Paul in 2012?

[Kushinator]

Jim Crow laws were enacted by state governments and overturned by the federal government via the 14th Amendment. If you think that it was okay for the federal government to do this, how do you reconcile that with this:

Jim Crow laws are unconstitutional, in my lowly opinion. It is similar to states revoking voting rights, they lack the authority.

It sounds like you support the federal government's decision to overturn state laws via the 14th Amendment, but only when the state law is one you disagree with.

Only in your mind:2wave:

 

[new coup for you]

Dr. Paul believes that marriage is a state issue. He also believes the states themselves should recognize it as a religious issue.

Why is state's controlling your life better then the federal government?

this is the heart of the issue: "libertarians" aren't about "liberty" they're about states rights- which generally manifests itself in a state trying to deny a right and the federal government trying to protect it.

 

[Defensor]

And people wonder why the more extreme, rabid "Dr. Paul" followers drive people crazy.

THEY call for huge, over the top, completely extreme to the general mind ideas. People go "Wow, that's crazy". They go "GWHAHAHAH! How Dare you sheeple call Dr. Paul and My Ideas CRAZY! You're Just an ignorant fool! Prove me WRONG!"

Now, they can always generally ignore the fact that THEY started it with giving next to no back up of their own. Such as this person. Show me where he's posted why he thinks:

Women shouldn't be allowed to vote
18 year olds shouldn't be allowed to vote
Allowing citizens of any race to vote

Let me guess, you're new here so you'll tell me a I'm an ignorant "sheeple" who doesn't understand Ron Paul and its obvious I don't support him, right?

Sorry, don't quite understand what you are asking. Do you have quotes from Dr. Paul about not allowing women, 18 year olds, and other races to vote?

Hate to say this but unless you live somewhere other than the United States of America they're your politicians too.

I did not vote for them. They are not mine just like Obama is not my president.

Oh by the way, later on you start arguing about them daring to edit the constitution and add things.

I thought you cared about the Founding Fathers? I thought you believed their document (the constitution) to be perfect? I thought everything the Founding Father's said is what really matters.

I said the Constitution was perfect? The Constitution was the result of the Hamiltonian counterrevolution which brought down the Articles of Confederation. The latter I personally think we would have been much better of with.

But strict adherence to the Constitution is still vastly superior to the limitless big government policies your politicians advocate and pursue.

If that's the case, why did they give later generations the ability to add amendments to the constitution if their desire wasn't for future generations to amend the constitution? We should follow the constitution 100%....unless it does something we don't like and then we should say people are following it in a way we dislike?

The vast majority of offences committed today are not Constitutional at all, so this discussion seems rather petty.

 

[Kushinator]

Why is state's controlling your life better then the federal government?

this is the heart of the issue: "libertarians" aren't about "liberty" they're about states rights- which generally manifests itself in a state trying to deny a right and the federal government trying to protect it.

States rights are liberty. They are the beginning and end to the democratic process in the US, in my humble opinion...

 

[jallman]

Why is state's controlling your life better then the federal government?

this is the heart of the issue: "libertarians" aren't about "liberty" they're about states rights- which generally manifests itself in a state trying to deny a right and the federal government trying to protect it.

I notice that with abortion laws. When the argument is lost at the federal level, it almost always reverts to an attempt at an end run in the form of "let the states decide".

 

[dirtpoorchris]

Why is state's controlling your life better then the federal government?

this is the heart of the issue: "libertarians" aren't about "liberty" they're about states rights- which generally manifests itself in a state trying to deny a right and the federal government trying to protect it.

State is a little easier to defeat if they are wrong I think.

 

[new coup for you]

I notice that with abortion laws. When the argument is lost at the federal level, it almost always reverts to an attempt at an end run in the form of "let the states decide".

I think it reveals that the anti-segregation movement was indefensibly racist.

The same conservatives who argued that segregation was about "states rights" then used the federal government to enforce their views regarding homosexuality.

 

[new coup for you]

State is a little easier to defeat if they are wrong I think.

Yeah? Ask black people being sprayed with riot hoses in Selma Alabama.

 

[dirtpoorchris]

Yeah? Ask black people being sprayed with riot hoses in Selma Alabama.

Did they ever reach a balance?

 

[new coup for you]

Did they ever reach a balance?

What? What does that even mean? A balance in what?

 

[Defensor]

If you are seriously trying to argue that the 14th Amendment is a bad thing, then I don't really care to waste any more time arguing with you.

Well that sort of betrays the fact that you don't have any argument...

Hmmm.....I wonder how exactly this more perfect union indended to do each of those things. Would it be by passing a whole bunch of identical state laws? Nope, that doesn't sound right...

The powers of the branches of government are clearly stated in the Constitution.

 

[Defensor]

Why is state's controlling your life better then the federal government?

this is the heart of the issue: "libertarians" aren't about "liberty" they're about states rights- which generally manifests itself in a state trying to deny a right and the federal government trying to protect it.

Dr. Paul is a U.S. Congressman, not a state representative. It is not his job to be dictating state policies.

 

[Defensor]

I notice that with abortion laws. When the argument is lost at the federal level, it almost always reverts to an attempt at an end run in the form of "let the states decide".

The federal government does not possess the Constitutional power to outlaw murder, jallman. Such issues were left to the states to enforce.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I agree, but the point is that you can't start with "the founders were wrong" and work from there as some on this thread seem to want to.

Well, In a way I can agree that at least Madison? was wrong in Federalist number 10 and 51 but that is really counter productive to what I want to happen.

My problem with our government is that some judicial decisions can trump constitutional principals when they don't have the power to do so.

Or how the Supremacy Doctrine exists but many in state governments they say it doesn't apply to them. I can't remember the wording for it exactly atm.

 

[new coup for you]

Dr. Paul is a U.S. Congressman, not a state representative. It is not his job to be dictating state policies.

But he sure has a selective "love of liberty" doesn't he?

He loves liberty when it's being denied by the federal government, but is an enthusiastic supporter of its abuse at the hands of state governments.

State governments, by in large, are worse then the federal government, history is fairly conclusive in this.

 

[RightinNYC]

Jim Crow laws are unconstitutional, in my lowly opinion.

According to what?

It is similar to states revoking voting rights, they lack the authority.

Where are you getting this? The constitution explicitly authorizes states to determine voting qualifications:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

Section 4. The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

The fact that Congress can override some of these regulations in some situations doesn't preclude the states from passing their own laws.

 

[RightinNYC]

The federal government does not possess the Constitutional power to outlaw murder, jallman. Such issues were left to the states to enforce.

No

US CODE: Title 18,1111. Murder

 

[Zyphlin]

Sorry, don't quite understand what you are asking. Do you have quotes from Dr. Paul about not allowing women, 18 year olds, and other races to vote?

I didn't say Paul said it. You did, in the post I quoted. Let me do it again

The 14th Amendment should be repealed, all the amendments since then

All the amendments since then includes women's right to vote, protecting voting status from being denied by race, and moving the voting age to 18.

I did not vote for them. They are not mine just like Obama is not my president.

That doesn't matter, if you're a United States citizen they are YOUR politicians. You may not LIKE them, you may not have VOTED for them, but they ARE your politicians just like Obama IS YOUR President.

 

[Defensor]

All the amendments since then includes women's right to vote, protecting voting status from being denied by race, and moving the voting age to 18.

And?

That doesn't matter, if you're a United States citizen they are YOUR politicians. You may not LIKE them, you may not have VOTED for them, but they ARE your politicians just like Obama IS YOUR President.

They may steal my hard-earned money to fund their evil schemes but they are NOT and NEVER WILL BE my politicians.

 

[dirtpoorchris]

I didn't say Paul said it. You did, in the post I quoted. Let me do it again



All the amendments since then includes women's right to vote, protecting voting status from being denied by race, and moving the voting age to 18.



That doesn't matter, if you're a United States citizen they are YOUR politicians. You may not LIKE them, you may not have VOTED for them, but they ARE your politicians just like Obama IS YOUR President.

More like Obama IS OUR Manchurian Candidate. Or... I guess really he would truly belong to someone else.

 

[Defensor]

No

US CODE: Title 18,1111. Murder

Wow, impressive one-word response.

 

[new coup for you]

God it is so infuriating how libertarians will endlessly defend the abuse of individuals liberties, but only when it happens at the hands of corporations or local governments.

Unless a local government wants to ban hand guns. That's satanic.

But segregation and bigotry towards gay people is ok, as long as Governor Cletus of Hill Country signs it a law.

 

[Kushinator]

According to what?

The 9th amendment...

Where are you getting this? The constitution explicitly authorizes states to determine voting qualifications:

Perhaps i should have been more specific. Find the actual amendment yourself:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."

So the states have the authority to absolve all elections?

 

[RightinNYC]

Wow, impressive one-word response.

PROTIP: The underlined thing after "no" is called a "hyperlink." Clicking it will transport you to a "website" that has "information." That "information" should serve to correct your "ignorance" about federal laws regarding "murder."

 

[Defensor]

God it is so infuriating how libertarians will endlessly defend the abuse of individuals liberties, but only when it happens at the hands of corporations or local governments.

Unless a local government wants to ban hand guns. That's satanic.

But segregation and bigotry towards gay people is ok, as long as Governor Cletus of Hill Country signs it a law.

That depends on what is permitted by the state constitution.