"Ron Paul hates gay people" pissed off about a stupid meme.

[nicname]

This has to be taken out of context right?

 

[pulp8721]

Well of course...they left out this part:

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

 

[emazur]

On the other hand, when discussing national ID cards in the '08 debates, Paul said ""the purpose of government is to protect the secrecy and privacy of all individuals". Since we're talking about a national ID here, we're also talking about the Federal government. If the Federal government's purpose is to protect privacy, that can be extended to things like sodomy. IMO, Paul is not always consistent about states rights issues. For instance, he says a state can ban illegal drugs. But he also says the interstate commerce clause protects the selling of birth control to another state. If that's the case, the interstate commerce clause protects the selling of drugs to another state. If you wanted to dig into the weeds and claim birth control and drugs can be imported into a state but a state can prohibit the sale of birth control and drugs within the state, doesn't that defeat the purpose of the state's ban in the first place? If so, why didn't Paul answer that a state DOES have the right to ban birth control?

 

[MaxPower]

On the other hand, when discussing national ID cards in the '08 debates, Paul said ""the purpose of government is to protect the secrecy and privacy of all individuals". Since we're talking about a national ID here, we're also talking about the Federal government. If the Federal government's purpose is to protect privacy, that can be extended to things like sodomy. IMO, Paul is not always consistent about states rights issues. For instance, he says a state can ban illegal drugs. But he also says the interstate commerce clause protects the selling of birth control to another state. If that's the case, the interstate commerce clause protects the selling of drugs to another state. If you wanted to dig into the weeds and claim birth control and drugs can be imported into a state but a state can prohibit the sale of birth control and drugs within the state, doesn't that defeat the purpose of the state's ban in the first place? If so, why didn't Paul answer that a state DOES have the right to ban birth control?

I agree about the birth control issue-- I fully expected him to say that states were not forbidden under the Constitution from banning birth control. The interstate commerce spiel struck me as a novel rationale he hasn't applied elsewhere.

On the subject of privacy, however, I don't think you've found an inconsistency in his position, so much as in his terminology; there is a constitutional "right to privacy" in one sense, but not in another. It comes down to the vagaries of language. For example, if we lived somewhere where a major political faction said we had a "right to bear arms" that consisted in an entitlement to have tax-subsidized guns provided to us, we libertarians/constitutionalists would say that no such right existed; however, in the context in which the Constitution means it (simply that the government can't take guns away from people who've obtained them without use of force or fraud), we most certainly do say that there is a "right to bear arms." Likewise, under the Constitution, there is no "right to privacy" which designates that states can be federally-prohibited from illegalizing acts which generally take place in private, but there is a "right to privacy" in the sense that the government cannot break in or spy on private residences without a warrant, and can stop private citizens from breaking into or spying on other private citizens' residences.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

On the other hand, when discussing national ID cards in the '08 debates, Paul said ""the purpose of government is to protect the secrecy and privacy of all individuals". Since we're talking about a national ID here, we're also talking about the Federal government. If the Federal government's purpose is to protect privacy, that can be extended to things like sodomy. IMO, Paul is not always consistent about states rights issues. For instance, he says a state can ban illegal drugs. But he also says the interstate commerce clause protects the selling of birth control to another state. If that's the case, the interstate commerce clause protects the selling of drugs to another state. If you wanted to dig into the weeds and claim birth control and drugs can be imported into a state but a state can prohibit the sale of birth control and drugs within the state, doesn't that defeat the purpose of the state's ban in the first place? If so, why didn't Paul answer that a state DOES have the right to ban birth control?

I agree. He's also inconsistent about incorporation doctrine; rejecting it when abortion is discussed, but accepting of it when it comes to racism in the court system via the drug war, Jim Crow, and in a context that totally and completely contradicts his support of DOMA.

He's spoken in favor of privacy and of the right of privacy so many times I'm left to conclude that he was inferring that since there is no enshrined right of privacy in the Constitution, that the Supreme Court had no basis for ruling on the matter - and spoken in a fashion that may bring social conservatives into the fold.

 

[sylcfh]

On the other hand, when discussing national ID cards in the '08 debates, Paul said ""the purpose of government is to protect the secrecy and privacy of all individuals". Since we're talking about a national ID here, we're also talking about the Federal government. If the Federal government's purpose is to protect privacy, that can be extended to things like sodomy. IMO, Paul is not always consistent about states rights issues. For instance, he says a state can ban illegal drugs. But he also says the interstate commerce clause protects the selling of birth control to another state. If that's the case, the interstate commerce clause protects the selling of drugs to another state. If you wanted to dig into the weeds and claim birth control and drugs can be imported into a state but a state can prohibit the sale of birth control and drugs within the state, doesn't that defeat the purpose of the state's ban in the first place? If so, why didn't Paul answer that a state DOES have the right to ban birth control?

He did argue that the states have the right to ban it, and even introduced a bill that annoyed many liberals...

http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/ron-paul-birth-control.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Obviously the Fourth Amendment offers some protection:

Right of search and seizure regulated

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.

But as Ron Paul may have said, it is still up to the States to define what are criminal acts. This is just a statement of fact and procedure. It is not judging any particular activity, although it appears that Ron said that laws against sodomy are ridiculous. Is that not clear?

Back to the Bill of Rights, a clever attorney and an agreeable Supreme Court might decide that there is also protection under the First Amendment...