Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Originally posted by MrWendal
How about this... what business does the Supreme Court have to make a ruling on this issue to begin with??
The fourth amendment protects our homes, our persons, our papers and our effects from unreasonable search and seizure. If we feel our privacy is being violated by law, our recourse for Constitutionally-protected rights is the Supreme Court.
Ron Paul sites the fourth amendment PRIVACY as his reason why the Patriot Act is unconstitutional.
By the same logic, any laws against abortion or sodomy would also be unconstitutional. But not by "Ron Paul logic". Apparently he believes abortion and homosexuality are morally wrong and so he would remove federal privacy jurisdiction under these particular cases and would open the door for states making them both illegal.
I have done my research. I strongly considered voting for Paul. But my research is what changed my mind.
And when did "Sodomy" become an act exclusive to gay people??
I didn't say it was. I know what sodomy is. And it's none of Ron Paul's OR the state's business what I do in my bedroom. My privacy is federally protected in the Constitution and it's the president's job to uphold such. Ron Paul has stated that he would not. He's not getting my vote.
SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT. yOU FEEL IT IS THE FED GOV'S ROLE TO LEGISLATE THE ACTS OF IMMORALITY, BUT NOT MORALITY?
hOW DOES ANY OF THIS MAKE SENSE?
You feel the people in the states should be legislated against their own opinions that govern them and it's the feds job to ensure immorality trumps morality and it's definitions? And I am sure you can provide for me your opinion that it's not your personal morality that governs your opinion and that legislating immorality isn't the same as legislating m,orality because you have a secret defin ition that the authors of the 4'th didn't understand?
PUH-LEASE, this is circle-reasoning to the point of becoming dizzy.
Just Kidding i know you get it
