PDA

View Full Version : A liberals concern with RP's We the People Act




RichieLibertarian
01-09-2012, 11:59 AM
Not sure where to post this, mods, please move to appropriatelocation

I have a good friend who is almost on board with Ron Paul but she has a few reservations regarding this bill and it's implications. Not sure how to respond. Any help is appreciated.

She wrote ms this:

Hey Rich, I have a question for you about Ron Paul, which is perhaps the only real thing keeping me from voting for him. A few years ago in the House of Reps. he proposed this law:

"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)."

This worries me because we could, under this law, take a major step backward and void all the long sought progress we've been seeing for our nation. We could potentially over night become a country which no longer upholds separation of church and state, having official religions. We could ban abortion. Gay marriage. Gay rights in general. What is taught in the schools, i.e. creationism, (so essentially the future of our children's intelligence would be sacrificed). And worse, we would have a very divisive country, where states vary extremely; this kind of diversity I can't really see as beneficial to the overall workings of society. I just wonder how you feel about this all? And if perhaps I'm misunderstanding it or something...

Jenny

Pennsylvania
01-09-2012, 12:05 PM
Jenny should check out the 10th Amendment

V3n
01-09-2012, 12:12 PM
His "We the People Act" is FOR same-sex marriage. It says the Federal Government would be taken out of the picture and not allowed to re-define "marriage" based on sexual-orientation.

http://www.dailypaul.com/197512/pauls-position-on-gay-marriage


If made law, these provisions would remove sexual practices, and particularly same-sex unions, from federal jurisdiction. As Ron Paul explains, this removes the gay rights issue from the federal government.

RichieLibertarian
01-09-2012, 12:27 PM
Jenny should check out the 10th Amendment

I wish convincing liberals were that easy lol

The Beastly One
01-09-2012, 08:51 PM
The others posting here like Pennsylvania, V3n, and others are correct. His position has been made clear. The constitution protects these issues as being definable by the INDIVIDUAL, and therefor is NOT legislatable or subject to government regulation in ANY way. The citizen decides what is and what is not right for him or her. The INDIVIDUAL decides what does and does not constitute a marriage, a "proper" school, or whatever. I do NOT want my government telling me what is and is not acceptable in my private life - period. I don't want my personal choices for religion, marriage, contraception, et al being determined by a popular vote or poll. If my children are being taught sonething in school that I disagree with I maintain my right to educate them as to MY beliefs and MY moral decisions, and I maintain my right to tell the school what I do and do not agree with, and Dr. Paul would support my rights to do so under the constitution. Anyone on the fence as to Dr. Paul's policies need only refer to the greatest document our country has ever produced within the framework of government. I do not fear what gives me the power to exercise my rights, but I do fear that we have lived under the current regime of politicians for so long that we as a Nation have collectively forgotten what real liberty is. Do not fear Jenny. Under Dr. Paul YOU would decide what is right for you and your children as I will do for mine.

V3n
01-09-2012, 09:37 PM
The others posting here like Pennsylvania, V3n, and others are correct. His position has been made clear. The constitution protects these issues as being definable by the INDIVIDUAL, and therefor is NOT legislatable or subject to government regulation in ANY way. The citizen decides what is and what is not right for him or her. The INDIVIDUAL decides what does and does not constitute a marriage, a "proper" school, or whatever. I do NOT want my government telling me what is and is not acceptable in my private life - period. I don't want my personal choices for religion, marriage, contraception, et al being determined by a popular vote or poll. If my children are being taught sonething in school that I disagree with I maintain my right to educate them as to MY beliefs and MY moral decisions, and I maintain my right to tell the school what I do and do not agree with, and Dr. Paul would support my rights to do so under the constitution. Anyone on the fence as to Dr. Paul's policies need only refer to the greatest document our country has ever produced within the framework of government. I do not fear what gives me the power to exercise my rights, but I do fear that we have lived under the current regime of politicians for so long that we as a Nation have collectively forgotten what real liberty is. Do not fear Jenny. Under Dr. Paul YOU would decide what is right for you and your children as I will do for mine.

Great post!! Welcome aboard!! :)

nano1895
01-09-2012, 10:08 PM
I don't understand, the act explicitly states the federal government shall make no law or regulation concerning religion and she's concerned that this might REMOVE separation of church and state?

foo
02-04-2012, 07:58 AM
This is about using the power congress has to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts as an end-run around the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment which applies the bill of rights to the states. The Constitution was supposed to limit the federal government, not the state governments. Many question both the legitimacy of the 14th Amendment (as it was ratified under duress) and this interpretation. Using the power of congress to limit jurisdiction is easier than getting another amendment passed to prevent the 14th from being used as it has been.

Jenny's concern is that this would allow states to pass laws which discriminate based on religion, and pass laws against homosexuality, abortion, and gay marriage. Jenny is correct in her technical interpretation. Where she goes wrong is assuming that a one-size-fits-all tyranny-from-the-top is a good idea. If you leave it to the states, then some might ban abortions and some might allow them. If you have a preference, you can move accordingly. However, if you leave it to the federal government, how long before that 5-4 SCOTUS decision goes the other way and then abortion is made illegal in every state in one fell swoop. Good luck applying for a travel visa and saying you want to travel so you can kill your fetus. (This country already makes many things illegal for US citizens to do overseas that would otherwise be legal there simply because they are illegal to do here -- this country believes it owns you, no matter where you go. Sure you can try to revoke your citizenship and get out of that -- but you may find the wait for that is more than 9 months.)

Just as the federal government has a constitution which defines its powers and enumerates certain rights, states each have their own constitution.

otherone
02-04-2012, 09:22 AM
Sigh. Let's continue selling our kid's futures to China because we're afraid Mississippi will teach their kids about Adam and Eve.

erowe1
02-04-2012, 09:46 AM
Show her your state constitution where it says that your state will have no established religion. They all say it. They don't need the federal government telling them what to do.

But let's say they did want to establish a state religion. Would it really be the role of the federal government to intervene by force? If the regime in DC is supposed to do that to Mississippi, then are they also supposed to do it to Iraq?