Kennedy’s Libertarian Revolution. Lawrence’s reach.

National Review Online ^ | July 10, 2003 | Randy E. Barnett

[First Amendment]

What I don't understand is how libertarians refuse to see the difference between freedom and license, and how they interperet the Constitution to authorize actions that the men who wrote it would have died rather than authorize.
The word "bloviate" comes to mind.

And how homosexuals' freedom to parade etc etc trumps other peoples' desire to not have it shoved down their throats.

[Cultural Jihad]

Look, one cigarette never killed anyone. The same cannot be said for one act of homosexual sodomy. Guns are morally-neutral in that they have a legitimate purpose in hunting and in self-defense, too.

[tpaine]

Utopian spam, from pram. - Sigh.

[Cultural Jihad]

And how homosexuals' freedom to parade etc etc trumps other peoples' desire to not have it shoved down their throats.

Exactly. Or for that matter, the right of children to their own innocence, which is assaulted whenever they parade, proselytize, and preach their perversions in public.

[Clint N. Suhks]

if they weren't the stormtroopers of the Democratic Party.

Yeppers, they put the liberal in Liberaltarianism.

[Cultural Jihad]

Utopian spam, from pram. - Sigh.

So how many lawyers have you murdered this month? You did claim to defend the initiation of force and fraud the other night.

[First Amendment]

I'm not certain where the state's interests begin and where the individual's end when living in a supposedly free society.

It's one thing if homosexuals want to do what they want to do privately. But what they want (and anyone who doesn't admit this has their eyes closed very very tightly) is to promote and publicize and convince skulls full of mush of the attractions they offer. That is where their freedom ends and encroaches on others' freedom. If they kept their sodomy private no one would give a damn. They don't want it private.

[tpaine]

Good grief, you flagged a mod over that feeble old remark?


Whatta clown.

[swilhelm73]

Interesting that you ignore the rest of posting, pointing out the fact that the Supreme Court is insulated from normal democratic procedure and checks and balances, as it shreds your earlier statement.

The court, which can and does, with the mere will of five unaccountable men, or women, overrule both the executive and legislative branches, and rewrite the Constitution itself. This makes it easily the most powerful of the branches of government - and this is why it was not given the power of judicial legislation in the Constitution.

You have, however, indeed hit on the court's one potential weakness - the lack of a direct mechanism for enforcing its fiats and decrees. I've actually been working on and off on an article that address just this point...

This weakness is completely theoritical, however. At the federal level no one since Jefferson has seen fit to tell the Court they will not enact unconstitutional Supreme Court decisions. And in the current scheme of government followed by both the Dems and Reps there is no such option.

So to return to the world of what is and what is possible, what avenues are there for the people to stop the overarching power of our rogue Supreme Court?

[tpaine]

Yep.
-- You and CJ lose. I'm in-volk-ing the Nazi rule.

[Cultural Jihad]

They don't want it private.

And here's the reason. They wrongly think they feel bad about themselves because all of normal society is saying how evil their deeds are. They think that if only everyone would fawn over them and tell them how wonderful their evil deeds are, then they can feel good about themselves. But their self-loathing does not come from people telling them their deeds are wrong. It comes from within their own consciences. So even if they can force everyone to accept their evil deeds and tell them how wonderful they are, they would still be unhappy, miserable people.

[tpaine]

Like dementia, I'd say.

[Cultural Jihad]

I'm in-volk-ing the Nazi rule.

What's that? "We start by killing all the lawyers"? That Nazi rule?

[Clint N. Suhks]

Ping!

[budwiesest]

It's one thing if homosexuals want to do what they want to do privately.

I agree. But when the outcome is much mayhem and death should we still be concerned? What about the State? From the article, I doubt privacy is as important as the liberty being exercised in determining the legitimatcy of any act and specifically, acts that don't 'harm' others in some deliberate manner.

[Cultural Jihad]

... and specifically, acts that don't 'harm' others in some deliberate manner.

But since when did it become acceptable for people to go out and harm themselves? That is why the SCOTUS has nullified the DOI Preamble, for now privacy is more important than inalienable rights. Supposedly, a person can consent to become a zombie with no free will or ability to self-govern or become a slave of another, and hence have no liberty, so long as it is done in private. Supposedly, a person has a right to murder themselves, so long as it is all done behind hallowed closed doors.

Truly, the tyrants waiting in the wings are applauding the nullification of the DOI.

[First Amendment]

I doubt privacy is as important as the liberty being exercised in determining the legitimatcy of any act and specifically, acts that don't 'harm' others in some deliberate manner.

I agree, the SCOTUS majority made it clear that for homosexual acts to be illegal it "demeaned" "homosexual" persons. [I use " around "homosexual" because there is no actual class of people who are homosexual. It is a type of act that can be engaged in or not, willingly.] Definitely moral value judgement there. And if a person with an open mind studies up on what homosexuals do, with whom, how many, under what circumstances, how much more prone they are to molest/rape/seduce the young, and the MANY disease they spread, it's no contest. There is a reason sodomy has been illegal and considered morally wrong throughout history (with some notable exceptions).

And now the arrogant justices are telling us that they are the moral arbiters. Knowledge stolen by illusion.

[Clint N. Suhks]

Good grief, you flagged a mod over that feeble old remark? Whatta clown.

Hehehe...

[Cultural Jihad]

;-)