The Constitution and Libertarianism/Conservatism

[QWDC]

We all know Ron Paul is the champion of liberty. We also know he is the champion of strict, original interpretation of the constitution, making that clear with his voting record in congress. His presidential platform calls for an end to unconstitutional programs and spending. I would say the vast majority of members of this forum agree with Ron for the most part on both liberty and the constitution, me included.

I was thinking about this recently, and thought up a few questions that people here may have never considered/have different opinions on.

1. Should the constitution be amended to apply the freedoms of the bill of rights to the states and local governments? I'm quite certain Ron does not think so, he doesn't think any of them should/does apply via the 14th amendment. If not, what is the ideal liberty approach when it comes to civil rights in the USA? State government? I see people throwing around things like "Local Swearing bans? FIRST AMENDMENT" which prompted this question.

2. Does the constitution make the federal government only use sound money? I don't see any restrictions when it comes to federal moneymaking, but states are obviously limited. (and do you think states should start making gold currency?) . Some users here argue that it does, so maybe I'm missing something. Also, how SHOULD the constitution deal with money anyways? Should there even be an official US currency?

3. Should the 17th amendment be repealed? Ron and other liberty thinkers think so. It's the one that makes senators directly elected, if you didn't remember. I'm not quite sure what the big deal is myself.

4. More of a vague question, what do you think is the ideal set up for constitutional federalism? Should the Constitution have no say, a little say, or the ability to completely change state and local laws. (kinda like Q #1)

Thanks for taking the time to answer if you do.

[PierzStyx]

1. The civil rights enshrined in The Bill of Rights apply directly to the states because NO government can rightly deny someone those rights. Also, the states agreed to accept the governing power of The Constitution as they made it the contract that formed their federal government. Plus, no state Constitution can be in violation of the US Constitution legally speaking, so those rights are protected. You don't need the 14th.

2.The Constitution limits the government in monetary policy by stating only gold and silver can be used as legal tender.

3. Senators used to not be directly responsible to the masses for their elections and it made them freer to vote for measures that were right but unpopular. By making them directly elected, you basically turned Congress into a larger and smaller House of Representatives and exposed Senators to the possibly anti-liberty passions of the populous.

4.All federal and state laws have to be within the bounds of the rights of the people as laid out within the Constitution. Nothing more, or less.

[noneedtoaggress]

Ron (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQWz2zQ9OmI): Well, I tell you what... I don't critisize Lysander (http://jim.com/treason.htm)....
but... and his point is very well taken.
Maybe someday we'll mature to that point.


"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written." Ron Paul, End the Fed


MHD (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdKlFtxbt9o): "What do you say to people who advocate for self-government rather than a return to the Constitution? Just like ..."

Ron Paul: "Great. Fine. And I think that's really what my goal is."

I agree with Lysander Spooner. ;)