Can Rand Paul beat Hillary?

[The Black Forrest]

a tea party member doesn't appeal to liberals on social issues in general, though.

I understand, but Rand Paul doesn't hold the same religious right views as some Tea Partiers do. He supports more civil liberties, has been very vocal in his opposition to racism, opposes the drug war, and wants to end foreign interventionism. If he can expose the Democratic Party supporting the drug war, less civil liberties and NeoConservatism, he will be able to get some crossover vote from social liberals like how the elder Paul got some crossover vote from the Occupy Wall Street guys.

He won't get the crossover vote. Rand is nothing more then talk and conspiracy talk. He no more then a copy of a copy.

[The Black Forrest]

But far more socially liberal than Santorum, who wants all the bible belt crap instilled nationally. Overall, since Rand Paul supports socially liberal positions that overall exceed the social liberalism of many Democrats, he can easily garner the social liberal vote when compared to Hillary.

the only way he is more liberal than mrs Clinton is in drug laws.

and I think that mrs Clinton can be brought around to a more supportive stance (but probably never in favor of full legalization of marijuana).

It's just talk. it's a safe talking point. Goverment doesn't seem to be interesting in legalizing it anytime soon so you can talk about it all you want. The ones who want it; scream "yea!" The ones who doen't just nod and think it's not going to happen.

How much of an effort has he made to legalize drugs?

[The Black Forrest]

He is opposed to legalizing drugs, gay marriage, and is pro-life.That's not 'pro-civil liberties', and I don't know why people think that he's in favor of more civil liberties. He also supports intervention in the case of ISIS.

His economic side is even worse.

The Paul family seems to have some sort of preternatural ability to get internet libertarians all hot and bothered about how totally amazing and right they are about everything. Fortunately for the rest of us, internet libertarians seem to be the only subset of the general population vulnerable to this peculiar influence.

I expect Paul #2 will lose in the primary, to many cries of underhanded tactics and mainstream Republican meddling, and we'll spend the next several years hearing 'Rand Paul 2020!' and 'Rand Paul was right about this! Rand Paul could have fixed that! Rand Paul predicted the other!"

It's almost Pavlovian.

[Lalaki]

I would prefer Hillary Clinton over Rand Paul, but I would want to be able to choose another candidate.

I want a moderate center-left candidate, a solid social liberal so to speak. Clinton seems to be more militaristic than I would hope for, and Paul is solid right. I respect both immensely, for they care about their country. I truly believe that. But I disagree with them.

[Ifreann]

He is opposed to legalizing drugs, gay marriage, and is pro-life.That's not 'pro-civil liberties', and I don't know why people think that he's in favor of more civil liberties. He also supports intervention in the case of ISIS.

His economic side is even worse.

The Paul family seems to have some sort of preternatural ability to get internet libertarians all hot and bothered about how totally amazing and right they are about everything. Fortunately for the rest of us, internet libertarians seem to be the only subset of the general population vulnerable to this peculiar influence.

I expect Paul #2 will lose in the primary, to many cries of underhanded tactics and mainstream Republican meddling, and we'll spend the next several years hearing 'Rand Paul 2020!' and 'Rand Paul was right about this! Rand Paul could have fixed that! Rand Paul predicted the other!"

The Doom Paul meme will be updated to feature Paul the Younger.

[Republic of Coldwater]

the only way he is more liberal than mrs Clinton is in drug laws.

and I think that mrs Clinton can be brought around to a more supportive stance (but probably never in favor of full legalization of marijuana).

It's just talk. it's a safe talking point. Goverment doesn't seem to be interesting in legalizing it anytime soon so you can talk about it all you want. The ones who want it; scream "yea!" The ones who doen't just nod and think it's not going to happen.

How much of an effort has he made to legalize drugs?

He has at least made no effort to support banning drugs, while Hillary Clinton pushed for the banning of drugs and continuing the drug war.

[Republic of Coldwater]

And just in case people forget, Elder Paul tried to make this a law:

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.

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).

These conditions, especially the first two, can be used to argue that virtually ANY law a state or local government makes cannot be ruled upon.

These conditions would also make several cases where marriage equality is legalized revert to criminalization.

State will be able to conduct warrantless searches, prosecute homosexuality, ban non-Christians from holding public office, prevent people from having "objectionable" books in their houses, outright ban on ownership of firearms... pretty much any law you can think of.

And the ONLY people who would have the legal authority to stop these things would no longer be able to do so.

If you keep the Supreme Court from legislating on the Constitutionality of laws, you effectively render the Constitution null and void.

Meaning every state can choose to have an unlimited, unchecked government.

The Pauls are big government authoritarian conservatives. Anyone who denies this is either a liar or delusional.

First off, that was Ron, not Rand Paul

Secondly, this would actually give states more autonomy in regards to gay marriage and religion, which means that it would be easier for states to legalize gay marriage and also restore government to its constitutional role of not giving marriage equality on the federal level. Furthermore, Ron Paul does not believe in state-level violations of the 4th Amendment, given on how a lot of his policies are highlighted as being very pro 4th amendment.

Furthermore, local and state level courts can still nullify state level laws, it is just that it stops federal courts from doing such things.

And about the gun ownership and christian arguments that you made, the law never talks anything about guns, it just says that Federal Courts can't nullify laws stated in the following. The law only talks about stopping the Feds from adjudicating laws regarding "free exercise or establishment of religion", nothing related to non-christians from running the country.

You must also look at in what context was this law proposed in. The context was to give state level courts and legislatures more autonomy and the feds less. This will result in a decentralized government, not a larger or smaller one.

[Republic of Coldwater]

and I don't know why people think that he's in favor of more civil liberties.

Because they're too blind by their own gullibility to see the Orwellian propaganda tactics the Pauls employ, and merrily trot along the path to servitude.

Fortunately the rest of us see their skin-deep platform of right-populism for what it is; a complete facade for their real stance, which is a systematic deconstruction of people's liberties in favor of state and corporate liberties.

No it is more personal, state and corporate liberties. Under "Right-Wing Populism" (your labeling of Libertarianism), people would be able to do cocaine and buy gold, people would be able to live free without wiretapping and associate with whomever they want to associate with, own as much property as they wish to, start a company without being burdened with a sea of papers, while states will have more liberties on things that aren't in the Constitution, and corporations (and all other kinds of business) will have the liberty to not be tied down by the government, resulting in a more productive economy.

[Hindenburgia]

First off, that was Ron, not Rand Paul

Which he acknowledged:

And just in case people forget, Elder Paul tried to make this a law:

Secondly, this would actually give states more autonomy in regards to gay marriage and religion, which means that it would be easier for states to legalize gay marriage and also restore government to its constitutional role of not giving marriage equality on the federal level. Furthermore, Ron Paul does not believe in state-level violations of the 4th Amendment, given on how a lot of his policies are highlighted as being very pro 4th amendment.

The problem is that it would give states a ludicrous amount of autonomy. Even if he doesn't "believe" in states violating the Constitution (what does that even mean?), it still happens, even without that bill. If it were passed, then what would happen is that the federal courts would be simply unable to stop it.

Furthermore, local and state level courts can still nullify state level laws, it is just that it stops federal courts from doing such things.

And that is a terrible state of affairs. For one, not all state courts are as impartial as the federal courts, entirely by design - in some places, judges are even elected! And I would ask you - what possible benefit is there from stopping the federal courts from doing this stuff?

And about the gun ownership and christian arguments that you made, the law never talks anything about guns, it just says that Federal Courts can't nullify laws stated in the following. The law only talks about stopping the Feds from adjudicating laws regarding "free exercise or establishment of religion", nothing related to non-christians from running the country.

Let's go through the list of things he said would happen, and I'll explain what parts of the law they fall under

Quote from his Post	Falls Under
warrantless searches	(B) privacy
prosecute homosexuality	(A) establishment of religion and (C) equal protection
ban non-Christians from holding public office	(A) establishment of religion
prevent people from having "objectionable" books in their houses	(A) establishment of religion and (B) privacy
outright ban on ownership of firearms	(A) establishment of religion *
pretty much any law you can think of	(A) establishment of religion *

*This one is somewhat less direct, but since all the state would need to do is declare its state religion to be "Texasism" or somesuch, they could literally make any law at all, claim it is based on this "religion", and the federal courts would be unable to rule on it.

You must also look at in what context was this law proposed in. The context was to give state level courts and legislatures more autonomy and the feds less. This will result in a decentralized government, not a larger or smaller one.

The problem is that this bill doesn't simply give them more autonomy in general - just autonomy to be larger. All it does is remove the ability for the federal government to check the power of the states. In what possible way is this a good thing?

[Othelos]

Because they're too blind by their own gullibility to see the Orwellian propaganda tactics the Pauls employ, and merrily trot along the path to servitude.

Fortunately the rest of us see their skin-deep platform of right-populism for what it is; a complete facade for their real stance, which is a systematic deconstruction of people's liberties in favor of state and corporate liberties.

No it is more personal, state and corporate liberties. Under "Right-Wing Populism" (your labeling of Libertarianism), people would be able to do cocaine and buy gold, people would be able to live free without wiretapping and associate with whomever they want to associate with, own as much property as they wish to, start a company without being burdened with a sea of papers, while states will have more liberties on things that aren't in the Constitution, and corporations (and all other kinds of business) will have the liberty to not be tied down by the government, resulting in a more productive economy.

Rand Paul is a 'conservative libertarian', aka not a real libertarian. He isn't in favor of expanding personal rights (opposed to legalizing drugs, gay marriage, and he is pro-life).

He's basically just like any other tea party republican.

[Jinwoy]

No it is more personal, state and corporate liberties. Under "Right-Wing Populism" (your labeling of Libertarianism), people would be able to do cocaine and buy gold, people would be able to live free without wiretapping and associate with whomever they want to associate with, own as much property as they wish to, start a company without being burdened with a sea of papers, while states will have more liberties on things that aren't in the Constitution, and corporations (and all other kinds of business) will have the liberty to not be tied down by the government, resulting in a more productive economy.

Rand Paul is a 'conservative libertarian', aka not a real libertarian. He isn't in favor of expanding personal rights (opposed to legalizing drugs, gay marriage, and he is pro-life).

He's basically just like any other tea party republican.

In that he wants to see a return to a time when Pinkerton agents were in the commons, smashing striking workers into a pulp so they can learn their rightful place as the scum-plebeians of society, and that their only point of existence is to serve their capitalist masters in 16-hour days.

Be the bee and all that nonsense.

[Republic of Coldwater]

First off, that was Ron, not Rand Paul

Which he acknowledged:

And just in case people forget, Elder Paul tried to make this a law:

Secondly, this would actually give states more autonomy in regards to gay marriage and religion, which means that it would be easier for states to legalize gay marriage and also restore government to its constitutional role of not giving marriage equality on the federal level. Furthermore, Ron Paul does not believe in state-level violations of the 4th Amendment, given on how a lot of his policies are highlighted as being very pro 4th amendment.

The problem is that it would give states a ludicrous amount of autonomy. Even if he doesn't "believe" in states violating the Constitution (what does that even mean?), it still happens, even without that bill. If it were passed, then what would happen is that the federal courts would be simply unable to stop it.

Furthermore, local and state level courts can still nullify state level laws, it is just that it stops federal courts from doing such things.

And that is a terrible state of affairs. For one, not all state courts are as impartial as the federal courts, entirely by design - in some places, judges are even elected! And I would ask you - what possible benefit is there from stopping the federal courts from doing this stuff?

And about the gun ownership and christian arguments that you made, the law never talks anything about guns, it just says that Federal Courts can't nullify laws stated in the following. The law only talks about stopping the Feds from adjudicating laws regarding "free exercise or establishment of religion", nothing related to non-christians from running the country.

Let's go through the list of things he said would happen, and I'll explain what parts of the law they fall under

Quote from his Post	Falls Under
warrantless searches	(B) privacy
prosecute homosexuality	(A) establishment of religion and (C) equal protection
ban non-Christians from holding public office	(A) establishment of religion
prevent people from having "objectionable" books in their houses	(A) establishment of religion and (B) privacy
outright ban on ownership of firearms	(A) establishment of religion *
pretty much any law you can think of	(A) establishment of religion *

*This one is somewhat less direct, but since all the state would need to do is declare its state religion to be "Texasism" or somesuch, they could literally make any law at all, claim it is based on this "religion", and the federal courts would be unable to rule on it.

You must also look at in what context was this law proposed in. The context was to give state level courts and legislatures more autonomy and the feds less. This will result in a decentralized government, not a larger or smaller one.

The problem is that this bill doesn't simply give them more autonomy in general - just autonomy to be larger. All it does is remove the ability for the federal government to check the power of the states. In what possible way is this a good thing?

Just because Ron wants a law that stops federal courts from nullifying state decisions doesn't mean that Paul is necessarily in favor of banning gay marriage, unwarranted wiretaps and other forms of ridicule that are often included in out of context arguments against this resolution.

The point of this resolution is to expand 10th Amendment rights, not ban these things, as many states will have the ability to legalize gay marriage at the time (with DOMA In effect) or end wiretapping without the Feds intervening. Furthermore, the term "Establishment of Religion" is never used in legal code as some sort of term to do crazy things like stop christians from getting elected or banning guns, it is usually to respect religious freedom. An example would be for local courts to do the same thing that Supreme Court did for the Hobby Lobby decision. Furthermore, it is very unlikely that any state would be insane enough to stop non-christians from running or banning books in households or banning guns (it is also contradictory in the US as Christian Americans tend to own firearms). About warantless searches, virtually all of them are done by the Feds and no states have shown interest, whilst local and state courts can do the same thing as Supreme Court can do.

The context of this is to improve states rights, not create a Theocracy (Paul probably knew that some more socially liberal states would do the exact opposite of what some people on NSG have feared some states would do). If Paul truly wanted a theocracy, he could've just submitted a law creating a theocracy, it would've been easier, more expedient and leave the same feelings as it did on some people.

[Republic of Coldwater]

No it is more personal, state and corporate liberties. Under "Right-Wing Populism" (your labeling of Libertarianism), people would be able to do cocaine and buy gold, people would be able to live free without wiretapping and associate with whomever they want to associate with, own as much property as they wish to, start a company without being burdened with a sea of papers, while states will have more liberties on things that aren't in the Constitution, and corporations (and all other kinds of business) will have the liberty to not be tied down by the government, resulting in a more productive economy.

Rand Paul is a 'conservative libertarian', aka not a real libertarian. He isn't in favor of expanding personal rights (opposed to legalizing drugs, gay marriage, and he is pro-life).

He's basically just like any other tea party republican.

He is not a full on Libertarian, I agree. As a Libertarian I see that. A real Libertarian, the purest of them are Anarcho-Capitalists. He definitely has some socially conservative leanings, such as being pro-life, but his stance on gay marriage is to leave it up to the states as per the 10th Amendment, and he has been sketchy about drugs, but from the little we know, and from the relatively close stances he has when compared with his father, it can be inferred that he would support states rights or full on national legalize for drugs.

Paul personally is socially conservative on the aforementioned issues, but doesn't believe in instilling his views via the law, hence the confusion of Paul being socially conservative.

[Othelos]

Rand Paul is a 'conservative libertarian', aka not a real libertarian. He isn't in favor of expanding personal rights (opposed to legalizing drugs, gay marriage, and he is pro-life).

He's basically just like any other tea party republican.

He is not a full on Libertarian, I agree. As a Libertarian I see that. A real Libertarian, the purest of them are Anarcho-Capitalists. He definitely has some socially conservative leanings, such as being pro-life, but his stance on gay marriage is to leave it up to the states as per the 10th Amendment, and he has been sketchy about drugs, but from the little we know, and from the relatively close stances he has when compared with his father, it can be inferred that he would support states rights or full on national legalize for drugs.

Paul personally is socially conservative on the aforementioned issues, but doesn't believe in instilling his views via the law, hence the confusion of Paul being socially conservative.

If he were the president, and legislation passed effecting those three topics, he would have to pick a side. He isn't going to support the side that he isn't.

[Atlanticatia]

I would prefer Hillary Clinton over Rand Paul, but I would want to be able to choose another candidate.

I want a moderate center-left candidate, a solid social liberal so to speak. Clinton seems to be more militaristic than I would hope for, and Paul is solid right. I respect both immensely, for they care about their country. I truly believe that. But I disagree with them.

You are always so respectful when you disagree with something.

[Atlanticatia]

Rand Paul might interpret the constitution in the strictest manner and believe that the federal government should have very little responsibility or power, but he is not a libertarian if he believes in giving the states unchecked power to legislate for people's rights. Sure, some states might be very socially liberal and increase people's personal liberty, but some states will definitely strip away people's liberty and govern as a near-theocracy. (Bible belt, I'm loo
Someone who believes there should be such unchecked power, and especially power to strip peoples' personal liberties away, is not a Libertarian, but rather a socially conservative Christian right wing theocrat, looking for a law that can play into people's fears of "the big federal gubmint" and "states' rights".
Giving state governments the power to do anything and everything is no different than allowing the federal government to do anything and everything. Why do people think it'll be any different if a state bans same sex marriage, compared to the federal government? It's the same thing.

[Death Metal]

Quote from his Post	Falls Under
warrantless searches	(B) privacy
prosecute homosexuality	(A) establishment of religion and (C) equal protection
ban non-Christians from holding public office	(A) establishment of religion
prevent people from having "objectionable" books in their houses	(A) establishment of religion and (B) privacy
outright ban on ownership of firearms	(A) establishment of religion *
pretty much any law you can think of	(A) establishment of religion *

*This one is somewhat less direct, but since all the state would need to do is declare its state religion to be "Texasism" or somesuch, they could literally make any law at all, claim it is based on this "religion", and the federal courts would be unable to rule on it.

Actually, gun ownership would fall under privacy too.

Also, re his claim on Paul being pro 4th amendment, his support of Texas laws banning sodomy even in private residences proves that he has no respect for anyone's right to privacy if the states are the ones violating it.

Privacy would cease to exist in Paulistan. Deal with it.

[Death Metal]

Rand Paul might interpret the constitution in the strictest manner and believe that the federal government should have very little responsibility or power, but he is not a libertarian if he believes in giving the states unchecked power to legislate for people's rights. Sure, some states might be very socially liberal and increase people's personal liberty, but some states will definitely strip away people's liberty and govern as a near-theocracy.

Should be worth noting that Kentucky has attempted to establish state religion, and Texas' constitution bans atheists from holding public office. These happen to be the two states the Pauls represent. So by fighting for the fallacy of "state's rights", they are 100% supporting theocratic rule in their constituency states.


The pure fact is, the Pauls and other "libertarian" politicians seek use technicalities, selecective reasoning, and outright intentional misinterpretation of the Constitution to undo legislation that provides liberties to people. The only reason why someone would fight for this is as hard as they do if they want these laws reversed and these liberties taken away. It doesn't factually matter if marriage legalization is federal or state; what matters is if it's legal.

At the end of the day, the Pauls want to undo laws that provide liberties.

And the manner in which they do so only makes state-level governments more power over what rights they can take away from people.

Their priority therefore is not rights (because states do not have rights, only people do), but state dominionism.

If they cared about rights, they would be fighting entirely different battles. They would support a Constitutional amendment providing marriage equality in all states, for example.

Their actions make them authoritarian conservatives in any rational metric.

[Republic of Coldwater]

Quote from his Post	Falls Under
warrantless searches	(B) privacy
prosecute homosexuality	(A) establishment of religion and (C) equal protection
ban non-Christians from holding public office	(A) establishment of religion
prevent people from having "objectionable" books in their houses	(A) establishment of religion and (B) privacy
outright ban on ownership of firearms	(A) establishment of religion *
pretty much any law you can think of	(A) establishment of religion *

*This one is somewhat less direct, but since all the state would need to do is declare its state religion to be "Texasism" or somesuch, they could literally make any law at all, claim it is based on this "religion", and the federal courts would be unable to rule on it.

Actually, gun ownership would fall under privacy too.

Also, re his claim on Paul being pro 4th amendment, his support of Texas laws banning sodomy even in private residences proves that he has no respect for anyone's right to privacy if the states are the ones violating it.

Privacy would cease to exist in Paulistan. Deal with it.

No, privacy laws will not be deemed illegal by federal courts, but by state courts. State courts can still nullify state-level laws, it just bans the Feds from doing so. You argue that this law is to ban guns and just overall take away the rights of citizens, when the point of this law is to let state level laws be dealt with at a state level court and federal laws be dealt with at a federal level court.

[The Black Forrest]

It's just talk. it's a safe talking point. Goverment doesn't seem to be interesting in legalizing it anytime soon so you can talk about it all you want. The ones who want it; scream "yea!" The ones who doen't just nod and think it's not going to happen.

How much of an effort has he made to legalize drugs?

He has at least made no effort to support banning drugs, while Hillary Clinton pushed for the banning of drugs and continuing the drug war.

Did he now? What bills did he propose legalizing it?

[The Black Forrest]

First off, that was Ron, not Rand Paul

Really.

Secondly, this would actually give states more autonomy in regards to gay marriage and religion, which means that it would be easier for states to legalize gay marriage

When it involves an injustice to people; leaving it to the states is not always the best action. If this was going on 50 years ago; the states would be all "fuck the fags"

The fact that it's working now is more people have changed then some silly idea that libertarianism actually works.

and also restore government to its constitutional role of not giving marriage equality on the federal level.

At this point it doesn't seem needed. Times could change if the people get rather stupid and only elect true christians to office.

Time will tell.

Furthermore, Ron Paul does not believe in state-level violations of the 4th Amendment, given on how a lot of his policies are highlighted as being very pro 4th amendment.

Screw Ron Paul. He is no longer relevant.

Furthermore, local and state level courts can still nullify state level laws, it is just that it stops federal courts from doing such things.

Local and State judges aren't always the best at their jobs. A coworker told a rather scary story of a traffic court judge who didn't even know his own laws. The coworker is an extreme anal retentive and always goes at things with as much knowledge as possible.

This is the problem of electing judges. You don't always get the best.

And about the gun ownership and christian arguments that you made, the law never talks anything about guns, it just says that Federal Courts can't nullify laws stated in the following. The law only talks about stopping the Feds from adjudicating laws regarding "free exercise or establishment of religion", nothing related to non-christians from running the country.

As to the Religion argument; you might want to point that out to the bible thumping communities.

You must also look at in what context was this law proposed in. The context was to give state level courts and legislatures more autonomy and the feds less. This will result in a decentralized government, not a larger or smaller one.

Alright so instead of the dah ebul fed bastards oppressing me; you give you more authority to dah ebul state bastards oppressing me. This is an improvement how?

[Hindenburgia]

Which he acknowledged:



The problem is that it would give states a ludicrous amount of autonomy. Even if he doesn't "believe" in states violating the Constitution (what does that even mean?), it still happens, even without that bill. If it were passed, then what would happen is that the federal courts would be simply unable to stop it.


And that is a terrible state of affairs. For one, not all state courts are as impartial as the federal courts, entirely by design - in some places, judges are even elected! And I would ask you - what possible benefit is there from stopping the federal courts from doing this stuff?


Let's go through the list of things he said would happen, and I'll explain what parts of the law they fall under

Quote from his Post	Falls Under
warrantless searches	(B) privacy
prosecute homosexuality	(A) establishment of religion and (C) equal protection
ban non-Christians from holding public office	(A) establishment of religion
prevent people from having "objectionable" books in their houses	(A) establishment of religion and (B) privacy
outright ban on ownership of firearms	(A) establishment of religion *
pretty much any law you can think of	(A) establishment of religion *

*This one is somewhat less direct, but since all the state would need to do is declare its state religion to be "Texasism" or somesuch, they could literally make any law at all, claim it is based on this "religion", and the federal courts would be unable to rule on it.


The problem is that this bill doesn't simply give them more autonomy in general - just autonomy to be larger. All it does is remove the ability for the federal government to check the power of the states. In what possible way is this a good thing?

Just because Ron wants a law that stops federal courts from nullifying state decisions doesn't mean that Paul is necessarily in favor of banning gay marriage, unwarranted wiretaps and other forms of ridicule that are often included in out of context arguments against this resolution.

The point of this resolution is to expand 10th Amendment rights, not ban these things, as many states will have the ability to legalize gay marriage at the time (with DOMA In effect) or end wiretapping without the Feds intervening. Furthermore, the term "Establishment of Religion" is never used in legal code as some sort of term to do crazy things like stop christians from getting elected or banning guns, it is usually to respect religious freedom. An example would be for local courts to do the same thing that Supreme Court did for the Hobby Lobby decision. Furthermore, it is very unlikely that any state would be insane enough to stop non-christians from running or banning books in households or banning guns (it is also contradictory in the US as Christian Americans tend to own firearms). About warantless searches, virtually all of them are done by the Feds and no states have shown interest, whilst local and state courts can do the same thing as Supreme Court can do.

The context of this is to improve states rights, not create a Theocracy (Paul probably knew that some more socially liberal states would do the exact opposite of what some people on NSG have feared some states would do). If Paul truly wanted a theocracy, he could've just submitted a law creating a theocracy, it would've been easier, more expedient and leave the same feelings as it did on some people.

It doesn't matter that some states would go in a good direction, only that some states would go in a bad direction. Put another way, the issue isn't so much that he supports such things, but rather that he doesn't oppose them.

Regarding phrases like "it is very unlikely that any state would be insane enough to...": Counterpoint: Texas. That place is very, very crazy, and there's also the rest of the Bible Belt to contend with.

If he simply did that, he wouldn't have the support of people like you.

Also, an auxiliary point regarding states' rights movements: States have powers, not rights - they are administrative constructs, not people.

[The Black Forrest]

Also, an auxiliary point regarding states' rights movements: States have powers, not rights - they are administrative constructs, not people.

If companies are now people; shouldn't states be people?

[Death Metal]

It doesn't matter that some states would go in a good direction, only that some states would go in a bad direction.

Exactly. The fact that the Pauls both represent states that have attempted to, and probably would, go in that bad direction, again, shows where their priorities really lie.

And there's another issue; let's assume that the states would overturn these laws; if so, then what's the point of taking away federal courts' powers?

The only possible change is if they do not overturn these laws. Which not only can happen, but DOES happen, and happens in matters of privacy.

Again; the only possible change that stems removing federal protections is a reversal of the policies those protections have brought. And those protections that the SCOTUS have provided include but are not limited to overturning state laws on basic civil freedoms, including 4th amendment protections and bans on ownership of firearms.

"State's rights" is an argument perpetuated solely by proponents of big government authoritarianism. And has been since the mid-1800s.

[Hindenburgia]

Also, an auxiliary point regarding states' rights movements: States have powers, not rights - they are administrative constructs, not people.

If companies are now people; shouldn't states be people?

...No? A government is very different from a corporation, even if you only look at the legal aspect of it.