreme Court has interpreted the 14th Amendment, especially the way it was interpreted in the Lawrence decision. But I thought that as a supposed fan of liberty he'd at least agree with the gist of the Supreme Court's interpretation: that states ought not to be able to deprive their citizens of their liberty

Which leads to the second question: if the 14th Amendment does not imply what Barnett calls the presumption of liberty, shouldn't a libertarian desire to amend the Constitution so that such a presumption is made clear and explicit?

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-02-14 8:41:28 PM


If Ron Paul is the , "Champion of personal liberty," then why does he oppose the paramount right of a woman to reproductive choice, and ALL adults to marry other adults regardless of gender?

So much for liberty...

Posted by: Rev Keith Wright | 2008-02-14 8:43:27 PM


"But I thought that as a supposed fan of liberty he'd at least agree with the gist of the Supreme Court's interpretation: that states ought not to be able to deprive their citizens of their liberty"

That was supposed to be "...that states ought not to be able to deprive their citizens of liberty for just any random reason."

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-02-14 8:43:34 PM


If Ron Paul is the , "Champion of personal liberty," then why does he oppose the paramount right of a woman to reproductive choice, and ALL adults to marry other adults regardless of gender?

So much for liberty...

Posted by: Rev Keith Wright | 2008-02-14 8:49:07 PM


****
If Ron Paul is the , "Champion of personal liberty," then why does he oppose the paramount right of a woman to reproductive choice, and ALL adults to marry other adults regardless of gender?
****

Well as a medical doctor, who specialized in the field of the unborn, he claims it is a scientific fact that a baby is alive at conception. This is not, to him, a political or religious statement. Go to youtube.com and check out the beginning of his recent speech from Liberty University to hear that quote.

And then he has also said that the dictionary defines marriage as a religious ceremony to be held between a man and a woman. He said that the federal government hasn't the right to step into religious territory and redefine the word. He also said that it's unnecessary to do so. This is from one of the debates this past "election season," but I forget which one, but it can be found on youtube, as well.

Posted by: Jeff Clark | 2008-02-14 9:07:05 PM


The LP has been hyjacked by the neocons! Your artical is more proof.

Posted by: voteronpaul | 2008-02-14 9:59:36 PM


you're a retard.

Posted by: mike | 2008-02-14 10:15:03 PM


voteronpaul: The LP? Just what does that have to do with this post? Terrence is not a member of the Canadian Libertarian Party, nor of the U.S. Libertarian Party. Terrence is a libertarian, period.

(Pet peeve alert--small "l" libertarian refers to the political philosophy, capital "L" Libertarian refers to a member of the Libertarian Party. When Terrence wrote "as a libertarian" he used the lower-case letter intentionally).

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-02-14 11:56:21 PM


Am I the only one reading Paul's quote this way?

"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.”"
-Here Paul is saying that he finds it outrageous that the court is telling a state what to do.

"Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, ..."
-Here Paul is saying he thinks laws against sodomy laws are ridiculous. i.e. he disagrees with laws that limit an individuals freedom to interact with another individual

"... there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. "
-Here Paul is correct. There is no right to privacy explicitly mentioned in the constitution. Read it. There is clearly no mention of sodomy in the constitution either.

"There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments."
-Here Paul is referring to two amendments, which lay out that the enumeration of rights in the constitution does not limit the states from providing more rights or having their own.

So if this quote is accurate, I do think that Paul is conflicting himself. He's saying that while he agrees the law was ridiculous, he doesn't believe that the Supreme court has the jurisdiction to strike it down. He believes that only Texans have the ability to come to the realization that it is ridiculous and then strike it down. However, the 14th amendment clearly states individuals get equal protection of the laws. This law clearly tries to section off a segment of society and deny them the ability to live their life and have their liberty. Those people would then have different protection of the law; Clearly a violation of the constitution. Paul should be applauding the court and crying out a clear win for life, liberty, and equal protection. Instead, he is trying to ride the line between his ideals and saying what his Texas constituents want to hear (and get re-elected), which is that their popular anti-sodomy law was perfectly fine. It shows that Paul is just like any other politician, willing to say what's necessary to get re-elected.

I still support Paul. I don't know one person who hasn't said something that wasn't quite in line with their true ideals in order to placate the people around them. I still believe he's the best choice, but, obviously, he can't be perfect.

Posted by: The only one reading? | 2008-02-15 1:08:33 AM


Just so everyone is clear on the fact that bloggers here at the Shotgun have different opinions about Paul, consider this largely positive piece on the Canadians who love Ron Paul which I wrote a little while back:

http://westernstandard.ca/website/article.php?id=2702

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-02-15 1:55:39 AM


i have here on my screen a copy of the constitution, and all the amendments (woot!gotta love the net...) and in #14, section 1 is the only part of the amendment that has anything even remotely to do with individual rights (all else being eligibility and fiscal rules for government)

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html :
AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

OK. here goes- Liberty is freedom of choice, and who you sleep with is all about choice (sometimes booze, but mostly choice ;) ) the federal court shouldn't have anything to worry about, because the state violated someone's right to decide which position to have sex from. i don't think he's disagreeing with the decision, rather than skirting the issue entirely. there is no mention of privacy anywhere in the 14th amendment, but the "privileges and immunities" bit falls under the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" category, our present topic being someone's "liberty and pursuit of hapiness" being noone died. he's avoiding the issue so the "issue voters" dont turn on him.

Posted by: jason | 2008-02-15 2:02:55 AM


What you seem to have over looked is the fact that Ron Paul want to protect liberty.

You state in your article, "...why hasn't [Paul] proposed an amendment explicitly saying that the Bill of Rights applies to the states as much as to the federal government?"

Uhhh...that would be the 10th Amendment, which I shall quote here: "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."

What you fail to understand is that the Constitution does not protect the United States government. The Constitution protects the People from the government by protecting individual libery, and limiting the government in its scope. Your story's premise is skewed. Dr. Paul wants to amend that part of the Constitution that would grant birthright citezenship, yes, however that in no way would violate the liberty of CITIZENS of the United States. You see, all thos "pregnant brown women" you mention are ILLEGAL aliens, and do not get to enjoy the privilages and immunities of citezenship of the USA, and hence neither should their children.

Posted by: Paul Green | 2008-02-15 5:19:21 AM


Oh, yeah, and by the way: How do you know Ron Paul is "dismayed" at this "news"? Can you speak for him? Do you have a news report that quotes him as expressing dismay? If not, the entire basic for you title, and your whole story is false. Did you write this to explain a court decision or as an attempt to smear Ron Paul? Get your facts straight.

Posted by: Paul Green | 2008-02-15 5:24:49 AM


This doesn't even make sense. So, am I supposed to believe that because Paul is tough on immigration laws that he's a racist. YOu're the one calling them "brown women". You're gross, and you're not a libertarian. Please start supporting Giuliani.

Posted by: Nathan | 2008-02-15 5:59:19 AM


Hmmm. Nothing is perfect, but i suppose just having the states hassle you and not the fed as well is an improvement.

Now Terence, you made a comment earlier about a Ron Paul supporter being a "facist in the making" Seems an oxymoron to me. Seems that Ron Paul is kinda trying to get away from facism.

Either way, his movement can not be stopped now. It won't stop at the end of this presidential election, nor the next, nor the day Ron Paul draws his last breath.

This is a movement predominately of generation X,Y&Z. It is burned into them now and will continue for another 50 years. Every day their numbers increase and before too long it will meet critical mass.

They love him. Hell, i love the guy and i'm not even American (Aussie)

Anyway, the substance of your article does seem to hold factual merit. But what Ron Paul is starting is an improvement and the baby needs to learn to walk before he can run.

Give him a break and give him a chance. Lest you get one of the others

Peace

Posted by: D. Lancer | 2008-02-15 6:38:09 AM


Way to completely misunderstand Dr.Paul's stance on individual rights. Do you realize what your doing to your future credibility?

Posted by: wheresthecreamfilling | 2008-02-15 6:49:04 AM


I'll just add this while i am here. States having different laws is not necessarily a bad thing. In Australia, growing some dope in the state of Queensland is a criminal offense, yet in South Australia, it is perfectly legal. If you like dope, you have the option of living in South Australia.

If you are gay, you move from Texas to California. It's quite simple. Also, federalism of any sort is dangerous. Once states cede power to the fed, you then run the risk of the fed ceding power to international bodies.

The best democratic system in my mind, is having powerful local government and a weak federal government. How can a centralized government 1000km away effectively deal with local issues.

Anyway, that my two cents worth

Peace

Posted by: D.Lancer | 2008-02-15 6:51:12 AM


Here I was about to come and make you look like a total fucking idiot, when I noticed you had done it yourself... and then had it pointed out to you by no less than 500 people.

LOL. Not a single voice has come to defend you. 10 bucks this article is down within 2 days.

Posted by: Ralph Drees | 2008-02-15 7:13:28 AM


Wow, they should really stop letting the kids (at least mentally in this case) "write" opinion pieces.
The author obviously knows nothing of Paul or the Libertarian party. Get a clue first, then do some reading before making yourself appear so idiotic and misinformed.

Posted by: crazychester | 2008-02-15 7:27:18 AM


Waste of my time.

Posted by: Rob | 2008-02-15 7:48:27 AM


Wow, it's amazing to read all these hate-filled posts from Ron Paul supporters. They absolutely cannot take any criticism of their candidate. It is scary to think to what lengths they will go to to justify their blind support of this guy.

The point of this article obviously went way over your heads. It's not a question of whether Ron Paul supporters personal liberty, it's about him giving the power to the states to override our right to privacy. Such as his "We the People Act" to define life at conception and therefore outlaw abortion at a federal level. No one is saying that Ron is against owning sex toys, but he would support Texas' ruling to ban them. Ron is supposed to be a "champion" of the Constitution, yet he COMPLETELY ignores the 14th amendment and our implied right to privacy.

Posted by: Political Scientist | 2008-02-15 7:51:02 AM


The only one reading:

Good post, except for a few things.
"This law clearly tries to section off a segment of society and deny them the ability to live their life and have their liberty. Those people would then have different protection of the law; Clearly a violation of the constitution."

The problem is, the Supreme Court in Lawrence explicitly said they were not striking down the anti-sodomy law on the basis of equal protection. Why? Because that would have left other anti-sodomy laws intact as long as they applied to both gays and straights.

The Court explicitly did not use the argument you're presenting -- instead, they used an argument based on the liberty contained within the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment (not the Equal Protection clause.)

Ron Paul is against this use of the Due Process clause. Therefore, he was against the ruling and (presumably) also the ruling about the sex toy ban, which was also based on the 14th Amendment in the same way Lawrence was.

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-02-15 9:44:58 AM


I'm going to ignore the obviously question-begging responses, but here are some additional responses to scattered comments.

Apparently, the "pregnant brown women" bit annoyed some people. I'm not claiming that illegal immigration isn't a problem. What I am pointing out is that, as a supposed champion of liberty, RP's priorities seem a bit screwed up. If he doesn't like the courts deriving substantive liberty rights from the Due Process clause, then he could favor amending the Constitution to explicitly add those rights. But, like I said, he seems more worried about brown women and their anchor babies.

As for the person claiming no one has supported my position, he needs to read a little more closely. But, the thing is, I KNOW I'll often be outnumbered by Ron Paul supporters (less so lately, as the "rEVOLution" dwindles to cinder.) Since I know my arguments are pretty good, I revel in that fact: if I wasn't the lone libertarian voice in the wilderness on this issue, I probably wouldn't write about it at all.

It makes me happy to know that all the dunces are in a confederacy against me. Hmm. Would that be a confederacy of neo-confederalists? But no matter.

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-02-15 10:07:26 AM


It all boils down to states rights. If texas wants to ban sex toys....well its their right.

Its not about the sex toys themselves, but how much power the Federal government should have to trump state laws.

Posted by: Rick Cain | 2008-02-15 2:53:03 PM


"But you just became a little less free, since yet another precedent has been set, robbing a community of people (a state) the autonomy they were promised."

I don't find that particularly persuasive, since the state was robbing a community of people (those who enjoy vibrators and dildos) of a right that should never have been taken away in the first place.

Posted by: Phil | 2008-02-15 9:43:29 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.