NationStates Jolt Archive

If the "We the People Act" does not still provide the protections of the constitution (especially those of the first amendment), to citizens against state governments, it is hard to reconcile the act with libertarian principles, at least as Paul translates them through the constitution.

That is exactly what it does.

Read it for yourself (link (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.4379:)):

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).
SEC. 4. REGULATION OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

The Supreme Court of the United States and all other Federal courts--

(1) are not prevented from determining the constitutionality of any Federal statute or administrative rule or procedure in considering any case arising under the Constitution of the United States; and

(2) shall not issue any order, final judgment, or other ruling that appropriates or expends money, imposes taxes, or otherwise interferes with the legislative functions or administrative discretion of the several States and their subdivisions.

SEC. 5. JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGES.

Any party or intervener in any matter before any Federal court, including the Supreme Court, may challenge the jurisdiction of the court under section 3 or 4 during any proceeding or appeal relating to that matter.

SEC. 6. MATERIAL BREACHES OF GOOD BEHAVIOR AND REMEDY.

A violation by a justice or a judge of any of the provisions of section 3 or 4 shall be an impeachable offense, and a material breach of good behavior subject to removal by the President of the United States according to rules and procedures established by the Congress.

SEC. 7. CASES DECIDED UNDER ISSUES REMOVED FROM FEDERAL JURISDICTION NO LONGER BINDING PRECEDENT.

Any decision of a Federal court, to the extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under section 3, is not binding precedent on any State court.

I could qoute from a number of posts but as many different people have said the same thing I will answer them as they are.

*snip*

3rd) Abortion. Yes he does not support abortion, but one of the reason he was a sponser of HR300 was little to do with abortion and more to do with state powers as the federal court (An unelected court as many liberals like to remind me) has power over the state governments which are elected by the population and in by a majority Once again we see democratic ideals fall because of what a few men and women may think (This is a seperate issue about how a minority of people demand a certain type of liberty even if 99% of the population are agianst it think gay marriage abortion and other issues).

You do not appear to understand the concepts of constitutional rights or equal protection under the law.

These are not matters for popular vote. It doesn't matter what the majority wants if it is unconstitutional.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html ), 319 US 624, 638 (1943):

The 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 courts. 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.

However back to Ron Paul he says that all humans should be treated with respect and have liberties (something which the left say they believe in, more like liberties when they want it and not when it goes against something they disagree with sort of like the racist issue), ron Paul wishes that the unborn fetus also has "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" just like the constitution says another thing which he wishes to protect Is that proof that he whishes to protect what the constitution says? asked to those who say he does nothing of the sort

*snip*

You don't address the central issue of this thread, which is Paul's lying and hypocrisy. He openly voted for a law that HE SAID WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. How is that "protect[ing] what the constitution says"?

Oh my. so the states are more decentralized? All Supreme court decisions are moot?

Thats deystroying the Constitution and the Seperation of Powers. I pray to god that man is never elected

That is exactly what it does.

Read it for yourself (link (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.4379:)):

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).
SEC. 4. REGULATION OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

The Supreme Court of the United States and all other Federal courts--

(1) are not prevented from determining the constitutionality of any Federal statute or administrative rule or procedure in considering any case arising under the Constitution of the United States; and

(2) shall not issue any order, final judgment, or other ruling that appropriates or expends money, imposes taxes, or otherwise interferes with the legislative functions or administrative discretion of the several States and their subdivisions.

SEC. 5. JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGES.

Any party or intervener in any matter before any Federal court, including the Supreme Court, may challenge the jurisdiction of the court under section 3 or 4 during any proceeding or appeal relating to that matter.

SEC. 6. MATERIAL BREACHES OF GOOD BEHAVIOR AND REMEDY.

A violation by a justice or a judge of any of the provisions of section 3 or 4 shall be an impeachable offense, and a material breach of good behavior subject to removal by the President of the United States according to rules and procedures established by the Congress.

SEC. 7. CASES DECIDED UNDER ISSUES REMOVED FROM FEDERAL JURISDICTION NO LONGER BINDING PRECEDENT.

Any decision of a Federal court, to the extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under section 3, is not binding precedent on any State court.

If section 3 and 4 only allow the supreme court to rule on federal rulings and not the constitutionality of state rulings, then it definitely seems to undermine Paul's stated position. It can still be reconciled with libertarianism, but Paul is also a constitutionalist, and this definitely seems unconstitutional.

EDIT: I have not heard any justification for this from the Paul side, however.

Oh my. so the states are more decentralized? All Supreme court decisions are moot?

Thats deystroying the Constitution and the Seperation of Powers. I pray to god that man is never elected

No, the Supreme Court can still rule on the federal level, but still, I don't see how a constitutionalist can support this.

No, Drewlio is right. If Ron Paul gets his way, Drewlio will gain a whole bunch of new rights. For instance, Drewlio's wife's body will become Drewlio's property, legally speaking. Drewlio will also have the right to discriminate against people of non-white races, against homosexuals, against women, and basically against anybody he doesn't want to treat like a full human being. Drewlio will gain the right to own and operate an organization that takes government money to spread a purely sectarian religious agenda, using the tax dollars of American citizens for his own personal gain. And much, much more!

Drewlio will get plenty of new rights if Ron Paul wins. It's just that those rights will come at the expense of his fellow citizens.

Now, I'm not a fan of Paul, nor of the idea being discussed here, but do you really think that all of the state governments are quietly waiting to enact barbaric policies like this, and the only thing stopping them is the noble and valiant Fed? Perhaps some states would *coughAlabamacough*, but I'm willing to bet that the majority (especially in the Northeast, Great Lakes and West Coast) would maintain at least the current levels of civil rights.

Now, I'm not a fan of Paul, nor of the idea being discussed here, but do you really think that all of the state governments are quietly waiting to enact barbaric policies like this, and the only thing stopping them is the noble and valiant Fed? Perhaps some states would *coughAlabamacough*, but I'm willing to bet that the majority (especially in the Northeast, Great Lakes and West Coast) would maintain at least the current levels of civil rights.

Even one state being allowed to deny its people human rights is one state too many.

its quite obvious that the "group" has no self control and paints the worst picture possible, just as they would violate your rights if they were allowed and the only thing stopping it is the federal govt. A state if allowed would suspend it own constitution and inact a facist state the instant it was allowed, discriminating against any minority and women. (hogwash) I would hate to be read a bedtime story from these folks.

I'm looking to take home all my pay, keep my firearms, not pay for slackers who can't take care of themselves, not worry about whos crossing the border, attend the parade for our troops coming home , my dollar buying more and live in The United States of America not the north american union.

You have expressed your opinions and surmised your conclusions to suprarational ends and for that I thank you. I think you should pose your quandry to the candidate himself since it really is what you want rather than an apology from his supporters.

Ron Paul for President of the United States of America in 2008.

its quite obvious that the "group" has no self control and paints the worst picture possible, just as they would violate your rights if they were allowed and the only thing stopping it is the federal govt. A state if allowed would suspend it own constitution and inact a facist state the instant it was allowed, discriminating against any minority and women. (hogwash) I would hate to be read a bedtime story from these folks.

I'm looking to take home all my pay, keep my firearms, not pay for slackers who can't take care of themselves, not worry about whos crossing the border, attend the parade for our troops coming home , my dollar buying more and live in The United States of America not the north american union.

You have expressed your opinions and surmised your conclusions to suprarational ends and for that I thank you. I think you should pose your quandry to the candidate himself since it really is what you want rather than an apology from his supporters.

Ron Paul for President of the United States of America in 2008.

Forget it folks. It is obvious that these people here *points above* are beyond the use of logic. Regardless of how many bills are posted here with text to go with them showing off the lunacy of Ron Paul, it will not matter.

its quite obvious that the "group" has no self control and paints the worst picture possible, just as they would violate your rights if they were allowed and the only thing stopping it is the federal govt. A state if allowed would suspend it own constitution and inact a facist state the instant it was allowed, discriminating against any minority and women. (hogwash) I would hate to be read a bedtime story from these folks.

Yeah, facts make terrible bed time stories.


That reminds me, the local conservapundits acquired a "10 myths of Thanksgiving" pamphlet being handed out in the Seattle school system. The pamphlet listed myths taught during Thanksgiving and gave the facts related to the invent. The retards called replacing myth with facts "revisionist history." I wish I could stab these fat, retarded fucks in the eyes.

Yeah, facts make terrible bed time stories.


That reminds me, the local conservapundits acquired a "10 myths of Thanksgiving" pamphlet being handed out in the Seattle school system. The pamphlet listed myths taught during Thanksgiving and gave the facts related to the invent. The retards called replacing myth with facts "revisionist history." I wish I could stab these fat, retarded fucks in the eyes.

No offense dude but I am a conservative and I hate Ron Paul with a passion. Maybe I'm a moderate conservative :D

Even one state being allowed to deny its people human rights is one state too many.

I agree, but the vibe I'm getting is that people are assuming that all the states are just waiting patiently for their chance to oppress people. What baffles me more than that is the assumption of benevolence on the part of Uncle Sam.

its quite obvious that the "group" has no self control and paints the worst picture possible, just as they would violate your rights if they were allowed and the only thing stopping it is the federal govt. A state if allowed would suspend it own constitution and inact a facist state the instant it was allowed, discriminating against any minority and women. (hogwash) I would hate to be read a bedtime story from these folks.

I'm looking to take home all my pay, keep my firearms, not pay for slackers who can't take care of themselves, not worry about whos crossing the border, attend the parade for our troops coming home , my dollar buying more and live in The United States of America not the north american union.

You have expressed your opinions and surmised your conclusions to suprarational ends and for that I thank you. I think you should pose your quandry to the candidate himself since it really is what you want rather than an apology from his supporters.

Ron Paul for President of the United States of America in 2008.

*sigh*

1. Your crude attempt at "staying above the fray" is really an obvious dodge of the isssues.

2. If the de-federalization of issues of civil rights, abortion, establishment of religion, marriage, etc, isn't expect to results in any policy changes by the states, why is it such a big point of emphasis for Ron Paul and his supporters. The truth of the matter is that Paul et al expect at least some of the states to reduce civil rights, ban abortion, establish religion, etc.

3. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the scores upon scores of cases in which the federal courts, particularly SCOTUS, have forced state and local governments to recognize fundamental freedoms and provide equal protection under the law. See, e.g., Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/347/483.html), 347 U.S. 483 (1954), Loving v. Virginia (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/388/1.html), 388 U.S. 1 (1967), Planned Parenthood v. Casey (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/833.html), 505 U.S. 833 (1992),Lee v. Weisman (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/577.html), 505 U.S. 577 (1992), Lawrence v. Texas (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/02-102.html), 539 U.S. 558 (2003). I am glad that, contray to what Ron Paul wants, the federal courts had jurisdicition in the listed cases.

I am thankful for the Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment and cannot see supporting a candidate that doesn't support the Constitution.

4. And as I showed in your other thread, all of this "North American Union" scare-mongering is much ado about nothing. (See e.g., link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13219062&postcount=18), link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13219121&postcount=19))

5. Finally, the inability of you and other Paul supporters to respond constructively to the OP proof that Paul is a liar and hypocrite demonstrates the intellectual depth of your support. Similarly, much documentation of Paul's history and past words have been linked in this thread including some nasty bills Paul has proposed. The response to this indictment? W00T!! RON PAUL!!!!2008!!!

'Nuff said.

What baffles me more than that is the assumption of benevolence on the part of Uncle Sam.

It's not an assumption of the benevolence on the part of Uncle Sam so much as it is an assertion of the value of Constitutional Amendments 1-10, 13, 14, 17, 19, 24, and 26.

These all exist in order to restrain government at the State and Federal levels. Those who would threaten such restraint in the name of "State's Rights" nonsense (governments have rights? Come again?!?), are not to be trusted.


I agree, but the vibe I'm getting is that people are assuming that all the states are just waiting patiently for their chance to oppress people


The above listed Constitutional Amendments exist exactly because states have displayed such patience throughout American history.

It's not an assumption of the benevolence on the part of Uncle Sam so much as it is an assertion of the value of Constitutional Amendments 1-10, 13, 14, 17, 19, 24, 26.

These all exist in order to restrain government at the State and Federal levels. Those who would threaten such restraint in the name of "State's Rights" nonsense (governments have rights? Come again?!?), are not to be trusted.

Again, agreed. However, I can't understand not trusting the states, but trusting Uncle Sam to uphold them. It's the same sorts of assholes at both levels. The Federal government is just as capable of breaking the rules as the states are.

Note that I am a believer in "states' rights" (although I really dislike that term), however I think that ensuring that there is a baseline of civil rights is one of the Federal government's legitimate roles.

It's the same sorts of assholes at both levels.


At least in theory, so long as the assholes are focused on fighting each other, they aren't fighting with me. If one of them does attack me, the other has a vested interest in coming to my defense, at least for electoral gain or to increase its bureaucratic terf.

But giving one of the assholes a complete monopoly cannot be good. In such a case, I'm the only target and there is no one left to come to my defense regardless of whatever motivation or reason.

His own comments make it quite clear without even looking at his immigration policies - which are not only harsh on illegal immigration, but also continue to make it near impossible for anyone to immigrate legally. When people have to wait 10 years to immigrate, we can't exactly blame people for giving up on the legal route.

Yes they are harsh on illegal immigration that is the point to try and prevent people from breaking US law something which I am sure you do not want people to do, including deporting people who continue to stay within the states after their visa has expired (remember many of the 9/11 terrorists had expired visas but my point on this was the fact that people call him a racist because of his proposed policy on immigration but it does not ban any single race or ethnic group it applies to all people as his website says "Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods"

No, he doesn't. He thinks members of the LGBT community, for instance, should be treated as second class citizens. He personally voted for a budgeting amendment in DC that would have kept same-sex couples from adopting and has supported states in their efforts to deny equal protection under the law to LGBT persons.

I presume LGBT refers to homosexuals, I understand that the main controversy relates to the full faith and credit clause, but the DOMA law a federal prohibits same sex marraige are not state laws void on relation to this matter the constitution says nothing about marriage (if so please show me) thus that argument is moot as it is now federally illegal to be married to the same sex

People in a place of privilege always think a subjugated group is getting "special treatment" when they are finally treated equally.

This has nothing to do with it after all they are not being treated equally (by the way I am not in a place of privilege) they are getting more treatment and special consideration such as extra benefits how is this equal to those who are not

Of course the federal court has power over the state governments. The courts are meant to be a check on the legislative powers of the various levels of government - to make sure that none of them fail to adhere to the US Constitution. Ron Paul seems to think that states should be able to break the restrictions in the Constitution with nowhere for the people to turn when their state government chooses to infringe upon their civil rights.

Yes the notion of checks and balances is an important part of all liberal democratic systems but as there are plenty of issues not addressed in the constitution such as same sex marriage and abortion the tenth amendment states "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" ie as the constituion states if powers of certain laws and rights and do not restrict the states then it is the states who can legislate their own laws including abortion and same sex marriage. I does say the people but they can vote out the government if they do not like the laws passed byt the govrnment, not the supreme court the people at the next election while the full faith and credit clause can prohibit this ie same sex marriage legislation that is excatly why DOMA was enacted. It is this that Ron Paul upholds this is what the constitution states does he does uphold the constitution and is consistent with them

All people deserve equal protection under the law and they are guaranteed that right by the US Constitution. It doesn't matter if 99% of people think they should be treated as second-class citizens. That's why we are not a pure democracy, which would allow the majority to subjugate the minority in any way they see fit. Instead, we are a Constitutional Republic, with restrictions on what the government can and cannot legislate.

We are not a Constitutional Republic we are a Constitution based Federal Republic if democracy was unimportant and the respects of the wishes of the majority where not respected or even worthwhile then why have elections??

You do not appear to understand the concepts of constitutional rights or equal protection under the law.

These are not matters for popular vote. It doesn't matter what the majority wants if it is unconstitutional.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html ), 319 US 624, 638 (1943):

The 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 courts. 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.

Yes it does but the constitution also allows cases where the states have the right to legislate and enforce their own laws provided that it does not contridict the constitution or os expressly prohibited by it this is stated in the tenth amendment so if an issue such as abortion comes up then the states may legislate if abortion is allowed the tenth also states that it can be reserved to the people this is done through elections and if people agree ie the majority then the government stays and so does the law vice versa if the majority of people do not agree. Also if the majority voted in a federal government that would change the constitution and it goes ahead is this not allowed and it is at one of the tenets of american society

You don't address the central issue of this thread, which is Paul's lying and hypocrisy. He openly voted for a law that HE SAID WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. How is that "protect[ing] what the constitution says"?

My point was to prove that Ron Paul is not being hypocritical as he wants to uphold the constitution and continues to do so as I said look at the tenth amendment, also can you tell me what law that is as i don't have time to go over this thread to see what people were talking about

I presume LGBT refers to homosexuals, I understand that the main controversy relates to the full faith and credit clause, but the DOMA law a federal prohibits same sex marraige are not state laws void on relation to this matter the constitution says nothing about marriage (if so please show me)
Ninth Amendment.

Yes it does but the constitution also allows cases where the states have the right to legislate and enforce their own laws provided that it does not contridict the constitution or os expressly prohibited by it this is stated in the tenth amendment so if an issue such as abortion comes up then the states may legislate if abortion is allowed the tenth also states that it can be reserved to the people this is done through elections and if people agree ie the majority then the government stays and so does the law vice versa if the majority of people do not agree. Also if the majority voted in a federal government that would change the constitution and it goes ahead is this not allowed and it is at one of the tenets of american society

My point was to prove that Ron Paul is not being hypocritical as he wants to uphold the constitution and continues to do so as I said look at the tenth amendment, also can you tell me what law that is as i don't have time to go over this thread to see what people were talking about

:headbang:

You are so busy defending Ron Paul, you can't read the first post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13208967&postcount=1) of this thread to see what you are defending him against?

Go back and read the OP (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13208967&postcount=1) and you will see how Paul is a liar and a hypocrite.

As for your defense of Paul on the grounds that abortion is a state issue, you are only highlighting Paul's lies and hypocrisy. He does often argue that abortion is an issue that should be left to the states under the 10th Amendment. However, he (1) voted for the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act which HE SAID WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL and FEDERALIZED the issue and (2) he has REPEATEDLY tried to pass a FEDERAL law making life officially begin at conception (which would then make abortion illegal pursuant to federal law), (e.g. link (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1094:)).

No, the Supreme Court can still rule on the federal level, but still, I don't see how a constitutionalist can support this.

It's really quite simple. Paul isn't a "constitutionalist". He's a "state's rights" proponent. What that position boils down to is to support the "rights" of states above the rights of the individual. The position is almost always taken when a person realizes that they cannot infringe upon these rights at the federal level, so they want to give power the to the states to do it there instead.


Now, I'm not a fan of Paul, nor of the idea being discussed here, but do you really think that all of the state governments are quietly waiting to enact barbaric policies like this, and the only thing stopping them is the noble and valiant Fed? Perhaps some states would *coughAlabamacough*, but I'm willing to bet that the majority (especially in the Northeast, Great Lakes and West Coast) would maintain at least the current levels of civil rights.

There are those in quite a few state governments waiting to do this. Interestingly enough, most of them are "state's rights" proponents. Meanwhile, it isn't really the Fed who stops them. It is the Constitution - the basis of our entire governmental system. The Federal courts are the part of the system set up to hold them to it.

I agree, but the vibe I'm getting is that people are assuming that all the states are just waiting patiently for their chance to oppress people. What baffles me more than that is the assumption of benevolence on the part of Uncle Sam.

Where are you seeing any such assumption? The federal government is no better, and engages in power grabs and will infringe on civil liberties just as readily, if given the chance. That is the entire reason for Constitutional protections and an independent judiciary to interpret and uphold them. Does the judiciary always get it right? Of course not, but they have been the only legal recourse of those whose civil rights have been infringed upon for quite some time now.


Yes they are harsh on illegal immigration that is the point to try and prevent people from breaking US law something which I am sure you do not want people to do, including deporting people who continue to stay within the states after their visa has expired (remember many of the 9/11 terrorists had expired visas but my point on this was the fact that people call him a racist because of his proposed policy on immigration but it does not ban any single race or ethnic group it applies to all people as his website says "Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods"

You have trouble reading, don't you?

Me: "They are harsh on people wishing to immigrate legally."
You: "Illegal immigration, bla bla bla."

By the way, have you seen the law he proposed - linked several times in this thread - where he sought to ban Iranian - and only Iranian - students from receiving financial aid?

I presume LGBT refers to homosexuals, I understand that the main controversy relates to the full faith and credit clause, but the DOMA law a federal prohibits same sex marraige are not state laws void on relation to this matter the constitution says nothing about marriage (if so please show me) thus that argument is moot as it is now federally illegal to be married to the same sex

(a) No, the "main controversy" does not surround the full faith and credit clause, although that is part of it. The "controversy" (and it's disgusting that this even is a controversy) is equal protection under the law. This includes all areas, not just marriage.

(b) You demonstrate your lack of reading skills once again by ignoring the fact that Ron Paul personally voted for a budgeting amendment in DC aimed at keeping same-sex couples from adopting children. It failed, but only by a couple of votes. No one can pretend that Ron Paul is not personally prejudiced against the LGBT community.

(c) LGBT stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender.

(d) Ron Paul has also decried Lawrence v. Texas, making it clear that he thinks same-sex couples have no right to consummate their relationship - that the government should be able to determine who we can sleep with and how we should do it.

(e) It is not federally illegal to be married to a member of the same sex. There are those who wish to make it that way, but they have not. The federal government does not recognize such marriages, but it is hardly illegal. Massachusetts currently grants marriage licenses to same-sex couples as well as opposite-sex ones.

This has nothing to do with it after all they are not being treated equally (by the way I am not in a place of privilege) they are getting more treatment and special consideration such as extra benefits how is this equal to those who are not

No, they aren't. And the fact that you think they are makes it clear that you are in a place of privilege. You obviously don't realize the protections you have under the law that others do not.

Yes the notion of checks and balances is an important part of all liberal democratic systems but as there are plenty of issues not addressed in the constitution such as same sex marriage and abortion the tenth amendment states "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" ie as the constituion states if powers of certain laws and rights and do not restrict the states then it is the states who can legislate their own laws including abortion and same sex marriage.

Somebody missed the 9th Amendment. And the 14th. Look them up. There are things that no level of government can do, because there are rights reserved to the people. Not the state governments, the PEOPLE.

We are not a Constitutional Republic we are a Constitution based Federal Republic if democracy was unimportant and the respects of the wishes of the majority where not respected or even worthwhile then why have elections??

And your lack of reading comprehension rears its ugly head once again. I didn't say democracy is unimportant. I said this isn't a pure democracy. Thanks to the protections put in place by the US Constitution, there are some things that simply aren't up for a vote. Equal protection under the law is not up for a vote - no matter how much of a majority wants to subjugate a minority, they do not have that power. Individual rights are not up for a vote - no matter how much of a majority wants to infringe upon them, they do not have that power. This does not make democracy unimportant - it is of the utmost importance in those areas in which government action is appropriate.

the tenth also states that it can be reserved to the people this is done through elections and if people agree ie the majority then the government stays and so does the law vice versa if the majority of people do not agree.

In other words, "You actually don't have any individual rights whatsoever. Have a good day."

If the majority can decide to take rights away, you do not have any rights actually reserved to the individual. As such, the government is a danger to all human beings.

The position is almost always taken when a person realizes that they cannot infringe upon these rights at the federal level, so they want to give power the to the states to do it there instead.

Just so long as you recognize that there are those who are antifederalist (I loathe the term "states' rights") who don't want to infringe on civil rights.

There are those in quite a few state governments waiting to do this. Interestingly enough, most of them are "state's rights" proponents. Meanwhile, it isn't really the Fed who stops them. It is the Constitution - the basis of our entire governmental system. The Federal courts are the part of the system set up to hold them to it.

There are probably just as many (proportionally) in the Federal government waiting to do this.

Why exactly are the Federal courts so much more qualified to do this than states courts? And why are Federal constitutional protections so much "better" than state ones (assuming the same level of protection)? A constitution is a constitution, no?

Where are you seeing any such assumption? The federal government is no better, and engages in power grabs and will infringe on civil liberties just as readily, if given the chance. That is the entire reason for Constitutional protections and an independent judiciary to interpret and uphold them. Does the judiciary always get it right? Of course not, but they have been the only legal recourse of those whose civil rights have been infringed upon for quite some time now.

Quite so, but I don't understand why everyone has so much more faith in the Federal judiciary than in states ones. Sure some states would do the wrong thing, but the majority wouldn't.

There are probably just as many (proportionally) in the Federal government waiting to do this.

Maybe. Hence the reason that the Constitution also protects us from them.

Why exactly are the Federal courts so much more qualified to do this than states courts? And why are Federal constitutional protections so much "better" than state ones (assuming the same level of protection)? A constitution is a constitution, no?

(a) An independent judiciary is important in holding up such protections. Many state judiciaries are not independent - they are dependent upon elections and thus will often make decisions based upon the majority opinion of the populace, rather than simply on the law.

(b) The US Constitution (not just the federal constitution) is the basis of our entire governmental system. It applies to both the federal government and the state governments. It even supersedes the state constitutions.

(c) If the constitution of a given state also grants the same level of protection, that is great! It means that there are several levels of protection available to the individual. This is not, however, an argument for allowing the states to make constitutions that infringe upon such protections.

Quite so, but I don't understand why everyone has so much more faith in the Federal judiciary than in states ones. Sure some states would do the wrong thing, but the majority wouldn't.

Because we've studied history, and we know better. Who was enforcing segregation? Who was making laws regulating how and with whom you can have sex? Who instituted Jim Crow laws? And so on...

While I agree that law should be made from the bottom up, protection of individual rights really must come from the top down. Why? Because bigotry doesn't begin at the top level. It starts with the people right down the street from you. Bigotry starts at home, and enforcement of it begins at home as well. In order for individuals to protect themselves from such enforcement, they must be able to appeal outside that structure.

That, and I don't think some US citizens having their rights protected is good enough. It has to be ALL.

(a) An independent judiciary is important in holding up such protections. Many state judiciaries are not independent - they are dependent upon elections and thus will often make decisions based upon the majority opinion of the populace, rather than simply on the law.

What about those states that do have an independent judiciary?

(b) The US Constitution (not just the federal constitution) is the basis of our entire governmental system. It applies to both the federal government and the state governments. It even supersedes the state constitutions.

What makes the US Constitution more inviolable than the state ones?

(c) If the constitution of a given state also grants the same level of protection, that is great! It means that there are several levels of protection available to the individual. This is not, however, an argument for allowing the states to make constitutions that infringe upon such protections.

Of course it's not. I am in no way attempting to make any such argument. You're not under the impression that I want to see civil rights infringed upon, are you?

Because we've studied history, and we know better. Who was enforcing segregation? Who was making laws regulating how and with whom you can have sex? Who instituted Jim Crow laws? And so on...

Do you think Americans haven't progressed at all?

In order for individuals to protect themselves from such enforcement, they must be able to appeal outside that structure.

Then what do people in unitary states do when there isn't a higher federal structure to appeal to?

That, and I don't think some US citizens having their rights protected is good enough. It has to be ALL.[/QUOTE]

Agreed, because as I said before I see enforcing civil rights standards as being one of the legitimate functions of the Federal government. However, I seem to have far less faith in their ability to do that, and more faith in the ability of my state to do it than you do.

What about those states that do have an independent judiciary?

One more possible level of protections.

What makes the US Constitution more inviolable than the state ones?

The increased difficulty with which it is changed. The fact that it is the basis of our entire governmental system. The fact that it is further removed from the people (yes, this is a good thing in certain aspects of government).

Of course it's not. I am in no way attempting to make any such argument. You're not under the impression that I want to see civil rights infringed upon, are you?

No, but those who argue that individuals should not have the option of appealing beyond their state governments for such infringements are arguing for a situation in which it is much easier to see them infringed upon.

Do you think Americans haven't progressed at all?

I think many have. But all have not. I also think there is a great deal of progress still to be made. I was simply pointing out that when individual rights are dependent upon popular opinion, they can be quite easily infringed upon. All you need is a majority in a given area, and there you go.

Then what do people in unitary states do when there isn't a higher federal structure to appeal to?

Get screwed if their government decides to infringe upon their rights. Minorities basically have to sit back and ask pretty-please for their rights until the majority finally decides to grant them.

Well, either that or armed revolution.

Agreed, because as I said before I see enforcing civil rights standards as being one of the legitimate functions of the Federal government. However, I seem to have far less faith in their ability to do that, and more faith in the ability of my state to do it than you do.

Well, I live in GA.

Well, I live in GA.

Ah, it all clicks into place.

Ah, it all clicks into place.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure this wonderful state would literally go as far as to suspend freedom of religious practice (among other rights) if there was the perception that we could get away with it.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure this wonderful state would literally go as far as to suspend freedom of religious practice (among other rights) if there was the perception that we could get away with it.
Georgia, Texas, Alabama, Utah, Florida, Tennessee, Virginia, Mississippi, and probably more midwestern states.

Georgia, Texas, Alabama, Utah, Florida, Tennessee, Virginia, Mississippi, and probably more midwestern states.

You list all of those and you forget Kansas?

Yeah, as much as I like the environment and climate of Colorado I suspect the state government here too would stamp on civil rights and the like.

:headbang:

You are so busy defending Ron Paul, you can't read the first post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13208967&postcount=1) of this thread to see what you are defending him against?

Go back and read the OP (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13208967&postcount=1) and you will see how Paul is a liar and a hypocrite.

As for your defense of Paul on the grounds that abortion is a state issue, you are only highlighting Paul's lies and hypocrisy. He does often argue that abortion is an issue that should be left to the states under the 10th Amendment. However, he (1) voted for the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act which HE SAID WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL and FEDERALIZED the issue and (2) he has REPEATEDLY tried to pass a FEDERAL law making life officially begin at conception (which would then make abortion illegal pursuant to federal law), (e.g. link (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1094:)).

Yes he did vote for it that would leave it as a federal law, he said it does "ingrains the principles of Roe v. Wade into our justice system, rather than refutes them as it should." which as he said is unconstitutional, in order for these supreme court rulings to be made void one of two things must happen 1) the supreme court can reverse its ruling or the federal government can make abortion illegal by law across the enitre union. Thus if Ron Paul votes it he will actually not be lying because he upholds the constitution by 1) Attempting to allow human beings "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and 2) If it is made federal law then the tenth amendment comes into play by prohibiting states from overrulling federal law as well as continuing the tradition of the ninth.

Yes he did vote for it that would leave it as a federal law, he said it does "ingrains the principles of Roe v. Wade into our justice system, rather than refutes them as it should."

How?

which as he said is unconstitutional, in order for these supreme court rulings to be made void one of two things must happen 1) the supreme court can reverse its ruling or the federal government can make abortion illegal by law across the enitre union. Thus if Ron Paul votes it he will actually not be lying because he upholds the constitution by 1) Attempting to allow human beings "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and 2) If it is made federal law then the tenth amendment comes into play by prohibiting states from overrulling federal law as well as continuing the tradition of the ninth.

So you are claiming he upholds the Constitution by violating the Constitution! Oh brother :rolleyes:

You have trouble reading, don't you?

Me: "They are harsh on people wishing to immigrate legally."
You: "Illegal immigration, bla bla bla."

By the way, have you seen the law he proposed - linked several times in this thread - where he sought to ban Iranian - and only Iranian - students from receiving financial aid?

Can you show me where he says that please and then I will reply it may even mean myself agreeing with you

(a) No, the "main controversy" does not surround the full faith and credit clause, although that is part of it. The "controversy" (and it's disgusting that this even is a controversy) is equal protection under the law. This includes all areas, not just marriage.

(b) You demonstrate your lack of reading skills once again by ignoring the fact that Ron Paul personally voted for a budgeting amendment in DC aimed at keeping same-sex couples from adopting children. It failed, but only by a couple of votes. No one can pretend that Ron Paul is not personally prejudiced against the LGBT community.

(c) LGBT stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender.

(d) Ron Paul has also decried Lawrence v. Texas, making it clear that he thinks same-sex couples have no right to consummate their relationship - that the government should be able to determine who we can sleep with and how we should do it.

(e) It is not federally illegal to be married to a member of the same sex. There are those who wish to make it that way, but they have not. The federal government does not recognize such marriages, but it is hardly illegal. Massachusetts currently grants marriage licenses to same-sex couples as well as opposite-sex ones.

Let me make my first point with (d) you say that the government shouldn't be able to dictate who we 'sleep' with does that mean you are also against laws that prohibit pedophilia, beastiality and incest? You say that all people should be treated equally under the law but the constituion only states some rights while the ninth was there to allow any more rights that may come up in the future they must first become law federally which will prohibit the states from enforcing contradictary laws again apart of the tenth amendment.

No, they aren't. And the fact that you think they are makes it clear that you are in a place of privilege. You obviously don't realize the protections you have under the law that others do not.

So when I see people get scholarships or special grants because they are black or hispanic or some other race and people not allowed to get these things because they are not a part of the ethnic group then you are saying that they are not getting special privilages and those that aren't are not being discriminated against becauce of their race. can you define place of privilege for me than I will tell you if I am or not?

Somebody missed the 9th Amendment. And the 14th. Look them up. There are things that no level of government can do, because there are rights reserved to the people. Not the state governments, the PEOPLE.

And somebody missed the tenth kudos to picking me up on that I was wondering if somebody would. Yes they are rights reserved by the people but are not the state governments representative of the people? and the tenth does state "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." ie the states first and then the people. The 14th defines US citizenship. as wit all amendments such as the 14th they can be changed and if a majority of people want them to be changed then why not?

And your lack of reading comprehension rears its ugly head once again. I didn't say democracy is unimportant. I said this isn't a pure democracy. Thanks to the protections put in place by the US Constitution, there are some things that simply aren't up for a vote. Equal protection under the law is not up for a vote - no matter how much of a majority wants to subjugate a minority, they do not have that power. Individual rights are not up for a vote - no matter how much of a majority wants to infringe upon them, they do not have that power. This does not make democracy unimportant - it is of the utmost importance in those areas in which government action is appropriate.

So why is their a big debate about the 2nd amendment if it is immpossible to change this right?

In other words, "You actually don't have any individual rights whatsoever. Have a good day."

If the majority can decide to take rights away, you do not have any rights actually reserved to the individual. As such, the government is a danger to all human beings.

Good day to you to sir, Yes that is part of the problem after all having a Bill of rights or similar does actually limit your right, however, as I said the tenth gives power to the states (who are representatives of the people) and then to the people provided those laws are not prohibited by the federal government

Can you show me where he says that please and then I will reply it may even mean myself agreeing with you

The law about Iranian students?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.5842:

Let me make my first point with (d) you say that the government shouldn't be able to dictate who we 'sleep' with does that mean you are also against laws that prohibit pedophilia, beastiality and incest?

Of course not. No one has the right to have sex with anyone else without their consent. In cases where consent is not, or cannot be given, the law is absolutely right in prohibiting such conduct.

You say that all people should be treated equally under the law but the constituion only states some rights while the ninth was there to allow any more rights that may come up in the future they must first become law federally which will prohibit the states from enforcing contradictary laws again apart of the tenth amendment.

All people being treated equally under the law has little to do with the 9th or 10th Amendment. It is actually enshrined in the 14th, in addition to being absolutely necessary for any government which values liberty.

As for the 9th Amendment, if the rights reserved to the individual must first become law, then the 9th Amendment is completely useless. It protects nothing, as it still reserves everything to the government. Congratulations on championing a system in which individual civil liberty means absolutely nothing.

can you define place of privilege for me than I will tell you if I am or not?

If you are white, male, heterosexual, Christian, or even wealthy, you are in a place of privilege in this country. In any of those cases, the law has valued you above all others for pretty much the entirety of US history. We are moving closer to equalization on all counts, but we have not yet achieved it. And when we fight to get that equality under the law, people whine about "special rights", as if marriage, legal protection, the right to work, etc. are somehow "special" and haven't already been guaranteed to rich, white, male, heterosexual Christians.

And somebody missed the tenth kudos to picking me up on that I was wondering if somebody would. Yes they are rights reserved by the people but are not the state governments representative of the people?

The state governments are still governments. The 9th Amendment lists the people. The 10th lists both. This makes it extremely evident that they are not one and the same.

State governments are representative of the majority of the people, as are all democratically elected governments. Civil rights, however, are guaranteed to all people, regardless of majority status. No government, no matter how local, has the "right" to infringe upon them.

and the tenth does state "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." ie the states first and then the people.

...which comes after the 9th which makes it clear that some are reserved strictly to the people.

The 14th defines US citizenship. as wit all amendments such as the 14th they can be changed and if a majority of people want them to be changed then why not?

Because pure democracy is, as the saying goes, two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. Tyranny of the majority is a very real threat, and the Constitution was designed to protect the individual from it.

If the majority of people decided tomorrow that you should be thrown in jail and kept without food and water until you died, would that be ok with you? If the majority of people decided that you should be forced to follow the majority religion, would that be ok with you? If the majority of people decided that you would no longer be protected by the law, would that be ok with you?

Why or why not?

So why is their a big debate about the 2nd amendment if it is immpossible to change this right?

There is no debate about whether or not the right to bear arms exists and is protected by the Constitution. The only debate is in the interpretation of how far that right stretches. The Amendment makes it clear that its purpose is to have a well-armed militia, for instance. How does that work into today's society? It was also never interpreted to suggest that an individual could own all types of arms, so how does that translate into today's world where there are many more types of weapons - most of them much more dangerous than anything in existing when the Constitution was written.

And the thing with the 14th Amendment is that in order for it to be changed, it would require another Constitutional Amendment which would require 2/3rds of the Legislature (both houses and not likely) and 2/3rds of the states (not likely).

Good day to you to sir, Yes that is part of the problem after all having a Bill of rights or similar does actually limit your right, however, as I said the tenth gives power to the states (who are representatives of the people) and then to the people provided those laws are not prohibited by the federal government

And you, once again, ignore the 9th Amendment which makes it abundantly clear that there are rights reserved to the people themselves. It made it quite clear that these rights are NOT limited to those enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

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

In other words, there are rights reserved to the people and the fact that there are other rights that are specifically spelled out in the first 8 amendments doesn't mean that the government can "deny or disparage" those still retained by the people.

If the states can infringe upon or define civil rights as they see fit, then the 9th amendment has no meaning whatsoever. It is useless.

People are arguing in this thread about whether we should trust the states or the fed more to safeguard our rights, but that misses the point entirely. Actually, it misses two points.

First Point: Thanks to the Constitution and an independent judiciary, we don't have to rely on government to safeguard our rights at all. We can do it ourselves, using the law via the court system. That's what "rule of law" means. Also, it's important to point out that we can safeguard our rights against our own government, if need be, using the law and the courts. So all arguments about whether we should let the fed or the states be in charge of civil rights is really just abdicating our own responsibility for our rights.

Second Point: One can argue all day long about whether one thinks Ron Paul's beliefs are right or wrong, but it has nothing at all to do with whether Ron Paul lied about his beliefs. The fact remains, he said he would do one thing, and he turned around and did the exact opposite. He said he would never vote for anything that was not in line with the Constitution, and then he went ahead and declared a certain law unconstitutional and immediately voted FOR it. It does not matter whether his stance was right or wrong (and for the record, it was wrong). What matters is that he misrepresented himself to the nation and to the constituency that put him in office.

Yes he did vote for it that would leave it as a federal law,

In my post to which you are responding I pointed to two sets of federal abortion laws supported by Ron Paul. One is the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, which Paul himself says unconstitutional. The other set are Paul's attempts to make a federal law outlawing all abortion.

Either way, in both sets, Paul is advocating bigger, more centralized government that is invasive into your doctor-patient relationship and your body.

he said it does "ingrains the principles of Roe v. Wade into our justice system, rather than refutes them as it should." which as he said is unconstitutional, in order for these supreme court rulings to be made void one of two things must happen 1) the supreme court can reverse its ruling or the federal government can make abortion illegal by law across the enitre union. Thus if Ron Paul votes it he will actually not be lying because he upholds the constitution by

You'll have to explain how voting for something that is unconstitutional "upholds the constitution."

Paul voted for the PBABA which he himself said was unconstitutional. That violated his oath of office and sacrificed his own ideals for ideological reasons. But there is more. He now claims he's "never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution." In light of his vote on PBABA, that is a lie.

1) Attempting to allow human beings "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and

Sorry, buckaroo, but that phrase isn't in the Constitution. It comes from the Declaration of Indepence and has no impact on Consitutional Law.

2) If it is made federal law then the tenth amendment comes into play by prohibiting states from overrulling federal law as well as continuing the tradition of the ninth.

Once an issue becomes a properly enacted federal law it is supreme over state law pursuant to the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2). The Tenth Amendment doesn't really have anything to do with it.