Sunday, June 28, 2015

The Libertarian Party, Again, Abandons Its Principles and the Constitution to Join the Political Bandwagon

Earlier this year I blogged about the Indiana Libertarians' curious and anti-constitutional position during the fight over Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. RFRAs are adopted as a direct result of the 1990 Supreme Court case Employment Division v. Smith which rendered the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause meaningless when it came to protecting religious liberty.  Under Smith, as long as a law applied equally to everyone it could infringe on religious freedom.  That was a radical departure from the Sherbert standard which required government have a compelling interest to infringe on religious rights.   Smith rendered the Free Exercise Clause virtually meaningless.

Remarkably, during the RFRA debate Libertarians showed they were not interested in standing up for the Constitution or for freedom, at least not when it comes to religious freedom Instead,many, albeit not all, Libertarians bought completely the nonsense that RFRA was going to be "license to discriminate."   Of course RFRA is in 31 states and at the national level and in 22 years of existence there has not been a single instance in which RFRA overturning the application of an anti-discrimination law. That though didn't stop Libertarians, normally a thoughtful bunch unpersuaded by political slogans, to abandon critical thinking as well as their principles to join the mob bashing RFRA.

This week, the Libertarians had another chance to stand up for the principals in their platform and again took a pass..  This time the issue was same sex marriage.  Certainly the Libertarian Party has a long history of supporting same sex marriage.  Yet the Libertarian Party also had a long history of opposing judicial activism, a practice in which judges find new rights in the U.S. Constitution that other judges never saw before.  The Libertarian Party has also always trumpeted federalism, that when the Constitution is silent on an issue, the power to decide that issue should be left to the states or to the people.  (See 10th Amendment). 

On Friday the United States Supreme Court handed down Obergefell v. Hodges, a case in which the Court found that the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment, protected the right of same sex couples to marry.  Apparently no on in the nearly 150 year history of the 14th Amendment noticed that this legal protection was contained in the words of the 14th Amendment.  Fortunately, though five justices on the Court had the wisdom to "find" it. 

Naturally Libertarians decried the abuse of judicial power and the undermining of federalism.  Certainly they argued that how to define marriage is a policy decision that under our system of government should have been left to the states.    After, all Libertarians support the Constitution and Federalism, right?  No, apparently not.  . On Friday, the Libertarian Party put out a press release saying the Party "applaud[s] and celebrate[s]" the decision. 

Given the chance to twice stand up for the Constitution, Libertarians twice denied their erstwhile support for that glorious document.    Not sure if it will happen a third time, but if it does I expect a rooster to crow.  Since Libertarians seem to care not one whit about religious freedom, maybe I should explain that that is a biblical reference.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

As I've never seen the book of Libertarian Ethics, Libertarian Morality, or Libertarian Principles I'm curious as to why you state that they have been violated. I'm pretty sure that around here they read Duh Star and accept the leadership of those supporting Sodomy. All that has occurred is that some lawyers lied to other lawyers and together they screwed the American People. I don't know any Libertarians familiar with Constitutional Law that can, in the Constitution, find anything about Sodomy being any sort of a right. The argument accepted was just another modern lie or equivocation, if you would prefer. It was this: Normal procreative conjugal relations that have the potential to add to and perpetuate the human species ARE EQUAL ONLY TO selfish acts in the pursuit of hedonistic pleasures. To conflate the two is both misguided and evil...especially from those Catholic judges who knew better. The above, of course, stolen from another discussion. That author also noted that to establish these acts of sodomy as a fundamental human right is a satanic deception.....eagerly swallowed by Duh Star, their half wit columnists, Gannett, and Scott Pelath?

Anonymous said...

I tried in vain to follow the "logic" of Anon 3:31's commentary; I could not because, simply put, there was none to be had.

Anonymous said...

The Libertarian Party of Indiana has always celebrated and advocated for bigger govt. by promoting same sex marriage instead of getting govt. out of marriage. This celebration of the Supreme Courts decision shows once again that they have no appreciation for or accept the Constitution as written. Shame on them for not using this opportunity to discuss how the federal govt. is supposed to properly function.

Anonymous said...

Libertarians have long supported Sodomy in all its forms. Is that logic clear enough to the other Anonymous who thinks he knows something of "logic"?

Anonymous said...

I don't have a problem with the Libertarians supporting the right of adults to engage in sodomy or same sex marriage. I have a problem when they support federal judges rewriting the Constitution to take public policy issues away from being decided by the people's elected representatives at the state level. Supposedly Libertarians are for a limited national government. They proved otherwise last week.

Paul K. Ogden said...

Not sure why the Anon 8:09 posted as Anonymous. That was me, Paul Ogden.

Nicolas Martin said...

To set the record straight I refer you to the person who has had more influence than any other on modern libertarianism: Murray Rothbard. This is his take on constitutionalism.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/whats-wrong-with-conservatism/