Steve Skutnik, in his May 27 column discussing the legal basis of social conservativism, stumbles into an archetypal libertarian pitfall of constitutional law.

As a springboard to his discussion, Skutnik mentions Lawrence v. Texas, a case recently argued before the Supreme Court regarding the legality of a Texas law prohibiting homosexual acts. Skutnik’s primary assertion is that states have no business regulating individual actions that affect only the individual in question.

What Skutnik very evidently overlooks is that this libertarian concept of individual rights is not enshrined anywhere in the Constitution. Skutnik has articulated what, lawfully, is only his own personal preference.

Determining the nature of individual rights was to be left to the people to decide for themselves through state and local governments. The Tenth Amendment was authored to leave no doubt about this.

Contrary to what dogmatic libertarian think tanks would have the public believe, the Constitution was never meant to take on the function of dictating state law.

As for those who believe in no morality at all, or else that it is relative and varies from individual to individual, it can be no surprise that this small frustrated minority would try to hijack the federal bench to remove the moral and religious foundation of all American law while simultaneously acting as though their principles are “libertarian” and morally superior enough to mandate overruling the moral values of entire states and communities.

But this would only render local governments impotent, while creating a massive, dictatorial federal government.

Isn’t that what Libertarians want to avoid?

So let Skutnik vote according to his personal principles at the ballot box. Lawfully, these issues belong to state legislatures, not self-exalted federal judges or libertarian think tanks.

Paul Armstrong

Washington, DC