Tenth Amendment Ted
This guy thinks my guy Cruz needs to go back and read the Constitution: "There is no substantive-due-process right to stimulate one's genitals for non-medical purposes unrelated to procreation or outside of an interpersonal relationship."
Actually, it's interesting as much for the question whether a state attorney general or solicitor is obligated to defend a law independently of his own view. I would think so, but I would also think there are limits, and more than that, a duty to take a position contrary to law in appropriate cases. But how one draws that balance is quite interesting.
(More acutely interesting is the bizarre effort by state attorney generals to prosecute climate deniers. Those are people that will bring a rapid and unpleasant end to things. We call them "fascists.")
posted by ColumbusGuy @ 3:00 AM
6 Comments:
Wow references to three kinds of dildos in one post.
Next would be prosecution of anti-vacine advocates. We already have fines on people who do not want to purchase health insurance. The slippery slope is getting steeper.
Oooh, I like the cut of your jib, NEG. And whoever will forget the upcoming trials of socialists and Democrats for their brutal impoverishment of the masses?
What did I say?
I believe speeders get fined too
My name is not in blue, so credit to NEG.
But the difference with speeders being fined is 1) they represent a direct threat to fellow members of the public, and 2) most speeders probably agree that speeding (at some level) should be fined - in other words they are not fined because they merely disagree that speeding should be punishable.
So at the bottom of the slippery slope, imo, are those who disagree that the world should expend money and resources to try and prevent a global increase in temperatures. These fall into many categories (those who believe the effort is futile, those who believe an increase in global temps is not dangerous, those who believe CO2 is not a primary determinant of whether temperatures rise or fall, etc.). Whatever the majority believes at the moment, those who disagree with them are not a threat to the public by merely holding contrary beliefs, anymore than are people who don't believe in ghosts. (P.S. Did you see the picture of the ghost at the Stanley Hotel here in CO?).
Next up my slope would be those who believe vaccines are dangerous. Again there are different levels of this belief, but at least these folks arguably pose some threat to society if their recalcitrance results in a spread of preventable diseases. Still, the victims of their beliefs are overwhelmingly themselves, so why get the government involved fining them?
And then Obamacare, which is not a big step down the slope, but it is a step. Only because one may link the failure to have health insurance costs to the public treasury is it remotely justifiable to fine someone for choosing not to insure themselves. I would hope we would all agree that fining a person for merely desiring not to insure themselves would be an intolerable denial of personal freedom.
I would prefer that the government give people health benefits whether they ask them for it or not (and whether they use them or not) through public clinics, and then bill all citizens for the service. That happens all the time - government builds bridges to nowhere and charges the public treasury. But fining people for not thinking the way the government wants them to has to be an undesireable step down the slope, albeit a small one.
I couldn't tell you guys apart in law school, either.
Post a Comment
<< Home