wikipedia error?

[wbbgjr]

Found this line on wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

"Also in 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which, if made law, would allow state and local governments to display religious text and imagery, to prohibit abortion, sexual practices, and same-sex marriage, and would forbid federal courts from spending any money to enforce their judgments.[101]"

Is that right? To prohibit sexual practices and same sex marriage? Seems incorrect, or at least unclear.

[Wyurm]

This sounds like a mistake as well: Paul introduced legislation in October 2002 for Congress to declare war on Iraq. He said he would not vote for his own bill, but if his fellow members of Congress wished to go to war in Iraq, they should follow the Constitution and declare war.


Note the bold section.

[Roxi]

Found this line on wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

"Also in 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which, if made law, would allow state and local governments to display religious text and imagery, to prohibit abortion, sexual practices, and same-sex marriage, and would forbid federal courts from spending any money to enforce their judgments.[101]"

Is that right? To prohibit sexual practices and same sex marriage? Seems incorrect, or at least unclear.



each state can make those laws if they want, then the people can boycott the state if they disagree

the legislation would more specifically forbid feds from getting in the way of what the Constitution leaves to the state.

the wording seems like it's trying to make it sound bad, but it's really right in line with the Constitution.

[Wyurm]

It looks like we have vandals attacking his wiki page

[Sean]

Those powers rightly belong to the states and not the federal courts. You must remember that just because you have the power to do something does not mean it should or would be done. All of those issues according to the Constitution should be dealt with at the state level. Since the courts have unjustly seized those powers Dr. Paul introduced a bill in Congress to limit their jurisdiction as Congress has the power to do so.

[Spirit of '76]

Found this line on wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

"Also in 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which, if made law, would allow state and local governments to display religious text and imagery, to prohibit abortion, sexual practices, and same-sex marriage, and would forbid federal courts from spending any money to enforce their judgments.[101]"

Is that right? To prohibit sexual practices and same sex marriage? Seems incorrect, or at least unclear.



I corrected it:


Also in 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which, if made law, would prevent the federal government from interfering in the affairs of individual states by preventing the expenditure of federal funds for enforcing rulings regarding matters of religion, sexuality, and abortion.[101]

[Spirit of '76]

This sounds like a mistake as well: Paul introduced legislation in October 2002 for Congress to declare war on Iraq. He said he would not vote for his own bill, but if his fellow members of Congress wished to go to war in Iraq, they should follow the Constitution and declare war.


Note the bold section.

Clarified:


In order to prevent Congress from yielding its constitutional authority to declare war to the executive branch, which does not constitutionally hold that power, Paul introduced legislation in October 2002 giving Congress the opportunity to declare war on Iraq, rather than merely "authorizing" the president to deploy forces without a declaration of war.

[DAZ]

This sounds like a mistake as well: Paul introduced legislation in October 2002 for Congress to declare war on Iraq. He said he would not vote for his own bill, but if his fellow members of Congress wished to go to war in Iraq, they should follow the Constitution and declare war.


Note the bold section.

It should be made more clear, but I think it is actually correct. It seemed a foregone conclusion that we were going to war, he was just trying to make it legal according to the Constitution by asking Congress to declare war. Congress instead passed a resolution authorizing the use of force. Congress went for the cop-out. Ron Paul never advocated the war in Iraq either way. Remember, this man is nothing if not principled.

[wbbgjr]

Found this line on wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

"Also in 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which, if made law, would allow state and local governments to display religious text and imagery, to prohibit abortion, sexual practices, and same-sex marriage, and would forbid federal courts from spending any money to enforce their judgments.[101]"

Is that right? To prohibit sexual practices and same sex marriage? Seems incorrect, or at least unclear.

So the Act allows states to prohibit "sexual practices"?

[foofighter20x]

No, the act seeks to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts, something that is entirely within Congress' purview.

In fact, he resubmitted the legislation this Congress...

Text here. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.300:)

[Gee]

By taking it from the federal courts, it does allow the states to outlaw sexual practices (which were previously protected by SCOTUS's interpretation of the 14th amendment) as per the 10th amendment.

I really want to know WTF Paul was thinking with this bill, its the only one I've seen him submit which I totally dislike. I agree its best to follow the constitution than not, but this is a case where not following the constitution actually increased individual liberty. It seems like there are much more important fights out there.

[foofighter20x]

Limiting jurisdiction like that for the sexual practices one really won't do anything, because the USSC can always hear cases arising under the Constitution. Congress can't limit that (so long as the State is a party to the suit).

All someone snared by a sex law has to do (and I'm assuming this would be a anti-sodomy law or similar) is raise and prove a 14th Amendment equal protection violation by the State (which is what happened with Lawrence v. Texas in 2003).

If the complaintant can prove that the state applies the law unfairly (as in, homosexuals are disproportionally prosecuted under the law) then the law is pretty much unconstitutional and void.