Libertarians – when speaking about Constitutional Liberties – often invoke the Tenth Amendment, which, essentially, serves as a device to limit intrusions committed by government that might conflict with rights that are not explicitly expressed in the Constitution, but, nevertheless, have come to be expected and practiced by the various Common Law traditions extant in the Republic. When interpreting the Tenth Amendment, Libertarians often take it to mean that the Federal Government should pay deference to State political apparatuses by deferring decisions regarding contentious issues – such as the right of women to possess control over their own reproductive capacities – over to the States and their endogenous political structures.Another exemplar of this political philosophy was embodied in the response provided by Ron Paul, during one of the Republican debates, when he was queried over his position concerning gays in the Military: Paul dismissed with the concept of gay, altogether, claiming that the Uniform Code of Conduct only specified prohibited activities concerning the behaviors of individuals. According to this logic, sexuality and the concomitant sexual identities, gay or lesbian, do not exist. Rather, there are only individuals who commit acts – independently of being gay, lesbian, or heterosexual – that should be interpreted – not as the behaviors demonstrative of any social identity – but, rather, as the voluntary decisions made and executed by individuals. Therefore, Military prohibitions against man-man-love do not discriminate against gays; they only restrict the behaviors of individuals.

The problem with the Libertarian ideology with respect to these types of issues is it ignores – almost entirely – the Fourteenth Amendment – often referenced under the rubric: Equal protection under the law. What if I was to introduce a prohibition to the Uniform Code of Conduct, which barred excessive amounts of hereditary pigmentation, which create darker skin complexions among individuals serving in the military. I am sure that more than one General in the United States Army could be used as a puppet by Strom Thurman type reactionary politicians to argue that dark skin complexions interfere with the camouflaged uniforms that are worn in desert environments. Better yet, I propose augmenting the Uniform Code of Conduct with provisions prohibiting the inclusion in the Military of any individuals who possess reproductive organs that do not protrude from their bodies, rather having them concealed internally.

Of course, I am sure, there are those who might object to the counter-instances presented above along the grounds that skin complexion and sexual physiology are not voluntary decisions that are made by individuals; therefore, they belong to a different class of considerations. To those who would proffer such an argument, I suggest, first off, consulting Michael Jackson regarding such matters. Furthermore, if you fail to have obtrusive sexual organs, medical science has been steadily advancing in this area; now providing hope to those who lack outward genitalia, who, nevertheless, want to serve in my military. On a final note, hereditary sciences have provided unequivocal evidence that sexual orientation is to a large degree determined by genealogy. Of course, there are exceptions, such as the case when identical twins fail to share sexual preferences. However, these instances are typically explained by the exposure of embryos and fetuses to different levels of hormones while in the womb. Therefore, even if we were to dismiss with the counter-examples presented above, I could still revert to the argument that sexual orientation is not a voluntary decision, but one that is subject to forces exogenous to the agent.

I must admit I was partially fascinated – even attracted – to the candidacy of Ron Paul. However, after listening to his responses concerning these social issues, he appears less concerned with protecting Civil Liberties than he does with justifying forms of discrimination through appeals that parse through the Constitution in order to selectively emphasize particular passages when endeavoring to construct a rhetoric that presents Civil Liberties as a device serving to vindicate forms of discriminatory praxis in American society. I, on the other hand, have always thought of the Constitution as a document whose ultimate teleology is to expand and protect Civil Liberties for all Americans by assuring that all types of social identities are treated fairly and equally under the law.

I should mention that not all Libertarians subscribe to the Ron Paul school of thought when it comes to interpreting the Constitution. Harry Browne, for instance, followed in a progressive juridical-politico tradition. In fact, he wanted to use the Constitution to expand the rights of citizens; certainly not to protect the prerogatives of segments of the population to deny to other portions of the populace rights and liberties by warding them out of various public institutions.

I suggest to the Libertarians who follow in the Ron Paul tradition to go back to the drawing board, because to preach ideals that are packaged under such ostentatious pretexts, such as Constitutionalism, which are, in fact, devised in order to merely sanctify bigotry in American society, is indicative of a narrow mindedness that is certainly not keeping with the spirit of the Document they claim to so deeply esteem.

Russell Cole

If you enjoyed this post,
Subscribe to the Free Midwest Populist Party Newsletter

Please consider a donation of $1 or more
to help keep this website active.

Spread the Word:

Related Posts:

--How would our silent soldiers cast their final ballot?
--A clear choice for America: Obama or oblivion
--Election countdown: Just three weeks left

Categories: Commentary