Ed Brayton of the Dispatches from the Culture Wars has a great post on why Ron Paul needs opposed. Paul has a lot of good ideas for trimming some of the government waste, but then of course he’s a sponsor of the “We the People Act,” a bill designed to reign in “activist” judges.

The core of the bill is:

The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court– (1) shall not adjudicate– (A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion; (B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or (C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and (2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).

Let’s be clear here, by sponsoring this bill Paul has shown that the only liberty is concerned with is financial. He wants to strip citizens of their constitutional rights and let the states go wild. If this were to pass there would be nothing to prevent states from banning contraceptives, abortion, gay rights, the rights for anybody to have sex with someone they aren’t married to, people engaging in their kinks or fetishes, or anything else that raises the moral ire of repressed church ladies.

This would also free up a state like Idaho to make religious education a mandatory part of the curriculum where you would get to choose whether to go to Catholic catechism, Mormon seminary, or Pentecostal Bible study classes. There would be nothing stopping Utah from declaring the state to be a Mormon state and making a temple recommend card a requirement for public office, banning the sale of alcohol, tobacco, and coffee, or allowing 50 year old men to marry as many 16 year old girls as they want.

Stripping people of equal protection under the law would allow the states to take civil liberties right back to where they were in the 1950s when sodomy and abortion were illegal and states could say that you were married after a one night stand. That would be a disaster on so many levels. Of course if this bill were to pass, I’m sure the Supreme Court would strike it down.

Checks and balances are important and the Constitution does have a provision for giving the federal government the responsibility to keep the states in line. But, when it comes down to it, the only check to protect the people from the tyranny of the majority is the court system. We need that.

(Via RD.net)