One Ron Paul Thread to Rule Them All, one thread to find him

[Fr33domland]

Ffs buddy I've asked for proof like 20 times and you keep giving me claims.

[Wikkiwallana]

If he would never make such statements, why did he let them be printed in his name, in his paper?

Fair question. I happen to believe him when he says he was practising medicine at the time and didn't bother with it. He seems to be a trusting person. That's my opinion. Whether you believe him or not about is up to you, and is your opinion.

Still, 40 years of speeches and video interviews is on my side, so if you want to attack my trusting of him about this single thing, you'll need a bit more evidence to convince me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_the_People_Act#We_the_People_Act

Paul has been a critic of the Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas decision, in which sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. In an essay posted to the Lew Rockwell website, he stated his opposition to what he called ridiculous sodomy laws, but expressed his fear that federal courts were grossly violating their role of strictly interpreting the Constitution, and felt that they were setting a dangerous precedent of what he characterized as legislating from the bench, by declaring privacy in regards to sexual conduct a constitutional right. Ron Paul said:

Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment "right to privacy". Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards.[148]

In 2004, he spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996. This act allows a state to decline to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries, although a state will usually recognize legal marriages performed outside of its own jurisdiction. The Defense of Marriage Act also prohibits the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even if a state recognizes the marriage. Paul co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.[132][133]

Paul has said that recognizing same-sex marriage at the federal level would be "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty".[134] Paul stated, "Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages."[135]

The second quoted section is a direct copy from an earlier post of mine. There is a massive edit war going on in that article right now and the section is currently missing.

[Death Metal]

Ffs buddy I've asked for proof like 20 times and you keep giving me claims.

It's a NEWSPAPER QUOTING A PUBLIC INTERVIEW.

Right here:

Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of ""current events and statistical reports of the time."

Bolding mine.

Unless the Wednesday of May 1996 was somehow in 1992, it wasn't from his newsletter.

I also posted this here before, for you.

[Wikkiwallana]

Ffs buddy I've asked for proof like 20 times and you keep giving me claims.

What the hell do you call this:

A video of Ron Paul saying that the Confederacy was right to secede from the union to protect slaveowners.

?

[Fr33domland]

Lol. Nice. The ONE I found too.

He's defending the position of states rights over federal rights, if you'd watch it.

I can't really disagree. Not that I am defending slavery, ofc.

No discriminatory comments, nothing of the sort that you would like to portray him.

Give up. Yes, Obama will probably win, we don't really care. Focus your hatred on the Romney crowd, please?

[Wikkiwallana]

Lol. Nice. The ONE I found too.

He's defending the position of states rights over federal rights, if you'd watch it.

I can't really disagree. Not that I am defending slavery, ofc.

No discriminatory comments, nothing of the sort that you would like to portray him.

Give up. Yes, Obama will probably win, we don't really care. Focus your hatred on the Romney crowd, please?

States don't have rights, neither does the federal government. Only people have rights.

[Death Metal]

Lol. Nice. The ONE I found too.

He's defending the position of states rights over federal rights, if you'd watch it.

I can't really disagree. Not that I am defending slavery, ofc.

No discriminatory comments, nothing of the sort that you would like to portray him.

Give up. Yes, Obama will probably win, we don't really care. Focus your hatred on the Romney crowd, please?

No, because Rand in 2016.

Besides, Romney isn't nearly as bad as Paul. Hell, I'd say he's the best GOP candidate, not that that's saying much.

And states don't have rights, they have powers, and the Constitution says federal powers trump state powers. He's saying these fictional state rights are more important than abolishing slavery... so yeah, that's anti-civil rights.

[Grave_n_idle]

I can't really disagree. Not that I am defending slavery, ofc.

Those two sentiments conflict.

[Indig0]

thanks for posting! that was an awesome video!

[Death Metal]

thanks for posting! that was an awesome video!

The video where Paul denounces Lincoln for federally abolishing slavery, or the OP Red Dawn ripoff bullshit piece?

[Fr33domland]

And states don't have rights, they have powers, and the Constitution says federal powers trump state powers. He's saying these fictional state rights are more important than abolishing slavery... so yeah, that's anti-civil rights.

Who has rights? Why does the Federal government have "rights" over state governments.

[Alien Space Bats]

And states don't have rights, they have powers, and the Constitution says federal powers trump state powers. He's saying these fictional state rights are more important than abolishing slavery... so yeah, that's anti-civil rights.

Who has rights? Why does the Federal government have "rights" over state governments.

People have rights.

Governments only have authority.

[Death Metal]

And states don't have rights, they have powers, and the Constitution says federal powers trump state powers. He's saying these fictional state rights are more important than abolishing slavery... so yeah, that's anti-civil rights.

Who has rights? Why does the Federal government have "rights" over state governments.

Wikki already said this, but I'll add quotes from the Constitution:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Amendment 9 basically states that just because a right is not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution does not mean people do not have that right.

Amendment 10 notes that States are allowed to legislate so long as these legislations do not clash with federal law, and implies that federal law does supercede state law. The Constitution is considered federal law, of course.

This is why the 13th amendment rendered slavery null and void, because even if the states had laws affirming the legalization of slavery (and AFAIK they didn't), it wouldn't have mattered because federal law comes first.


Archives.gov has a very handy website with transcripts of the Constitution and Amendments btw. Good for referencing especially in this thread as this is the second or third time I had to quote Nine and Ten alone in this thread to point out that Ron Paul is WRONG on states having rights.

[Tahar Joblis]

And states don't have rights, they have powers, and the Constitution says federal powers trump state powers. He's saying these fictional state rights are more important than abolishing slavery... so yeah, that's anti-civil rights.

Who has rights? Why does the Federal government have "rights" over state governments.

It doesn't. It has authority over state governments, not "rights over" state government.

[Ravineworld]

lol down with Ron Paul tyranny.

You'd make great youtube satire for the Paul campaign, you know.

Well, when you're anti-civil rights, anti-privacy, supporting executive privilege to assassinate civilians, anti-judicial review, pro-corrupt government, and supporting religious tests of office... like Ron Paul does?

Yeah, that's a tyrant.

Well, Obama supports, and consistently uses the executive privileges to assassinate american citizens. He also supports drone strikes on villages, often killing innocent civilians. He also supports arresting people and throwing them in jail for using marijuana, heroin, and other drugs, even when they don't harm others. Oh, and he supports federal government involvement in things like marriage.
Sound a bit like tyranny?
Honestly it's very hypocritical to criticize Paul (who is in no way justified in his support for the things you mentioned), without criticizing Obama.
R. Lee Wrights 2012

[Mosasauria]

Well, when you're anti-civil rights, anti-privacy, supporting executive privilege to assassinate civilians, anti-judicial review, pro-corrupt government, and supporting religious tests of office... like Ron Paul does?

Yeah, that's a tyrant.

Well, Obama supports, and consistently uses the executive privileges to assassinate american citizens. He also supports drone strikes on villages, often killing innocent civilians. He also supports arresting people and throwing them in jail for using marijuana, heroin, and other drugs, even when they don't harm others. Oh, and he supports federal government involvement in things like marriage.
Sound a bit like tyranny?
Honestly it's very hypocritical to criticize Paul (who is in no way justified in his support for the things you mentioned), without criticizing Obama.
R. Lee Wrights 2012

I'm pretty sure he'd also be criticizing Obama were this thread about Obama.

[Grave_n_idle]

Well, Obama supports, and consistently uses the executive privileges to assassinate american citizens. He also supports drone strikes on villages, often killing innocent civilians. He also supports arresting people and throwing them in jail for using marijuana, heroin, and other drugs, even when they don't harm others. Oh, and he supports federal government involvement in things like marriage.
Sound a bit like tyranny?
Honestly it's very hypocritical to criticize Paul (who is in no way justified in his support for the things you mentioned), without criticizing Obama.
R. Lee Wrights 2012

I'm pretty sure he'd also be criticizing Obama were this thread about Obama.

Indeed. But this is the one tactic the Paul-heads have left. Ignore any legitimate claims that seem to cast their candidate in a bad light, and try to shift the discussion to someone else.

[The Alchemists Guild]

Amendment 10 notes that States are allowed to legislate so long as these legislations do not clash with federal law, and implies that federal law does supercede state law. The Constitution is considered federal law, of course.

To me that implies that federal law is only to be applied in the rare stated circumstances when it is necessary to supercede state law.
And after all, hasn't that been how it's been interpreted for most of American history? and isn't the constitution revered by weirdos like Paul because (in the way it has been interpreted) it has worked well enough in that time to assume that trying something different probably isn't for the best?
Or at least that's what they say, in reality they've just found a holy text they can worship to an extreme without necessarily having to murder sinners (and where absolutely none of the apostles need to be brown or talk funny). Which is probably a blessing.

[Alien Space Bats]

To me that implies that federal law is only to be applied in the rare stated circumstances when it is necessary to supercede state law.

That ignores the Supremacy Clause.

And after all, hasn't that been how it's been interpreted for most of American history?

No. See Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859).

[Unchecked Expansion]

Well, Obama supports, and consistently uses the executive privileges to assassinate american citizens. He also supports drone strikes on villages, often killing innocent civilians. He also supports arresting people and throwing them in jail for using marijuana, heroin, and other drugs, even when they don't harm others. Oh, and he supports federal government involvement in things like marriage.
Sound a bit like tyranny?
Honestly it's very hypocritical to criticize Paul (who is in no way justified in his support for the things you mentioned), without criticizing Obama.
R. Lee Wrights 2012

The assassinations use powers Ron Paul voted for, the drone strikes (with the same powers) are not aimed at innocents, although entering any conflict is accepting collateral damage and marriage has always been a legal, and thus government, issue.

[The Alchemists Guild]

To me that implies that federal law is only to be applied in the rare stated circumstances when it is necessary to supercede state law.

That ignores the Supremacy Clause.

Yeah...um...n-no. I don't think you've quite got me there mate. I was saying that since the amendment says that states should do the law making in all areas not mentioned elsewhere in the constitution. It implies that state-law should be used in as many situations as possible, and only in circumstances where state-lawmaking is impractical should the federal government step in with it's supreme-ier powers.
In essence the supremacy of the federal government is a necessary evil and only to be utilized when unavoidable, and state governing should be seen as the default.

[Farnhamia]

That ignores the Supremacy Clause.

Yeah...um...n-no. I don't think you've quite got me there mate. I was saying that since the amendment says that states should do the law making in all areas not mentioned elsewhere in the constitution. It implies that state-law should be used in as many situations as possible, and only in circumstances where state-lawmaking is impractical should the federal government step in with it's supreme-ier powers.
In essence the supremacy of the federal government is a necessary evil and only to be utilized when unavoidable, and state governing should be seen as the default.

Isn't that what happens now? More or less, anyway?

[The Alchemists Guild]

Yeah...um...n-no. I don't think you've quite got me there mate. I was saying that since the amendment says that states should do the law making in all areas not mentioned elsewhere in the constitution. It implies that state-law should be used in as many situations as possible, and only in circumstances where state-lawmaking is impractical should the federal government step in with it's supreme-ier powers.
In essence the supremacy of the federal government is a necessary evil and only to be utilized when unavoidable, and state governing should be seen as the default.

Isn't that what happens now? More or less, anyway?

I never said it wasn't, but it could be the basis for a constitutionalist to claim the founding fathers would value protecting state-rights over other priorities, like protecting the people of Alabama from themselves. But if it is, then the American people got what the founding fathers actually meant for once. (That whole 'Right to bare arms' typo has been disastrous for the sleeveless T-shirt industry, but great for inner-city funeral directors, so it probably balances out)

[Dempublicents1]

Yeah...um...n-no. I don't think you've quite got me there mate. I was saying that since the amendment says that states should do the law making in all areas not mentioned elsewhere in the constitution. It implies that state-law should be used in as many situations as possible, and only in circumstances where state-lawmaking is impractical should the federal government step in with it's supreme-ier powers.
In essence the supremacy of the federal government is a necessary evil and only to be utilized when unavoidable, and state governing should be seen as the default.

The problem comes in when we are discussing matters of individual rights. Constitutionally protected individual rights supersede any law - federal or state. When people like Paul argue for "states' rights," they are very rarely addressing an instance in which federal law is at odds with state law. Instead, they are addressing cases in which state law has been found to infringe upon individual rights. The argument then becomes state authority vs. individual rights, not state authority vs. federal authority.

[Alien Space Bats]

Yeah...um...n-no. I don't think you've quite got me there mate. I was saying that since the amendment says that states should do the law making in all areas not mentioned elsewhere in the constitution. It implies that state-law should be used in as many situations as possible, and only in circumstances where state-lawmaking is impractical should the federal government step in with it's supreme-ier powers.
In essence the supremacy of the federal government is a necessary evil and only to be utilized when unavoidable, and state governing should be seen as the default.

Yeah... um... n-no.

The Constitution says nothing about whether or not Congress should overrule the States, nor does it imply that when and where it can do so, it should only exercise that power in extremity; that may be your legislative philosophy, but such an approach is hardly Constitutionally mandated. In truth, it is up to Congress to decide when and how it ought to exercise its legal supremacy.

No, the 9th and 10th Amendments exist strictly for the purpose guiding us in reading the Constitution. The theme of the document is that Federal powers are strictly enumerated and articulated; those powers not explicitly granted to the Federal government are not the Federal government's to wield.

The 9th was enacted to assert that just because Federal power is limited to whatever is strictly defined in the Constitution, we should not assume that those rights listed in its first eight Amendments are equally limited; nor should we assume that the enumeration of rights within the first eight Amendments means that anything outside of what is guaranteed as a right in those eight Amendments is automatically subject to Federal regulation.

The 10th was enacted to remind us that the Federal government and the States operate in accordance with separate legal theories. The Federal government only has those powers granted to in in the Constitution - nothing more. The States, OTOH, being sovereign entities (literally "entities possessed of the power of a monarch"), have unlimited power over their residents (or did prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment); the Bill of Rights does not (or at least did not at first) apply to them, leaving the States free to exercise whatever power they wished, save where that power is explicitly pre-empted or circumscribed by the Constitution.

Thankfully, the 14th Amendment was later enacted to place a check on State authority. After all, a loose confederacy of 50 States, each capable of exercising absolute totalitarian authority over its residents down to the last and tiniest detail of their lives - which is Ron Paul's wet dream - might be democratic; yet such a nation can hardly be considered free.