Ron Paul and free speech

[tronia]

Hello everyone. My account is new, although I've been lurking for some time. I'm a Ron Paul supporter, but something he said has me wondering. My question may have been answered before, but I couldn't find anything specific. The following quote is taken from Dr. Paul's "Religious Liberty Thwarted by the Supreme Court." He's discussing religious freedom and the first amendment.


The Supreme Court also has ignored the obvious point that the amendment applies only to Congress, and not to the states. This means that while the federal government cannot pass laws restricting religion or use federal funds to give preference to one religion over another, state and local governments retain the right under the 10th Amendment to set their own policies regarding religious expression.

The implications of that statement confuse me. The first amendment covers many of our basic rights.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Does this mean that, under Ron Paul's interpretation, states could restrict an individual's ability to speak freely and assemble? Could states put limits on free speech and free press?

Again, I'm sorry if this has been asked and answered. Thanks very much.

[Cleaner44]

No, beacause our rights are not given to us by the govt. They have no authority to remove or infringe our rights.

[FunkBuddha]

Hello everyone. My account is new, although I've been lurking for some time. I'm a Ron Paul supporter, but something he said has me wondering. My question may have been answered before, but I couldn't find anything specific. The following quote is taken from Dr. Paul's "Religious Liberty Thwarted by the Supreme Court." He's discussing religious freedom and the first amendment.



The implications of that statement confuse me. The first amendment covers many of our basic rights.



Does this mean that, under Ron Paul's interpretation, states could restrict an individual's ability to speak freely and assemble? Could states put limits on free speech and free press?

Again, I'm sorry if this has been asked and answered. Thanks very much.


I don't think that's really a stretch of interpretation... It DOES say "Congress shall make no law".

Whether you or I agree with it or not, that IS what it says. Article V tells us how to change it if we so please.

[Goldwater Conservative]

Does this mean that, under Ron Paul's interpretation, states could restrict an individual's ability to speak freely and assemble? Could states put limits on free speech and free press?

It's a very reasonable, straightforward interpretation. The only way around it is using the 14th Amendment to do all kinds of neat tricks that it wasn't intended to do.

Anyway, my state constitution guarantees me the same freedoms the Bill of Rights does, as I'm sure yours and the rest do.

[user]

I think this is because RP doesn't believe in the incorporation doctrine

[tronia]

I don't think his interpretation is unreasonable; I think he's right. I just wanted to make sure I fully understood. I read up on Incorporation, and it makes more sense to me now.

Thanks.

[Cjays]

States wouldn't pass anti-free speech laws unless the people wanted them. There seems to be this notion about States' rights that assume States would revert back to the dark ages automatically if we went back to original meanings of the Amendments.

There are plenty of examples of local government establishing rules about signage, loud music, dress codes, etc. Those are local issues to be address by the locals.

[Kade]

Hello everyone. My account is new, although I've been lurking for some time. I'm a Ron Paul supporter, but something he said has me wondering. My question may have been answered before, but I couldn't find anything specific. The following quote is taken from Dr. Paul's "Religious Liberty Thwarted by the Supreme Court." He's discussing religious freedom and the first amendment.



The implications of that statement confuse me. The first amendment covers many of our basic rights.



Does this mean that, under Ron Paul's interpretation, states could restrict an individual's ability to speak freely and assemble? Could states put limits on free speech and free press?

Again, I'm sorry if this has been asked and answered. Thanks very much.


I've been over this... Ron Paul's stance appears to favor the ability of the state to establish faith... which ultimately will lead to the compelling of state taxes in support of religions. Most on these boards don't seem to care about that... the idea of a right "from religious coercion" doesn't appeal to the theocrats here.

I guess we can just wait and bless the sacred cross of Christian Jesusland while the denominations fight over who talks to god the most.

We can spend time looking for the golden plates of mormonism AND the holy grail.

[Kade]

States wouldn't pass anti-free speech laws unless the people wanted them. There seems to be this notion about States' rights that assume States would revert back to the dark ages automatically if we went back to original meanings of the Amendments.

There are plenty of examples of local government establishing rules about signage, loud music, dress codes, etc. Those are local issues to be address by the locals.

You bet your ass Texas would.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-txpledge_29met.ART.State.Edition1.42a98f7.html

[Kade]

Texas bans a non-believer from holding religious office. Without proper application of the bill of rights to the states, it effectively violates a non-believers right to hold office.... Article VI, section 3

The belief that the states would not "revert" back to the dark ages is fallacious. Some would.

[SimpleName]

Delete