Rand's view of rights

[ralex]

For some idea of Rand Paul's views, I think you should look elsewhere - specifically to his intellectual (and physical) forbear:

Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution (my emphasis). There are, however, states' rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments.
​

- Ron Paul http://archive.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html


​

Rand doesn't believe everything Ron believes, though when they differ, it's usually that Rand is less libertarian than Ron (and Ron was, of course, not a pure libertarian to start with). So you may be right about this: Rand Paul may indeed consider the Ninth Amendment to have little practical meaning.

Which would be disappointing but not surprising.

 

[Christian Liberty]

As interminably fascinating as this discussion of positive/negative rights may be, you're right that it's likely irrelevant. For some idea of Rand Paul's views, I think you should look elsewhere - specifically to his intellectual (and physical) forbear:

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 (my emphasis). 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.
...
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.​

- Ron Paul http://archive.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html​

Rand Paul reflects his father's reliance on "rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments," and his unwillingness to accept the 14th Amendment's plain wording and clear intent: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

This same impulse leads the younger Paul to throw the question of gay marriage to the states, for example. If you're looking for penumbras and emanations to reject, why not discuss this bit of unlibertarian hypocrisy, where the question of any possible victim doesn't intrude?

Its not unlibertarian at all. Murray Rothbard would have said the same thing, that a libertarian must reject all centralization of authority for any reason. Block disagrees with him though, and I suspect some others do too, so its still an open question.

That said, the 14th amendment cannot possibly apply to gay marriage or even sodomy. Sodomy was a crime in every state at that time (Note that I think this was stupid, just like Ron does) so to say that the 14th was intended to apply to it is absurd.

 

[ralex]

Bob, I'm pretty sure that Rand believes that too.

That's what I'm hoping, but between the letters I got and YesImALiberal's quote, I'm not finding any supporting evidence.

 

[ralex]

Its not unlibertarian at all. Murray Rothbard would have said the same thing, that a libertarian must reject all centralization of authority for any reason. Block disagrees with him though, and I suspect some others do too, so its still an open question.

But "states' rights" centralizes power too, albeit one level lower than federal powers.

That said, the 14th amendment cannot possibly apply to gay marriage or even sodomy. Sodomy was a crime in every state at that time (Note that I think this was stupid, just like Ron does) so to say that the 14th was intended to apply to it is absurd.

It's a safe bet no one brought up the question of sodomy in 1868 (when the 14th Amendment was ratified), but if someone had asked "Isn't sodomy a victimless act? Then what's the justification for banning it?" my guess is that the answer would be along the lines of "it's not victimless: the participants are harmed and maybe all of society is too." It's our changing view of victimhood that makes us more tolerant of sodomy today, not a misapplication of the 9th and 14th Amendments.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Rand doesn't believe everything Ron believes, though when they differ, it's usually that Rand is less libertarian than Ron (and Ron was, of course, not a pure libertarian to start with). So you may be right about this: Rand Paul may indeed consider the Ninth Amendment to have little practical meaning.

Which would be disappointing but not surprising.

I dunno. Sounds pretty much like his Dad to me.

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. - RON PAUL

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

 

[LibertyEagle]

That's what I'm hoping, but between the letters I got and YesImALiberal's quote, I'm not finding any supporting evidence.

YesImALiberal was quoting RON Paul.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

1) The Declaration of Independence, while a wonderful statement of principles, has no legal standing in the U.S.. So in that sense, it is not "higher".

Saw this elsewhere on the web: John Hancock (in his capacity as president of the Second Continental Congress) and James Madison both considered it to be, in Madison's words, “the fundamental Act of Union of these States.” Reflecting that view, Congress has placed it at the head of the United States Code, under the caption, “The Organic Laws of the United States of America.” The Supreme Court has infrequently accorded it binding legal force, for example, in resolving questions of alienage (Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbour, 1830).

...there is no doubt that under any definition the Declaration is a legal document for at least some purposes. Namely, it is used as a legal document marking the creation of the United States. See, e.g., Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242 (1830). Also, if you include international law, the Declaration has legal force insofar as customary international law is concerned, and is cited for those purposes.

 

[klamath]

1) The Declaration of Independence, while a wonderful statement of principles, has no legal standing in the U.S.. So in that sense, it is not "higher".

2) The Supreme Court said - rightly or wrongly - that a right to life wasn't at issue before the third trimester. Thus, they said, privacy is the reigning issue in the first two trimesters, and life is the reigning issue in the final trimester.

I don't see why anyone would have a problem with that: they said privacy is important, but life is more important. Don't we all agree with that? The problem is when the court said that there's no right to life before the third trimester. That's what pro-lifers disagree with!

And if there is a right to life from conception, then the right to privacy becomes moot - not because there's no such right, but because everyone agrees that a right to life supersedes a right to privacy.

This isn't just me saying this. Rand Paul himself is pushing this in his strategy to end abortions. Rand Paul's bill in Congress defines the right to life as beginning at conception. Rand Paul is not trying to abolish the right to privacy. He doesn't think that's necessary to end abortions. Which makes it all the more puzzling to me why he criticizes it.

Really? Read volume 18 USCA, buddy.

In that Volume 18, the Congress published a section entitled “The Organic Laws of The United States of America”. That section includes four documents:

1) The “Declaration of Independence”;

2) The Article of Confederation;

3) The Northwest Ordinance; and,

4) The Constitution of the United States.

 

[YesI'mALiberal]

Really? Read volume 18 USCA, buddy.

Maybe you should follow your own advice and read the document: http://uscode.house.gov/

Of course, you won't find a "volume 18" and I doubt that "Title 18 Crimes and Criminal Procedure" is really what you're about. The fact is, the Declaration of Independence is in Front Matter, i.e. the preface, and has no real enforceable standing. To wit:

“The Organic Laws of The United States of America”. That section includes four documents:

1) The “Declaration of Independence”;

2) The Article (sic) of Confederation;

3) The Northwest Ordinance; and,

4) The Constitution of the United States.

... just how enforceable do you think the Articles of Confederation are?

 

[klamath]

Maybe you should follow your own advice and read the document: http://uscode.house.gov/

Of course, you won't find a "volume 18" and I doubt that "Title 18 Crimes and Criminal Procedure" is really what you're about. The fact is, the Declaration of Independence is in Front Matter, i.e. the preface, and has no real enforceable standing. To wit:



... just how enforceable do you think the Articles of Confederation are?

Depends on if you are Obama or not if it is enforceable. I am sure if Obama can kill Americans without trial I am sure Rand could save lives without caring whether it is enforceable. You see enforceable is what you can get by with. The US constitution did not supersede the DOI, for without the DOI the constitution is not subject to enforcement by Queen Elizabeth...

 

[jjdoyle]

But I get pro-life letters signed by Rand Paul that criticize Roe v.Wade for "discovering" a right to privacy. I, for one, think it would be great if the US government had to respect a right to privacy. So why is Rand Paul criticizing it??!!

Did you post a picture of the letter yet? I might have missed it skimming the two pages, but I didn't see it posted. Context is key, and being that the letters apparently made you so curious as to Rand's position to start a new account on a forum and address it, I would assume you still have them around and can share them?

 

[YesI'mALiberal]

Did you post a picture of the letter yet? I might have missed it skimming the two pages, but I didn't see it posted. Context is key, and being that the letters apparently made you so curious as to Rand's position to start a new account on a forum and address it, I would assume you still have them around and can share them?

If you're implying that ralex is a liar - or "controlled opposition" or whatever - here is a nice, easily found public version for your perusal. Of course, you could have found it just as easily as I did, if you were really interested...

For 40 years, nine unelected men and women on the Supreme Court have played God with innocent human life.
​

They have invented laws that condemned to painful deaths without trial more than 56 million babies for the crime of being "inconvenient."

...

"When the Supreme Court handed down its now-infamous Roe v. Wade decision, it did so based on a new, previously undefined "right of privacy" which it "discovered" in so-called "emanations" of "penumbrae" of the Constitution. *​

Of course, as constitutional law it was a disaster."

http://www.culturallegacy.org/life-at-conception


​

No need to thank me. I live to serve.


* which as ralex has pointed out way, way back, was not actually in Roe v. Wade; emanations and penumbrae are from Griswold v. Connecticut and the Senator is, ahem, interpolating.

 

[ralex]

If you're implying that ralex is a liar - or "controlled opposition" or whatever - here is a nice, easily found public version for your perusal. Of course, you could have found it just as easily as I did, if you were really interested...

No need to thank me. I live to serve.

I'll thank you anyway, Liberal. Unwanted appreciation is just one of the burdens you must bear.

Though I didn't think jjdoyle or anyone else was implying I'm a liar. They just wanted to see the original source - a perfectly reasonable request.

It's surprising that no one else on this list got the letter. I've sent money to Ron Paul, but I've never sent money to Rand and I've never donated to a pro-life group. Why should I get this letter and no one else here got it?

- Bob

 

[jjdoyle]

If you're implying that ralex is a liar - or "controlled opposition" or whatever - here is a nice, easily found public version for your perusal. Of course, you could have found it just as easily as I did, if you were really interested...

For 40 years, nine unelected men and women on the Supreme Court have played God with innocent human life.
​

They have invented laws that condemned to painful deaths without trial more than 56 million babies for the crime of being "inconvenient."

...

"When the Supreme Court handed down its now-infamous Roe v. Wade decision, it did so based on a new, previously undefined "right of privacy" which it "discovered" in so-called "emanations" of "penumbrae" of the Constitution. *​

Of course, as constitutional law it was a disaster."

http://www.culturallegacy.org/life-at-conception


​

No need to thank me. I live to serve.


* which as ralex has pointed out way, way back, was not actually in Roe v. Wade; emanations and penumbrae are from Griswold v. Connecticut and the Senator is, ahem, interpolating.

Asking for the letters isn't implying anything, it's asking for the source, to see the context. As I said. Sorry you might read too much in a simple request. When I saw "letter", I wasn't thinking email/digital, I was thinking it was something in the actual mail.
I didn't know which letter(s) Bob was talking about, and knowing the full context of Rand's message might help. Somebody else asked if he could share them I believe, and I didn't see a link or picture to them.

I like to see ORIGINAL CONTENT, so I can see the context of the post. Sorry you feel that asking for the letter(s) (original source) that caused his concern, is calling someone a liar. Must drink a different Kool-Aid than me.
And IF I had known it was digital form, I would have searched for it myself. You can check my history, and know that I know how to "google" things very well. And provide links when/where necessary, and when/where asked to back things up. It's a very simple request.

So now, that you did what was asked of another (+rep for that) and provided a link to one, I'll be off to read the digital letter in full context. Thanks for sharing!

 

[ralex]

Asking for the letters isn't implying anything, it's asking for the source, to see the context. As I said. Sorry you might read too much in a simple request. When I saw "letter", I wasn't thinking email/digital, I was thinking it was something in the actual mail.

What I got was a snail-mail letter. I was impressed that Liberal found an on-line copy.

- Bob

 

[jjdoyle]

What I got was a snail-mail letter. I was impressed that Liberal found an on-line copy.

- Bob

It's exactly how I read it, snail-mail via USPS. So, apparently my assumptions were correct, and Liberal's weren't. IMAGINE that. Basing it simply off of what was provided, and the context of what was written.

Did you receive more than one, or is that the only letter you have received on it?

 

[ralex]

It's exactly how I read it, snail-mail via USPS. ...
Did you receive more than one, or is that the only letter you have received on it?

I received another very similar (if not identical) letter about 6 months ago.

- Bob

 

[YesI'mALiberal]

It's exactly how I read it, snail-mail via USPS. So, apparently my assumptions were correct, and Liberal's weren't. IMAGINE that. Basing it simply off of what was provided, and the context of what was written.

MY assumptions were that it was just like the email that's been in the news and available for two years, that's public knowledge, that he's not hiding from in any way, and that it could be found by a simple search:
"rand paul" fundraising letter roe v wade

I guess I'm just smarter - or more informed about Rand Paul - than you. IMAGINE that.

 

[klamath]

Maybe you should follow your own advice and read the document: http://uscode.house.gov/

Of course, you won't find a "volume 18" and I doubt that "Title 18 Crimes and Criminal Procedure" is really what you're about. The fact is, the Declaration of Independence is in Front Matter, i.e. the preface, and has no real enforceable standing. To wit:



... just how enforceable do you think the Articles of Confederation are?

Here you are buddy.
Statutes at Large, 43rd Congress, 1st Session
Volume 18, Part 1
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=018/llsl018.db&recNum=18

 

[Peace&Freedom]

"When the Supreme Court handed down its now-infamous Roe v. Wade decision, it did so based on a new, previously undefined "right of privacy" which it "discovered" in so-called "emanations" of "penumbrae" of the Constitution. [/I]*[/INDENT]

Of course, as constitutional law it was a disaster."

The Paul letter was quite accurate on each point made in the above excerpt. Prior to Roe, there were not 5 constitutional scholars on the face of the earth who would have argued with a straight face that there was a privacy right to an abortion in the Constitution. Let alone was it a right that made the state laws on abortion of the time, no matter how restrictive or liberal, all equally unconstitutional. And basic rights do not cancel each other---their is no such thing as a privacy right that cancels somebody else's right to life, for example. For Rand to merely point this out does not make him narrow, just correct.