|
|
 Photo courtesy of Andy Shupe with NWAOnline.com (Copeland on the left) Casey Copeland, Treasurer for the Libertarian Party of Arkansas, attorney and Alderman in Prairie Grove, AR, brought a case to the Arkansas Supreme Court that led to the overturn of the law banning sexual contact between teachers and adult students. The Arkansas Supreme Court found that people over the age of 18 have a constitutional right to engage in a consensual sexual relationship.
The case was about Elkins High School history and psychology teacher David Paschal, who admitted to having a consensual sexual relationship with and 18 year old student.
“Regardless of how we feel about Paschal’s conduct, which could correctly be referred to as reprehensible, we cannot abandon our duty to uphold the rule of law when a case presents distasteful facts,” wrote Chief Justice Jim Hannah.
Paschal, who is serving a 30-year sentence, will have his convictions reversed and dismissed. His attorney, Casey Copeland, said his client was “vindicated by the Supreme Court.”
“I think that this case does not necessarily say a teacher can do that and keep their job,” said Copeland. “I think the loss of job and loss of teacher’s license might be Continue reading Libertarians Making a Difference in Arkansas – Casey Copeland, Attorney
This is a continuation of the LPAR bringing you blog posts by our upcoming speakers at our State Convention on April 9th. This was originally posted at Liberty for All.
by R. Lee Wrights
“The only defensible war is a war of defense.”
- C.K. Chesterton
One of the most misunderstood principles of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle. The belief that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatsoever; nor advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else including government is the very essence of the non-aggression principle. The misconception starts when we use the phrase “initiation of force.” People tend to focus on the last word and ignore or forget the first.
Most libertarians are not pacifists so our adherence to the non-aggression principle doesn’t mean we won’t defend ourselves. On the contrary, the right to self-defense is inherent in the concept of Continue reading Opposing war doesn’t make you a pacifist
Rodger Paxton posted this in Capitalism, Constitution, Drug War, Economics, Letter from the Chair, Libertarianism, Liberty, LPAR Executive Committee, National News, Taxes on December 4th, 2010
Rodger Paxton, Chairman of the LPAR, was a guest panelist on Liberty Cap Talk Live tonight. To listen to the podcast, go to Liberty Cap Talk Live and download the .mp3 file. You can also listen to it on your iPod device by going to iTunes. Other panelists were James Oaksun, Treasurer . . . → Read More: LPAR Chair Participates as a Panelist on Liberty Cap Talk Live
Rodger Paxton posted this in Constitution, Liberty on September 17th, 2010
223 years ago today in 1787, the Philadelphia Convention adopted the U.S. Constitution. Today, that Constitution is being attacked from all over, which makes it more important today than at any time in our history.
In honor of the date of adoption, I challenge everyone to commit themselves to understanding this venerable document more. . . . → Read More: Happy Constitution Day!
What do they mean by building a mosque in New York, and right down there at Ground Zero no less! Why we can’t have that! So what if we have the unalienable right to worship as we see fit, that don’t mean *they* can build a mosque right down there on Ground Zero. They . . . → Read More: What are those sneaky Mooslums up to now?
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled Chicago’s gun ban unconstitutional due to the 2nd Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms and the 14th Amendment’s Due Process clause.
The 214 page majority opinion can be found here.
According the the Chicago Tribune, “The Chicago City Council could consider . . . → Read More: MCDONALD ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET AL.
There has been much press this past week, and it probably will be continuing for some time, about Rand Paul and his statements concerning the Civil Rights Act and “institutionalized racism”, as one media pundit put it. I’ve watched the sound bites of what Rand said and fully understand why the media and “blogosphere” are all a buzz. I’ve seen the editorial comments, both for and against (mostly against). Nearly all of those in the nay column have pulled the race card, just like they did with his father, and proclaim that since he is against the Civil Rights Act, at least part of it anyway from some of his “clarifications” recently, he must be racist, for “institutionalized racism” or (and I love this one) a radical. I can understand where someone may take those positions, not understanding Libertarian philosophy, and contend that Rand Paul (again like his father) is a big business corporate lackey that doesn’t understand the rights of “the little guy”.
The problem, however, is not in Rand Paul’s understanding of rights, but the misconception of rights by the public at large. More importantly, a great portion of American citizens do not understand the difference between Natural and Civil rights. I would venture to guess, at least from conversations that I’ve had with “the public at large” they equivocate natural rights and civil rights. We, as Libertarians, understand the difference and we also understand that natural rights ALWAYS Continue reading Much ado about something
Brian Leach posted this in Constitution on May 15th, 2010
The United States as we know it today is a far cry from the vision the Founding Fathers had in mind at the end of the 18th century. Upon declaring independence from the British Empire America was to become a nation of free people with a minimal government whose purpose was to protect violations of person or property. . . . → Read More: Governing with the consent of the governed?
Statement of Congressman Ron Paul
United States House of Representatives
Statement on Motion to Instruct Conferees on HR 2194, Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act
April 22, 2010
Mr. Speaker I rise in opposition to this motion to instruct House conferees on HR 2194, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act, and I rise in strong opposition again to the underlying bill and to its Senate version as well. I object to this entire push for war on Iran, however it is disguised. Listening to the debate on the Floor on this motion and the underlying bill it feels as if we are back in 2002 all over again: the same falsehoods and distortions used to push the United States into a disastrous and unnecessary one trillion dollar war on Iraq are being trotted out again to lead us to what will likely be an even more disastrous and costly war on Iran. The parallels are astonishing.
We hear war advocates today on the Floor scare-mongering about reports that in one year Iran will have missiles that can hit the United States. Where have we heard this bombast before? Anyone remember the claims that Iraqi drones were going to fly over the United States and attack us? These “drones” ended up being pure propaganda — the UN chief weapons inspector concluded in 2004 that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein had ever developed unpiloted drones for use on enemy targets. Of course by then the propagandists had gotten their war so the truth did not matter much. Continue reading Ron Paul Rising in Opposition to Iran Sanctions
I’m going to try to make this short and sweet, but it will be difficult given the subject matter.
Article 5 of the Constitution states:
“The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” Continue reading The “unlawful” 14th Amendment
|
