Now that the midterm elections are over and the results are (mostly) in, we can turn our attention to all the other hot back-burner issues: like sex, and the political ramifications thereof. Most of these issues are of particular concern to the so-called LGBTQ+ community, and what the government is doing, or not doing, to either defend or destroy said rights. Today your favorite blogger will inject his libertarian wisdom into a potpourri of related hot sexual topics.
Our US Constitution provides for We the People choosing to live in the society we want at the state and local levels. These anti-sodomy laws, to the extent they still exist or are even enforced, are the purview of the local people, not the US Capitol, as pictured. It's a huge distinction and difference. States, counties and cities should be free to ban (or allow) whatever they want outside the Bill of Rights - because they're accountable directly to "the People" who vote and pay taxes there. Such is (now) the case on abortion. This is how we keep the anger and vitriol level down - settling disputes (and living with consequences) locally without overweening authority from the US Capitol, or Supreme Court or president's desk to enforce a "one size fits all" "morality" for everyone to live by.
The simple rule is this: if it's not mentioned in the US Constitution, then it's up to the locals to decide, not the feral government. And that goes for everything from marriage, sex and abortion, to drugs, gambling, alcohol, tobacco and kids' education. Hands off. The current Supreme Court majority FINALLY embraces this. We shouldn't be surprised to see much more "powering down" of feral government nonsense as this Court develops its full throated defense of liberty.
The people enraged by this "powering down" will burn through their seething and resentment as the vast overwhelming majority of us come to realize we've been (re)gifted with the choice our Founders intended. That WE get to choose, not have a distant Capitol or nine robed justices impose on us.
This will take time to sink in, but it will. Some reports have indicated "abortion was on the ballot" last week - and it literally was in some cases. And that unveils the inkling that "locals get to decide" in peoples' minds. They're starting to get it. Especially as THIS (current) Congress has struggled to come up with a one-size-fits-all "codification" of Roe. They can't - just as the previous FIVE congresses couldn't "codify" Roe. The irony is breathtaking that they even try...because it just keeps reinforcing what the Dobbs decision said. https://jeffmockensturm.substack.com/p/why-they-cant-just-codify-roe
Yes, decentralization is always good. I don't like invasive government, but if there must be laws authorizing the sex police, better to do it locally. Citizens can then "vote with their feet".
The Ninth Amendment is a rule of construction that doesn't preclude states from regulating behaviors not in the first eight amendments. It DOES preclude the FEDERAL government from regulating such unenumerated rights. It was never intended as a free for all that sanctioned all unenumerated rights within the states, including anything one could imagine. How would the original states have ever ratified such a thing? Privacy - subsuming private consensual behavior - is not a constitutionally enumerated right (see Dobbs), it is therefore, under the ninth amendment, an unenumerated right left to the states and their people to adjudicate its limitations and practical application. I think even you would agree that Griswold was tortured logic and if it had come before THIS Supreme Court wouldn't even get a hearing. In fact, if it does come back up before this Supreme Court, it will be overturned. The US constitution did not enshrine a libertarian commune - it framed a republic.
Well, it might, under 14A incorporation. There's an argument there, and from a liberty perspective, I'd suggest that government should not have the authority to regulate private consensual behaviors.
Unfortunately from my perspective, neither 9A nor 14A are sufficiently applied/enforced, because governments red and blue love power and hate rights.
I won't argue against "governments hate rights" though some state and local governments are far more libertarian than others. But the constitution frames a republic and not a one size fits all definition of what constitutes a freedom. We have to consider the "living arrangements" we encounter at the state and local level, and must sort out lots of thorny issues among one another. Parental rights, for instance, is a very sensitive subject - and states/cities vary widely in how much autonomy parents have in deciding education and health standards for children. Animal "rights" are another topic of wide variation - it's not a US constitutional topic, but local communities ban animal mistreatment and I think justifiably. Common law marriage, cohabitation, age of consent, "child" labor, property governance, etc and now abortion - the list is (literally) infinite in what local states, counties and cities are called to adjudicate. One can have a "libertarian bent" toward addressing these - or a more statist/control bent - and we hash these out through our local elections. Which is a system I'd vastly prefer as opposed to any solution dictated by far away Washington DC.
Our US Constitution provides for We the People choosing to live in the society we want at the state and local levels. These anti-sodomy laws, to the extent they still exist or are even enforced, are the purview of the local people, not the US Capitol, as pictured. It's a huge distinction and difference. States, counties and cities should be free to ban (or allow) whatever they want outside the Bill of Rights - because they're accountable directly to "the People" who vote and pay taxes there. Such is (now) the case on abortion. This is how we keep the anger and vitriol level down - settling disputes (and living with consequences) locally without overweening authority from the US Capitol, or Supreme Court or president's desk to enforce a "one size fits all" "morality" for everyone to live by.
The simple rule is this: if it's not mentioned in the US Constitution, then it's up to the locals to decide, not the feral government. And that goes for everything from marriage, sex and abortion, to drugs, gambling, alcohol, tobacco and kids' education. Hands off. The current Supreme Court majority FINALLY embraces this. We shouldn't be surprised to see much more "powering down" of feral government nonsense as this Court develops its full throated defense of liberty.
The people enraged by this "powering down" will burn through their seething and resentment as the vast overwhelming majority of us come to realize we've been (re)gifted with the choice our Founders intended. That WE get to choose, not have a distant Capitol or nine robed justices impose on us.
This will take time to sink in, but it will. Some reports have indicated "abortion was on the ballot" last week - and it literally was in some cases. And that unveils the inkling that "locals get to decide" in peoples' minds. They're starting to get it. Especially as THIS (current) Congress has struggled to come up with a one-size-fits-all "codification" of Roe. They can't - just as the previous FIVE congresses couldn't "codify" Roe. The irony is breathtaking that they even try...because it just keeps reinforcing what the Dobbs decision said. https://jeffmockensturm.substack.com/p/why-they-cant-just-codify-roe
Yes, decentralization is always good. I don't like invasive government, but if there must be laws authorizing the sex police, better to do it locally. Citizens can then "vote with their feet".
Jeff, I'd ask your thoughts on a Ninth Amendment argument as to private consensual behaviors between adults.
The Ninth Amendment is a rule of construction that doesn't preclude states from regulating behaviors not in the first eight amendments. It DOES preclude the FEDERAL government from regulating such unenumerated rights. It was never intended as a free for all that sanctioned all unenumerated rights within the states, including anything one could imagine. How would the original states have ever ratified such a thing? Privacy - subsuming private consensual behavior - is not a constitutionally enumerated right (see Dobbs), it is therefore, under the ninth amendment, an unenumerated right left to the states and their people to adjudicate its limitations and practical application. I think even you would agree that Griswold was tortured logic and if it had come before THIS Supreme Court wouldn't even get a hearing. In fact, if it does come back up before this Supreme Court, it will be overturned. The US constitution did not enshrine a libertarian commune - it framed a republic.
Well, it might, under 14A incorporation. There's an argument there, and from a liberty perspective, I'd suggest that government should not have the authority to regulate private consensual behaviors.
Unfortunately from my perspective, neither 9A nor 14A are sufficiently applied/enforced, because governments red and blue love power and hate rights.
I won't argue against "governments hate rights" though some state and local governments are far more libertarian than others. But the constitution frames a republic and not a one size fits all definition of what constitutes a freedom. We have to consider the "living arrangements" we encounter at the state and local level, and must sort out lots of thorny issues among one another. Parental rights, for instance, is a very sensitive subject - and states/cities vary widely in how much autonomy parents have in deciding education and health standards for children. Animal "rights" are another topic of wide variation - it's not a US constitutional topic, but local communities ban animal mistreatment and I think justifiably. Common law marriage, cohabitation, age of consent, "child" labor, property governance, etc and now abortion - the list is (literally) infinite in what local states, counties and cities are called to adjudicate. One can have a "libertarian bent" toward addressing these - or a more statist/control bent - and we hash these out through our local elections. Which is a system I'd vastly prefer as opposed to any solution dictated by far away Washington DC.
Man, if I could identify as a girl when I was in high school and get access to their locker rooms, I would have been all over that.