|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ineverlie&I'malwaysri
Joined: 09 Aug 2011
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:59 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
So now you want to make every candidate responsible for everything all of his supporters do??? So some of his supporters are racist. What about all the blacks who support RP? And he will do more for blacks by ending the drug war than any other candidate, including BO.
Regarding your second link regarding accepting a donation from a white supremacist, RP spokesman addressed that more than adequately:
| Quote: |
"Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and inalienable rights. If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he's wasted his money," Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said. "Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom."
"And that's $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does," Benton added. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So the guy who founded Stormfront made a $500 donation to Paul's campaign?
"Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and inalienable rights. If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he's wasted his money," Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said. "Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom."
"And that's $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does," Benton added.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22331091/ns/politics-decision_08/t/paul-keeps-donation-white-supremacist/#.Twys0yNuGL8
Sounds reasonable to me; and a very far cry from him being on the "payroll" of neo-Nazis (which is no doubt how the race-baiting MSNBC crowd would falsely love to spin it). Ron Paul raises millions of dollars in donations from individual donors (the top donors being individual soldiers who are tired of the endless wars based on lies and love his non-interventionist platform), so he's really not beholden to any special interests. The same can certainly not be said about any other candidates, Dem or Rep, who receive nearly all their money from Goldman Sachs et al.
| Quote: |
| and is involved with far right organizations. |
Such as? Do we need to get into another argument about how libertarianism is not "right wing"? If you have any proof whatsoever that Ron Paul is actively involved in even a single "far right" organization (ie. neo-Nazis), then I'll eat my shorts. FYI, the John Birch Society, whether you agree with them or not, is not "right wing" either.
| Quote: |
| I do not personally think that Paul is a racist, but it makes it easier to marginalize the things that he is right about. I agree with him on lots of things, but probably for very different reasons, and I do not want someone like him to be the champion for those ideas because it makes it easier to paint those ideas as crazy. Ron Paul, if he is a serious candidate should care if someone like me likes him, as I suspect that many people have a similar view of him as I do. |
I guess this is fair. However, you can't please all the people all the time, so if he was really interested in just being "likeable" to the average Joe who voted for Obama because he gives nice speeches, then he would not be the man he is today. His consistent voting record endears him to many people, but it also prevents him from being Mr. Popular with everyone and their dog.
| Quote: |
| Like I said before I disagree with lots of his platform, so for me, and most people, his voting record isn't perfect, if someone always votes no than of course he will be right a lot of the time. |
I meant in terms of a constitutional voting record. In over three decades Ron Paul has never voted for a single bill that would undermine the constitution. He has consistently opposed things like the PATRIOT Act, NDAA, banker bailouts, unilateral wars of aggression, unbalanced budgets, etc. even when it was unpopular to do so.
Last edited by visitorq on Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:28 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote: |
So now you want to make every candidate responsible for everything all of his supporters do??? So some of his supporters are racist. What about all the blacks who support RP? And he will do more for blacks by ending the drug war than any other candidate, including BO.
Regarding your second link regarding accepting a donation from a white supremacist, RP spokesman addressed that more than adequately:
| Quote: |
"Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and inalienable rights. If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he's wasted his money," Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said. "Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom."
"And that's $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does," Benton added. |
|
It is not my intention to make every candidate responsible for every donation, but when said candidate repeatedly takes contributions from leading voices of the white supremacist and far right movement, takes smiling pictures with said people, has his name on newsletter that pander to those people, makes speeches to far right groups that have racial views, well it makes him far less than ideal as a spokesperson for liberty. If you can't see why people make this an issue than you are every bit as blind to you chosen candidates faults as those supporters that overlook everything wicked that Obama has done.
Like I said before this is not why I dislike Paul as a candidate, I strongly disagree with his economic policies and views on state rights, but this is why I view him as a bad person to articulate my ideals, and some of the reasons why I find him dis-likable as person. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| It is not my intention to make every candidate responsible for every donation, but when said candidate repeatedly takes contributions from leading voices of the white supremacist and far right movement, takes smiling pictures with said people, has his name on newsletter that pander to those people, makes speeches to far right groups that have racial views, well it makes him far less than ideal as a spokesperson for liberty. |
Except that you're just making most of this up and grossly exaggerating it. I checked out your first link, and it was just sheer nonsense. A couple of unknown ex-KKK members (whom RP most certainly did not know personally and had probably never even heard of) post a few comments on his webpage, and it's instant guilt by association?
They also label Lew Rockwell and other libertarians as racist "neo-Confederates" simply because they see the Civil War as a war of aggression against the south. I also share that view, and I am in no way a racist.
| Quote: |
| If you can't see why people make this an issue than you are every bit as blind to you chosen candidates faults as those supporters that overlook everything wicked that Obama has done. |
Because Obama's actions are actually wicked. You've yet to provide a single example of Ron Paul doing anything wicked. Getting a random, impromptu photo taken with a stranger (who happens to be an ex-KKK member) is nothing. Nor is having a few whackos post on your webpage.
| Quote: |
| Like I said before this is not why I dislike Paul as a candidate, I strongly disagree with his economic policies and views on state rights, but this is why I view him as a bad person to articulate my ideals, and some of the reasons why I find him dis-likable as person. |
Yeah, so bringing it around full circle, you simply just don't like Ron Paul. Whoop-dee-doo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
Except that you're just making most of this up and grossly exaggerating it. I checked out your first link, and it was just sheer nonsense. A couple of unknown ex-KKK members (whom RP most certainly did not know personally and had probably never even heard of) post a few comments on his webpage, and it's instant guilt by association? |
I love that episode of South Park (?) where the KKK realizes that anything they publicly support will receive massive negative backlash from the general population. So they start publicly supporting things/people they hate to sway public opinion in the direction they actually want. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| It is not my intention to make every candidate responsible for every donation, but when said candidate repeatedly takes contributions from leading voices of the white supremacist and far right movement, takes smiling pictures with said people, has his name on newsletter that pander to those people, makes speeches to far right groups that have racial views, well it makes him far less than ideal as a spokesperson for liberty. |
Except that you're just making most of this up and grossly exaggerating it. I checked out your first link, and it was just sheer nonsense. A couple of unknown ex-KKK members (whom RP most certainly did not know personally and had probably never even heard of) post a few comments on his webpage, and it's instant guilt by association?
They also label Lew Rockwell and other libertarians as racist "neo-Confederates" simply because they see the Civil War as a war of aggression against the south. I also share that view, and I am in no way a racist.
| Quote: |
| If you can't see why people make this an issue than you are every bit as blind to you chosen candidates faults as those supporters that overlook everything wicked that Obama has done. |
Because Obama's actions are actually wicked. You've yet to provide a single example of Ron Paul doing anything wicked. Getting a random, impromptu photo taken with a stranger (who happens to be an ex-KKK member) is nothing. Nor is having a few whackos post on your webpage.
| Quote: |
| Like I said before this is not why I dislike Paul as a candidate, I strongly disagree with his economic policies and views on state rights, but this is why I view him as a bad person to articulate my ideals, and some of the reasons why I find him dis-likable as person. |
Yeah, so bringing it around full circle, you simply just don't like Ron Paul. Whoop-dee-doo. |
He used the author of the turner diaries fundraising list. The stranger you are talking about is the founder of the most famous white supremacist website. These are not anonymous people, but loom large in that movement. Again I don't think he is a racist, but I am frustrated that this is the only guy receiving attention that is against the wars. As to the John Birch Society, I maintain that they are a far right wing organization and unless you have some compelling proof otherwise we will just have to disagree.
As to the wicked things, he hasn't done anything wicked yet, compared to Obama, because a single dissenting vote in the house has no power, but again I believe that his economic platform, along with his states right platform. His we the people act had lots of potential to be wicked. To bring it full circle, you simply like Ron Paul, Whoop-dee-doo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| He used the author of the turner diaries fundraising list. The stranger you are talking about is the founder of the most famous white supremacist website. |
Yeah? Never heard of him. And most likely neither had Ron Paul. If you have any proof, or even evidence, to the contrary then go ahead and provide it (onus is on you). That link you provided was simply preposterous.
| Quote: |
| Again I don't think he is a racist, but I am frustrated that this is the only guy receiving attention that is against the wars. |
If you actually cared about the message (instead of the person vocalizing it), then surely you wouldn't feel frustrated... Therefore I have to assume you're more interested in these petty attempts at assassinating his character.
| Quote: |
| As to the John Birch Society, I maintain that they are a far right wing organization and unless you have some compelling proof otherwise we will just have to disagree. |
Ridiculous. I don't have to prove anything. JBS is not even remotely "right wing", as you claimed (in fact they are outspokenly opposed to fascism and "right wing" politics). Onus is on you to prove otherwise (or at least properly define your terms).
| Quote: |
| As to the wicked things, he hasn't done anything wicked yet, compared to Obama, because a single dissenting vote in the house has no power, but again I believe that his economic platform, along with his states right platform. His we the people act had lots of potential to be wicked. |
You might edit the above to make sense... Anyway, you at least admit he hasn't done anything wicked yet. That's good.
I'll also point out that being a "single dissenting voice in the house" is no picnic, nor is it the path to easily advancing your political career. It takes guts (since it can be unpopular both among your peers and the general public), and only a principled person would do it. Ron Paul walks the walk.
| Quote: |
| To bring it full circle, you simply like Ron Paul, Whoop-dee-doo. |
Actually you are incorrect, as I prefer to focus on the issues, and not on the characters of politicians. I actually know quite little about Ron Paul's personal life (aside from the fact that he was once a doctor who helped many people pro bono), and I honestly don't care all that much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| He used the author of the turner diaries fundraising list. The stranger you are talking about is the founder of the most famous white supremacist website. |
Yeah? Never heard of him. And most likely neither had Ron Paul. If you have any proof, or even evidence, to the contrary then go ahead and provide it (onus is on you). That link you provided was simply preposterous. |
You've never heard of the turner diaries? It's a neo-nazi bible, Tim McViegh loved it. The last link wasn't great, here is a some what better one. Also you've never heard of stormfront? Weird.
"Mr. Paul is not unaware of that strain among his supporters. Mr. Crane of the Cato Institute recalled comparing notes with Mr. Paul in the early 1980s about direct mail solicitations for money. When Mr. Crane said that mailing lists of people with the most extreme views seemed to draw the best response, Mr. Paul responded that he found the same thing with a list of subscribers to the Spotlight, a now-defunct publication founded by the holocaust denier Willis A. Carto."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/us/politics/ron-paul-disowns-extremists-views-but-doesnt-disavow-the-support.html?pagewanted=all
| visitorq wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Again I don't think he is a racist, but I am frustrated that this is the only guy receiving attention that is against the wars. |
If you actually cared about the message (instead of the person vocalizing it), then surely you wouldn't feel frustrated... Therefore I have to assume you're more interested in these petty attempts at assassinating his character. |
I do care about the message, but the guy delivering also is arguing things that I believe are stupid, reckless and overly ideological. Also his views and association damage the message itself. It's frustrating because I can't support the only person who is right on some issues, but not all, that I care deeply about.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| As to the John Birch Society, I maintain that they are a far right wing organization and unless you have some compelling proof otherwise we will just have to disagree. |
Ridiculous. I don't have to prove anything. JBS is not even remotely "right wing", as you claimed (in fact they are outspokenly opposed to fascism and "right wing" politics). Onus is on you to prove otherwise (or at least properly define your terms). |
Once you start getting into the extremes it's very hard to have a consensus on what is right or left or what not. Pretty much any web page about the John Birch Society describes them as far right wing. In political science libertarianism has traditionally been considered right wing, and there is a reason Paul is a member of the republican party. The less black helicopters are associated with being anti war the better though.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| As to the wicked things, he hasn't done anything wicked yet, compared to Obama, because a single dissenting vote in the house has no power, but again I believe that his economic platform, along with his states right platform. His we the people act had lots of potential to be wicked. |
You might edit the above to make sense... Anyway, you at least admit he hasn't done anything wicked yet. That's good.
I'll also point out that being a "single dissenting voice in the house" is no picnic. It takes guts (since it can be unpopular both among your peers and the general public), and only a principled person would do it. Ron Paul walks the walk.
| Quote: |
| To bring it full circle, you simply like Ron Paul, Whoop-dee-doo. |
Actually you are incorrect, as I focus almost entirely on the issues, and not on the characters of politicians. I actually know quite little about Ron Paul's personal life (aside from the fact that he was once a doctor who helped many people pro bono), and I honestly don't care all that much. |
What I'm saying is that he hasn't done anything truly wicked yet isn't from a lack of trying, but from a lack on power. Do you know about the "We The People Act"? Here is some language from the actual bill.
"The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court�
(1) shall not adjudicate�
(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and
(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1)."
You know why so many racist, homophobic, militia members and fundamental Christians are interested in this guy? Take a look up. Want to know why I don't trust state rights supporters, again take a look up. Why I have a hard time believing all the stuff about liberty,......
It sounds like you really don't know that much about Ron Paul. I am a bit surprised actually. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote: |
[ And he will do more for blacks by ending the drug war than any other candidate, including BO.
] |
Unless he can get Congress and the Senate to go along with him, he will not be able to "end the drug war". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| He used the author of the turner diaries fundraising list. The stranger you are talking about is the founder of the most famous white supremacist website. |
Yeah? Never heard of him. And most likely neither had Ron Paul. If you have any proof, or even evidence, to the contrary then go ahead and provide it (onus is on you). That link you provided was simply preposterous. |
You've never heard of the turner diaries? It's a neo-nazi bible, Tim McViegh loved it. The last link wasn't great, here is a some what better one. Also you've never heard of stormfront? Weird. |
I've heard of Stormfront. But not of the the people in charge of running it... Anyway, your link had a whole slew of nutbar neo-Nazi types who had merely posted a comment on his webpage, and that was supposed to mean he was somehow "affiliated" with them. Hence my calling it preposterous.
Oh please. Nothing in the article indicates in the least that RP supports any of the views espoused by racists. Just one flimsy attempt to paint him as "guilty by association" after another. Just because his libertarian message resonates with a tiny handful of racist neo-Nazi types does not in any way mean he is accountable for it.
Analogy: there are probably some extremist black-power groups out there who think Obama is their Messiah. They might hold the view that whites should all be killed or enslaved, but even if Obama didn't take the time to "disavow" the views of this small group of crackpot racists, in no way would hold it against him (can't believe I even have to point that out)...
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Again I don't think he is a racist, but I am frustrated that this is the only guy receiving attention that is against the wars. |
If you actually cared about the message (instead of the person vocalizing it), then surely you wouldn't feel frustrated... Therefore I have to assume you're more interested in these petty attempts at assassinating his character. |
I do care about the message, but the guy delivering also is arguing things that I believe are stupid, reckless and overly ideological. Also his views and association damage the message itself. It's frustrating because I can't support the only person who is right on some issues, but not all, that I care deeply about. |
This makes very little sense. If you care about the message then you could start with first giving credit where it's due, and then rationally criticizing views you don't agree with. Instead, all this focus on racism and slanderous BS contained in that crackpot link you provided ends up being a waste of time.
| Quote: |
| Once you start getting into the extremes it's very hard to have a consensus on what is right or left or what not. Pretty much any web page about the John Birch Society describes them as far right wing. In political science libertarianism has traditionally been considered right wing, and there is a reason Paul is a member of the republican party. The less black helicopters are associated with being anti war the better though. |
Only Leftist publications written by ignorant hacks would describe the JBS as "far right wing"... It's seriously absurd. "Far right wing" would be fascism. Or neo-Nazis. Or extremists calling for a militarist state run by a dictator. Etc. In other words, the exact opposite of the agenda of the JBS.
| Quote: |
What I'm saying is that he hasn't done anything truly wicked yet isn't from a lack of trying, but from a lack on power. Do you know about the "We The People Act"? Here is some language from the actual bill.
"The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court�
(1) shall not adjudicate�
(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and
(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1)."
|
Uh huh. State's rights is a complicated issue. What exactly in the above do you object to? Not really sure where to start unless you get more specific.
| Quote: |
| You know why so many racist, homophobic, militia members and fundamental Christians are interested in this guy? Take a look up. Want to know why I don't trust state rights supporters, again take a look up. Why I have a hard time believing all the stuff about liberty,...... |
If you wish to debate this, you need to get a lot more specific and provide examples.
| Quote: |
| It sounds like you really don't know that much about Ron Paul. I am a bit surprised actually. |
I don't know all that much about his personal life. About his beliefs, I think I know a fair deal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| He used the author of the turner diaries fundraising list. The stranger you are talking about is the founder of the most famous white supremacist website. |
Yeah? Never heard of him. And most likely neither had Ron Paul. If you have any proof, or even evidence, to the contrary then go ahead and provide it (onus is on you). That link you provided was simply preposterous. |
You've never heard of the turner diaries? It's a neo-nazi bible, Tim McViegh loved it. The last link wasn't great, here is a some what better one. Also you've never heard of stormfront? Weird. |
I've heard of Stormfront. But not of the the people in charge of running it... Anyway, your link had a whole slew of nutbar neo-Nazi types who had merely posted a comment on his webpage, and that was supposed to mean he was somehow "affiliated" with them. Hence my calling it preposterous.
Oh please. Nothing in the article indicates in the least that RP supports any of the views espoused by racists. Just one flimsy attempt to paint him as "guilty by association" after another. Just because his libertarian message resonates with a tiny handful of racist neo-Nazi types does not in any way mean he is accountable for it.
Analogy: there are probably some extremist black-power groups out there who think Obama is their Messiah. They might hold the view that whites should all be killed or enslaved, but even if Obama didn't take the time to "disavow" the views of this small group of crackpot racists, in no way would hold it against him (can't believe I even have to point that out)...
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Again I don't think he is a racist, but I am frustrated that this is the only guy receiving attention that is against the wars. |
If you actually cared about the message (instead of the person vocalizing it), then surely you wouldn't feel frustrated... Therefore I have to assume you're more interested in these petty attempts at assassinating his character. |
I do care about the message, but the guy delivering also is arguing things that I believe are stupid, reckless and overly ideological. Also his views and association damage the message itself. It's frustrating because I can't support the only person who is right on some issues, but not all, that I care deeply about. |
This makes very little sense. If you care about the message then you could start with first giving credit where it's due, and then rationally criticizing views you don't agree with. Instead, all this focus on racism and slanderous BS contained in that crackpot link you provided ends up being a waste of time.
| Quote: |
| Once you start getting into the extremes it's very hard to have a consensus on what is right or left or what not. Pretty much any web page about the John Birch Society describes them as far right wing. In political science libertarianism has traditionally been considered right wing, and there is a reason Paul is a member of the republican party. The less black helicopters are associated with being anti war the better though. |
Only Leftist publications written by ignorant hacks would describe the JBS as "far right wing"... It's seriously absurd. "Far right wing" would be fascism. Or neo-Nazis. Or extremists calling for a militarist state run by a dictator. Etc. In other words, the exact opposite of the agenda of the JBS.
| Quote: |
What I'm saying is that he hasn't done anything truly wicked yet isn't from a lack of trying, but from a lack on power. Do you know about the "We The People Act"? Here is some language from the actual bill.
"The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court�
(1) shall not adjudicate�
(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and
(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1)."
|
Uh huh. State's rights is a complicated issue. What exactly in the above do you object to? Not really sure where to start unless you get more specific.
| Quote: |
| You know why so many racist, homophobic, militia members and fundamental Christians are interested in this guy? Take a look up. Want to know why I don't trust state rights supporters, again take a look up. Why I have a hard time believing all the stuff about liberty,...... |
If you wish to debate this, you need to get a lot more specific and provide examples.
| Quote: |
| It sounds like you really don't know that much about Ron Paul. I am a bit surprised actually. |
I don't know all that much about his personal life. About his beliefs, I think I know a fair deal. |
well, I imagine you can probably guess why I would be opposed to that particular act. It, in essence, is saying that the supreme court can not rule against state laws in regards to religion, sex, or right to privacy. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you don't live in the south, I do, or at least used to. An individual state is more likely to trend towards extremes than the whole country. By removing the power of the supreme court, and other federal courts, it gives the states the power to act in an unconstitutional manner. Seven state constitutions prohibit atheists from holding office. The supreme court ruled that unconstitutional, but under this act that ruling would have no power. Many states ban things like sodomy, or other sexual acts. Also the act would basically overturn Roe Vs. Wade, this among other things makes me question his call for liberty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| well, I imagine you can probably guess why I would be opposed to that particular act. It, in essence, is saying that the supreme court can not rule against state laws in regards to religion, sex, or right to privacy. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you don't live in the south, I do, or at least used to. An individual state is more likely to trend towards extremes than the whole country. By removing the power of the supreme court, and other federal courts, it gives the states the power to act in an unconstitutional manner. Seven state constitutions prohibit atheists from holding office. The supreme court ruled that unconstitutional, but under this act that ruling would have no power. Many states ban things like sodomy, or other sexual acts. Also the act would basically overturn Roe Vs. Wade, this among other things makes me question his call for liberty. |
Um, you realize that this type of argument can cut both ways if the SCOTUS rules something constitutional which isn't or vice versa? Ex. if a state legalizes gay marriage, then under the WTP act the federal courts would not be able to overturn it. I guess it depends which side you're on, but it's not like some state can just amend its constitution to imprison all gays or enslave all non-whites or whatever else... We have checks and balances.
Anyway, I haven't read the whole bill, and I'm not a constitutional scholar by any stretch; but I would certainly never support any legislation that allowed states to pass laws that were unconstitutional (or outside the Bill of Rights). But I guess I'd like to hear your argument (keeping the 10th amendment and Supremacy Clause in mind) as to how specifically the above proposed legislation is "unconstitutional"? Because unless I'm missing something or misreading, it just seems to be a fairly standard state's right bill. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| well, I imagine you can probably guess why I would be opposed to that particular act. It, in essence, is saying that the supreme court can not rule against state laws in regards to religion, sex, or right to privacy. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you don't live in the south, I do, or at least used to. An individual state is more likely to trend towards extremes than the whole country. By removing the power of the supreme court, and other federal courts, it gives the states the power to act in an unconstitutional manner. Seven state constitutions prohibit atheists from holding office. The supreme court ruled that unconstitutional, but under this act that ruling would have no power. Many states ban things like sodomy, or other sexual acts. Also the act would basically overturn Roe Vs. Wade, this among other things makes me question his call for liberty. |
Um, you realize that this type of argument can cut both ways if the SCOTUS rules something constitutional which isn't or vice versa? Ex. if a state legalizes gay marriage, then under the WTP act the federal courts would not be able to overturn it. I guess it depends which side you're on, but it's not like some state can just amend its constitution to imprison all gays or enslave all non-whites or whatever else... We have checks and balances.
Anyway, I haven't read the whole bill, and I'm not a constitutional scholar by any stretch; but I would certainly never support any legislation that allowed states to pass laws that were unconstitutional (or outside the Bill of Rights). But I guess I'd like to hear your argument (keeping the 10th amendment and Supremacy Clause in mind) as to how specifically the above proposed legislation is "unconstitutional"? Because unless I'm missing something or misreading, it just seems to be a fairly standard state's right bill. |
Well, the first amendment says that congress can not pass laws in regards to the establishment of religion, but like I mentioned before seven states have laws in their constitution that prohibit Atheists from holding office. According to the wording of Paul's bill the federal court would not be able to rule against state laws in matters of religion. The supreme court over ruled these state laws in 1961 in Torcaso Vs. Watkins based on the first amendment.
Judicial Review was established by Marbury Vrs. Madison, and in the framers own lifetime, so it's hard to see where a constitutionalist has legs to stand on that issue. Basically (as far as I can understand as a fellow non scholar) article 3 of the constitution establishes that the supreme court has the authority to rule on whether a federal law is constitutional or not.
Article 6 states that the federal constitution is the supreme law of the land. The reasoning for judical review being that the supreme court rules on matters of constitutionality, and since it has supreme jurisdiction on that matter what ever it rules trumps state law and state courts. I'm not sure how one could really make a constitutional argument for the "We The People Act". If you can make one, I'd be interested to hear it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Well, the first amendment says that congress can not pass laws in regards to the establishment of religion, but like I mentioned before seven states have laws in their constitution that prohibit Atheists from holding office. According to the wording of Paul's bill the federal court would not be able to rule against state laws in matters of religion. The supreme court over ruled these state laws in 1961 in Torcaso Vs. Watkins based on the first amendment. |
Again, it can go either way. For example, in 2005 the Supreme Court ruled that Congress can criminalize production and use of marijuana, even in states where it is approved for medical usage - and it's pretty hard to argue that such a ruling is making people more free or better off.
In the past SCOTUS had famously ruled that blacks could not become citizens (Dred Scott Decision), and in more recent times could just as easily have ruled against gay marriage even if some states had legalized it. There are many examples of it overstepping its bounds (and also often acting as a rubber stamp for the federal regime, esp. when it comes to police state issues). Anyway, putting your faith in the SCOTUS to always make the right decision is dangerous...
| Quote: |
| Judicial Review was established by Marbury Vrs. Madison, and in the framers own lifetime, so it's hard to see where a constitutionalist has legs to stand on that issue. Basically (as far as I can understand as a fellow non scholar) article 3 of the constitution establishes that the supreme court has the authority to rule on whether a federal law is constitutional or not. |
The Constitution does not explicitly grant judicial review power to the supreme court, although afaik it was generally accepted by the founders... The Congress is also able to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Again, it is complicated. We could debate the merits of it either way, but seeing as Ron Paul is a constitutional scholar of some note, I highly doubt he would propose anything unconstitutional...
| Quote: |
| Article 6 states that the federal constitution is the supreme law of the land. The reasoning for judical review being that the supreme court rules on matters of constitutionality, and since it has supreme jurisdiction on that matter what ever it rules trumps state law and state courts. |
Oversimplification. The federal constitution may be the supreme law of the land, but the authority enumerated therein is quite limited. Anything not covered is up to the states to decide, but it still has to be within the Bill of Rights (as per the 14th amendment). Issues like freedom of religion, abortion, gay marriage etc. are highly complicated/controversial, and it is very debatable whether the federal courts have the final (or any) say on these matters...
| Quote: |
| I'm not sure how one could really make a constitutional argument for the "We The People Act". If you can make one, I'd be interested to hear it. |
I'll see if I can dig anything up (would be nice if someone more knowledgeable on these matters like Kuros could weigh in too)... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Well, the first amendment says that congress can not pass laws in regards to the establishment of religion, but like I mentioned before seven states have laws in their constitution that prohibit Atheists from holding office. According to the wording of Paul's bill the federal court would not be able to rule against state laws in matters of religion. The supreme court over ruled these state laws in 1961 in Torcaso Vs. Watkins based on the first amendment. |
Again, it can go either way. For example, in 2005 the Supreme Court ruled that Congress can criminalize production and use of marijuana, even in states where it is approved for medical usage - and it's pretty hard to argue that such a ruling is making people more free or better off.
In the past SCOTUS had famously ruled that blacks could not become citizens (Dred Scott Decision), and in more recent times could just as easily have ruled against gay marriage even if some states had legalized it. There are many examples of it overstepping its bounds (and also often acting as a rubber stamp for the federal regime, esp. when it comes to police state issues). Anyway, putting your faith in the SCOTUS to always make the right decision is dangerous...
| Quote: |
| Judicial Review was established by Marbury Vrs. Madison, and in the framers own lifetime, so it's hard to see where a constitutionalist has legs to stand on that issue. Basically (as far as I can understand as a fellow non scholar) article 3 of the constitution establishes that the supreme court has the authority to rule on whether a federal law is constitutional or not. |
The Constitution does not explicitly grant judicial review power to the supreme court, although afaik it was generally accepted by the founders... The Congress is also able to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Again, it is complicated. We could debate the merits of it either way, but seeing as Ron Paul is a constitutional scholar of some note, I highly doubt he would propose anything unconstitutional...
| Quote: |
| Article 6 states that the federal constitution is the supreme law of the land. The reasoning for judical review being that the supreme court rules on matters of constitutionality, and since it has supreme jurisdiction on that matter what ever it rules trumps state law and state courts. |
Oversimplification. The federal constitution may be the supreme law of the land, but the authority enumerated therein is quite limited. Anything not covered is up to the states to decide, but it still has to be within the Bill of Rights (as per the 14th amendment). Issues like freedom of religion, abortion, gay marriage etc. are highly complicated/controversial, and it is very debatable whether the federal courts have the final (or any) say on these matters...
| Quote: |
| I'm not sure how one could really make a constitutional argument for the "We The People Act". If you can make one, I'd be interested to hear it. |
I'll see if I can dig anything up (would be nice if someone more knowledgeable on these matters like Kuros could weigh in too)... |
As to religion I think it is very clear, as per what the first amendment says. I think that there is some room for debate as to the privacy issue, but saying that the supreme court can't rule on matters concerning the establishment of a religion is a non starter, constitutionally speaking. The supreme court can be wrong, but it can be overturned, and I have more faith in the supreme court than in states like Texas, or Alabama, et al.
I know the classic line about voting with your feet and moving somewhere more free, but that ignores that moving is not always practical, affordable, or even desirable. Why should some Americans be substantially more, or less, free than others, why should state law change in substantial ways every time I cross a border. Also the idea is that states can compete to be the best one, but in reality they can also compete to have the most lax labor laws and in effect create a third world workforce in America bringing American working conditions down across the board. I see it as a way to increase disunity among states, and the people living there. Also, if anything local politicians have the opportunity to be more corrupt in a much more localized way. Governors and mayors are equally, if not more corrupt than their federal counterparts. And in local races it is easier for more extreme viewpoints to take power in their state, or city.
Many people who want the government out of schools want to teach their extremism to American kids. Why do you think Bachman wanted to get rid of the department of education? This issue is why all those extremists are interested in him. When I first heard heard about Ron Paul and his view on the war and the drug war I was very interested in him, and have read a lot about him, I find him frustrating, but if it came down to it I'd vote for him over any republican, other than possibly huntsman. If it were him vrs. Obama I'm not sure I could find the will to vote for either one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
