Johnny S. Clarke & Lisa Straub- young Ohio couple murdered

[Methusala]

Allow me to draw a finer point on our perceived differences of opinion, SS:

I agree that what Texas did was highly improper....

I'm back and after a hot bath, AND a hot shower, I'm almost too relaxed to write a post that requires deep thought. I promised an answer, though, and I shall address this.

But, if a woman asks the state to provide her with the costs of hospitalization and delivery of her child and/or support by the state; if a man or woman asks the courts of the state to establish paternity and enforce rights to child support or custody or parental access and time-sharing …

are you saying that in those circumstances a state does not have the right to require that, in return for the individual invoking the powers of the state and its courts, the state may have on the books a law requiring the furnishing of DNA by the parties affected by its actions?

The state can and will do anything it can get away with, as the nature of power is to perpetuate itself, ALWAYS, and the founders warned about this. It is our job to keep things in check and we have failed, in most respects.

The question that you pose is a very important one because it goes right to the heart of the very foundations of this country. When an individual gives up personal responsibility and power to another authority, liberty is lost. Should it be? No. Is it in keeping with the Constitution and the sovereignty of the individual? No. In the situation that you have laid out the individual becomes subservient to the state. That's a socialist concept and philosophy and it has to be challenged if we are to save ourselves from tyranny.

Here's the rub: Most people are so ignorant that they wouldn't know Thomas Jefferson from a hole in the wall. They do not understand their rights, the assaults on those rights, the dangers in giving up personal liberty and, as a result, they would never question what's being traded for favors from the state. This reminds me of the Miranda issue where people have to be informed of what their rights are. Even then you can tell them and they have no idea of the philosophy and principals that established that they have those unalienable rights, endowed by the Creator. Even worse, after the ignorant, who CAN be educated, there's a significant percentage that are just flat out stupid. Many of those get state "benefits" (i.e., PRIVILEGES in exchange for rights). No class of American is immune to this ignorance, and that applies to state employees, lawyers, judges and politicians, as well. We're a dumbed down nation. It was just a small minority of dedicated people that pulled off the American revolution and led the masses to freedom. It's no different, now.

It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.

~ Samuel Adams

Mr. Adams was talking about liberty.

Socialism - the taking from to give to another - is contrary to our Constitution. It's in full swing, though, and I completely oppose the idea that anyone who has been led down that primrose path, without understanding the pitfalls, should lose their birthright of personal liberty. I know that it happens but that doesn't mean that it can't be turned around. When FDR created the New Deal and the welfare state, followed by LBJ and the Great Society, people received state assistance without some of the intrusions we see now, so why should we should allow things to get worse? We need to turn this ship around, not continue down the Orwellian road we're on. Before DNA, people got welfare. Until the welfare is undone, I don't see why anyone should be treated like their state property.

What is more personal than the very blueprint of YOU? The implications of institutions taking and storing DNA are immense. …


As for being a "collectivist" the whole point of people getting together and creating states and other forms of government is for the purpose of leveraging the power of the people, so as to protect people and obtain the strength found in numbers. IMHO that's why we have constitutions which define the powers of the state and reserve all other powers to the people.

…




It's not Feds>States>People

It's People>States>Feds

Rights lie with the People and powers are delegated to the States and the Federal government. The will of any collective does not usurp the rights of the individual. Whenever that happens it's abuse of power. Let it go on long enough and it will take a violent revolution to reclaim what we've lost.

Am I an anarchist? Maybe. Define anarchist. Serioulsy, I don't know. There are many forms of anarchism. Just go to the Ron Paul Forums and ask! There's a bunch of them, there. I would be THRILLED to see our country return to the Constitution. If there is going to be government, it's the best model (besides something like the Iroquois Nations). I want to see the day when Americans, who don't do harm to their neighbors, can live in anonymity if they so choose. I don't want government up my ass or in my business. Anything less is not freedom.


Now, with that, I expect Lady Cop is gonna tase me for SERIOUS thread drift. In my defense I will say that there is NOTHING going on with this case so drift is inevitable (for me, lol).

you should probably limit those bath/ showers. (yea that starwars smiley doesn't apply but I just found it and thought it was cool)

While you took a hot bath, I had a nice hot shower.
And a good thing, too.
Because it looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree.

I am amazed by this malarkey now in vogue, about us living under myriad laws which have to be reversed because they violate the Constitution.

Just because some people dress up and run around wearing colonial clothing doesn't mean they know anything about how the Constitution has been interpreted and applied over the years to test each and every law which has been passed.

Since Marbury v. Madison, it has been held that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of whether or not laws which have been passed are in conflict with the Constitution, and they have done their job. That's what they do. People have been taking their complaints to the Supreme Court, about whether or not laws are Constitutional ever since. In addition, if you think a law violates your rights under the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, and cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you, as ruled in the Gideon case.

Just because some unemployed plumber here in Toledo yells "Socialist" after reading one book he found in his attic doesn't mean that he knows what he's talking about. Along with individual freedoms, the constitutional expressly states that it was written to, among other things, provide for the common welfare. These people in their pseudo-colonial uniforms are like a group of Rip Van Winkles who seemingly have just woken up, missed reading about all the cases taken to the Supreme Court over hundreds of years, which have tested and determined which laws are constitutional and which are not, and are running around yelling "Save the Constitution" like a bunch of ninnies, IMHO.

They are the "sheeple" to which you have alluded elsewhere.

We have good laws and we have bad laws, but we don't have unconstitutional laws. This is a myth.

Nevertheless, I respect their right to think otherwise. They are free to take all these cases back to the Supreme Court all over again. Let them.

As for the laws which now require people who seek the help of the courts to provide evidence (DNA) in support of their paternity cases, there is nothing new in the concept that states and courts can require parties to prove their cases, based upon the current state of scientific knowledge. There is a case for that too:

"Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult to define. Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs." Frye v. United States."

By the way, I don't mean to imply that you, ShitStorm, are one of those unthinking ninnies. It is obvious that you have done a lot of thinking about this subject and I admire the extent of your reasoning and argument. I just think that you are making a mistake buying into the notion advanced by that group.