Replies

My point followed directly, my point was that a law must stand or fall upon its own merits rather than ‘if it was OK in the past, it should be OK going forward’ as was OBVIOUSLY not the case with laws against interracial marriage.

Natural rights are God given.

The definitions of limited government and natural rights have not changed. Our interpretation of what the natural rights of man entails in its intersection with the law has quite obviously changed, in a system that was designed to acknowledge those rights, as well as to Constitutionally accommodate change, and to hash out what the proper role is of a limited government of enumerated powers that respects the natural rights of man.

But good luck convincing 75% of Americans that what they do in the bedroom is “evil” and subject to Government regulation, and that the regulation would not at all be a violation of their natural rights, and that such regulation is compatible with a limited government of enumerated powers.

So if you don't see laws against contraception as a violation of natural rights, and as compatible with a government of limited and enumerated powers. WHY oh WHY are you not actually for passing such laws again?

Pragmatism? Practicality? Realism?

So if you don't see laws against contraception as a violation of natural rights, and as compatible with a government of limited and enumerated powers. WHY oh WHY are you not actually for passing such laws again?

************************

Ever heard of the expression "you're making my case"?

While it doesn't exactly fit here, and regardless of the fact that no one has argued to make contraception illegal, your posts seem to insist that we should do so.

The definitions of limited government and natural rights have not changed.

Agreed.

Our interpretation of what the natural rights of man entails in its intersection with the law has quite obviously changed, in a system that was designed to acknowledge those rights, as well as to Constitutionally accommodate change, and to hash out what the proper role is of a limited government of enumerated powers that respects the natural rights of man.

This is commonly referred to as moral relativism, do you support this?

But good luck convincing 75% of Americans that what they do in the bedroom is “evil” and subject to Government regulation, and that the regulation would not at all be a violation of their natural rights, and that such regulation is compatible with a limited government of enumerated powers.

Does this 75% figure actually have some data to back it up or is it just a nice round number?

Do you think the Founding Fathers envisioned a government where laws were passed, amended or repealed based upon what a majority of the population thought?

So if you don't see laws against contraception as a violation of natural rights, and as compatible with a government of limited and enumerated powers. WHY oh WHY are you not actually for passing such laws again?

Believing that laws would be constitutional IS NOT the same as supporting such laws.

Sounds like Screwtape talking to me.