Rand Paul "Freedom Speech" at Berkeley.

[Trotskylvania]

Comparing PRISM to COINTELPRO is like comparing a backyard barbecue to a forest fire.

This is ridiculous and stupid, even by Rand Paul's standards.

[Gauthier]

Comparing PRISM to COINTELPRO is like comparing a backyard barbecue to a forest fire.

This is ridiculous and stupid, even by Rand Paul's standards.

But they both involve wood on fire! And you can cook meat with both!

[Pilotto]

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

A right is something that exists already and is guaranteed, while a power is granted. The people have given power to the state and federal governments, which have no rights in and of themselves.

For example, people have the right to life, and all other rights rest upon that (without life, no other rights can be enjoyed). The state and federal government explicitly do not have the right to life, as explained in the Declaration of Independence and expanded upon in assorted Federalist Papers. Since the state does not have the right to life, it cannot have any of the other rights which depend on that.

Alrighty then. Every time you hear me or someone else talk about state's "rights", just know we really mean state's "powers".

[Ifreann]

A right is something that exists already and is guaranteed, while a power is granted. The people have given power to the state and federal governments, which have no rights in and of themselves.

For example, people have the right to life, and all other rights rest upon that (without life, no other rights can be enjoyed). The state and federal government explicitly do not have the right to life, as explained in the Declaration of Independence and expanded upon in assorted Federalist Papers. Since the state does not have the right to life, it cannot have any of the other rights which depend on that.

Alrighty then. Every time you hear me or someone else talk about state's "rights", just know we really mean state's "powers".

If you mean powers then why not say that?

[Gauthier]

Alrighty then. Every time you hear me or someone else talk about state's "rights", just know we really mean state's "powers".

If you mean powers then why not say that?

Because "rights" make it sound less like a power grab and more like a civil struggle.

[Pilotto]

Alrighty then. Every time you hear me or someone else talk about state's "rights", just know we really mean state's "powers".

If you mean powers then why not say that?

Well, because it has become the commonly accepted terminology to refer to "state's powers" as "state's rights". I could go about using the term "state's powers", but that would just confuse most people.

[Ifreann]

If you mean powers then why not say that?

Well, because it has become the commonly accepted terminology to refer to "state's powers" as "state's rights". I could go about using the term "state's powers", but that would just confuse most people.

Which only shifts my curiosity. Why was it ever called the state's rights movement in the first place? Personally I suspect that Gauthier has the right of it, but maybe as part of the movement you have some insight to offer us.

[Pilotto]

Well, because it has become the commonly accepted terminology to refer to "state's powers" as "state's rights". I could go about using the term "state's powers", but that would just confuse most people.

Which only shifts my curiosity. Why was it ever called the state's rights movement in the first place? Personally I suspect that Gauthier has the right of it, but maybe as part of the movement you have some insight to offer us.

Well, the tenth amendment states that any power not given to the federal government belongs to the states or to the people. The distinction between a "power" and a "right" is a subtle one, and so advocates of limited federal power chose the term "state's rights", because the idea was that it was the states responsibility to protect the rights of the people from federal intrusion.

[Ifreann]

Which only shifts my curiosity. Why was it ever called the state's rights movement in the first place? Personally I suspect that Gauthier has the right of it, but maybe as part of the movement you have some insight to offer us.

Well, the tenth amendment states that any power not given to the federal government belongs to the states or to the people. The distinction between a "power" and a "right" is a subtle one, and so advocates of limited federal power chose the term "state's rights", because the idea was that it was the states responsibility to protect the rights of the people from federal intrusion.

"State's rights" doesn't seem to fit with a movement about states needing more power to protect people's rights from the federal government.

[Pilotto]

Well, the tenth amendment states that any power not given to the federal government belongs to the states or to the people. The distinction between a "power" and a "right" is a subtle one, and so advocates of limited federal power chose the term "state's rights", because the idea was that it was the states responsibility to protect the rights of the people from federal intrusion.

"State's rights" doesn't seem to fit with a movement about states needing more power to protect people's rights from the federal government.

Well, the term predates my existence. Sorry.

[Neutraligon]

States don't have rights. People have rights.

They have the right to govern themselves on issues that the federal government hasn't ruled on.

Read the federalism section of this ruling on Michigan gay marriage. It will explain the state "right" thing.
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... ocument/p1

Citing to the Supreme Court’s decision in Windsor, the state defendants maintain that the authority to define marriage falls within the exclusive and inherent powers of the state. In finding section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional, the Windsor
Court acknowledged that: The recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens. (“Each state as a sovereign has a rightful and legitimate concern in the marital status of persons domiciled within its borders”). The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject
of domestic relations with respect to the “[p]rotection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities.” The state defendants gloss over one important caveat. While the justices recognized the state’s expansive power in the realm of domestic relations, they also noted that this power has its limits. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy stated that domestic relations “laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons . . . but, subject to those guarantees, regulation of domestic relations is an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the states,” and that “[t]he states’ interest in defining and regulating the marital relation [is] subject to constitutional guarantees . . .”. These statements are not merely surplusage, and as one district astutely remarked, “[a] citation to Loving is a disclaimer of enormous proportion.” Loving has profound implications for this litigation. In that case, the Supreme Court overturned Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statutes prohibiting interracial marriage because they violated substantive due process and equal protection. In doing so, the Court rejected Virginia’s argument that “under the Constitution the regulation and control of marital and family relationships are reserved to the States.” This position, which the state defendants advance again in the present case, is just as ineffectual now as it was in Loving. Taken together, both the Windsor and Loving decisions stand for the proposition that, without some overriding legitimate interest, the state cannot use its domestic relations authority to legislate families out of existence. Having failed to establish such an interest in the context of same-sex marriage, the MMA cannot stand. Further, the Court rejects the contention that Michigan’s traditional definition of marriage possesses a heightened air of legitimacy because it was approved by voter referendum. The popular origin of the MMA does nothing to insulate the provision from constitutional scrutiny. As Justice Robert H. Jackson once wrote, [t]he very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the court. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. The Court is not aware of any legal authority that entitles a ballot-approved measure to special deference in the event it raises a constitutional question. On the contrary, the Supreme Court has clearly stated that if . . . an enactment violates the U.S. Constitution - whether passed by the people or their representatives - judicial review is necessary to preserve the rule of law . . . [t]he electorate cannot order a violation of the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses by referendum or otherwise, just as the state may not avoid their application by deferring to the wishes or objections of its citizens. In view of the foregoing, the state’s domestic relations authority cannot trump federal constitutional limitations.

[Edlichbury]

States don't have rights. People have rights.

They have the right to govern themselves on issues that the federal government hasn't ruled on.

Not absolutely - citizens have rights ahead of states having powers as has been ruled countless times.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Which only shifts my curiosity. Why was it ever called the state's rights movement in the first place? Personally I suspect that Gauthier has the right of it, but maybe as part of the movement you have some insight to offer us.

Well, the tenth amendment states that any power not given to the federal government belongs to the states or to the people. The distinction between a "power" and a "right" is a subtle one, and so advocates of limited federal power chose the term "state's rights", because the idea was that it was the states responsibility to protect the rights of the people from federal intrusion.

I'm not sure whether you're acting from ignorance or intentionally perpetuating a falsehood, but that's absolutely incorrect. The entire "states' rights" nonsense was based upon the idea that the states could act in their own interests in matters of law without interference from the federal government. The rights of the individuals residing in said states were only tangentially related to this, and indeed, the most famous "states' rights" issues stemmed from the desires of the states in question to limit the rights of their citizens despite the federal government's insistence that the rights of the individuals in said states must be protected.

[Nervium]

Rand Paul is my least favourite Paul.
Paul the Alien being more likeable.

[Pilotto]

Well, the tenth amendment states that any power not given to the federal government belongs to the states or to the people. The distinction between a "power" and a "right" is a subtle one, and so advocates of limited federal power chose the term "state's rights", because the idea was that it was the states responsibility to protect the rights of the people from federal intrusion.

I'm not sure whether you're acting from ignorance or intentionally perpetuating a falsehood, but that's absolutely incorrect. The entire "states' rights" nonsense was based upon the idea that the states could act in their own interests in matters of law without interference from the federal government. The rights of the individuals residing in said states were only tangentially related to this, and indeed, the most famous "states' rights" issues stemmed from the desires of the states in question to limit the rights of their citizens despite the federal government's insistence that the rights of the individuals in said states must be protected.

No. States, just like the federal government, must abide by the Constitution. In early American history, states overstepped the bounds of Constitutional authority, in which case it was the federal government's responsibility to bring them back in line. In modern times, however, it is generally the federal government attempting to overstep its Constitutional authority, and the states opposing such intrusions.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I'm not sure whether you're acting from ignorance or intentionally perpetuating a falsehood, but that's absolutely incorrect. The entire "states' rights" nonsense was based upon the idea that the states could act in their own interests in matters of law without interference from the federal government. The rights of the individuals residing in said states were only tangentially related to this, and indeed, the most famous "states' rights" issues stemmed from the desires of the states in question to limit the rights of their citizens despite the federal government's insistence that the rights of the individuals in said states must be protected.

No. States, just like the federal government, must abide by the Constitution. In early American history, states overstepped the bounds of Constitutional authority, in which case it was the federal government's responsibility to bring them back in line. In modern times, however, it is generally the federal government attempting to overstep its Constitutional authority, and the states opposing such intrusions.

If the Federal government is attempting to overstep its Constitutional authority, it is another federal authority (The Supreme Court) that limits such overreach. Not the states.

[TomKirk]

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.

Powers =/= rights. If people decide to dissolve all the states and assign governmental powers to other entities, the states would not be "wronged" by that because they are not people, they are only abstractions, and do not even have the "right" to exist.

[TomKirk]

If you mean powers then why not say that?

Well, because it has become the commonly accepted terminology to refer to "state's powers" as "state's rights". I could go about using the term "state's powers", but that would just confuse most people.

The terminology "state's rights" is only accepted among the heirs of the segregationist tradition. Most of us consider it a red flag that the person using it is likely to be either evil-intentioned or poorly-informed.

[Arkiasis]

"Paul describes himself as '100% pro life'. Paul opposes abortion even in cases of rape or incest."
"Paul favors a federal ban on abortion" - Yeah, he sure supports "State's rights"
"He opposes same-sex marriage"
"opposes federal government involvement in health care"
"Paul would support a free market approach to health care"
"Paul has proposed adding security to the border by installing an electronic fence and helicopter stations to respond to breaches."
"Paul supports returning control of education to local communities and parents and thus eliminating the federal Department of Education"
"On July 10, 2013, he voted against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which that would prohibit discrimination in hiring and employment on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity by private sector employers with at least 15 employees. Paul had introduced an amendment to broaden the religious exemptions to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act"
"wanted to modify one section of the Civil Rights Act that dealt with private institutions"
"Additionally, Paul opposes inflation and supports 'restoring the value of the dollar that has devalued by approximately 95% since the Federal Reserve's inception in 1913'" - ie. "I have no idea how economics work."

He's nothing but a nutjob. Fuck him. The only freedom he supports is the freedom for corporations to fuck people over.

[Straughn]

I like Rand Paul's views on domestic spying and that's it. He's certainly one of the better prominent Republicans out there, but sadly that's not saying a whole lot.

^
THIS

....and a bag of chips.

[Grossdeutsches Kaiserreich]

I guess alot of what i'm about to say is probably based alot on his father, Ron Paul. I assume their views are similar in nature, feel free to correct me if i'm wrong.

The problem i have with them involves their ideas on government. Some of them seem logical and reasonable to me; Gold standard, limited government, etc.

But the problem is that their views aren't just about limited government, it's almost complete anarchy.

To my understanding, they'd leave people on the street to die instead of the government paying to admit them to hospitals because they're responsible for themselves.

No border controls whatsoever, completely open borders.

No or very limited government management or direction of resources ;

They want to lower our defenses completely; granted i don't agree with all our military escapades or excessive military expenditure, but isolationism as a policy is foolish and naiive in my opinion. Even if isolationism wasn't foolish and naiive, having no real military defense at all to foreign threats is foolish. The idea that we're completely safe and incapable of being invaded is i believe mainly because we've been protected by such great men and women and such a powerful army for so long. But the reality is that America is not invulnerable to attack.

TL:DR

Though i don't know if Rand Paul shares the same views as his father, i assume he does.

If that's the case, my main problem with the Pauls' idea is that it usually involves not limiting government but completely eliminating huge chunks of it without regard to the actual consequences of it. although i do share a few opinions here or there with them, their views are just too extreme for my tastes.

[AiliailiA]

Yeah right. "What you do on a cellphone is none of their business".

Until you wire your cell phone to a detonator in a lump of C4, drop in the trash at a major sporting even, and kill 50 people.

Populist pigswill. Given a choice between Rand Paul and the NSA, I will back the NSA every time.

If you want to defend your privacy of communications, you must defend it against everyone. Limiting the ability of government agencies to snoop, simply removes one of the checks and balances on the information you are giving away.

[Hindenburgia]

Yeah right. "What you do on a cellphone is none of their business".

Until you wire your cell phone to a detonator in a lump of C4, drop in the trash at a major sporting even, and kill 50 people.

Populist pigswill. Given a choice between Rand Paul and the NSA, I will back the NSA every time.

If you want to defend your privacy of communications, you must defend it against everyone. Limiting the ability of government agencies to snoop, simply removes one of the checks and balances on the information you are giving away.

1. Current programs would not be able to detect that sort of thing ahead of time.

2. "If you want to defend your privacy of communications, you must defend it against everyone."
I hold no issue with this, though I'd like to add "though not in every circumstance" to it, as wiretapping and the like are sometimes necessary and allowable, within limits.

3. "checks and balances on the information you are giving away"
...What? "Checks and balances" is the term used to refer to the systems in place in the US government where each branch keeps the others in line, so I'm not sure what you mean by it here.

EDIT: I'd like to point out that, while I support a few things the Pauls support, I find a good 90% of it to be more than a litke sillly, frankly.