Ron Paul's introductory comments on the We the People Act

[Joey Wahoo]

SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2009

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the We the People Act. The We the People Act forbids federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from adjudicating cases concerning State laws and polices relating to religious liberties or ``privacy,'' including cases involving sexual practices, sexual orientation or reproduction. The We the People Act also protects the traditional definition of marriage from judicial activism by ensuring the Supreme Court cannot abuse the equal protection clause to redefine marriage. In order to hold Federal judges accountable for abusing their powers, the act also provides that a judge who violates the act's limitations on judicial power shall either be impeached by Congress or removed by the President, according to rules established by the Congress.

The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower Federal courts and limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Founders intended Congress to use this authority to correct abuses of power by the Federal judiciary.

Some may claim that an activist judiciary that strikes down State laws at will expands individual liberty. Proponents of this claim overlook the fact that the best guarantor of true liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to liberty is concentrated power. This is why the Constitution carefully limits the power of the Federal Government over the States.

In recent years, we have seen numerous abuses of power by Federal courts. Federal judges regularly strike down State and local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion. This government by Federal judiciary causes a virtual nullification of the Tenth Amendment's limitations on Federal power. Furthermore, when Federal judges impose their preferred polices on State and local governments, instead of respecting the polices adopted by those elected by, and thus accountable to, the people, republican government is threatened. Article IV, section 4 of the United States Constitution guarantees each State a republican form of government. Thus, Congress must act when the executive or judicial branch threatens the republican governments of the individual States. Therefore, Congress has a responsibility to stop Federal judges from running roughshod over State and local laws. The Founders would certainly have supported congressional action to reign in Federal judges who tell citizens where they can and can't place manger scenes at Christmas.

Madam Speaker, even some supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision, which overturned the abortion laws of all 50 States, is flawed. The Supreme Court's establishment clause jurisdiction has also drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. Perhaps more importantly, attempts to resolve, by judicial fiat, important issues like abortion and the expression of religious belief in the public square increase social strife and conflict. The only way to resolve controversial social issues like abortion and school prayer is to restore respect for the right of State and local governments to adopt polices that reflect the beliefs of the citizens of those jurisdictions. I would remind my colleagues and the Federal judiciary that, under our constitutional system, there is no reason why the people of New York and the people of Texas should have the same policies regarding issues such as marriage and school prayer.

Unless Congress acts, a State's authority to define and regulate marriage may be the next victim of activist judges. After all, such a decision would simply take the Supreme Court's decision in the Lawrence case, which overturned all State sodomy laws, to its logical conclusion. Congress must launch a preemptive strike against any further Federal usurpation of the States' authority to regulate marriage by removing issues concerning the definition of marriage from the jurisdiction of Federal courts.

Although marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the States, government did not create the institution of marriage. Government regulation of marriage is based on State recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil institutions, such as churches and synagogues. Having Federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty.

It is long past time that Congress exercises its authority to protect the republican government of the States from out-of-control Federal judges. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the We the People Act.

[LibertyEagle]

Have a link by chance?

[Joey Wahoo]

Have a link by chance?

Here ya go: http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r111:1:./temp/~r111ME3wTU::

And here's a link to all the bills he has introduced in this session:

http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery

[zach]

Can the Act be summarized in a shorter way? I'm having trouble understanding it.

[Joey Wahoo]

The act would strip the federal courts of any jurisdiction to review state laws on religious liberty, "privacy" (the supposed right violated by anti-abortion laws) and marriage.

In other words, states can do what they want with regard to religious liberty, abortion and marriage. The federal courts would not be able to declare it unconstitutional to post the 10 Commandments in a courthouse or pray in school. The federal courts would have no authority to overturn state laws (pro or con) on abortion. And the federal government would have no power to define marriage, or overturn state laws on single-sex marriages.

This law would return all those powers to the states, where the constitution put them.

[mczerone]

Can the Act be summarized in a shorter way? I'm having trouble understanding it.

The Congress can limit the Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts - and Paul wants to bar them from hearing any State law claim related to religion or private behavior. Essentially Paul wants Texas to have to power to ban gay marriage without having to worry about the Federal government overturning the law.

This is, admittedly, where I differ the most from Paul - on the first ground of the separation of powers was supposed to allow the Federal government to check State tyranny just as the States were supposed to be able to check the Federal government. The latter was thrown out with the Civil war, and the former would be thrown out by this bill. All people of the United States deserve the same Constitutional rights, and while States are free to make their own laws that respect those rights, this bill would attempt to allow States to abridge those rights.

Secondly, the power of limiting the jurisdiction of the Federal courts would not be affected the way Paul wants it to be: He wants to limit the cases that they can hear, that they can't decide controversies related to whether people can marry under State law. Unfortunately the bill would only limit the courts power to resolve cases that are brought under those laws - like a divorce proceeding. IT WOULD NOT, and indeed CAN NOT limit the courts power to decide the Constitutionality of a State law. Deciding whether a law, either from Congress or a State, is Constitutional is always within the court's power.


Rep. Paul needs to stay on issues devoted to the liberty of the people, not the power of the states. This is where he loses support and looks like a ultra-conservative homophobic racist, who prefers tyranny so long as it leaves him in a comfortable position.

And putting these ideas into a bill called the "We the People" act is more despicable than the naming of the PATRIOT act.

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

Rep. Paul needs to stay on issues devoted to the liberty of the people, not the power of the states. This is where he loses support and looks like a ultra-conservative homophobic racist, who prefers tyranny so long as it leaves him in a comfortable position.

And putting these ideas into a bill called the "We the People" act is more despicable than the naming of the PATRIOT act.

It would certainly be an unpleasant surprise if the lot of us had him pegged all wrong.

[Joey Wahoo]

Well McZerone it's hard for me to understand how someone can be a Ron Paul supporter, and at the same time support the power of the federal judiciary to destroy state laws on marriage, privacy and religion.

I think Dr. Paul's remarks above say it best:

"Some may claim that an activist judiciary that strikes down State laws at will expands individual liberty. Proponents of this claim overlook the fact that the best guarantor of true liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to liberty is concentrated power. This is why the Constitution carefully limits the power of the Federal Government over the States."

[mczerone]

Well McZerone it's hard for me to understand how someone can be a Ron Paul supporter, and at the same time support the power of the federal judiciary to destroy state laws on marriage, privacy and religion.

I think Dr. Paul's remarks above say it best:

"Some may claim that an activist judiciary that strikes down State laws at will expands individual liberty. Proponents of this claim overlook the fact that the best guarantor of true liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to liberty is concentrated power. This is why the Constitution carefully limits the power of the Federal Government over the States."

For one, because it is Constitutional. And secondly, liberty is liberty whoever is enforcing the rights. Tyranny is tyranny, no matter how many bosses you have.

[Joey Wahoo]

For one, because it is Constitutional.

I'll bite. What is the constitutional authority for the federal courts to overturn state laws on marriage, abortion and religion?

[Elwar]

Why limit it to religion and privacy?

[blocks]

Why limit it to religion and privacy?

hehe..baby steps, man, baby steps.

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

bump

[powerofreason]

I don't get how this legislation is pro-liberty. Basically, he doesn't want federal courts to interfere with anti-gay marriage laws. Is that about right? If so, I'm disappointed to say the least.

[KenInMontiMN]

Conferring or limiting rights to legally marry simply isn't the business of the Federal gov't- no different than saying what you choose to smoke or ingest isn't the business of the Federal gov't. In both cases, not the Federal government's business.
For exactly the right reasons, the Federal gov't has no constitutionally sound say in such matters unless we opt to amend the constitution to make such things Federal business. Which would be a very poor idea- we need less Federal governance, not more.

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

Howdy,

It should be said:
Ron Paul is not a homophobe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE).

Regards,
Omphfullas Zamboni

[Scofield]

Conferring or limiting rights to legally marry simply isn't the business of the Federal gov't- no different than saying what you choose to smoke or ingest isn't the business of the Federal gov't. In both cases, not the Federal government's business.
For exactly the right reasons, the Federal gov't has no constitutionally sound say in such matters unless we opt to amend the constitution to make such things Federal business. Which would be a very poor idea- we need less Federal governance, not more.

It's also none of the business of the State.

[ARealConservative]

The constitution was always meant to rein in federal power, not to give it power over the states.

I'm sure this is a bitter pill for libertarian purists to swallow, but as Denny Green might say, "he is who I thought he was"

:D

[ARealConservative]

It's also none of the business of the State.

residents of the states are the ones that put their lives in the line to defend the constitution against enemies.....I think it is their business.

[ARealConservative]

I don't get how this legislation is pro-liberty. Basically, he doesn't want federal courts to interfere with anti-gay marriage laws. Is that about right? If so, I'm disappointed to say the least.

It's pro representative government.

[Scofield]

residents of the states are the ones that put their lives in the line to defend the constitution against enemies.....I think it is their business.

States don't have rights..individuals do.

You cannot vote on an individual's rights, they are inalienable. The right to privacy, the right to religious matters, et al cannot be voted upon.

In the case of Abortion, that should be left to a vote, as that is not a right in some minds, as it all depends on when you consider a baby to be an individual. However, religious and marital privacy are none of the States business, nor is it the business of the individual not involved (ie: neighbor).

[powerofreason]

It's pro representative government.

Oh you mean pro-democracy? Yea I'm definitely against it. I'm interested in whats right, not what the majority of people want.

[ARealConservative]

States don't have rights..individuals do.

You cannot vote on an individual's rights, they are inalienable. The right to privacy, the right to religious matters, et al cannot be voted upon.

Individuals alone will not be powerful enough to defend your rights. Crying about how something is inalienable doesn't do a hell of a lot when very few are interested in defending such things.

So to protect liberty we allow lower forms of government to trample rights. Then reasonably free people vote with their feet and find an area that fits their views on what to preserve and what to trample on.

Would you support going into Mexico and demanding that they recognize our views of inalienable rights? How about Saudi Arabia? At what point will you not support intervention?

[Scofield]

Individuals alone will not be powerful enough to defend your rights. Crying about how something is inalienable doesn't do a hell of a lot when very few are interested in defending such things.

So to protect liberty we allow lower forms of government to trample rights. Then reasonably free people vote with their feet and find an area that fits their views on what to preserve and what to trample on.

Would you support going into Mexico and demanding that they recognize our views of inalienable rights? How about Saudi Arabia? At what point will you not support intervention?


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That, to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.

We are the united States of America, not Mexico or Saudi Arabia. They are endowed with the same rights we are, but it is their duty to protect those rights. Our founders set up a government to protect our rights on the large scale.

We all have a right to defend our rights, and in order for that to happen on a mass-scale, government was created.

I am powerful enough to defend my rights, and all I need to do so is to have a gun, as no one will violate my rights if they know death is a result of trampling on my rights. We gave government the power to do this for us, so we could live knowing justice would be served if anyone violated our rights.


Life, faculties, production—in other words, individuality, liberty, property—this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. -Frederic Bastiat

[ARealConservative]

We are the united States of America, not Mexico or Saudi Arabia. They are endowed with the same rights we are, but it is their duty to protect those rights. Our founders set up a government to protect our rights on the large scale.

We all have a right to defend our rights, and in order for that to happen on a mass-scale, government was created.

I am powerful enough to defend my rights, and all I need to do so is a gun. We gave government the power to do this for us, so we could live knowing justice would be served if anyone violated our rights.

-Frederic Bastiat

The DoI is not a legal document, it was a letter to the King.

[oilboiler]

An important point is that if a state becomes oppressive, or if they mismanage their affairs, you can move to another state and that state will eventually reform or fail. With a centralized power, you are trapped. Therefore only with decentralized power is there an incentive to provide for the common good.

[Scofield]

The DoI is not a legal document, it was a letter to the King.

To ignore the DoI is to ignore the very spirit of being an American and is a downright slap in the face to those who fought and died for this country. Any judge, jury, legislator, president, ANYONE in any sector of government/society who acts as if the DoI isn't important can kiss my ass and should vacate this country immediately. I have zero tolerance for anyone who can look at the DoI and ignore it because it wasn't codified into law (even though it is in the United States Code...under Organic Law).

Also, the Supreme Court has ruled that our rights cannot be voted upon.

We have a right to contract (marriage), we have a right to worship our God, et al. No government can vote to abridge these rights.

[ARealConservative]

To ignore the DoI is to ignore the very spirit of being an American and is a downright slap in the face to those who fought and died for this country. Any judge, jury, legislator, president, ANYONE in any sector of government/society who acts as if the DoI isn't important can kiss my ass and should vacate this country immediately. I have zero tolerance for anyone who can look at the DoI and ignore it because it wasn't codified into law (even though it is in the United States Code...under Organic Law).

Also, the Supreme Court has ruled that our rights cannot be voted upon.

We have a right to contract (marriage), we have a right to worship our God, et al. No government can vote to abridge these rights.

This country has not lived up to the words in the DoI from the get go.

You purists need to wake up and smell the coffee. The reason this movement had any legs at all is because it goes deeper then pimply faced high school notions about what freedom is.

People that agree with me (and Ron Paul) out number people like you and probably always will.

So I ask again, what stops you from marching on Saudi Arabia and telling them how their government should function? Why does your interventionist attitude stop at states you don't belong to when it could just as easily extend to countries you don't belong to. The DoI isn't a legal document and the constitution wasn't intended to dictate to the states on these matters, so if you want to intervene, be a man about it and go offshore to do so as well.

[Scofield]

Interventionist attitude? How do I have an interventionist attitude?

Why would I ever think about going to Saudi Arabia and telling them how to live their lives, and tell them what to do with their government? They have the right to create the government they want, based on their personal beliefs. The American Founding Father's created our type of government, and it is in the form of the Declaration of Independence (Organic Law), the United States Constitution and the individual State Constitutions.

Governments, in this country, are created to protect our rights, not to dictate our lives. Saudi Arabia is it's own sovereign nation, it is up to the people of that country to create the government they want.

I really don't understand what you're saying to me, to be honest with you.

[ARealConservative]

Interventionist attitude? How do I have an interventionist attitude?

Why would I ever think about going to Saudi Arabia and telling them how to live their lives, and tell them what to do with their government? They have the right to create the government they want, based on their personal beliefs. The American Founding Father's created our type of government, and it is in the form of the Declaration of Independence (Organic Law), the United States Constitution and the individual State Constitutions.

Governments, in this country, are created to protect our rights, not to dictate our lives. Saudi Arabia is it's own sovereign nation, it is up to the people of that country to create the government they want.

I really don't understand what you're saying to me, to be honest with you.

You understanding of the constitution and how we got to where we are today is in serious need of study. You are advocating for the incorporation of the bill of rights brought forward by Lincoln, FDR, and socialist judges.

You are an intervenionist because you want to interfere with the wishes of citizens of these united states.

[Scofield]

You understanding of the constitution and how we got to where we are today is in serious need of study. You are advocating for the incorporation of the bill of rights brought forward by Lincoln, FDR, and socialist judges.

You are an intervenionist because you want to interfere with the wishes of citizens of these united states.

And the citizens of these united states want to interfere with my wishes. So, really, who is the more "interventionist?"

I want to be left alone. I want to leave you alone.

I want you to respect my rights, and I'll in turn respect yours. I am not the one making law, nor am I pushing for law to be made...I just want to be left the fuck alone and to live my life and make my own choices, as long as I am not bothering you and violating your rights. When I violate your rights, THAT is when the government needs to get involved. Until then, LEAVE ME ALONE!

[ARealConservative]

And the citizens of these united states want to interfere with my wishes. So, really, who is the more "interventionist?"

I want to be left alone. I want to leave you alone.

I want you to respect my rights, and I'll in turn respect yours. I am not the one making law, nor am I pushing for law to be made...I just want to be left the fuck alone and to live my life and make my own choices, as long as I am not bothering you and violating your rights. When I violate your rights, THAT is when the government needs to get involved. Until then, LEAVE ME ALONE!

For the most part, I too want what you want in my state (until I read nonsense about how a person hiring someone to kill is fine by libertarian standards and other such purist nonsense)

The difference is I accept that another persons state isn't any different then Saudi Arabia. I won't intervene in other governments, I will fight for what is right in my own. Ron Paul's bill is designed to protect exactly that.

[M House]

Wow so important I guess some **** won't be able to marry. Um next time just call it the "We the State Bill" and be done with it.

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

Wow so important I guess some **** won't be able to marry. Um next time just call it the "We the State Bill" and be done with it.

Or they will be able to marry.

[M House]

Yeah....maybe. I'm kinda thinking Paul dropped a load on this one but I think he means well. His premise seems to get it back to local government. However I believe the federal government if anything has the right to protect individual freedoms. It's a dicey area and I think neither should be making religious, sexual orientation, marriage, or other type laws.

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

Yeah....maybe. I'm kinda thinking Paul dropped a load on this one but I think he means well. His premise seems to get it back to local government. However I believe the federal government if anything has the right to protect individual freedoms. It's a dicey area and I think neither should be making religious, sexual orientation, marriage, or other type laws.

I really would've liked to see him go on, "The Ellen Show" and see if this topic arose. I am 95% certain his appearance would have gone better than John McCain's.

[M House]

To me it seems more like a flowery lets protect the people's right to vote on your rights. To me that's gay any way you wanna word it. I can see he's trying for some good here but it's a terrible approach to say the least and the way it's titled is beyond pretentious.

[Bman]

My only problem is that the states themselves should have no say in some of these topics. Marriage for one. If a Church says two gay people are married then they are married. If someone decides to Pray in school no one should stop them so long as they are not hurting or being indecent in the practice. There's absolutely no reason for the government to use ANY religious documents.

Abortion being the only one that has any validity of discussion and in all honesty you'd have to repeal the 14th admendment to make any head way on this topic. Otherwise we will just go round and round.

[blocks]

residents of the states are the ones that put their lives in the line to defend the constitution against enemies.....I think it is their business.

Yes, but we are talking about marriage here. Marriage, in legal terms, is nothing but a contract between two consenting adults. An obstruction of that contract, whether by a local, state, or federal entity is a violation of their rights.

Ron Paul is simply trying to move the issue out of the Fed's hands and according to his job title, that is his only option.

[Joey Wahoo]

Yeah....maybe. I'm kinda thinking Paul dropped a load on this one but I think he means well. His premise seems to get it back to local government. However I believe the federal government if anything has the right to protect individual freedoms. It's a dicey area and I think neither should be making religious, sexual orientation, marriage, or other type laws.

Good grief. With all due respect, Ron Paul has been an untiring defender of the Constitution, including, of course, the 9th and 10th Amendments his entire career. Federal courts have absolutely no right to legislate morality. State legislatures decide what is a crime in that state, what the requirements are for a state-sanctioned marriage, for example. Permitting federal courts to seized that power from the people is just another step toward centralized tyranny.

Some of you are making the mistake of assuming that the federal courts are inherently good and benevolent, and local governments are inherently bad. This sets the ideas of the founders on their heads! Suppose the Supreme Court is someday filled with judges who declare that abortion must be illegal everywhere. New York would then have no right to permit it. Would you be OK with that?

And READ what he wrote. He is acting to prevent the US federal goverment from defining marriage, which would undoubtedly deny states the right to permit single sex marriage, not the other way around. It is state supreme courts that are striking down such laws, not federal courts. The move in DC is to make it IMPOSSIBLE for states to permit single sex marriage, and Ron Paul is rightfully saying tht it is none of the federal government's business what state law on marriage is. Granted his act would also deny the federal courts the ability to FORCE states to FORBID or ALLOW gay marriage (to use the controversial example). As free people we shouldn't have to answer to federal courts either way.

Ron Paul is the only true conservative in Congress and this bill is further evidence of that. Good for him!!

[CUnknown]

[...]Essentially Paul wants Texas to have to power to ban gay marriage without having to worry about the Federal government overturning the law.

This is, admittedly, where I differ the most from Paul [...]

Rep. Paul needs to stay on issues devoted to the liberty of the people, not the power of the states. This is where he loses support and looks like a ultra-conservative homophobic racist, who prefers tyranny so long as it leaves him in a comfortable position.

And putting these ideas into a bill called the "We the People" act is more despicable than the naming of the PATRIOT act.

I am pro-choice and pro-gays having equal marriage rights myself (I'd like for the State to stay out of both gay and straight marriage rather than marry both gays and straights, but anyway). But Paul's concerns here are sound. The 10th Amendment has been ignored and diluted down to almost nothing. It is supposed to protect the people from run-away State power. Sure, it's great if the Feds are instituting laws that you agree with, pro-choice people can have abortions in any state they decide to move to, for example. But it is against the Constitution.

And it was banned by the Constitution for good reasons -- imagine if you were on the opposite side of some of those issues, how you would feel about this abuse of power? Marijuana laws come to mind. What if your town wanted to make it legal? They can't. People are rotting in prison right now because power is being centralized by the Feds.

I agree 100% with Paul that the best way to protect liberty is to decentralize power. Why should, for example, people in New York or Washington DC get to tell people in Texas that they must allow abortions in their state? Decisions should be made by the people whom they affect, not by outsiders who live far away or across the ocean.

[CUnknown]

Or they will be able to marry.

Absolutely, this bill would protect the rights of the States to allow gay marriage as much as ban it. If the Religious Right has their way, they will take over the government and make it illegal for any state to allow gay marriage.

People who can't see how this bill defends liberty, surely you can see this, right?

[brandon]

why is RP wasting his time with this garbage? What a disappointment...

[A. Havnes]

why is RP wasting his time with this garbage? What a disappointment...

To stop a federal ban on gay marriage or a federal ammendment to make gay marriage illegal. This is actually an important civil liberties issue. He's doing what he does best: limit government power.

[brandon]

To stop a federal ban on gay marriage or a federal ammendment to make gay marriage illegal. This is actually an important civil liberties issue. He's doing what he does best: limit government power.

This is not why he is doing it. The bill says nothing about federal legislation, only about the jurisdiction of the supreme court. He is doing it so if a state outlaws gay marriage the supreme court can't overturn it.

This is the side of RP I try to pretend doesn't exist. Even though i agree that the supreme court should not be allowed to overturn state laws, it is a huge disappointment he would waste his time on something like this with the current economic crisis and empire problems.

[Feenix566]

I am pro-choice and pro-gay rights, and I agree with Ron Paul. Decentralization of power is good for the cause of liberty.

To those of you who disagree with Dr. Paul on this issue, I ask you this: Suppose the United Nations was asking for the authority to pass laws that would be enforcable everywhere on the planet. Would you support or oppose this? Based on what principals? How do those principals affect your support or opposition to the bill Dr. Paul is proposing?

I do happen to agree that calling it the "We the People" bill is ridiculous. It should be called the "States' Rights" bill or something.

[ARealConservative]

Yes, but we are talking about marriage here. Marriage, in legal terms, is nothing but a contract between two consenting adults. An obstruction of that contract, whether by a local, state, or federal entity is a violation of their rights.

Ron Paul is simply trying to move the issue out of the Fed's hands and according to his job title, that is his only option.

who enforces contracts? oh, that's right.....the state does. :p

[TonySutton]

More law is not the way to deal with bad judges!

I laugh every time I see a news article about a community up in arms because a Gay Straight Alliance is trying to form in the local high school. In every case the Equal Access Act is quoted to allow the GSA into the school.

Why do I laugh? Because the EAA was initially passed to allow christian clubs into public schools. In 1984, Congress felt it was better to legislate than to get rid of bad judges.

Beware unintended consequences!

[mczerone]

who enforces contracts? oh, that's right.....the state does. :p

And as I said above: The congress can limit the courts ability to rule on the specific contract issues related to gay marriage, but cannot take away the original jurisdiction of judicial review of the constitutionality of a law that may be impeding a person's rights.

States have "power", people have "rights". The US Constitution limits the powers given to the States and equalizes all of the people's rights within the U.S., so whether people have the right to be free from state (or federal) action limiting their marriage contract formation or behavior in the bedroom is a question that the U.S. Supreme Court has authority to decide upon. That authority comes from the Constitution itself, else Marbury v. Madison would have went the other way and the Congress and Executive would be free to make every law up, whether within the Constitution or not, as they went along.

[AZ Libertarian]

In reading the article above, the last commenter, a 'Robert Stevens' says:
"I just spoke with james Bolden, the Clerk's office supervisor at SCOTUS. Bolden said that this was just the result of a software error and that Lightfoot v. Bowen is still on the Docket."
posted at 8:25 a.m. this morning.

[Scofield]

So what does Ron Paul say to do when the States start to violate the rights of it's people?

The Supreme Court has ruled (and their rulings are the "Supreme Law of the Land") that our inherent rights cannot be voted upon (I can't find the case right now, but if I do I will post), so would that not apply to States as well? Our basic human rights cannot be voted upon, yet State legislatures do all the time. How is that at all constitutional (state or US constitution)?

It makes absolutely zero sense for me to turn a blind eye and say "oh, States can do what they want." That is absolutely false, as States do not have rights...they merely have the power to defend our rights. The State works for us, and we cannot ask them to vote on rights...as rights are inalienable.

I get the feeling some people don't mind State usurpation of power, as long as it isn't their state. The only reason they care about Federal government usurpation is because that effects them. Whereas if they live in Nebraska and New York outlaws specific rights, they aren't effected...while if they live in Nebraska and Washington D.C. outlaws certain rights, they are effected.

No government (State, Local, or Federal) can abridge our rights...these governments were CREATED (the created cannot have more power than the creator) to PROTECT our rights...not ABRIDGE them. To say it's okay for a State to decide what rights are valid, is to say tyranny is okay, as long as it's not on a large scale.

Fuck that mindset. Tyranny is tyranny, regardless of where it's centralized.

[demolama]

I get the feeling some people don't mind State usurpation of power, as long as it isn't their state. The only reason they care about Federal government usurpation is because that effects them. Whereas if they live in Nebraska and New York outlaws specific rights, they aren't effected...while if they live in Nebraska and Washington D.C. outlaws certain rights, they are effected.



We live in such a hands off society that we don't bother going out to protest, vote, or any other political activity because we assume the government is going to do it for us. You have no one to blame but the people who live in your society for the unjust laws that get passed in your state/ local governments. Its easier to get 10 of them to help change the unjust laws in your state than it would be to get 150 million more like them for the whole country.

I'll never understand for the likes of me the whole hearted belief that liberty can be achieved through an all encompassing government. Do politicians in Washington know whats best for the environmental problems in Southern California some 3000 miles away? Does sweeping legislation work for NY like it would for SF? No. So why would we assume that liberty can be achieved by the same means?


Jefferson believed that to preserve liberty the government must be as close to the people as possible... meaning the less people the government resides over the better chance the people have of undoing unjust laws... you get a country with 350 million people good luck reversing laws that are unjust like medical marijuana... again I point to the fact Washington thousands of miles away can not make sweeping legislation that works well for Alaska and Maryland

[ARealConservative]

I get the feeling some people don't mind State usurpation of power, as long as it isn't their state.

This is exactly right.

Nearly every voter in this country will allow some usurpation of rights.

for instance, I don't want children walking the streets with handguns. How dare I use the power of the state to interfere with inalienable rights!

[Scofield]

This is exactly right.

Nearly every voter in this country will allow some usurpation of rights.

for instance, I don't want children walking the streets with handguns. How dare I use the power of the state to interfere with inalienable rights!

I wouldn't think a law would be needed to explain that type of behavior. I would figure common sense would be appropriate enough for people to understand that children shouldn't possess firearms without adult supervision.

I can see you not caring if rights were being violated in Saudi Arabia...as we have nothing to do with them. However, we are the UNITED States, meaning we all are together in this...even if we do have our differences. While we all do live in our own sovereign States, we are also a group of UNITED sovereign states. We are an alliance.

[Joey Wahoo]

This is not why he is doing it. The bill says nothing about federal legislation, only about the jurisdiction of the supreme court. He is doing it so if a state outlaws gay marriage the supreme court can't overturn it.

This is the side of RP I try to pretend doesn't exist. Even though i agree that the supreme court should not be allowed to overturn state laws, it is a huge disappointment he would waste his time on something like this with the current economic crisis and empire problems.

Here is the relevant portion of the bill:

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).


Couldn't be more clear.

If this should be passed, the federal courts simply may not invalidate state laws based upon sexual practices, same sex marriage, or abortion, for example.

With all due respect, it blows my mind that someone could be a Ron Paul supporter, post thousands of times on a Ron Paul message board, and yet believe that federal courts trump state legislatures on such issues, as if the 10th Amendment didn't even exist.

To the best of my knowledge Ron Paul has introduced a bill like this every year he has been in Congress. He is a champion of the constitution and this is one of the ways he proves it.

[ARealConservative]

I wouldn't think a law would be needed to explain that type of behavior. I would figure common sense would be appropriate enough for people to understand that children shouldn't possess firearms without adult supervision.

I can see you not caring if rights were being violated in Saudi Arabia...as we have nothing to do with them. However, we are the UNITED States, meaning we all are together in this...even if we do have our differences. While we all do live in our own sovereign States, we are also a group of UNITED sovereign states. We are an alliance.

Yes, a law is needed IMO, but you just backed off 100% on the principals of the DoI.

I could come up with thousands of such laws that I think are needed. You would likely agree with most, but not all of them. This is why decentralization is the key.

ps.. Prior to the socialists taking over it was "these", not "the" united states.

[powerofreason]

Why are people concerned so much with the constitution and the law and not with what's right?

[powerofreason]

Yes, a law is needed IMO, but you just backed off 100% on the principals of the DoI.

I could come up with thousands of such laws that I think are needed. You would likely agree with most, but not all of them. This is why decentralization is the key.

ps.. Prior to the socialists taking over it was "these", not "the" united states.

There's only one law necessary. It's called do no harm. And hopefully, these united states will cease to be quite soon!

[TonySutton]

(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;

Could this be interpreted to limit the ability of SCOTUS to overturn a law in "state A" declaring Southern Baptist to be the official state religion of "state A"?

Unintended consequences...

[ARealConservative]

Why are people concerned so much with the constitution and the law and not with what's right?

because your utopia will never exist.

[powerofreason]

because your utopia will never exist.

A) it's not a utopia
B) it has before
C) we'll never stop crime, does this mean we should just give up and condone it? Of course not! Fight against private crime, and fight against the greatest perpetrator of crime, the State!

[Scofield]

A) it's not a utopia
B) it has before
C) we'll never stop crime, does this mean we should just give up and condone it? Of course not! Fight against private crime, and fight against the greatest perpetrator of crime, the State!

Some people just can't fathom life without buckets and buckets full of laws and regulations.

They need government supervision, regardless of what they say on the internet.

[ARealConservative]

A) it's not a utopia
B) it has before
C) we'll never stop crime, does this mean we should just give up and condone it? Of course not! Fight against private crime, and fight against the greatest perpetrator of crime, the State!

A) yes it is

B) no it has not. If you think it has, name a time and place, and I will bombard you with examples of why you are wrong

C) Crime is a legal concept backed by the monopoly of state.

[powerofreason]

A) yes it is

B) no it has not. If you think it has, name a time and place, and I will bombard you with examples of why you are wrong

C) Crime is a legal concept backed by the monopoly of state.

A) Utopia requires a change in human nature, according to the dictionary definition. Anarcho-capitalism does not. It simply requires the state to go away.

B) There are many, although none of them have been completely anarcho-capitalist. Medieval Iceland is probably the best example of a flourishing stateless society. There is also Iceland around the year 1000, I believe. They had private justice, and the system worked well for about three hundred years among barbarians. Thats longer than it took for our republic to turn into.... well, a very unfree place. There's also the "wild" west, and the anarchist experiment in Pennsylvania which I believe lasted for only a few years before a government imposed itself. Then you have Somalia, which underwent explosive private growth and significant increases in standard of living after its government collapsed. The warlord problem came about when the U.N. and U.S. tried to institute a new government, and there was a scramble to take hold of it. They have some type of weak transitional government today. The Somalian word for government is "The Thing."

C) Crime is a violation of an individual's natural rights. A monopoly of force is itself a violation of natural rights and government is the biggest perpetrator of crime in history. You trust these people to protect you and your rights? Give me a break. I've been victimized by the State my entire life, all 18 years of it, but hardly ever by other private citizens.

[ARealConservative]

A) Utopia requires a change in human nature, according to the dictionary definition. Anarcho-capitalism does not. It simply requires the state to go away.

Anarcho-capitalism requires a huge change in human nature. A very very small percentage of individuals mind their own business 100% of the time. I have yet to meet such a person and doubt one exists.


B) There are many, although none of them have been completely anarcho-capitalist.

Exactly, none have ever existed. It is utopian drivel


C) Crime is a violation of an individual's natural rights. A monopoly of force is itself a violation of natural rights and government is the biggest perpetrator of crime in history. You trust these people to protect you and your rights? Give me a break. I've been victimized by the State my entire life, all 18 years of it, but hardly ever by other private citizens.

Again, crime is a legal definition based on the state. You don't get to reinvent the meaning of words.

[Joey Wahoo]

Could this be interpreted to limit the ability of SCOTUS to overturn a law in "state A" declaring Southern Baptist to be the official state religion of "state A"?

Unintended consequences...

Probably not, in light of the ridiculous way the 14th Amendment has been interpreted, but the US Constitution says NOTHING about the rights of States to establish religions. It merely prohibits CONGRESS from establishing a national religion.

Not the Constitution seems to matter much anymore.

[powerofreason]

Anarcho-capitalism requires a huge change in human nature. A very very small percentage of individuals mind their own business 100% of the time. I have yet to meet such a person and doubt one exists.



Exactly, none have ever existed. It is utopian drivel



Again, crime is a legal definition based on the state. You don't get to reinvent the meaning of words.

There's just no reasoning with you.

I leave this thread with this.

On the Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for a Second American Revolution - Hans Hermann Hoppe (http://mises.org/story/2874)

[Xenophage]

It's pro representative government.

And representative government trumps liberty, amirite?

[Xenophage]

This bill proposed by Ron Paul is very disappointing to me. Yes, local government tends to be more efficient than federal government... it tends to be more 'representative,' but it can also be just as tyrannical. It all depends on who is being represented. If 99% of the people of a town want to make sodomy illegal, its still tyranny. As for the constitutionality of federal jurisdiction over this, its quite clear: The U.S. Constitution overrides State authority. States cannot constitutionally make it illegal to own firearms, nor can they constitutionally make it illegal to have butt sex.

Let people live their own damn lives. I don't care if the federal government protects liberty or if the states do it, as long as its being done. If a State or local municipality wants to prohibit personal freedom, I say fuck the State's authority.

[CUnknown]

As for the constitutionality of federal jurisdiction over this, its quite clear: The U.S. Constitution overrides State authority. States cannot constitutionally make it illegal to own firearms, nor can they constitutionally make it illegal to have butt sex.

Does it say in the Constitution that it is illegal for the states to ban abortion or butt sex? I wasn't aware of these clauses. I think if it is not stated, the 10th Amendment would have priority.

We should probably have an amendment that makes abortion legal everywhere, but until we have that, I think the 10th amendment takes precedence.

[ARealConservative]

And representative government trumps liberty, amirite?

In the sense that it gives us an actual chance of building a winning coalition, yes. It trumps liberty.

And in the sense that the legal framework we have to work with already allows for liberty to be usurped, it again trumps liberty.

[devil21]

I dont see what the uproar over this bill is about. Each state has its own court system, up to the state Supreme Court, where it can rule a law as unconstitutional, be it abortion or forced prayer in school, etc. This bill seems to me to simply take away the power of the *Federal* courts to decide a local issue (that has been appealed a gazillion times) and then essentially force everyone in the country to follow. It allows one state to ban gay marriage and another to legalise it. If the people in the state disagree with the law then they can appeal to their *State* courts to decide whether it is constitutional or not. Once the state Supreme Court rules, that's the end of the line for that state. And if you don't agree, move to another state. Not rocket science IMHO.

The Federal bench isnt the only power in the land to declare constitutionality of laws.

[blocks]

It makes absolutely zero sense for me to turn a blind eye and say "oh, States can do what they want." That is absolutely false, as States do not have rights...they merely have the power to defend our rights. The State works for us, and we cannot ask them to vote on rights...as rights are inalienable.

You do know that Ron Paul is a United States Representative? He works at the Federal level. You think that if he was a Governor he'd sign every bill the legislative body put before him in the name of "states' rights"?

States' have Constitutions too.

[M House]

What's the point of having a Supreme Court if it can't review laws? It has had it's problems but seriously... Giving the state freedom with no oversight in very broad areas of personal freedom seems wrong. I know some religious "conservative" turds are cheering they'll get alittle less harassment on some issues but common look at the areas of your life it can legislate. The don't like it just move attitude worked really well back in the days of segregation and shit didn't it? I see something like this as vastly counterproductive. The "We the State Bill" needs to have a definite purpose or not.

[ARealConservative]

What's the point of having a Supreme Court if it can't review laws?

Article III Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

You won't find the power of judicial review anywhere in the text. SCOTUS took the power of judicial review by using the power of judicial review. How's that for circular reasoning!

[M House]

Article III Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

You won't find the power of judicial review anywhere in the text. SCOTUS took the power of judicial review by using the power of judicial review. How's that for circular reasoning!

I don't know but it seems that statement issues like this might be covered. However you can argue like a Statist snot that laws of equality don't matter when applied to State law.

[ARealConservative]

I don't know but it seems that statement issues like this might be covered. However you can argue like a Statist snot that laws of equality don't matter when applied to State law.

and the egotistical libertarian purist rears his head.

Talk to me when you grow up boy.

the key is arising under the constitution. So when the law says congress shall pass no law, state laws don't fall under the constitution.

[M House]

You win technically if that's the way you wanna have it, your state can violate any number of your constitutional rights without being subject to federal law. So this bill is already pointless.

[ARealConservative]

You win technically if that's the way you wanna have it, your state can violate any number of your constitutional rights without being subject to federal law. So this bill is already pointless.

the term constitutional rights is stupid BTW

[M House]

I know seriously they totally suck
Freedom of Speech
Right to Bear Arms
Due Process
Trial by Jury
Cruel Punishment

[ARealConservative]

So this bill is already pointless.

Not true.

The constitution is broke right now.

The racists that freed the slaves still didn't want to extend the same freedoms to them so they had to muddy the water by extending privileges and immunities, not rights.

So now we are in this no mans land where some of the constitution is incorporated and some is not, and judges get to decide just about everything under such a wide open interpretation.

[ARealConservative]

I know seriously they totally suck
Freedom of Speech
Right to Bear Arms
Due Process
Trial by Jury
Cruel Punishment

the term is stupid because rights don't come from the constitution.

How old are you?

[M House]

Not true.

The constitution is broke right now.

The racists that freed the slaves still didn't want to extend the same freedoms to them so they had to muddy the water by extending privileges and immunities, not rights.

So now we are in this no mans land where some of the constitution is incorporated and some is not, and judges get to decide just about everything under such a wide open interpretation.

Got slaves?

[ARealConservative]

Got slaves?

how old are you?

[Joey Wahoo]

What's the point of having a Supreme Court if it can't review laws? It has had it's problems but seriously... Giving the state freedom with no oversight in very broad areas of personal freedom seems wrong. I know some religious "conservative" turds are cheering they'll get alittle less harassment on some issues but common look at the areas of your life it can legislate. The don't like it just move attitude worked really well back in the days of segregation and shit didn't it? I see something like this as vastly counterproductive. The "We the State Bill" needs to have a definite purpose or not.

This just reveals how completely brainwashed we have become regarding what the US Supreme Court is supposed to do. It is absolutely not supposed to review state laws on matters of of state authority. Who provides "oversight" of the Supreme Court?

Any objection to this bill derives from a bias that supposes that the US Supreme Court is somehow more protective of liberties than a state Supreme Court--an absurd proposition. Does anyone remember Dred Scott? What about Roe v. Wade?

Today a federal court struck down a law in Illinois that provided for a moment of silence to begin each school day. Such a thing will not be possible if this bill is passed.

And for those who would prefer their laws to be made by unelected oligarchs wearing robes supplied by the federal government, what the heck makes you Ron Paul supporters??

[Bossobass]

Here is the relevant portion of the bill:

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).


Couldn't be more clear.

If this should be passed, the federal courts simply may not invalidate state laws based upon sexual practices, same sex marriage, or abortion, for example.

With all due respect, it blows my mind that someone could be a Ron Paul supporter, post thousands of times on a Ron Paul message board, and yet believe that federal courts trump state legislatures on such issues, as if the 10th Amendment didn't even exist.

To the best of my knowledge Ron Paul has introduced a bill like this every year he has been in Congress. He is a champion of the constitution and this is one of the ways he proves it.

The only coherent and sane post in this babblingly ridiculous thread. It appears that you're the only person who actually read your OP, JW.

This is clearly a tenth amendment issue. The Feds are using the lower federal courts and the supreme court to usurp states rights, which clearly violates the Constitution.


"In recent years, we have seen numerous abuses of power by Federal courts. Federal judges regularly strike down State and local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion. This government by Federal judiciary causes a virtual nullification of the Tenth Amendment's limitations on Federal power."

Arguing that the lower fed courts or the supreme court should have the power to override any state or local law in violation of the US Constitution because it will help get your pet preference or current opinions legalized is off-the-charts stupidity, especially in this forum.

Bosso

[ARealConservative]

The only coherent and sane post in this babblingly ridiculous thread. It appears that you're the only person who actually read your OP, JW.

This is clearly a tenth amendment issue. The Feds are using the lower federal courts and the supreme court to usurp states rights, which clearly violates the Constitution.



Arguing that the lower fed courts or the supreme court should have the power to override any state or local law in violation of the US Constitution because it will help get your pet preference or current opinions legalized is off-the-charts stupidity, especially in this forum.

Bosso

If you had half a clue you would see I've been saying the same thing he's been saying.

[M House]

This just reveals how completely brainwashed we have become regarding what the US Supreme Court is supposed to do. It is absolutely not supposed to review state laws on matters of of state authority. Who provides "oversight" of the Supreme Court?

Any objection to this bill derives from a bias that supposes that the US Supreme Court is somehow more protective of liberties than a state Supreme Court--an absurd proposition. Does anyone remember Dred Scott? What about Roe v. Wade?

Today a federal court struck down a law in Illinois that provided for a moment of silence to begin each school day. Such a thing will not be possible if this bill is passed.

And for those who would prefer their laws to be made by unelected oligarchs wearing robes supplied by the federal government, what the heck makes you Ron Paul supporters??

Want other minority religions to have a say in having their views respected and prayer time thru-ought the day in the case of say Muslims. You're just seeing this as window of opportunity to use your majority influence to affect this. The only people who approve of this garbage are Protestants, you know the actual majority religion in the US and our gov. And well fortunately not all of them do either. Why should your government be determining how other people handle religion? Amazing stupid bigots. One thing our founders fought against was trying to give into majority rule. Well not all of them, haha many probably had some fantastic views like yours. But the federal government was built to try to remove this effect. Any government should stay outta how you decorate your Christmas tree but it no right to give you special treatment.

[TonySutton]

Matthew 6:5-6: "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men....when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret...."

Why would Christians advocate prayer in a manner contrary to Jesus' guidance?

[Joey Wahoo]

Want other minority religions to have a say in having their views respected and prayer time thru-ought the day in the case of say Muslims. You're just seeing this as window of opportunity to use your majority influence to affect this. The only people who approve of this garbage are Protestants, you know the actual majority religion in the US and our gov. And well fortunately not all of them do either. Why should your government be determining how other people handle religion? Amazing stupid bigots. One thing our founders fought against was trying to give into majority rule. Well not all of them, haha many probably had some fantastic views like yours. But the federal government was built to try to remove this effect. Any government should stay outta how you decorate your Christmas tree but it no right to give you special treatment.

You are completely missing the point, totally blinded by your own preferences and therefore losing sight of the significant constitutional and liberty issue here.

If the Illinois statute required the kids to face Mecca when they had their moment of silence, that should be of no concern to the FEDERAL courts.

Illinois courts can well enough interpret their own constitution, and there is NOTHING in the US constitution that bars the state of Illinois from starting a school day with a moment of silence, a moment of screaming, a pledge of allegiance or whatever else they want.

Were I a citizen of Illinois I would oppose any such thing, and vote for representatives who agree with me. In fact, as libertarians, most of us oppose socialized education in the first place. But if such a law passed, and if it violated the religious liberty provisions of the Illinois constitution, then I'd sue. But in state court, not federal.

Those of you who want a federal nanny state may disagree. But Ron Paul is on my side on this one.

peace

[M House]

You are completely missing the point, totally blinded by your own preferences and therefore losing sight of the significant constitutional and liberty issue here.

If the Illinois statute required the kids to face Mecca when they had their moment of silence, that should be of no concern to the FEDERAL courts.

Illinois courts can well enough interpret their own constitution, and there is NOTHING in the US constitution that bars the state of Illinois from starting a school day with a moment of silence, a moment of screaming, a pledge of allegiance or whatever else they want.

Were I a citizen of Illinois I would oppose any such thing, and vote for representatives who agree with me. In fact, as libertarians, most of us oppose socialized education in the first place. But if such a law passed, and if it violated the religious liberty provisions of the Illinois constitution, then I'd sue. But in state court, not federal.

Those of you who want a federal nanny state may disagree. But Ron Paul is on my side on this one.

peace

If you can state to me the actual purpose of this "moment of silence" or give me reference to this law and why it should stand go ahead. Is it something everyone has to do? Pledge of Allegiance has been changed to suit people as well aka adding religious references etc. It's pretty sneaky if you ask me. Which is why I'm seeing people push for it so strongly now. You certainly don't seem to be the kind of people that support our Federal Flag and government, intrinsically.

[Joey Wahoo]

If you can state to me the actual purpose of this "moment of silence" or give me reference to this law and why it should stand go ahead. Is it something everyone has to do? Pledge of Allegiance has been changed to suit people as well aka adding religious references etc. It's pretty sneaky if you ask me. Which is why I'm seeing people push for it so strongly now. You certainly don't seem to be the kind of people that support our Federal Flag and government, intrinsically.

You're proving my point. I'm not saying it should stand or not stand. I'm saying WHETHER IT STANDS OR NOT SHOULD NOT BE FOR THE FEDERAL COURTS TO DECIDE. I just offered it as an example.

If the Illinois legislature voted to make abortion legal, my position would be that the federal courts have no jurisdiction to review that. If they decided to pass out joints and birth control pills with the school lunches--that is their business, not the federal government's. If they make Islam the state religion of Illinois: not a federal issue. If the US Congress passes a law defining marriage as "one man, one woman" and Illinois nevertheless chooses to allow same sex marriage--then they have that right, regardless of what some federal judge may say.

Folks lose their good sense on this issue because we've been brainwashed to completely forget the 10th Amendment, which was absolutely vital to the founders and caps off the bill of rights, and because we've been led to believe that federal courts are inherently more protective of liberty than states--a product of the civil rights movement, but radically false through most of our history.

What Ron Paul is seeking to do is strip federal courts of any jurisdiction to review state laws on such things. It is not issue-determinative. It is not a "liberal" or "conservative" issue. It is a constitutional and liberty issue.

He has introduced legislation to remove the abortion issue from federal court every year he's been in Congress, to the best of my knowledge. This push to have a FEDERAL determination of what states may or may not say about marriage has now added to the importance of this bill.

But don't worry--it will never pass. Once the mega-state assumes a power, it will never release it.

Someday you may well regret having handed over your government to federal courts.

peace

[M House]

Which pledge do you approve of a,b,c,d or e

A)“I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.”

B)"I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."

C)"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States and to the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."

D)"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."

E)"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands: one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

[M House]

Abortion is stupid people need to learn not to kill their kids on their own. You can bitch about the nanny state but you do want this regulated obviously. It seems you want it both ways which is kinda deviant if you ask me. Either thru religion or a doctor, it doesn't matter. Reminds of a thread awhile back how people should be allowed to use their religion to infer with getting medical treatment for their children. However, for once the court shot down a needless law. Sounds reasonable actually. You should be able to pray in school but not have the school pray for you.

[Joey Wahoo]

Which pledge do you approve of a,b,c,d or e

A)“I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.”

B)"I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."

C)"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States and to the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."

D)"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."

E)"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands: one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

I don't approve of any of them. I disapprove of all of them.

You have no clue what this discussion is about. I give up.