Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Posted on 07/20/2006 10:13:56 AM PDT by SmithL
Rights are unalienable, correct?
Then where do they come from?
If from the State, then rights are alienable.
If from the People, then rights are alienable.
If from God, then they are unalienable.
Now tell me how God grants us the unalienable right to fornicate.
Laws banning cohabitation existed, I would expect, in every state in the union in early America. They existed long before the Nanny State. The Nanny State was brought to us by people like the ACLU, who applauded the court for striking down the cohabitation law.
If you're a conservative, where would you rather live in terms of the current government and political atmosphere: Sweden or South Carolina? HINT: There's not the chance of a snowball in hell of a law against fornication passing in Sweden.
"the purpose behind such a law: the interest of society in promoting stable relationships in which children can best be raised"
This reminds me of a plan that Bill O'Reilly was promoting a couple of years ago. BO'R stated that the US should offer cash incentives to anyone who got married and stayed married. He said this would increase the financial status and provide a better home for raising children, among those who take advantage of the program. He based these statements on statistics that showed higher income levels in married couples (and thus concluded that marriage was the cause of higher income) and on data related to life performance in children from unmarried homes vs. married homes (and thus concluded that marriage made unsuitable parents into great parents). He concluded that government subsidies for being married were the answer...never mind considering that some people are not suitable parents...And nevermind that some people just aren't going to have high income levels and, ESPECIALLY, nevermind that "forcing" people who (should not be married) into a situation where children may be brought into the world by parents who may just marry for "crack money" or parents who hate each other will result in "reverse evolution".
Of course, in typical BO'R style, he refused comment from anyone who blew his proposal out of the water.
Maybe we'll find intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. That'll enable you to issue a call for the creation of intergalactic government. After all, the federal government might not be big enough yet to protect you from those local elected officials in your county.
Not all couples living together have kids. So, now I suppose I'm in for a lecture on the sins of sex which is not done for procreation.....
I didn't know the Nanny State was around in the 18th century. Wasn't the Nanny State brought to us by "progressives" and "modernists" of the very type that got rid of the fornication law?
If one trys to morph the 9th Amendment into a magic guarentee of a specific right that someone dreams up, then you run into a fundamental problem, Judges, not the people become the final arbiters on what is included in the 9th Amendment.
Our inalienable rights to life, liberty, or property are not "dreamed up".
-- It is the job of the USSC to issue opinions on any rights at issue, but you are hyping the issue to claim they are "final arbiters". The people retain final power.
What's dangerous about this is that it would be the unelected and largely unaccountable Judge, not the elected and accountable represenative, that would be making the final decision on the value of the claimed "right".
You laughably confer "final" power over our rights to "elected and accountable representatives"? Read Article VI. -- Both fed & state officials are bound to support our Constitution, which gives final power to the people. [see the 10th]
The fact of the matter is, [T]he Constitution's refusal to "deny or disparage" other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even afarther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges' list against laws duly enacted by the people." Troxel V Granville 530 US 57 (2000) (Scalia, J. Dissenting).
Scalia, dissenting.
"-- In my view, a right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children is among the "unalienable Rights" with which the Declaration of Independence proclaims "all men . . . are endowed by their Creator." And in my view that right is also among the "othe[r] [rights] retained by the people" which the Ninth Amendment says the Constitution's enumeration of rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage. --"
With all that said, I must add this caveat, please do not misinterpret what I am saying as to be "There are no unenumerated rights" as that reading would be patently incorrect. It's just that the libertine rewrite of the 9th Amendment as actually granting substantive rights is patently flawed.
There is no "rewrite" of the 9th. -- Our rights to life, liberty, or property can not be infringed upon, -- they can only reasonably regulated with due process of law.
As Justice Harlan recognized:
"-- [T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.
It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . "
In the USA we've allowed our zealots to operate under the 'victorian compromise'.. -- IE, you can have your blue laws [and even occasionally enforce them - on the lower sorts] as long as you let the rest of us pursue life & liberty.
Banning 'cohabitation' is, in this case, interfering with liberty.
Slave laws, black codes, laws prohibiting women from owning property or voting, laws prohibiting interracial marriages, laws setting voting "standards" and laws interferring with the right to privacy are a few of those impacting your libertine groups.
Now freed of such oppressive restraints, they have formed the Libertarian Party to crusade for recreational drugs and pederasty.
As I've indicated earlier, laws protecting freedom and the rights of the individual are the mainstay of conservatives.
Anyone wishing to can go here and see what Scalia actually wrote. Suffice it to say, you've taken it totally out of context:
http;//caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=99-138
Regarding the idea of inalienable rights, a case can be made for them. However, it would seem that they would be limited to things such as Scalia mentioned. Namely, activities that have a long historical basis in Western Judeo-Christian society. Anyone can come along at any point and assert an inalienable right to do anything. Do you expect to ratify every demand? Take the marriage issue for example. Suppose four men assert that they have an unenumerated, inalienable right to marry the "partner" of their choosing. One wants to marry a woman, one wants to marry another man, one wants to marry a horse, and one wants to marry a kitchen table. It's been a tradition in our society for thousands of years for men to marry women. Not only have such pairings been accepted, but they have been the norm, and have been considered good things to be celebrated. Not just recently, but throughout our history. That cannot be said of a man marrying another man, a horse, or a kitchen table. So one could make a defensible case that people have a right to marry a partner of the opposite sex as some sort of historically understood aspect of our civilization.
There are many problems with a wide-open interpretation of the 9th Amendment. As the potential demands for rights are unlimited, who is to limit them? Ultimately, the court will, but is that preferable to a legislature? At least we elect the legislature. What happens when people make conflicting rights claims? You see the problems this creates.
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Yes, there were many laws they endorsed in those days we wouldn't countenance today. As for freedom and morality, take a look at Benjamin Franklin. Adultery, fornication and other immoral acts didn't seem to prevent his freedom. And then there's Thomas Jefferson. Shall we discuss his morality? Was he free?
How nice, another libertine endorses the leftist Statist position of a "living constitution", one that places the power in the hands of the judiciary rather than the people.
No, another conservative as opposed to a religious repressive. I assume by that comment, you find disgusting laws and judicial decisions that prohibit discrimination, segregation, miscegenation, among others? The Constitution is not a living document, but in the area of the Bill of Rights and especially the 14th Amendment, America was slow to realize just what they meant. They aren't just words.
Sure, you like the "living constitution" theory when it endorses your various hedonistic perversions, yet when those same judges use the "living constitution" to say that you no longer have a right to own guns, you scream.
That answered my earlier question. We are better off with discrimination in every aspect of society in your view until the majority wants it removed. Who do you think the Bill of Rights was designed to protect? It wasn't the Bible toting, white male. It was everyone else who didn't have the power to decide anything. Fundamentalists are upset the the concept of rights applies to everyone, not just those in the pews next to them.
Either the Constitution means what it says, and means what it ment when the framers wrote it, or it means whatever the judicial oligarchy says it means. Which means they are your new rulers. Bow down and worship.
I always love it when someone thinks they know exactly what the framers meant. First, the framers are irrelevant to the discussion. The Constitution became the supreme law of the land when it was ratified, not when it was first drafted. Second, if you read the anti-federalist papers, you see that there was much dispute and many differing opinions on virtually every article of the Constitution. The Federalist Papers were only the opinions of mainly Madison and Hamilton, who wrote them for the newspapers to advertise and promote the new Constitution. Many different opinions existed then, just as they do now.
Again with the divorce lie? Again, 50% of marriages DO NOT end in Divorce. But 90% of Cohabitating couples do not last more than 5 years together.
1997 statistics show that 50% of first time marriages ended in divorce, and 60% of second marriages ended in divorce. If you have any other statistics provide them rather than the usual insults.
You don't have the freedom to destroy the moral fabric of society.
And you sir, haven't the freedom to decide which parts of society will benefit from the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment and which will not. Keep your Bible out of my bedroom, and I'll keep my moral compass out of yours.
Well, as long as there's no violation of the 14th Amendment, you may be right.
Secondly, Employees of the Sheriff in NC can be fired at any time for any reason because they serve at his pleasure. He doesn't need a reason to fire the woman. He basically can say, "Hey, you've done a good job for me, but it's time for you to go. Goodbye".
Can he fire all women if he chooses? How about all Hispanics? All Catholics? I would suspect there are limits even in North Carolina.
Thank you. Glad to see a few conservatives here. Take care.
Does this only pertain to relationships which involve doing something "down there", or is it a more general proposition?
If two adults consent to counterfeit money in the privacy of their own home, is that OK?
I'm surprised anyone still tried to enforce it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.