I'm confused....Is Dr. Paul simply a state's rights candidate [Archive]

amdajo

07-17-2007, 08:42 AM

According to posters on another thread, that's precisely what he is. Apparently, the states can pretty much do whatever they want to us. They do not have to recognize any of our unalienable rights, and never have. It's just the darn federal government that has gotten in their way. It's the states that have all the rights. In fact, if a state wants to turn into a christian taliban, then that is fine because if you don't like it, then you can just move to another state. So all this talk about liberty from Dr. Paul, only pertains to oppression by the federal govenment, but oppression by the state and local governments is just fine; it's their right. Again, you can just move if you don't like it. Of course, I could make the same argument about the federal government, that is, if you don't like it you can just move to another country.

Is that what this is all about. Is that what I'm working so hard to get Dr. Paul elected for. I'm supposed to be all excited about the fact that when I'm oppressed, my move may now be a little easier. Instead of having to move out of the country, I now may only have to move a few states over. What happens when that state passes some intrusive laws? Hey, I can just move again.

Maybe that should be the campaign slogan: "Vote for Dr. Paul, he'll make running away from tyranny easier."

I can't help but think about that old saying, "When a boot is on your throat, it doesn't matter whether it's the left boot, or the right boot. Well, I could easily extend that to, "When a boot is on your throat, it doesn't matter whether it's a federal boot, or a state boot.

I'm going to have to really think about all this. It seems to me that saying you're for idividual liberty, but also saying your for state's rights (especially when you seem to be wanting a state to be able to force a particular religion on people, or a particual belief on an issue like abortion) is hypocritical at best, or at the very least, obfuscatory.

Does this bother anyone else, or is it just me? If it's just me, then I guess I'm in the wrong place. I really like Dr. Paul, but I'm not interested in putting in all my time and money toward fighting for my liberty only half way.

BLS

07-17-2007, 08:46 AM

I don't think you're 'getting' it.

What your saying is partly correct...yes, if you don't like your State's laws, you can move, because there are few 'blanket' laws from the Fed Gov.

But those states cannot violate the Constitution either. It is the Supreme Law of the land. Barre none.

yes, some states, like MN would likely keep abortion legal. But Wisconsin and Iowa may not. Etc. it's all about giving local leaders the right to make laws that apply to their consitituents, not the Fed Gov telling the whole nation "this is how it's gonna be".

Some states may want things certain ways, while others prefer alternatives.

Craig_R

07-17-2007, 08:48 AM

tony

07-17-2007, 08:50 AM

Well, yes and no.

Ron Paul is all for getting the Federal Government out of doing what it's not supposed to be doing.

At least at the State and local level, you have a much better chance of getting your voice heard. Say for instance in education. Do you believe people in DC are better at dictating rules or is the local school board made up of locals?

tony

07-17-2007, 08:52 AM

umm, no. the states are bound by the constitution as well. any laws they make have to be constitutional. Its clearly unconstitutional to violate your rights.

someone seems to have given you the wrong impression.

Good point Craig. If much of the Federal laws are rendered "unconstituional" then many, many bad State laws would also possibly rendered unconstituional.

Mani

07-17-2007, 08:54 AM

umm, no. the states are bound by the constitution as well. any laws they make have to be constitutional. Its clearly unconstitutional to violate your rights.

someone seems to have given you the wrong impression.

The states are bound by the constitution, but also realize when passing local laws and referendums YOU have a voice at the local level. It's much easier to walk up to your local or state official and get things done.

And if you can't at the LOCAL level you get your neighborhood together and out that local or state official. You have a lot more ability to be heard at the state/local levels, this is much more feasible than trying to out the federal government.

I've witnessed a few times where an issue arose and local citizens took action at both the local and state level and had their voices heard.

mdh

07-17-2007, 08:58 AM

The states are bound by the constitution, but also realize when passing local laws and referendums YOU have a voice at the local level. It's much easier to walk up to your local or state official and get things done.

And if you can't at the LOCAL level you get your neighborhood together and out that local or state official. You have a lot more ability to be heard at the state/local levels, this is much more feasible than trying to out the federal government.

I've witnessed a few times where an issue arose and local citizens took action at both the local and state level and had their voices heard.

A lot of times, states are way way way more pro-liberty than the federal government is. Look at how several states now have passed legislation at the state level making it illegal to participate in realid!

Bruehound

07-17-2007, 09:04 AM

They dynamic of a Republic creates a mechanism whereby a marketplace for government provides a check and balance preventing oppression. The mere threat of 'vote with your feet' is enough political leverage.

Back when our phoney welfare reforms were being debated, the socialists would scream it would "create a race to the bottom ". More accurate would be a "race toward liberty'.

Kuldebar

07-17-2007, 09:04 AM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html

What Really Divides Us?

States’ rights simply means the individual states should retain authority over all matters not expressly delegated to the federal government in Article I of the Constitution. Most of the worst excesses of big government can be traced to a disregard for states’ rights, which means a disregard for the Ninth and Tenth amendments. The real reason liberals hate the concept of states’ right has nothing to do with racism, but rather reflects a hostility toward anything that would act as a limit on the power of the federal government.

Also see The Principles of '98 (http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/Woods2/3.mp3) from Thomas Woods of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

jblosser

07-17-2007, 09:05 AM

You are conflating the questions of the final goal and the position of the Presidency Dr. Paul is running for. You are also really convinced I think that the only way to have liberty is to dictate it from the top down. This is against the advice of the Founders, who made a complicated government structure because they thought it would do the best job protecting liberty in the end. The biggest threat to liberty is a central government that gives itself the authority to protect all liberty for everyone. You might as well paint a big target on DC: "Special interests, come fight liberty here".

Yes, Dr. Paul absolutely is for full individual liberty. However, he understands that he as President has no legal right to dictate liberty to the states. Watch the Google interview, he makes this point several times. ("Are you opposed to..." "Well as President I'd have no right to tell the states...".)

We have to start somewhere. Individual liberty is impossible as long as the Federal government is a nanny state. Once we fix that, things like the Free State Project can really get it done on a state level, and it can spread from there. An authoritarian state will not keep residents or funds and will be pushed to open itself.

Do we want liberty in every single state? Yes, of course. But we guarantee that at the state level. If you think that a central guarantee is better, I invite you to look at where we are today, and ask why you think a small state government would be *more* likely to violate liberty than a large central government has been.

IRO-bot

07-17-2007, 09:07 AM

9 replies and and not a response from the original poster. *whatever*

Regardless it was a good concern. Thank you all for the excellent information. I will be using this if and/or when that concern comes up to my future Ron Paul converts. I believe I have two already, they are spreading the word.

beermotor

07-17-2007, 09:08 AM

amdajo

07-17-2007, 09:11 AM

umm, no. the states are bound by the constitution as well. any laws they make have to be constitutional. Its clearly unconstitutional to violate your rights.

someone seems to have given you the wrong impression.

Well, I don't know how to capture quotes from another thread, but several people on the most recent "Ron Paul on abortion thread" are saying that the states are not bound by the constitution and that the supreme court should have no jurisdiction over individual rights cases. So who is right?

Obviously, opinion is fine, as long as it is expressed as opinion, but maybe people on this forum need to stop expressing their opinion (or their desires) as fact!

Kuldebar

07-17-2007, 09:11 AM

Great points Jblosser.

It is said that all politics are local and liberty works best at a local level and the more local the better.

People have far more control over the laws and legislature that govern them when they are on a state or local level. The grand experiment of the Republic was to have a many faceted approach to freedom, no blanket rules taking choices away from people.

Scribbler de Stebbing

07-17-2007, 09:13 AM

States also have their own constitutions, most of them designed after the Federal Constitution, which place limits upon what state governments can get away with.

jblosser

07-17-2007, 09:20 AM

Well, I don't know how to capture quotes from another thread, but several people on the most recent "Ron Paul on abortion thread" are saying that the states are not bound by the constitution and that the supreme court should have no jurisdiction over individual rights cases. So who is right?

Obviously, opinion is fine, as long as it is expressed as opinion, but maybe people on this forum need to stop expressing their opinion (or their desires) as fact!

Since I'm one of those "several people", I'll clarify a bit: the 14th amendment does in fact pretty handily extend the Constitutional provisions to the several states. But Dr. Paul's positions in favor of letting the states decide so many things make it pretty clear he prefers going back to the 9th and 10th to protect liberty via a state approach, not using the 14th to do it nationally.

I'm not trying to talk opinion, I'm trying to talk history. Since I have degrees in these issues I'm pretty confident I'm not just talking my desires. This is also why I've been referring to original sources like Bastiat as well as the Federalist/Anti-Federalist. Look it up for yourself, don't take our word for it.

BillyDkid

07-17-2007, 09:22 AM

Good point Craig. If much of the Federal laws are rendered "unconstituional" then many, many bad State laws would also possibly rendered unconstituional.This is something I am not at all clear about and the OP brings up an issue that I have never completely gotten. Clearly, there are many, many things that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to do, but the states are free to do and that seems like a problem to me. An example would be prohibition. Simply because federal prohibition was overturned does that mean states can't engage in it? There are areas in this country where alcohol consumption is illegal. There are even places where dancing is illegal. How does having a libertarian inclined President speak to that? The state prohibit all sorts of victimless activities. I am all for paring down the federal government to Constitutional levels, but have never been clear what the implications would actually be for individual liberty and all that stuff that is really the central point for most of us. Well, as well as not having to give half your earning to Uncle Sam. If we don't end up giving them to Uncle Sam, will we just end up giving them to our particular states?

jblosser

07-17-2007, 09:22 AM

A lot of times, states are way way way more pro-liberty than the federal government is. Look at how several states now have passed legislation at the state level making it illegal to participate in realid!

Which are illegal under current understanding of the law. States cannot nullify national law. These measures are interesting as a statement of the will of the people, but if the Congress doesn't back down and/or Rudy McRomney wins and pushes for national ID, the states will lose "legally". If we're "lucky" Congress will allocate funds for this (they'll just print more) which will deflate most of the state objections.

(I say "lucky" because if we can't resolve it legally, who knows what will happen.)

torchbearer

07-17-2007, 09:23 AM

jblosser

07-17-2007, 09:24 AM

This is something I am not at all clear about and the OP brings up an issue that I have never completely gotten. Clearly, there are many, many things that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to do, but the states are free to do and that seems like a problem to me. An example would be prohibition. Simply because federal prohibition was overturned does that mean states can't engage in it? There are areas in this country where alcohol consumption is illegal. There are even places where dancing is illegal. How does having a libertarian inclined President speak to that? The state prohibit all sorts of victimless activities. I am all for paring down the federal government to Constitutional levels, but have never been clear what the implications would actually be for individual liberty and all that stuff that is really the central point for most of us. Well, as well as not having to give half your earning to Uncle Sam. If we don't end up giving them to Uncle Sam, will we just end up giving them to our particular states?

Y'all are missing the central point: We have seen what central government does to rights. The point is that state governments are *better* at protecting these rights because they are smaller, and even if there's only a few of us that still care about liberty, we have a chance to influence the laws of one state where we have no chance to influence the laws of a nation this size.

There's not much point in worrying that we'll win liberty at the national level only to lose it at the state level. If the national population supports liberty, it won't be that hard to have the same effects at the smaller level of the state governments. Will it be perfect? No... as Dr. Paul repeatedly says on this issue, no system of man is perfect. We do the best with what we have.

amdajo

07-17-2007, 09:25 AM

States have Constitutions too, sir. And it is a hell of a lot easier to change a state law than it is to change a Federal one. Thus, while some states may be worse than others, 1) you have the constitutional freedom to move, and 2) you have a MUCH better chance of actually effecting local policy. That is the fight we are engaged in. States currently just do what the Feds tell them, for the most part. A situation where that was different would be VASTLY preferable from an individual liberty perspective.

So a state can have a constitution which violates my Constitutional rights? Others on this thread are saying they can't. Again, which is it?

If my unalienable rights are not allowed to be violated by anybody, much less a government body, which is what I thought we were all fighting for, then I don't have to worry about moving anywhere, do I! But, apparently some here are saying that we are only fighting for the federal government not to violate the states' rights.

freelance

07-17-2007, 09:25 AM

(I say "lucky" because if we can't resolve it legally, who knows what will happen.)

It's gonna be more than just a little interesting to watch how New Hampshire and Vermont would react, if the National ID does come to pass. LOL!

angelatc

07-17-2007, 09:27 AM

Good point Craig. If much of the Federal laws are rendered "unconstituional" then many, many bad State laws would also possibly rendered unconstituional.

That's actually what the function of the Supreme Court is supposed to be. It is supposed to keep the States and the Congress from implementing unconstitutional laws.

jblosser

07-17-2007, 09:28 AM

So a state can have a constitution which violates my Constitutional rights? Others on this thread are saying they can't. Again, which is it?

How do you expect to answer this? We'll just go back and forth here until... what? I can tell you that I've been in the liberty movement a very long time and have studied these questions at the university level. I am guessing some of the people disagreeing with me don't have much background in these issues, but who cares, you shouldn't listen to some dude on the internet anyway.

If you want to know the law and the history, go read about it. There's plenty of info out there.

beermotor

07-17-2007, 09:30 AM

So a state can have a constitution which violates my Constitutional rights? Others on this thread are saying they can't. Again, which is it?

If my unalienable rights are not allowed to be violated by anybody, much less a government body, which is what I thought we were all fighting for, then I don't have to worry about moving anywhere, do I! But, apparently some here are saying that we are only fighting for the federal government not to violate the states' rights.

I meant they must abide by their own Constitutions, in addition to the Federal one.

Yes, we are fighting to elect a president who understands this position. Please point me in the direction of anybody who's better on this issue, heh, I'll be glad to consider them.

The argument that states are going to start oppressing their citizens is somewhat spurious. If indeed it does happen with a decentralized federal state, I think my comments on changing state laws as much easier than changing federal ones are apt and on point.

iamso910

07-17-2007, 09:33 AM

States rights is NO SMALL ISSUE !

Competition between the states is crucial to keeping them responsive to the will of the people, rather than to the will of the powerful.

But there is more to the Ron Paul campaign than just trying to return the federal government to its proper lesser functions, that is, he is helping to spread a libertarian ideology, such that governments, federal, state or even local are not the saviors to society's problems.

The greater the success of Ron Paul, the stronger will be the libertarian influence, by the people, on government policy at all levels.

This will be a long term strategy, but it is the most powerful and effective strategy toward freedom that I have seen, perhaps since the revolution of the founding fathers.

It is well worth fighting for, for those who can see the benefits of greater freedom from government interference.

angelatc

07-17-2007, 09:37 AM

So a state can have a constitution which violates my Constitutional rights? Others on this thread are saying they can't. Again, which is it?

.

Have you even read the Constitution? It's pretty simple, which is why it's such a beautiful thing.

A State cannot pass a law that overrides the Constitution. (Perhaps the confusing part is that they do it anyway, like with gun control and free speech.)

Have you seen "Giuliani Time?" It is a copyrighted documentary, or I would find a link to it. In that movie, Rudy has his jack booted thugs remove book sellers and artists from the streets of Manhattan, even though the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly over the years that those people are protected by the 1st Amendment, and thus do not need licenses or permission to stand on public streets. The Court ruled again that he could not remove them because he was violating the law of the country, which automatically overrides the law of the state and the city.

Note that it automatically overrides those entities because it says so in the Constitution. It really could not be any clearer.

Do you have a specific issue that you're going on about?

angelatc

07-17-2007, 09:41 AM

Since I'm one of those "several people", I'll clarify a bit: the 14th amendment does in fact pretty handily extend the Constitutional provisions to the several states. But Dr. Paul's positions in favor of letting the states decide so many things make it pretty clear he prefers going back to the 9th and 10th to protect liberty via a state approach, not using the 14th to do it nationally.

I'm not trying to talk opinion, I'm trying to talk history. Since I have degrees in these issues I'm pretty confident I'm not just talking my desires. This is also why I've been referring to original sources like Bastiat as well as the Federalist/Anti-Federalist. Look it up for yourself, don't take our word for it.

If you're talking history, you must realize that Dr Paul feels the Constitution has been ignored. So legal precedent is not necessarily good legal precedent.

You lost me when you said you thought liberty should be dictated.

angelatc

07-17-2007, 09:43 AM

How do you expect to answer this? We'll just go back and forth here until... what? I can tell you that I've been in the liberty movement a very long time and have studied these questions at the university level. I am guessing some of the people disagreeing with me don't have much background in these issues, but who cares, you shouldn't listen to some dude on the internet anyway.

If you want to know the law and the history, go read about it. There's plenty of info out there.

I'm sorry, but the Constitution was designed of the people, by the people and for the people. Deciding that the opinion of the lawyers is the only legitimate opinion is nonsense.

If it was up to me, there would be non-lawyers on the Supreme Court. That would fix a lot of the mess that the lawyers make.

amdajo

07-17-2007, 09:47 AM

How do you expect to answer this? We'll just go back and forth here until... what? I can tell you that I've been in the liberty movement a very long time and have studied these questions at the university level. I am guessing some of the people disagreeing with me don't have much background in these issues, but who cares, you shouldn't listen to some dude on the internet anyway.

If you want to know the law and the history, go read about it. There's plenty of info out there.

How do I expect one to answer this? How about a simple yes, or no. Since you apparently have done all the reading on this issue, what is the answer? Can a state contitution violate an individuals rights as stated in the bill of rights?

I'm not saying I'm going to argue with you about your answer. But this is obviously not as black and white as you seem to want to make it.

beermotor

07-17-2007, 09:47 AM

I'm sorry, but the Constitution was designed of the people, by the people and for the people. Deciding that the opinion of the lawyers is the only legitimate opinion is nonsense.

If it was up to me, there would be non-lawyers on the Supreme Court. That would fix a lot of the mess that the lawyers make.

It's not so much lawyers as a group, but the political class in DC, that are to blame. As a soon-to-be lawyer, I'd just like to say, we're not all that bad! :)

What we need on the Court is 9 clones of Justice Thomas. Then we'd be in great liberty shape.

angelatc

07-17-2007, 09:47 AM

torchbearer

07-17-2007, 09:53 AM

Can a state contitution violate an individuals rights as stated in the bill of rights?

No they can't... they can pass the law that violates it... like some states already do... but its up to the people in those states to challenge the violations in federal court.
If your state government learns the people are paying attention again... they will stop the BS.

amdajo

07-17-2007, 09:55 AM

Have you even read the Constitution? It's pretty simple, which is why it's such a beautiful thing.

A State cannot pass a law that overrides the Constitution. (Perhaps the confusing part is that they do it anyway, like with gun control and free speech.)

Have you seen "Giuliani Time?" It is a copyrighted documentary, or I would find a link to it. In that movie, Rudy has his jack booted thugs remove book sellers and artists from the streets of Manhattan, even though the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly over the years that those people are protected by the 1st Amendment, and thus do not need licenses or permission to stand on public streets. The Court ruled again that he could not remove them because he was violating the law of the country, which automatically overrides the law of the state and the city.

Note that it automatically overrides those entities because it says so in the Constitution. It really could not be any clearer.

Do you have a specific issue that you're going on about?

Why are you arguing with me? It is others here who are saying that the states are not bound to the constitution. And, yes I have read the constitution. Did you read my original and subsequent posts. You seem to be supporting my general beliefs about the constitution. Certainly you can see the division here about this issue, so I think it is an important topic to "go on about."

BLS

07-17-2007, 09:56 AM

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNTIED STATES IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. ANY RIGHT GIVEN TO YOU WITHIN CANNOT BE INFRINGED UPON BY YOUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

beermotor

07-17-2007, 09:57 AM

Why are you arguing with me? It is others here who are saying that the states are not bound to the constitution. And, yes I have read the constitution. Did you read my original and subsequent posts. You seem to be supporting my general beliefs about the constitution. Certainly you can see the division here about this issue, so I think it is an important topic to "go on about."

What division? We're all saying the same thing... I'm not sure I follow you.

angelatc

07-17-2007, 10:12 AM

Why are you arguing with me? It is others here who are saying that the states are not bound to the constitution. And, yes I have read the constitution. Did you read my original and subsequent posts. You seem to be supporting my general beliefs about the constitution. Certainly you can see the division here about this issue, so I think it is an important topic to "go on about."

I am not arguing with you. I am trying to figure out what your argument is.

jblosser

07-17-2007, 10:16 AM

How do I expect one to answer this? How about a simple yes, or no. Since you apparently have done all the reading on this issue, what is the answer? Can a state contitution violate an individuals rights as stated in the bill of rights?

Until the 14th amendment was ratified: YES

After the 14th amendment was ratified: NO

Under a Ron Paul administration that works to get back to that "before the 14th" standing, since he has spoken quite clearly in favor of that position: PROBABLY
(once the laws get changed back, of course, since this is all about doing it under the rule of law)

I'm not saying I'm going to argue with you about your answer. But this is obviously not as black and white as you seem to want to make it.

I apologize if it sounds like I think it's easy. There are literally hundreds of years of history behind this issue, in this country alone. And the answer has in fact changed over time.

jblosser

07-17-2007, 10:18 AM

I'm sorry, but the Constitution was designed of the people, by the people and for the people. Deciding that the opinion of the lawyers is the only legitimate opinion is nonsense.

If it was up to me, there would be non-lawyers on the Supreme Court. That would fix a lot of the mess that the lawyers make.

If this was meant in response to anything I said then you really lost me. I wasn't talking about asking lawyers, I was talking about reading the history and the founders (some of whom were lawyers, sorry).

angelatc

07-17-2007, 10:21 AM

It's not so much lawyers as a group, but the political class in DC, that are to blame. As a soon-to-be lawyer, I'd just like to say, we're not all that bad! :)

What we need on the Court is 9 clones of Justice Thomas. Then we'd be in great liberty shape.

It would make me very happy if the Supreme Court didn't take so long to rule on things.

Not that knee-jerk reactions are advisable, but in the above-mentioned Guiliani shenanigans, those people had to go back and climb their way up the juducual ladder to settle an issue that had been clearly and decidedly settled several times before. In the meantime, the people were powerless against the tyranny.

I'm really worried about what will happen when the government starts putting us into the civil detention camps. I have no doubt that eventually the court will rule that to be unconstitutional, but I really don't want to wait for 10 years waiting for that to happen.

I guess I don't like the idea that they can't (or don't) rule on law until somebody challenges it. If Kennedy gets his "hate speech" law pushed through, I think the people should have the right to demand the high court review is immediately, not wait until thousands of people are fined and jailed as a result.

amdajo

07-17-2007, 10:22 AM

What division? We're all saying the same thing... I'm not sure I follow you.

Oh, I see, so we are all agreeing that a state has no authority to violate the bill of rights, any more than the federal government does. Is that right? Well if that's so, then why would anybody have to move from a particular state. In other words, why all these constant comments in thread after thread, that if you don't like what a state is doing to you, you can simply move to another state? What could ever be a reason for moving if your perfectly free and your rights can never be violated by a state. I'm not talking about the fact that right now they do violate our rights.

Take a look at other threads as well. You can act like we're all in agreement, but we're not. Take a look at Dr. Paul's own statement about prayer in schools. He says,....' that should be left up to state and local governments.' Using the force of government to impose a particular religion on an individual is an infringement upon an individuals rights, and hardly in keeping with the constitution.

jblosser

07-17-2007, 10:23 AM

To summarize the argument for states' rights, INDEPENDENT of the question of current Constitutional jurisprudence (I realize part of the confusion was that I wasn't stating a clear line between the two; read back a few posts to see my response on the current actual Constitutional standing) :

If the national government is the one responsible for protecting our rights, then most of the country has to support liberty, or we lose it everywhere.

If the states are the ones responsible for protecting our rights, then as long as at least most of the people in one state support liberty, there is a place to move to.*

If most of the country does support liberty, then it will be maintained under either a national or state protection model.

If only a few support liberty, then it can only be protected under a state protection model.*

(*Both of these also require that the national government respect the states, even if they don't respect individual liberty.)

That is about as simple as I can make it. If you do think the national government would do a better job protecting individual liberty than a state model does, please explain how it will continue to work even if only a few people support liberty. No one is arguing that moving for liberty is a happy thing, I don't think. But it is the option to be exercised when the majority goes against you. Isn't having an unpleasant option better than no option at all?

BLS

07-17-2007, 10:26 AM

something stinks....

I smell a fish. Nobody is this thick.

torchbearer

07-17-2007, 10:34 AM

something stinks....

I smell a fish. Nobody is this thick.

Dee Dee Dee! ;)

IRO-bot

07-17-2007, 10:37 AM

something stinks....

I smell a fish. Nobody is this thick.

No, no. I understand his point. Because there is no "Perfect Knowledge". Meaningless debates like abortion. Some people believe that it's conception and some don't. So his inquiry is more to the affect of nobody's right's can be violated so why wouldn't anyone need to move from state to state. I.E. if one state interprets conception as life and one doesn't. The biggest problem is honestly there is no PERFECT LIBERTY because everyone will define their personal liberties slightly different then the next. That is probably why some states could ban abortion and some can't.

Just like Gay marriage. Some states could say it goes against "whatever" man and women or whatnot. And some states can say it is a gay persons right to marry another person. Although on this note Ron Paul doesn't want marriage licenses, so the whole purpose or Marrying, religion aside, if so to Tax and Benefit purposes.

Well here is where my thoughts jumble up. If a gay person wants to marry. They can marry anywhere, Paligamists do it. It just isn't recognized by the gov't. So I think (personal opinion) it is for Medical and Tax benefits. Because anyone can make a religion up that accepts gay marriage. I am confusing my self now and went OFF point.

Point being. Individual Liberties is defined by INDIVIDUALS. Some might like gay, some not, some do abortion some not. So that is the purpose of the states.

torchbearer

07-17-2007, 10:39 AM

A right cannot be taken away by a popular vote. Thus, the state cannot legislate rights.

jblosser

07-17-2007, 10:45 AM

A right cannot be taken away by a popular vote. Thus, the state cannot legislate rights.

They can, of course, choose to not interfere with a lynch mob, or even run the mob themselves. The value of the distinction is left as an exercise for the reader.

Slugg

07-17-2007, 10:51 AM

Oh, I see, so we are all agreeing that a state has no authority to violate the bill of rights, any more than the federal government does. Is that right? Well if that's so, then why would anybody have to move from a particular state. In other words, why all these constant comments in thread after thread, that if you don't like what a state is doing to you, you can simply move to another state? What could ever be a reason for moving if your perfectly free and your rights can never be violated by a state. I'm not talking about the fact that right now they do violate our rights.

Take a look at other threads as well. You can act like we're all in agreement, but we're not. Take a look at Dr. Paul's own statement about prayer in schools. He says,....' that should be left up to state and local governments.' Using the force of government to impose a particular religion on an individual is an infringement upon an individuals rights, and hardly in keeping with the constitution.

I think this is a troll (sorry if I'm wrong)...but here's the absolute right answer (I didn't read everyone else's...sorry).

The constitution protects everyone's rights. Some issues, like abortion, become in conflict with itself. Either side of the abortion issue can be validated by the constitution. Because the answer is all about your personal moral philosophy there is no such thing as a truly correct answer. Therefore, in these situations, the states choose which side they feel is more accurate.

Concerning your idea of 'imposing a religion' on people in schools;
there are also multiple answers (I have no intention of arguing prayer in schools with you...just concede that there are people who support the notion of prayer in school).

In these situations states have the right to choose their own path. They CANNOT impose a religion, now, if you think prayer in school is imposing a religion...then argue it with your state...and get it changed.

The purpose is to make it EASIER for you to fight for your rights...our constitutional rights will always be violated at some point or another...the goal should be to make it as EASY as possible to get your rights back...if the federal government takes your rights...it's next to impossible to get them back (just look at how hard it is to campaign for Ron Paul on a national level).

So, the situation is not perfect...but if we have active citizens...it gets pretty darn close.

<DONE>

torchbearer

07-17-2007, 10:55 AM

They can, of course, choose to not interfere with a lynch mob, or even run the mob themselves. The value of the distinction is left as an exercise for the reader.

Then government has no purpose if it doesn't protect the rights of all, majority and minority.

jblosser

07-17-2007, 10:57 AM

In these situations states have the right to choose their own path. They CANNOT impose a religion, now, if you think prayer in school is imposing a religion...then argue it with your state...and get it changed.

I'm sorry but I am going to go ahead and respond to one of you guys directly because it's worth making sure you all know your history on this. You are right under the current Constitution, but that hasn't always been the case, and since you aren't making the distinction I want to make sure you realize it is there.

The statement that a state government cannot impose a religion under the US Constitution is *only* true after the ratification of the 14th amendment extended those things to the states and nationalized the government. Prior to that, it was not true, and in the early days of this nation (after the Constitution was ratified) several states did in fact have established religions. Of course what we are all saying here about the beauty of states' rights took effect, and they found they couldn't keep that up, and had to adopt their own establishment clauses.

Bob Cochran

07-17-2007, 11:00 AM

Apparently, the states can pretty much do whatever they want to us.
This is an amazingly dumb conclusion. I don't think this troll should be entertained any longer.

MBA2008

07-17-2007, 11:00 AM

I think were all arguing about something different. Where this is breaking down is on the definition of what a right is.

The USC protects life, and liberty, and property. To be more explicit, there are a bill of rights and other amendments that protect those rights.

amdajo brought up the issue of prayer in school. The only thing said in the USC or BOR is that the Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. If a state permits school prayer, how is that violating the above. Congress has made no law, and no one is prohibiting free exercise. Therefore, school prayer IS a states rights issue. If you think about this in the long term, you will see that if people don't want prayer in schools, they will either force their local lawmakers to change the laws (much easier than getting federal lawmakers to do so), or they move to another state that does already. If people truly don't want prayer in schools, the states that have it will find that their tax bases shrink if they refuse to change the laws accordingly. Eventually states that refuse to listen to the people will find that they no longer have any residents. Competition between the states will assure an equilibrium with respect to laws.

The overall point though is that "unalienable rights" is a short list. You do not have an right to:

Not hear something that offends you
Universal healthcare
Have someone provide your food, clothing, or shelter
Have someone else pay for your abortion
Tell a private business owner how to operate his business (unless it violates someone's legitimate right to life, liberty, or property)
Have someone pay for your retirement

The list is much longer, but you get the point.

If these were truly unalienable, that is, rights that we are born with, and cannot be forfeited, and all men are created equal, then people would have had these rights 200 years ago. Why did they not? Why did people in 1800 not have Social Security, or Universal Healthcare? You know the answer.

The USC protects your real, unalienable rights. Once you accept what the definition of what a right is, then you can see that the USC protects them satisfactorily. The rest is left to the States AND THE PEOPLE. That last part is important; the people, in addition to the states, retain the powers to govern not specifically authorized in the USC.

jblosser

07-17-2007, 11:01 AM

Then government has no purpose if it doesn't protect the rights of all, majority and minority.

I wasn't saying it was a good thing. :)

amdajo

07-17-2007, 11:02 AM

That is about as simple as I can make it. If you do think the national government would do a better job protecting individual liberty than a state model does, please explain how it will continue to work even if only a few people support liberty. No one is arguing that moving for liberty is a happy thing, I don't think. But it is the option to be exercised when the majority goes against you. Isn't having an unpleasant option better than no option at all?

I guess the problem here JB is that you seem to be talking about what the best way to try and deal with the society as it exists now, and get as much liberty out of it as possible. Where as, I'm talking about the explicit principle.

You seem to be saying that if we can just get the feds off our back, then at least we have a better chance of fighting for liberty on the state level.

My point is that if we're within our rights to demand the fed gets off our back, by holding them to the constitution, then why aren't we within our rights to demand that the state goverrnment gets off our back. Afterall, everyone here seems to be in agreement that the states must follow the constitution (at the very least the bill of rights).

Perhaps I'm wrong, but you seem to be talking about the abuses of the constitution that the federal (central) government forces upon us all, and that we should at least try to get that power to abuse given to the states because we can fight them easier. This makes no sense to me. Is demanding the states follow the constitution a bad thing? Is that central government at work, or simply a gaurentee that no one can violate our unalienable rights?

I think these are important issues, and I don't believe I'm being "thick" about it.

BLS

07-17-2007, 11:05 AM

I guess the problem here JB is that you seem to be talking about what the best way to try and deal with the society as it exists now, and get as much liberty out of it as possible. Where as, I'm talking about the explicit principle.

You seem to be saying that if we can just get the feds off our back, then at least we have a better chance of fighting for liberty on the state level.

My point is that if we're within our rights to demand the fed gets off our back, by holding them to the constitution, then why aren't we within our rights to demand that the state goverrnment gets off our back. Afterall, everyone here seems to be in agreement that the states must follow the constitution (at the very least the bill of rights).

Perhaps I'm wrong, but you seem to be talking about the abuses of the constitution that the federal (central) government forces upon us all, and that we should at least try to get that power to abuse given to the states because we can fight them easier. This makes no sense to me. Is demanding the states follow the constitution a bad thing? Is that central government at work, or simply a gaurentee that no one can violate our unalienable rights?

I think these are important issues, and I don't believe I'm being "thick" about it.

My apologies for insulting you...but I still don't understand what it is you're not clear on.

angelatc

07-17-2007, 11:09 AM

Until the 14th amendment was ratified: YES

After the 14th amendment was ratified: NO

Under a Ron Paul administration that works to get back to that "before the 14th" standing, since he has spoken quite clearly in favor of that position: PROBABLY
(once the laws get changed back, of course, since this is all about doing it under the rule of law)

I apologize if it sounds like I think it's easy. There are literally hundreds of years of history behind this issue, in this country alone. And the answer has in fact changed over time.

This just lends more credence to my firm opinion that we should have less lawyers on staff on the Court. The continued reinterpretations are dangerous and unnecessary.

There is absolutely nothing in the original Constitution that reinforces the concept that it was merely a list of suggestions prior to the 14th Amendment. The first 10 Amendments are called "The Bill Of Rights." There is really no legitimate need to interpret that any farther. The first 10 Amendments were specifically drafted in response to the fears that the Federal government would try to dictate liberty from the top down.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I absolutely contend that that the bolded statement was intended to correct the legal situation illustrated by the predicament of Dred Scott, , in the context of clarifying that the former slaves and their descendants were indeed to now be considered citizens even though they had previously been considered property. It did not add a new clause. that meant the States could choose a cafeteria style approach to Constitution protections.

I am curious about why you think that Dr Paul would be in favor of overturning the entire the 14th amendment. All I've seen is that he would support amending the portion of it that guarantees birthright citizenship.

amdajo

07-17-2007, 11:10 AM

This is an amazingly dumb conclusion. I don't think this troll should be entertained any longer.

This wasn't my conclusion. This was the conclusion of many others on this forum and I disagree with them.

And, of course, there it is! The old troll smear. Yeah, you caught me.

Craig_R

07-17-2007, 11:12 AM

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNTIED STATES IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. ANY RIGHT GIVEN TO YOU WITHIN CANNOT BE INFRINGED UPON BY YOUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

rights are not given by the constitution , or the government, we are in fact born with them
the constitution is there to protect what we already have

angelatc

07-17-2007, 11:15 AM

Oh, I see, so we are all agreeing that a state has no authority to violate the bill of rights, any more than the federal government does..

Are you thick? The Federal government cannot violate our individual rights, and neither can the state, city, township, village or county governments.

It's not rocket science.

BLS

07-17-2007, 11:17 AM

rights are not given by the constitution , or the government, we are in fact born with them
the constitution is there to protect what we already have

OK. it's semantics Craig.

freelance

07-17-2007, 11:17 AM

Now, now, they no longer teach Civics in school. Still, even a Ph.D. should grasp the concept with relative ease.

MBA2008

07-17-2007, 11:18 AM

quotation:>>>You seem to be saying that if we can just get the feds off our back, then at least we have a better chance of fighting for liberty on the state level.

My point is that if we're within our rights to demand the fed gets off our back, by holding them to the constitution, then why aren't we within our rights to demand that the state goverrnment gets off our back. Afterall, everyone here seems to be in agreement that the states must follow the constitution (at the very least the bill of rights).<<<

Again remember that the 10th Amendment states that all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government, are retained by the States and the people. This indicates that as long as the States do no limit the rights guaranteed by the USC (that is unalienable rights), then they have powers to limit other rights (inalienable rights.)

I'm inclined to agree with amdajo that we should be more aggressive with States & local government limiting freedoms (at least I feel that way about my state & my local governments), but as long as Constitutional rights are not limited, this discussion is no longer one about the Constitution vs. States' rights, it is about States vs. the people, and that fight has to be fought on the state (or local) level not on the federal level.

angelatc

07-17-2007, 11:19 AM

rights are not given by the constitution , or the government, we are in fact born with them
the constitution is there to protect what we already have

I would respectfully disagree with that. There are people who believe that all humans are born with certain natural rights, but I am not one of them. I believe that US citizens are born with the rights specified in the Constitution. Nothing more.

amdajo

07-17-2007, 11:21 AM

Wait a second Angelatc, are you in disagreement with JB. I thought everyone here was in agreement and that I just don't get it because I'm a "thick-headed troll."

I'm done.

Slugg

07-17-2007, 11:24 AM

Wait a second Angelatc, are you in disagreement with JB. I thought everyone here was in agreement and that I just don't get it because I'm a "thick-headed troll."

I'm done.

And this is why we handle difficult problems on the lowest level possible.

BLS

07-17-2007, 11:25 AM

Wait a second Angelatc, are you in disagreement with JB. I thought everyone here was in agreement and that I just don't get it because I'm a "thick-headed troll."

I'm done.

This is going to turn out to be the longest thread evah.

jblosser

07-17-2007, 11:26 AM

You seem to be saying that if we can just get the feds off our back, then at least we have a better chance of fighting for liberty on the state level.

Yes.

My point is that if we're within our rights to demand the fed gets off our back, by holding them to the constitution, then why aren't we within our rights to demand that the state goverrnment gets off our back.

Our ability to get the national govt off our back pragmatically is based on asking them to obey the law that binds them: the Constitution. The legal question of if and how that Constitution applies to the states is important in determing our basis for asking the states to get off our backs. If we want to be legal about getting liberty back, we should understand which laws apply to whom. Yes? The question of which laws *should* apply to whom is a different one; we'll get to that (again) in a minute.

Afterall, everyone here seems to be in agreement that the states must follow the constitution (at the very least the bill of rights).

I'm not, and I'm not trying to be obtuse about that. I am not in the same way I don't think the President should be bound by the parts of the Constitution that apply to the Congress or the Court. It is part of the separation of powers, and it only means anything if it's actually separate. Bear with me on that for a minute, I'm trying to respond in order.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but you seem to be talking about the abuses of the constitution that the federal (central) government forces upon us all, and that we should at least try to get that power to abuse given to the states because we can fight them easier.

That is one part of it, another part that might be easier to understand is that once we say "the law of the national government is what protects our rights", the states are powerless to stop the national government infringing our rights. These are two forms of the same thing, but coming from different directions.

A very real example is RealID (no pun intended). The national government is telling us we have to do this. Some states are saying no. Under a system that says the national government protects our rights, and not the states, how can the states have any authority to tell the national government no? Note that the question is NOT how can the states tell us to do things the national government says they can't do... but you can't really have one without the other. The risk of the states doing bad things is worth taking if it means they can protect us from the national abuses. It is worth taking because of these other things that have been mentioned; states governments are smaller and easier to change, and *worst case* you can move away and the damn state legislatures can have fun infriging their own rights.

The fear that every state would go evil can only come true if the whole country stops caring about liberty. And if that happens we are lost no matter what model of government we have, aren't we?

This makes no sense to me. Is demanding the states follow the constitution a bad thing? Is that central government at work, or simply a gaurentee that no one can violate our unalienable rights?

This is the question of separation of powers. Let me ask this: is it bad for everyone to share everything, and never hurt each other, and take care of each other? Of course not. And that is what other systems, like communism think they can accomplish, but they run into problems in reality (this is not a Red Threat post; I wish communism worked).

History has shown us that really great-sounding, obvious things will fall apart and lead us to dictators if we fail to account for what can go wrong. This is why our founders wanted to divide all this authority all over the place. "Is demanding the states follow the constitution a bad thing?" -- of course we want to guarantee those freedoms at the state level. But that is not the issue. "Demanding the states follow the [US] constitution" means we have lost a very valuable separation of authority, and yes, that is a bad thing.

The best way to not allow the dictators to rule us to put the power in multiple places so they have to divide their attempts and end up fighting *each other* over power, and leave us the hell alone. This is why we have 3 branches of national government. This is also why we originally dividied power between the states and the national government. This is why letting the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc. share information about citizens is a bad thing. They are all part of the same attempts to keep the dictators from getting too cozy with each other without us noticing.

I think these are important issues, and I don't believe I'm being "thick" about it.

I don't think you're being insincere. I talk to too many like you who have just been fed bad history in school. They won the power, they use it to write history books that make them out to be the good guys and to make sure people forget how to ask the right questions.

Craig_R

07-17-2007, 11:30 AM

I guess the problem here JB is that you seem to be talking about what the best way to try and deal with the society as it exists now, and get as much liberty out of it as possible. Where as, I'm talking about the explicit principle.

You seem to be saying that if we can just get the feds off our back, then at least we have a better chance of fighting for liberty on the state level.

My point is that if we're within our rights to demand the fed gets off our back, by holding them to the constitution, then why aren't we within our rights to demand that the state goverrnment gets off our back. Afterall, everyone here seems to be in agreement that the states must follow the constitution (at the very least the bill of rights).

Perhaps I'm wrong, but you seem to be talking about the abuses of the constitution that the federal (central) government forces upon us all, and that we should at least try to get that power to abuse given to the states because we can fight them easier. This makes no sense to me. Is demanding the states follow the constitution a bad thing? Is that central government at work, or simply a gaurentee that no one can violate our unalienable rights?

I think these are important issues, and I don't believe I'm being "thick" about it.

the states already posses that power to abuse. Little can be done at the state level when there are federally mandated abuses governing the states.

I see what you're getting at.

electing RP is only a first step in restoring our liberty , hes not a magician. It will take electing like minded people to state , city, local governments as well.

angelatc

07-17-2007, 11:30 AM

I
amdajo brought up the issue of prayer in school. The only thing said in the USC or BOR is that the Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. If a state permits school prayer, how is that violating the above.

Unless you're going to have the government officials doing Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Pagan, Wiccan, B'hai and an endless number of other offshoot prayers, then prayer doesn't belong in state institutions. If you want prayer in school, then send your kids to a parochial school.

Why is that such a big deal?

angelatc

07-17-2007, 11:31 AM

This is going to turn out to be the longest thread evah.

I'm never the first to leave.

jblosser

07-17-2007, 11:35 AM

This just lends more credence to my firm opinion that we should have less lawyers on staff on the Court. The continued reinterpretations are dangerous and unnecessary.

There is absolutely nothing in the original Constitution that reinforces the concept that it was merely a list of suggestions prior to the 14th Amendment. The first 10 Amendments are called "The Bill Of Rights." There is really no legitimate need to interpret that any farther. The first 10 Amendments were specifically drafted in response to the fears that the Federal government would try to dictate liberty from the top down.

It wasn't a list of suggestions, of course. But it was only binding on the national government until the 14th. The literal language makes this clear, you don't need a lawyer to interpret it. And it wasn't reinterpreted to change it, it was amended.

I absolutely contend that that the bolded statement was intended to correct the legal situation illustrated by the predicament of Dred Scott, , in the context of clarifying that the former slaves and their descendants were indeed to now be considered citizens even though they had previously been considered property. It did not add a new clause. that meant the States could choose a cafeteria style approach to Constitution protections.

Dred Scott and everything around it was an excuse they could get the public behind to nationalize things. There were other solutions, as exemplified by every other free nation in the world at the time.

I am curious about why you think that Dr Paul would be in favor of overturning the entire the 14th amendment. All I've seen is that he would support amending the portion of it that guarantees birthright citizenship.

Because separation of powers matters. See previous post. Just like he would overturn the PATRIOT act provisions that let the FBI/CIA/NSA tear down the walls between them (and the other provisions too, for various other reasons).

IRO-bot

07-17-2007, 11:35 AM

angelatc

07-17-2007, 11:35 AM

I'm inclined to agree with amdajo that we should be more aggressive with States & local government limiting freedoms (at least I feel that way about my state & my local governments), but as long as Constitutional rights are not limited, this discussion is no longer one about the Constitution vs. States' rights, it is about States vs. the people, and that fight has to be fought on the state (or local) level not on the federal level.

There are lots of silly laws that I wish my State would do away with. But that has nothing to do with Constitutional law.

jblosser

07-17-2007, 11:37 AM

torchbearer

07-17-2007, 11:37 AM

I'm never the first to leave.

well, someone needs to start the procession. I volunteer to be first.

MBA2008

07-17-2007, 11:40 AM

Craig_R

07-17-2007, 11:40 AM

I would respectfully disagree with that. There are people who believe that all humans are born with certain natural rights, but I am not one of them. I believe that US citizens are born with the rights specified in the Constitution. Nothing more.

is that so you can see non citizens as less then human?

the founders claimed these rights before the constitution was written, according to your interpretation it is they that gave us these rights.

no, everyone is born with the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

IRO-bot

07-17-2007, 11:40 AM

There are lots of silly laws that I wish my State would do away with. But that has nothing to do with Constitutional law.

Like Florida has a law that makes Falacio (sp?) illegal. Oral Sex. You know. But if you read the Bill of Rights. There really is nothing in there that says the gov't can't make a law banning oral sex. Or at least not from what I could tell.

BLS

07-17-2007, 11:43 AM

well, someone needs to start the procession. I volunteer to be first.

right behind you.

IRO-bot

07-17-2007, 11:43 AM

For the record, I don't care about prayer in school. I never prayed in school (well maybe before tests), but I don't see how organized prayer in school is a problem. Certainly I see a problem with mandating it, but if enough people are interested in doing it, why should it be banned?

What is unconstitutional about having non-required, organized prayer in school? I have yet to see anything in the 1st Amendment that prohibits it. Perhaps you can direct me to something I'm missing. Explain to me what UNALIENABLE right is being violated when there is an organized prayer in school that students (or anyone else) are required to participate in.

Well as sad as this sounds. It is mostly to save children from ambarrasment of their own religions. People being made fun of because they are Jew, Muslin, Athiest, or Pagan. That is why it would be banned. When a bunch of kids pray, and laugh and make fun of you for not praying, it is disruptive to that childs ability to learn in an enviroment free from hate and anger.

MBA2008

07-17-2007, 11:44 AM

angelatc said, "There are lots of silly laws that I wish my State would do away with. But that has nothing to do with Constitutional law."

I reply, "That was exactly the point I was making."

jblosser said, "FWIW "prayer in state schools" is completely the wrong question, anyway. State schools is the question. There is certainly no Constitutional authority for them nationally. What the individual states do is of course up to them, but I prefer the ones that don't take my money to teach their version of things to kids."

I reply, "Excellent point!"

Slugg

07-17-2007, 11:44 AM

Unless you're going to have the government officials doing Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Pagan, Wiccan, B'hai and an endless number of other offshoot prayers, then prayer doesn't belong in state institutions. If you want prayer in school, then send your kids to a parochial school.

Why is that such a big deal?

We pay for public schools, why do we not have any say on if our children can pray there. We are not talking about teaching religion.

The idea is that if a student wants to pray in school (any religion) then he/she should be able to do just that......we are not talking about a school teaching the bible, leading prayer, or teaching any other theology.

When politicians say, "Religion has no place in schools and students ought to not practice their religion on the property." This is in direct conflict with my freedom of religion. Again, the 'prayer in schools' argument (at least in the mainstream anyway) is not teaching religion (an obvious conflict) but in allowing the practicing of religion. Why should I have to pay for two schools (parochial AND public) to practice my religion. If I want it taught, then I pay for the secondary service elsewhere.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

1000-points-of-fright

07-17-2007, 11:45 AM

I would respectfully disagree with that. There are people who believe that all humans are born with certain natural rights, but I am not one of them. I believe that US citizens are born with the rights specified in the Constitution. Nothing more.

I'm gonna be blunt here. You're wrong and very possibly stupid. If you're not stupid then you need to be slapped awake. You believe you have the right to free speech ONLY because of the constitution? What happens if the 1st amendment gets repealed? You no longer have that right? BS!

That's like saying you only have the right not to be robbed, raped, and murdered only because there are laws against it. But if all of a sudden those laws didn't exist, hey open season boys, come and get it. By the way you have no right to defend yourself either because that right got taken away too. Now you have to just lie there and take it because nobody has written down words on a piece of paper that give you the right to do anything about it.

Also by your logic, non-US citizens have no human rights.

I know that sounds extreme but it's the logical extension of your thoughts.

MBA2008

07-17-2007, 11:47 AM

IRO-bot

07-17-2007, 11:48 AM

Also by your logic, non-US citizens have no human rights.

I know that sounds extreme but it's the logical extension of your thoughts.

They certainly don't have the rights to my tax dollars. Public education, Food Stamps, HUD housing, Social Security, Medicare.

Craig_R

07-17-2007, 11:50 AM

They certainly don't have the rights to my tax dollars. Public education, Food Stamps, HUD housing, Social Security, Medicare.

that has nothing at all to do with natural human rights. which all boil down to the right to Life, Liberty, and pursiut of happiness.

IRO-bot

07-17-2007, 11:51 AM

Evan B said, "Well as sad as this sounds. It is mostly to save children from ambarrasment of their own religions. People being made fun of because they are Jew, Muslin, Athiest, or Pagan. That is why it would be banned. When a bunch of kids pray, and laugh and make fun of you for not praying, it is disruptive to that childs ability to learn in an enviroment free from hate and anger."

As I said in my previous post, there are unalienable rights and inalienable rights. The right not to be made fun of is not an unalienable right. I know it feels good to think that every one should play nice, but if we said that people have a right not to be offended, then communication would be illegal.

Then on your logic there is nothing in the Bill of Rights that says nobody can't be raped, or beaten, or murdered. There are laws against it, but it isn't an inalienable right. It's not in the first 10 amendments. That's saying chaos can ensue as long as A Soldiers doesn't say in your house, as long as you can own a gun, and as long as you can say what you want?????

MBA2008

07-17-2007, 11:52 AM

Evan B said, "
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1000-points-of-fright View Post

Also by your logic, non-US citizens have no human rights.

I know that sounds extreme but it's the logical extension of your thoughts.
They certainly don't have the rights to my tax dollars. Public education, Food Stamps, HUD housing, Social Security, Medicare."

I reply, "Neither do US citizens. Public education, food Stamps, HUD, SS, and Medicare are not unalienable rights."

jblosser

07-17-2007, 11:52 AM

They certainly don't have the rights to my tax dollars. Public education, Food Stamps, HUD housing, Social Security, Medicare.

None of which are in the Constitution anyway.

They do have the right to life, property, speech, religion, assembly, to be secure in their homes, to defend themselves, to choose their own form of government.

The Founders are clear that all humans have these rights. Whether governments recognize them is another matter, but if governments don't recognize them, they still have that right to do something about it.

Veering way off topic here, though.

IRO-bot

07-17-2007, 11:52 AM

that has nothing at all to do with natural human rights. which all boil down to the right to Life, Liberty, and pursiut of happiness.

I know, it just pisses me off that all my money goes to a bunch of people who don't give a BLEEP about americal. Get the heck out I say.

1000-points-of-fright

07-17-2007, 11:54 AM

They certainly don't have the rights to my tax dollars. Public education, Food Stamps, HUD housing, Social Security, Medicare.
Legal resident aliens do. Plus, in a Ron Paul country neither would you.

Also plus, that has nothing to do with the conversation.:)

IRO-bot

07-17-2007, 11:56 AM

I know got off topic. I apologize.

Craig_R

07-17-2007, 11:58 AM

I know, it just pisses me off that all my money goes to a bunch of people who don't give a BLEEP about americal. Get the heck out I say.

well, thats a matter of property rights. the United states of american is the collective property of its citizens and as such we have the right to say who is an who is not allowed to enter and or remain on our property. I've had lengthy discussions on this very matter with open boarder libertarians who argue that every human has a right to move everywhere and enter into contracts with whomever is willing.

anyway , this is way off the OP subject.

MBA2008

07-17-2007, 11:59 AM

Evan B said, "hen on your logic there is nothing in the Bill of Rights that says nobody can't be raped, or beaten, or murdered. There are laws against it, but it isn't an inalienable right. It's not in the first 10 amendments. That's saying chaos can ensue as long as A Soldiers doesn't say in your house, as long as you can own a gun, and as long as you can say what you want?????"

You should read my prior posts before claiming to explain "my logic". I said that the rights to life, liberty, and property are unalienable. They are your rights whether there is a law or not. Murder is a direct violation of right to life. Rape is a direct violation of liberty. Theft is a direct violation of property. These rights are unalienable.

Because liberty is a broad word, the Founders included Amendments which clarify what is encompassed by liberty. Those Amendments do a good job by stating that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the exercise thereof. That's it. No more.

The right to not be offended is not an unalienable right. Sorry.

IRO-bot

07-17-2007, 12:01 PM

Not to be offended isn't Liberty? But rape is?

You said those right are unalienable. What part of the bill of rights says that? I must not be reading it all.

jblosser

07-17-2007, 12:03 PM

The Declaration of Independence is the one that uses that exact wording.

IRO-bot

07-17-2007, 12:05 PM

But that was to declare Indepence from the British Empire right? That's not the laws and right passed by our union that made our Constituion. Right? I am getting severly confused now.

jblosser

07-17-2007, 12:07 PM

The Declaration is not law, but it establishes the philosophical basis on which the Constitution was written as law. It explains why they wrote the law they did, and didn't write other things. And also what they think people need to do if their unalienable rights are violated.

Read the preemble of the Constitution too, it doesn't use the same exact language as the Declaration but it describes what they are doing. To understand what they mean by "the blessings of liberty", etc., you go back to the other things they said and wrote at the time. That doesn't make the other things law, but it helps us understand.

IRO-bot

07-17-2007, 12:09 PM

Yes but the constituion did not give us those unalienable rights if it was not put in it. Then how can anyone truly say those are our rights? Because someone said so? Other animals don't get those rights. If we didn't make them for ourselves then why doesn't a dog get those rights?

jblosser

07-17-2007, 12:13 PM

...give us those unalienable rights...

You don't understand the meaning of "unalienable". The Founders are making a statement that claims to be recognizing reality: The sky is blue, water is wet, and people have a right to life, liberty, and property. No human agency gives these to them, and no human agency can take them away. Anyone that tries is therefore lawfully resisted, it is an act of self-defense authorized by the nature of reality itself.

There is no way we can go over all of that here. Go read up on the doctrines of "Natural Law".

angelatc

07-17-2007, 12:13 PM

It wasn't a list of suggestions, of course. But it was only binding on the national government until the 14th. The literal language makes this clear, you don't need a lawyer to interpret it. And it wasn't reinterpreted to change it, it was amended.

Nonsense. That language reinforced intent. It did not define it. The very existance of the Bill of Rights, which are rights of the individual, defines it. It is simply impossible to have the State government supercede the rights of the invididual according to the law of the union itself.

Dred Scott and everything around it was an excuse they could get the public behind to nationalize things. There were other solutions, as exemplified by every other free nation in the world at the time.

Apparently not for the individual known as Mr Scott, who managed to win his freedom only 9 months before his death. I am not disagreeing that slavery could have been ended in a different manner. The whole problem for Mr Scott was that in some jurisdictions he was considered a free man, and in other jurisdictions he was considered property.

Because separation of powers matters. See previous post. Just like he would overturn the PATRIOT act provisions that let the FBI/CIA/NSA tear down the walls between them (and the other provisions too, for various other reasons).

I can't find that post. But he would challange the Partriot Act on the very grounds that is is not Constitutional. (Which....I'm not sure the Court would concede he has authority to do.) I do not believe that requires overturning the entire 14th amendment.

And there is no mistake that he would probably gut our intelligence departments and just start over. I'm ok with that.

angelatc

07-17-2007, 12:17 PM

You should read my prior posts before claiming to explain "my logic". I said that the rights to life, liberty, and property are unalienable. .

I'm not even sure about property. The early drafts read "life, liberty and ownership of property" but they took that out. I assume because they didn't want the government to be responsible for giving an acre of land to every baby that was born here. :)

IRO-bot

07-17-2007, 12:23 PM

You don't understand the meaning of "unalienable". The Founders are making a statement that claims to be recognizing reality: The sky is blue, water is wet, and people have a right to life, liberty, and property. No human agency gives these to them, and no human agency can take them away. Anyone that tries is therefore lawfully resisted, it is an act of self-defense authorized by the nature of reality itself.

There is no way we can go over all of that here. Go read up on the doctrines of "Natural Law".

Forget it. Something isn't clicking in my head that is making me understand. Sometimes I'm just dumb like that. I can understand algorithims, chemistry, and computer logic but Philosophy is over my head. I can't grasp that fact that becasue I am a human being I have right other organisms don't.

jblosser

07-17-2007, 12:24 PM

Nonsense. That language reinforced intent. It did not define it. The very existance of the Bill of Rights, which are rights of the individual, defines it. It is simply impossible to have the State government supercede the rights of the invididual according to the law of the union itself.

You just don't know your history, so I guess that's all there is to say on that.

I can't find that post.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=72877&postcount=67

jblosser

07-17-2007, 12:25 PM

Forget it. Something isn't clicking in my head that is making me understand. Sometimes I'm just dumb like that. I can understand algorithims, chemistry, and computer logic but Philosophy is over my head. I can't grasp that fact that becasue I am a human being I have right other organisms don't.

Well, recognition humans have them doesn't necessarily equal denial other organisms might have them as well.

angelatc

07-17-2007, 12:32 PM

We pay for public schools, why do we not have any say on if our children can pray there. We are not talking about teaching religion.

.

Because I've already seen the slippery slope that awaits.

Face it - your Christian predecessors showed a blatant tendency to abuse the power of prayer. The kids who took these cases to the Supreme Courts were fighting school rules, and lower court decisions, that required them to pray. The rules required them to sit at their desks, hands clasped, with their lips moving during the recital of the prayer. It was always a Christian prayer, I might add.

What would you do if your son's second grade teacher led the class in a Wiccan prayer every morning? I suspect you wouldn't smile and praise the diversity. But even if you would, there are far too many who would demand that teacher be fired on the spot.

I pay my taxes too. If you want your kids to have prayer in school, then send them to parochial school. Do not keep insisting that the employees of the State should be allowed to stand up on the taxpayer dime and deliver a subtle Christian message to my kids.

IRO-bot

07-17-2007, 12:32 PM

So because we have more brain power we got more rights? Maybe this is just getting to philosophical. I THOUGHT the constitution laid down laws saying we were protected. Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Happyness. But now I don't see it. I only see gaurantees of owning a gun, and not being excessively bailed. (which they seem to not enforce now adays)
So is it merely we are saying because we are human we have these rights but there are no "Written Rights" that guarantees this? It is some form of....uh... Informal Agreement?

angelatc

07-17-2007, 12:34 PM

You just don't know your history, so I guess that's all there is to say on that.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=72877&postcount=67

Great argument you have there. I certainly appreciate your education now. </end snark>

jblosser

07-17-2007, 12:40 PM

Great argument you have there. I certainly appreciate your education now. </end snark>

You'd rather we have a "no it isn't" "yes it is" "no it isn't" "yes it is" dialogue?

I don't see much value in taking a lot of time in a forum thread to lay out history that can be found in hundreds or thousands of books and probably even on Wikipedia.

angelatc

07-17-2007, 12:43 PM

Yes but the constituion did not give us those unalienable rights if it was not put in it. Then how can anyone truly say those are our rights? Because someone said so?

Exactly. The people that founded this country said that these are the rights that people who live in this country get.

What always makes my brain cramp is the argument of some of the founders against even having a bill of rights.

angelatc

07-17-2007, 12:44 PM

You'd rather we have a "no it isn't" "yes it is" "no it isn't" "yes it is" dialogue?

I don't see much value in taking a lot of time in a forum thread to lay out history that can be found in hundreds or thousands of books and probably even on Wikipedia.

I'm sure you don't.

IRO-bot

07-17-2007, 12:47 PM

Exactly. The people that founded this country said that these are the rights that people who live in this country get.

What always makes my brain cramp is the argument of some of the founders against even having a bill of rights.

I understand the cramping. The Bill of Right to me doesn't even clarify what they meant for our Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happyness.

angelatc

07-17-2007, 12:52 PM

You just don't know your history, so I guess that's all there is to say on that.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=72877&postcount=67

Yes, you have a definite propensity to make things harder than they actually are. You can't make an argument that will convince me that the rights extended to the citizens on a federal level could be rightfully overwritten by the States. Not saying the States did not try, I am saying that the States were wrong, even before the 14th Amendment.

The Real ID point is certainly valid, but it's a symptom of a couple of flaws in the doucment as it exists today.

One being the 17th amendment, which means that the States do not truly have a voice in the process, and the other being that there is no specifically defined right to privacy.

angelatc

07-17-2007, 12:58 PM

I understand the cramping. The Bill of Right to me doesn't even clarify what they meant for our Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happyness.

That phrase is not part of the Bill of Rights. It is part of the Declaration of Independence. I look at that a a nice explanation of why they were doing the things they were doing, but nothing that is to be considered a law.

The rights they gave us were designed to enable us to pursue those things, which we can then define for ourselves.

PS: I dropped my Philosophy class in school, because I didn't want to screw up my GPA. I'm a very black and white thinker, and I absolutely consider than an asset.

IRO-bot

07-17-2007, 01:01 PM

I suppose, it just seems hard to advocate LEGALLY things like infringement on liberties if nothing was declared or defined in our constitution. Such are privacy.

angelatc

07-17-2007, 01:08 PM

I suppose, it just seems hard to advocate LEGALLY things like infringement on liberties if nothing was declared or defined in our constitution. Such are privacy.

Yes, now we're venturing into the area that makes my bulb go dim. The 9th Amendment is sort of a disclaimer, that says rights can and do exist, even though those rights are not specifically listed in the Constitution. The right to privacy has generally fallen into this category.

Me, I'm all for just listing them out .

IRO-bot

07-17-2007, 01:11 PM

Me too. And during that time, as much as everyone fought for these freedoms, you think it would have been listed. Makes you wonder why they weren't listed.

ThePieSwindler

07-17-2007, 01:13 PM

BoArDwArRiOrzZ!!!!!!111

I suppose, it just seems hard to advocate LEGALLY things like infringement on liberties if nothing was declared or defined in our constitution. Such are privacy.

Agreed - the constitution limits government - the rights of the people are essentially limitless and are NOT given to the people by government - they already retain those rights. Just because the constitution doesn't say they can't microchip us all doesnt mean its constitutional.

IRO-bot

07-17-2007, 01:16 PM

BoArDwArRiOrzZ!!!!!!111

Agreed - the constitution limits government - the rights of the people are essentially limitless and are NOT given to the people by government - they already retain those rights. Just because the constitution doesn't say they can't microchip us all doesnt mean its constitutional.

So. If someone persuit of happyness is raping young children, that isn't stipulated but it is illegal. So are there laws statyng your right to privacy?

I guess it is hard for me to understand because I have been programmed to believe if it isn't in the constituion or a law it isn't a right. My brain is severly hurting.

DeadheadForPaul

07-17-2007, 01:17 PM

The Constitution was ratified in order to end discrimination across the new nation. Many of the states had established or de facto official religions. In Massachusetts during the early 1700's, there were taxes to support the instruction of one particular denomination of the Christian faith. In Pennyslvania, there were 'religious tests' to hold office so that non-Christians could not be representatives for the people.

The Constitution changed all of that by making sure that liberty was available regardless of religious creed.

States could not now infringe on these guaranteed rights, and I think it would be shameful if certain states abused their powers to discriminate against any group. Federal intervention, however, is not always a bad thing, though it is often the case - specifically with regard to domestic economic policies. However, the federal government pushed for equal rights and desegregation. Is the federal government always 'bad'?

1000-points-of-fright

07-17-2007, 01:53 PM

Exactly. The people that founded this country said that these are the rights that people who live in this country get.

No, they said that people who live in this country can freely exercise their natural rights because they established a government that has no right or power to infringe upon them. They held those rights (truths) to be self evident and universal as the nature of man. However, it is up to the people to create a government that respects those truths. Those human rights still exist whether or not they choose to do so.

The founding fathers chose to do so.

What always makes my brain cramp is the argument of some of the founders against even having a bill of rights.

They were against listing specific rights because inevitably someone would say "It's not in the bill of rights therefore it's not a right." They compromised by listing the ones that they thought were most important for preventing tyranny. The 2nd amendment being the most important in many of their minds.

PennCustom4RP

07-17-2007, 01:53 PM

SUPREMACY CLAUSE - "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const. art. VI, Paragraph 2

Under the Supremacy Clause, everyone must follow federal law in the face of conflicting state law. It has long been established that "a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute" and that a conflict will be found either where compliance with both federal and state law is impossible or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. Edgar v. Mite Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 631 (1982). Similarly, we have held that "otherwise valid state laws or court orders cannot stand in the way of a federal court's remedial scheme if the action is essential to enforce the scheme." Stone v. City and County of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 862 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1050 (1993).

Due to concerns of comity and federalism, the scope of federal injunctive relief against an agency of state government must always be narrowly tailored to enforce federal constitutional and statutory law only. Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1089 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1069 (1987). This is critical because "a federal district court's exercise of discretion to enjoin state political bodies raises serious questions regarding the legitimacy of its authority."

This was defined by the Civil War, that Federal Law always supersedes State Law.

IRO-bot

07-17-2007, 01:58 PM

They held those rights (truths) to be self evident

That sounds like because we said so to me.

1000-points-of-fright

07-17-2007, 02:08 PM

They held those rights (truths) to be self evident

That sounds like because we said so to me.

No, because everyone instinctively knows it. Anyone who has ever been mad about being pushed around, robbed, attacked, or otherwise oppressed knows it. It's our natural instinct and intellect. Freedom is our natural state. Born free. Even little kids who know nothing of law or freedom or the constitution know it.

Some either don't feel it (sociopaths) or conveniently ignore it for their own personal gain (despots and professional politicians).

IRO-bot

07-17-2007, 02:10 PM

No, because everyone instinctively knows it. Anyone who has ever been mad about being pushed around, robbed, attacked, or otherwise oppressed knows it. It's our natural instinct and intellect. Freedom is our natural state. Born free. Even little kids who know nothing of law or freedom or the constitution know it.

I see that point. That makes alot more sense saying it that way. But someone said earlier on this post the being teased isn't liberty, or freedom. An unalienable right.

ThePieSwindler

07-17-2007, 02:14 PM

So. If someone persuit of happyness is raping young children, that isn't stipulated but it is illegal. So are there laws statyng your right to privacy?

I guess it is hard for me to understand because I have been programmed to believe if it isn't in the constituion or a law it isn't a right. My brain is severly hurting.

You are setting up a strawman here and being intellectually dishonest. Stop.

Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and property also means you may not infringe upon the life liberty and happiness and property of others (which raping children would be...). That is what freedom entails. Watch the Citizentube interview with Ron and you will see how Ron says that the right to privacy does not mean we can do absurd things like murder or rape our own children. Again, stop setting up a strawman.

You seem like a legal positivist to me, as in, you do not believe in the natural law and believe that the law need have no basis in ethics, but rather the law is the only source of truth and basis for legality (i.e the government can give and take away rights). The premise of natural law is simple - everyone is the absolute owner of their life, but they may not infringe upon that right of others.

IRO-bot

07-17-2007, 02:22 PM

ThePieSwindler

07-17-2007, 02:25 PM

Honestly I never heard of Natural Law before. Like I said before, Social Studies and Civil Studies wasn't my fortee in highschool. I was interested in Math and Science.

It makes good sense, Most people were not explaining how is works boths sides, or overall. It was just Natural Law guarantees this this and this. Thanks for explaining it better to me.

You are welcome. At first i thought you were trolling but you seem very genuine in your interest, that is good. Unfortunately, natural law is not something that is given much attention in philosophy or social studies courses.

Personally i'm a math and science guy myself, but Ron Paul has tangientally gotten me into politics, law, and economics as well.

BLS

07-17-2007, 02:27 PM

If this guy is a troll, he's successfully kept you all busy for the entire day.

IRO-bot

07-17-2007, 02:28 PM

Yeah, I am slowly learning. I am readind the Federalist, Anti-Federalist Papers. I also bought Ron Paul's book A foriegn policy of freedom

ThePieSwindler

07-17-2007, 02:31 PM

If this guy is a troll, he's successfully kept you all busy for the entire day.

Eh he has too many posts to be a troll. Anyone who sets up a strawman arguement in a thread that is this long makes the red flags go up in my head. But with his # of posts, and genuine will to learn, he's most certainly not a troll.

IRO-bot

07-17-2007, 02:31 PM

If this guy is a troll, he's successfully kept you all busy for the entire day.

What's with people degrading others because they are uninformed about topics. WTF??? I am sorry I am not an economic guru or a damn political analyist. I have never been in politics nor cared until recently. I am sorry that I have been misinformed and unlearned for 24 years. Please excuse me pitiful lack of knowledge.

Bob Cochran

07-17-2007, 02:35 PM

This wasn't my conclusion. This was the conclusion of many others on this forum and I disagree with them.
I don't care where the conclusion originated, it's still dumb.

ThePieSwindler

07-17-2007, 02:36 PM

What's with people degrading others because they are uninformed about topics. WTF??? I am sorry I am not an economic guru or a damn political analyist. I have never been in politics nor cared until recently. I am sorry that I have been misinformed and unlearned for 24 years. Please excuse me pitiful lack of knowledge.

Nah no one is actually calling you a troll, he just said it was conditional (IF you were, then ___). There are alot of people who have not yet taken the red pill. I was one of them 2-3 months ago.

Bob Cochran

07-17-2007, 02:36 PM

If this guy is a troll, he's successfully kept you all busy for the entire day.
Yeah, I really think many of us (not me so much as others :D) need to take an extended break from this forum and from Ron Paul in general. Obsessing over this guy's campaign is not good for anyone.

IRO-bot

07-17-2007, 02:48 PM

what exactly is strawman anyways? is it an insult to me?

DisabledVet

07-17-2007, 02:49 PM

http://tofuhut.racknine.net/pics/intermission.gif

""Lets go out to the lobby....""

mconder

07-17-2007, 02:58 PM

umm, no. the states are bound by the constitution as well. any laws they make have to be constitutional.

I have to disagree somewhat. The Constitution basically spells out the powers of the Federal government. The tenth amendment say that all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government in the Constitution are reserved to the states and the people. One power the federal government is granted is that of guaranteeing each state a republican form of government, though it is somewhat ambiguous what is meant by a republican form of government unless you read other period documents written by the framers. I believe this is the basis behind all state governments having a state constitution very similar to the Federal one. The problem is, most state constitutions have been amended much more than the federal Constitution.

Section 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,

mconder

07-17-2007, 03:01 PM

Under the Supremacy Clause, everyone must follow federal law in the face of conflicting state law. It has long been established that "a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute"

Just what do you suppose the purpose of the tenth amendment was then?

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

mconder

07-17-2007, 03:05 PM

van B said, "hen on your logic there is nothing in the Bill of Rights that says nobody can't be raped, or beaten, or murdered.

This is covered in the Declaration of Independence, a document I consider legally binding even if the modern world doesn't. The founders certainly looked at it as a legal document.

1000-points-of-fright

07-17-2007, 03:10 PM

I see that point. That makes alot more sense saying it that way. But someone said earlier on this post the being teased isn't liberty, or freedom. An unalienable right.

Ah, young grasshopper... but teasing someone is free speech. Remember, we don't have to like what people say, but we must accept that they have the right to say it. Besides, sticks and stones etc. I'm free to call you all sorts of bad names and you have the right to tell me to go fuck myself. Beautiful ain't it?

MBA2008

07-17-2007, 03:43 PM

Thank you, jblosser & PieSwindler.

I had to step away, but you two kept the sanity going.

I'll join in again after intermission.

JoshLowry

07-17-2007, 03:45 PM

Please keep the thread on topic. No need to exchange blows.

Send a private message if you want to take it off topic with a particular person.

amdajo

07-17-2007, 04:23 PM

Thank you, jblosser & PieSwindler.

I had to step away, but you two kept the sanity going.

I'll join in again after intermission.

Sanity? Is that what you call this discussion. I'm sorry I even started this thread.

I know exactly where I stand on this issue, but I started this thread because I felt I was seeing a lot of different views on state's right's, and I thought it was an important debate to have. Unfortunately, I was almost immediately attacked with a "what's wrong with you; this is so simple; what don't you get!"

Then I was called a rat; thick; a troll; then thick, again. I think it was somewhere in the middle of all this, that a person asked me what my problem was because everyone is agreeing. Yeah, I see his point. Let's see, 15 pages and 140 something posts of debate (I mean agreements).

I must admit I am thick about one thing- why I ever thought that this forum would be any different from any other forum or blog discussion. I guess I thought that a forum like this with so many liberty-loving, like-minded people would be open to a civil discussion. My bad!

p.s. Evan, my advice to you is run, don't walk. Run away as fast as you can from this forum and any other blogs with discussions like this. You'll never know it, but someday you'll thank me. Otherwise, there's a good chance you'll end up a self-righteous a-hole like so many of the people on these so-called "discussion" boards.

jblosser

07-17-2007, 04:25 PM

I hope you at least saw me say I didn't think you were thick. I don't think I called you anything else, other than sincere.

Craig_R

07-17-2007, 04:41 PM

What always makes my brain cramp is the argument of some of the founders against even having a bill of rights.

that was for fear that people would take that as an all inclusive list, to list all our rights would take at least a lifetime, hell they might still be listing those to this day.

DeadheadForPaul

07-17-2007, 04:48 PM

what exactly is strawman anyways? is it an insult to me?

Evan, a strawman is "an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position"

Example:
Person A: I don't think children should run into the busy streets.
Person B: I think that it would be foolish to lock children up all day.

Person B deliberately misrepresents Person A's opinion to turn the audience against person A.

Person B uses a strawman to avoid the issue that Person A is discussing

For example:
Ron Paul Supporter: I think we should get out of Iraq
Neo-con: Why do you not support our troops?

If you have free time, I highly recommend going to a bookstore and picking up a basic manual on logic. I took a logic course during my freshman year in college, and it has allowed me to see through the "arguments" of politicians, lawyers, pundits, etc. You'll immediately be able to say "that's a straw man! That's an ad hominem attack!"

Craig_R

07-17-2007, 04:56 PM

Craig_R

07-17-2007, 04:57 PM

Bob Cochran

07-17-2007, 04:59 PM

Yeah.......some o' you DEFNIITELY need to get away from the 'puters....:eek:

Craig_R

07-17-2007, 05:01 PM

Sanity? Is that what you call this discussion. I'm sorry I even started this thread.

I know exactly where I stand on this issue, but I started this thread because I felt I was seeing a lot of different views on state's right's, and I thought it was an important debate to have. Unfortunately, I was almost immediately attacked with a "what's wrong with you; this is so simple; what don't you get!"

Then I was called a rat; thick; a troll; then thick, again. I think it was somewhere in the middle of all this, that a person asked me what my problem was because everyone is agreeing. Yeah, I see his point. Let's see, 15 pages and 140 something posts of debate (I mean agreements).

I must admit I am thick about one thing- why I ever thought that this forum would be any different from any other forum or blog discussion. I guess I thought that a forum like this with so many liberty-loving, like-minded people would be open to a civil discussion. My bad!

p.s. Evan, my advice to you is run, don't walk. Run away as fast as you can from this forum and any other blogs with discussions like this. You'll never know it, but someday you'll thank me. Otherwise, there's a good chance you'll end up a self-righteous a-hole like so many of the people on these so-called "discussion" boards.

will find self righteous assholes anywhere you are looking for them, they are not unique to this forum any forum or even the internet. the trick is to not seek them out.

admitting you started this thread for some form of game play puts you right into this category in my opinion.

JoshLowry

07-17-2007, 05:05 PM

This should be known to everyone here, but there are no dumb questions.

Many people joining these forums will be new to his campaign. The same questions are going to be answered many times over the next year and a half.

Please use your best judgement when responding to a question. Even if an answer seems blatantly obvious kindly point out the correct answer, where they can get more information, or do not respond.

amdajo

07-17-2007, 05:09 PM

will find self righteous assholes anywhere you are looking for them, they are not unique to this forum any forum or even the internet. the trick is to not seek them out.

admitting you started this thread for some form of game play puts you right into this category in my opinion.

"Game play."

Here's an example of a strawman for you, Evan.

Good Luck!

Craig_R

07-17-2007, 06:39 PM

"Game play."

Here's an example of a strawman for you, Evan.

Good Luck!

thats no straw man dude, your first post was a question you seemed confused on your most recent post says you were just posting it to start a debate.

I posted a pretty short sweet answer to you before the self annointed constitutional scholars showed up. If you knew where you stood and asked the question just to spark and all day debate then yeah, I'd have to say you were playing some sort of game. thats just my opinion

it was a pretty interesting discussion tho

anyway, I think the original confusion you were feeling stemmed from someone saying Paul was gonna try to repeal the 14th amendment. I havent heard anything about this before today and I dont think Paul takes that position seeing as how he just introduced legislation that would take care of the anchor baby syndrome which has plauged us. so hopefully that clears up any confusion.

BTW I wasnt trying to start a fight just pointing out how some others might view what you were doing after reading your recent post.