Rand Paul "Freedom Speech" at Berkeley.

[Viritica]

I fully agree with you. States do have rights, but the federal government has authority over them and they need to remember that.

There always needs to be a balance and what we have now is good. Then again, if you shift too far towards states rights, then you end up with more oppression of the minority.

The Constitution trumps all. Even the government.

[Kelinfort]

Of course. What I'm merely saying is the problem comes when you have a pro states rights legislature in control of Congress and the Supreme Court. The division of power we do have now is about right for the nation. However, if the majority of the states rights crowd had their way, there would be no Civil Rights act of 1957/1964, no freedom of choice, and a whole host of other problems. This in fact increases government and tyranny on the individuals in those states. The balance we have now is good, but we can't forget the lessons of the past.

Things like the Civil Rights act are within the purview of the Federal Government. The states cannot violate the Constitution.

Not according to Strom Thurmond. This was a debate just sixty years ago, not to mention people debated the states right to secede. There are people who believe the Federal Government should be as small as possible, and should not interfere within states at all. The right to Abortion is not in the Constitution nor the minimum wage nor same sex marital benefits recognized by the Federal Government. These are seen as affronts to states rights.

[Ashmoria]

maybe. im not a real small government advocate. but when the congress was all "we have to cut back on this out of control spending" the only thing I would really agree with is stopping our out of control military spending.

I'm sure our allies would be thrilled with your proposal.

if our allies would be worried about defense they can increase their own spending. if they cant, fuck'em.

[Pilotto]

There always needs to be a balance and what we have now is good. Then again, if you shift too far towards states rights, then you end up with more oppression of the minority.

The Constitution trumps all. Even the government.

Indeed. If the sates are being oppressive to minorities, then that would violate the 14th Amendment. Equal protection under the law and all.

[Kelinfort]

The Constitution trumps all. Even the government.

Indeed. If the sates are being oppressive to minorities, then that would violate the 14th Amendment. Equal protection under the law and all.

But how do you interpret it? A states rights advocate may interpret it as it was written at the time. Same sex marriage and relationships were not recognized, and "Separate but Equal" was upheld by the Supreme Court even with the Amendment.

[Pilotto]

I'm sure our allies would be thrilled with your proposal.

if our allies would be worried about defense they can increase their own spending. if they cant, fuck'em.

They should, but they wont. They have forgotten what it is like to have to fight for their own freedom. And if we drastically cut our military and withdraw on the world stage, then hostile powers like Russia and China will take our place. Things like the Russian invasion of Ukraine will become the norm.

[Stovokor]

if our allies would be worried about defense they can increase their own spending. if they cant, fuck'em.

They should, but they wont. They have forgotten what it is like to have to fight for their own freedom. And if we drastically cut our military and withdraw on the world stage, then hostile powers like Russia and China will take our place. Things like the Russian invasion of Ukraine will become the norm.

Why is it our responsibility to defend the world from these "hostile powers" who are pretty much attempting do to the same thing we've done, when it costs us our nation's economy?

[Viritica]

They should, but they wont. They have forgotten what it is like to have to fight for their own freedom. And if we drastically cut our military and withdraw on the world stage, then hostile powers like Russia and China will take our place. Things like the Russian invasion of Ukraine will become the norm.

Why is it our responsibility to defend the world from these "hostile powers" who are pretty much attempting do to the same thing we've done, when it costs us our nation's economy?

They're not doing the same thing we're going. Russia's invasion of Ukraine was illegitimate and was merely an attempt to annex Crimea. Unfortunately he succeeded.

And we're not defending the world. We're defending our allies.

[Ifreann]

You mean the one that talks about powers, not rights, thus supporting what I said? I've read it.

Please tell me, what exactly is the difference between a power and a right?

Powers are granted to serve some particular end and can be used only to that end. Rights are things people simply have, and can be used to whatever end one chooses. Compare the right to free speech to the power of arrest. One need not explain or justify their speech. One absolutely must explain and justify an arrest.

---

You mean the one that gives the states the power and thus the right to rule on issues that the federal government hasn't ruled on?

I don't think you have. I don't consider you to be much of an authority on American politics.

I've debated Ifreann before. His willful ignorance is nauseating. Don't take him seriously.

I love how I'm famous among you people. It's wonderfully amusing.

---

There always needs to be a balance and what we have now is good. Then again, if you shift too far towards states rights, then you end up with more oppression of the minority.

The Constitution trumps all. Even the government.

The Constitution disagrees. Article Six, Clause 2.

But tell me more about how I'm wilfully ignorant, guys.

[Viritica]

Please tell me, what exactly is the difference between a power and a right?

Powers are granted to serve some particular end and can be used only to that end. Rights are things people simply have, and can be used to whatever end one chooses. Compare the right to free speech to the power of arrest. One need not explain or justify their speech. One absolutely must explain and justify an arrest.

---

I've debated Ifreann before. His willful ignorance is nauseating. Don't take him seriously.

I love how I'm famous among you people. It's wonderfully amusing.

---

The Constitution trumps all. Even the government.

The Constitution disagrees. Article Six, Clause 2.

You're famous for being a fool, Ifreann.

And it doesn't disagree with me. It states that the Constitution and laws passed by the federal government are the law of the land. The laws passed by the federal government must abide by the Constitution.

Therefore, Constitution > government

[Gallup]

Please tell me, what exactly is the difference between a power and a right?

Powers are granted to serve some particular end and can be used only to that end. Rights are things people simply have, and can be used to whatever end one chooses. Compare the right to free speech to the power of arrest. One need not explain or justify their speech. One absolutely must explain and justify an arrest.

---

I've debated Ifreann before. His willful ignorance is nauseating. Don't take him seriously.

I love how I'm famous among you people. It's wonderfully amusing.

You are one of the most vocal posters, so that would make sense.

[Ifreann]

Powers are granted to serve some particular end and can be used only to that end. Rights are things people simply have, and can be used to whatever end one chooses. Compare the right to free speech to the power of arrest. One need not explain or justify their speech. One absolutely must explain and justify an arrest.

---

I love how I'm famous among you people. It's wonderfully amusing.

---

The Constitution disagrees. Article Six, Clause 2.

You're famous for being a fool, Ifreann.

I'm no less amused.

And it doesn't disagree with me. It states that the Constitution and laws passed by the federal government are the law of the land. The laws passed by the federal government must abide by the Constitution.

Therefore, Constitution > government

You said that the Constitution trumps all. The Supremacy Clause lists three things as Supreme. The Constitution is one. Federal law made pursuant to it is another, and I'll be generous and allow that as falling under the umbrella of the Constitution. The third are all US treaties. US treaties aren't part of the Constitution.

Now, I'm not disputing your point, I'm just highlighting your error and juxtaposing it, and my highlighting of it, against my much spoken of and supposed wilful ignorance.

[Viritica]

You're famous for being a fool, Ifreann.

I'm no less amused.

And it doesn't disagree with me. It states that the Constitution and laws passed by the federal government are the law of the land. The laws passed by the federal government must abide by the Constitution.

Therefore, Constitution > government

You said that the Constitution trumps all. The Supremacy Clause lists three things as Supreme. The Constitution is one. Federal law made pursuant to it is another, and I'll be generous and allow that as falling under the umbrella of the Constitution. The third are all US treaties. US treaties aren't part of the Constitution.

Now, I'm not disputing your point, I'm just highlighting your error and juxtaposing it, and my highlighting of it, against my much spoken of and supposed wilful ignorance.

Granted.

[TomKirk]

Of course. What I'm merely saying is the problem comes when you have a pro states rights legislature in control of Congress and the Supreme Court. The division of power we do have now is about right for the nation. However, if the majority of the states rights crowd had their way, there would be no Civil Rights act of 1957/1964, no freedom of choice, and a whole host of other problems. This in fact increases government and tyranny on the individuals in those states. The balance we have now is good, but we can't forget the lessons of the past.

I fully agree with you. States do have rights, but the federal government has authority over them and they need to remember that.

Absolutely not. States do not have any "rights" anymore than any other abstract entity. Only people have rights. States have powers, which they are to use to guarantee the rights of the people. The federal government must intervene when states fail to do so in an equitable manner, as we have observed often.

[Geilinor]

Indeed. If the sates are being oppressive to minorities, then that would violate the 14th Amendment. Equal protection under the law and all.

But how do you interpret it? A states rights advocate may interpret it as it was written at the time. Same sex marriage and relationships were not recognized, and "Separate but Equal" was upheld by the Supreme Court even with the Amendment.

Then states' rights advocates are wrong. They were wrong about nullification, which was blatantly unconstitutional, and they're wrong about original intent, as the Constitution is a flexible document that can change with the times.

[The Black Forrest]

rand paul is pro-gay rights and pro-gay marriage? I did not know that.

He became an opponent of the federal government legislating marriage, around the time the federal government decided to allow gay marriage.

Indeed. It's the good "cop-out" approach his father would take on issues.

He doesn't have to take a stand.

[The Black Forrest]

thank god you wont have to do that!

the sad thing is that the lame-o-loser mitt Romney is STILL head and shoulders above the known republican field just as he was in the last republican field for president.

"lame-o-loser"? Really? Are we in third grade?

How long have you been on NSG?

[The Black Forrest]

don't the other republicans and the base have a problem with him being pro-gay marriage? it seems to be the beach on which the rest of the party is willing to die.

Believe it or not, a lot of Republicans are actually for gay marriage. It's the leadership that's against it.

If they don't get rid of the leadership then......

[The Liberated Territories]

Rand Paul is a disgrace to the libertarians. He is no friend of liberty.

Why not? How is he not?

He supports a bill that would allow the Federal government much power when it comes to detaining people for drugs, first of all.

[The Black Forrest]

"small government" is an attractive concept. the problems come in when defining what that means. especially in a country of more than 300million people.

A government that backs off and gives the states their rights while at the same time retaining control over the country as a whole.

How does that work exactly? Especially on issues where the state is wrong?

[The Black Forrest]

They're not really cracks. They're just a bunch of conservatives and libertarians who want the government to back off.

they are a big problem when they insist on the nomination of candidates so bad that they lose a very winnable senate seat.

But but but they spout libertarian ideals.

That is the main issue. The ones that go for politics tend to be bad. Good at spouting platitudes but have bad ideas when you get down to it......

[Pilotto]

But how do you interpret it? A states rights advocate may interpret it as it was written at the time. Same sex marriage and relationships were not recognized, and "Separate but Equal" was upheld by the Supreme Court even with the Amendment.

Then states' rights advocates are wrong. They were wrong about nullification, which was blatantly unconstitutional, and they're wrong about original intent, as the Constitution is a flexible document that can change with the times.

Sure, the Constitution can change. With an amendment.
I'll let Justice Scalia speak for me.

[The Black Forrest]

Then states' rights advocates are wrong. They were wrong about nullification, which was blatantly unconstitutional, and they're wrong about original intent, as the Constitution is a flexible document that can change with the times.

Sure, the Constitution can change. With an amendment.
I'll let Justice Scalia speak for me.

Which version of Scalia? The it's dead one or the uhhh oh wait I mean it's and enduring one?

[Viritica]

I fully agree with you. States do have rights, but the federal government has authority over them and they need to remember that.

Absolutely not. States do not have any "rights" anymore than any other abstract entity. Only people have rights. States have powers, which they are to use to guarantee the rights of the people. The federal government must intervene when states fail to do so in an equitable manner, as we have observed often.

States have powers granted by the constitution and thus have rights.

[Viritica]

A government that backs off and gives the states their rights while at the same time retaining control over the country as a whole.

How does that work exactly? Especially on issues where the state is wrong?

The federal government buts out and lets states legislate on certain issues. I don't really see how the state could be wrong unless it violates the constitution or existing federal law.