Let's Discuss the Unknown Presidential Conntenders

[treis]

@Dunawake

(A) `A verbal prayer offered in a school is unconstitutional, even if that prayer is both voluntary and denominationally neutral.’ (Engel v. Vitale, 1962, Abington v. Schempp, 1963, Commissioner of Education v. School Committee of Leyden, 1971.)

The respondent Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 9, New Hyde Park, New York, acting in its official capacity under state law, directed the School District’s principal to cause the following prayer to be said aloud by each class in the presence of a teacher at the beginning of each school day:

  "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country." 

Because of the prohibition of the First Amendment against the enactment of any law “respecting an establishment of religion,” which is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, state officials may not compose an official state prayer and require that it be recited in the public schools of the State at the beginning of each school day - even if the prayer is denominationally neutral and pupils who wish to do so may remain silent or be excused from the room while the prayer is being recited

Engel v. Vitale (You might need to register)

As you can see the case has no resemblance to what Paul says it does. His principles might be inflexible, but he certainly is able to bend reality to suit himself.

[Malodorous]

@Dunawake

I probably should have linked this speech along with the first one, but here you go.

The Partial Birth Abortion Ban

So he belives that the federal gov’t shouldn’t regulate abortion, except that it’s really important that abortions not happen, so he’ll vote for laws prohibiting abortion anyways. I guess it’s good he’s against gov’t intrusion in unimportant cases that don’t matter though. Also he claims the reason he’s overlooking his libertarian principles here is:

Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and I will vote in favor of it. I fear, though, that when the pro-life community uses the arguments of the opposing side to advance its agenda, it does more harm than good.

But the law doesn’t actually prevent any abortions, it only forces woman into undergoing a different procedure. I’d assume that Paul is just ignorant of this fact if it weren’t for the fact that he was an obstetrician, instead I suspect that he didn’t want to have voting against an abortion ban on his record should a primary challenge arise for his seat in what I’m assuming is a heavily pro-choice congressional district.

Also his characterization of those Court decisions regarding prayer in schools are disingenous as hell.

I came into this thread disagreeing but respecting Paul. I still disagre with him.

[Dunawake]

@treis

Engel v. Vitale (You might need to register)

As you can see the case has no resemblance to what Paul says it does. His principles might be inflexible, but he certainly is able to bend reality to suit himself.

Thanks for that treis, I agree that those quotes he took are definitely disingenuous, and my enthusiasm is suitably diminished by that. I think he still has a lot of good ideas, but that’s a definite mark against him in my book.

[Captain_Carrot]

@Dunawake

Thanks for that treis, I agree that those quotes he took are definitely disingenuous, and my enthusiasm is suitably diminished by that. I think he still has a lot of good ideas, but that’s a definite mark against him in my book.

He’s beyond disingenuous; those cases contradict what he’s claiming. Paul either knows what the precedent was, in which case he is lying, or he does not, in which case he is lazy (for not bothering to research something he uses to make an argument).

I realize I’m saying much the same thing that you did, and it sound a bit stern, but I’m just trying to emphasize the point.

The first two cases you quoted from his cite we recently went over in my Gov class, and when I read them in that post, I immediately thought Hey, that’s not what those say….

[Malodorous]

Also his use of quotes make followed by the case name and date make it look like he’s actually quoting the court decisions themselves. But I seriously doubt that, for example in case C), a court decision read “It is unconstitutional for students to see the Ten Commandments since they might read, meditate upon, respect, or obey them”.

Anyone better at pulling up court cases do a search and verify that the quoted text aren’t actually in the decisions cited?

And on edit after some googling, here is the text that was actually in the decision I was talking about:

@court decision

Posting of religious texts on the wall serves no such educational
function. If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any
effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon,
perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments. However desirable
this might be as a matter of private devotion, it is not a permissible state
objective under the Establishment Clause.

The text quoted by Paul is indeed altered to make it sound worse

[Elendil_s_Heir]

Who cares about them? I’m running! http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8613975#post8613975

[FriarTed]

@Elendil's Heir

Who cares about them? I’m running! http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8613975#post8613975

Has the Esprix/Polycarp campaign fizzled out?