How to respond to this arguement?

[VoteRonPaul2008]

I support Ron Paul on many issues however something I recently read disturbed me. This was in a dig story. Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. Voted NO to mandatory life sentences for two-time child sex offenders. Voted NO to making visual illustrations of child pornography a crime. Voted NO to making it a crime to take a trip to a foreign country to engage in illicit sexual conduct with a minor. If this is true or false please tell me so. What justification could he have used to vote this way. This is not constitutional. Its just wrong.

[fsk]

States can voluntarily choose to participate in the AMBER alert system if it's a good idea. There's no reason for the Federal government to force them to participate.

Sentencing should be at the discretion of individual judges. Similar "3 strikes" laws have led to people having life sentences for trivial crimes.

"What is pornography" should be decided by each individual state. It isn't a Federal government issue.

What people do in foreign countries is none of the Federal government's business. If other countries have bad laws, that's their problem.

Basically, the theme is: "Should the Federal government be allowed to regulate this? Did the Constitution specifically delegate this power to the Federal government?" The answer in all those cases is "NO".

[VoteRonPaul2008]

Thank you again FSK! what would I do without you

[Corydoras]

It has to do with the Rave Act!!!

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=2778

[fsk]

Corydoras made a point that I missed. Some of those bills had objectionable riders. You can't go just by the name of the proposed law.

[Corydoras]

Here's the most substantial quote-- horses' mouth!
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=42335

And it doesn't have ANYTHING to do with raves!