...but not in time for Valentine's Day, unfortunately.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cited Lawrence v. Texas in its ruling. Here's a nice quote:
"Just as in Lawrence, the state here wants to use its laws to enforce a public moral code by restricting private intimate conduct," the appeals judges wrote. "The case is not about public sex. It is not about controlling commerce in sex. It is about controlling what people do in the privacy of their own homes because the state is morally opposed to a certain type of consensual private intimate conduct. This is an insufficient justification after Lawrence."This is excellent news, and implies Lawrence is as significant as Randy Barnett suggested. A libertarian revolution is truly in the works, and it's flying in the teeth of Ron Paul's failing "rEVOLution" -- a movement that would have stripped federal courts of the power to strike down oppressive laws like the one in Texas.
Good for the court. Too bad for Ron Paul. The individual's right to live her life as she sees fit trumps the "liberty" of the mob to tell her what to do in the privacy of her own home.
Since Ron Paul is all about amending the Constitution to fight the hordes of pregnant brown women streaming over the Mexican border, why hasn't be proposed an amendment explicitly saying that the Bill of Rights applies to the states as much as to the federal government?
Think what that would do to ensure freedom of the individual. Think about what an amendment enshrining Barnett's "presumption in favor of liberty" into law would do.
As a libertarian, I'm glad Ron Paul's bid for the Republican nomination is circling the drain.
Hat tip: A Stitch in Haste
6 comments:
I agree with you that this is good news for Randy's "Libertarian Revolution," although it may be a little premature (no pun intended). On your point about the Bill of Rights applying to the states, no reasonable person denies that the Bill of Rights, with the exception of a couple clauses, applies to states the same as it does the federal government. There is no need for a constitutional amendment.
hymes lfky exhibitions uppsala fred kansas disputes academics volker viathe carbonate
semelokertes marchimundui
This is actually right. Teenagers as well, are too aware of these toys and I don't think it;s proper. These toys only make them more curious of this sexual activity.I say sex toys shop should be in a very discreet place.
sex toys
hello friends, I read your blog and found it very interesting and professional, the information is very interesting, I wonder if you have any update on the item. This information about Ban On Sex Toys Overturned; Ron Paul dismayed. deserves to be read by everyone! Thanks for sharing!c
I should digg your article therefore more folks can look at it, really useful, I had a hard time finding the results searching on the web, thanks.
- Thomas
There's a good thing that there are people in this area that are really concerned with sex starved people like us!
Post a Comment