# Ron Paul attacks the 1964 Civil Rights Act; Ron Paul doesn't get America **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 3, 2012, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-attacks-the-1964-civil-rights-act-ron-paul-doesnt-get-america/608262 "2012-01-03T16:25:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2012, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-attacks-the-1964-civil-rights-act-ron-paul-doesnt-get-america/608262/101 "2012-01-05T01:02:37Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > So would you be comfortable if we just left it to the legislature (majority) to decide what was “too much” of a restriction on speech, religion, or the press? Well, we have this Bill of Rights thingy-bob. Apart from that, if the legislature/government was just an amorphous malignant blob with no connection to the people that elect it and we had no courts to rule on what laws are constitutional, I’d be more than a mite uncomfortable with restricting people’s “freedoms”. Since that’s not the case, I’m basically comfortable with majority decision making as it exists in America. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2012, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-attacks-the-1964-civil-rights-act-ron-paul-doesnt-get-america/608262/102 "2012-01-05T03:43:33Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > By giving special treatment to a group you undermine one of the key features of a democratic republic, that is everyone is equal. What special rights? Civil rights isn’t about giving anyone special rights, it’s about ensuring everyone has the same rights. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2012, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-attacks-the-1964-civil-rights-act-ron-paul-doesnt-get-america/608262/103 "2012-01-05T03:48:33Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Yes, it is a logical fallacy in that the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise. It doesn’t mean that it necessarily does not, either. Society is filled with very true slippery slope examples. In fact, in this example, we started with race and religion and moved into gender and disability and now sexual orientation is proposed. We keep adding classes and following down the slippery slope. The trip, by your own admission, stops only where a majority of people (through their representatives) decide where to allow property rights v. anti-discrimination laws. > > I did not say that at all. I was merely illustrating the nature of the basic function of private property: the right of the OWNER to exclude those he chooses to. If it becomes a majority-rules scenario (like you endorse) this basic property right is in the hands of a beneficent majority that allows it. This is not what rights are; rights are personal in nature and irrelevant of majority belief. But if you want to argue slippery slope, why should we assume the supremacy of property rights will stop with allowing property owners to racially discriminate? What if that’s only the opening wedge? Maybe we’ll end up with property owners having the right to rape and murder anyone on their property. Not likely, I’ll grant you, but it shows the fallacy of slippery slope arguments. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2012, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-attacks-the-1964-civil-rights-act-ron-paul-doesnt-get-america/608262/104 "2012-01-05T15:55:15Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Because he has to enforce all of it if he’s POTUS. I’d like to see a cite for this. All prosecutors have a privilege not to prosecute. No matter how just a case or the law, a prosecutor can say NO, and I am unaware of any means to force them to enforce the law. It makes no sense that individual prosecutors can say NO but the president, whose prosecutorial powers are broader than theirs, can’t. Examples abound of refusal to enforce a law. Obama won’t enforce DOMA. And lower level prosecutors refuse to enforce entire laws: Perjury; they claim it is too overwhelming because courts are rife with perjury, so they look the other way. Many states (about half if memory serves) still have adultery on the books, but I’d be hard pressed to find a case prosecuted in the last forty years. Nor is it impeachable. Impeachment is reserved for “High crimes and Misdemeanors” and prosecutorial discretion is neither; it’s prerogative. Please cite authority where the president must enforce all laws. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2012, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-attacks-the-1964-civil-rights-act-ron-paul-doesnt-get-america/608262/105 "2012-01-05T16:21:19Z")
> [@David42](#): > > Please cite authority where the president must enforce all laws. Article II, Section 3, Clause 3: [the President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed. I believe what others are referring to is that while the Executive may not charge every single person with every single crime due to the facts of the case, the abilities of the office to pursue every wrong, and other practical considerations, there is very little excuse for a President to say that he has a principled disagreement with the Congress and will refuse to follow the law as a matter of choice and policy. ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2012, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-attacks-the-1964-civil-rights-act-ron-paul-doesnt-get-america/608262/106 "2012-01-05T18:59:37Z")
> [@David42](#): > > I’d like to see a cite for this. > > All prosecutors have a privilege not to prosecute. No matter how just a case or the law, a prosecutor can say NO, and I am unaware of any means to force them to enforce the law. > > It makes no sense that individual prosecutors can say NO but the president, whose prosecutorial powers are broader than theirs, can’t. > > **Examples abound of refusal to enforce a law. Obama won’t enforce DOMA**. And lower level prosecutors refuse to enforce entire laws: Perjury; they claim it is too overwhelming because courts are rife with perjury, so they look the other way. Many states (about half if memory serves) still have adultery on the books, but I’d be hard pressed to find a case prosecuted in the last forty years. > > Nor is it impeachable. Impeachment is reserved for “High crimes and Misdemeanors” and prosecutorial discretion is neither; it’s prerogative. > > Please cite authority where the president must enforce all laws. The bolded portion is not true. Obama will not defend DOMA in court, but will continue to enforce it as long as it is the law of the land. These are entirely separate things. The California Prop 8 issue is similar in Gov. Brown will not defend it in court, but his administration is still enforcing it. This is an important distinction. If Congress passes a law the President considers unconstitutional, the Exectutive must still enforce/follow it (unless there is a judicial injunction), but not only can they refuse to defend it, under certain circumstances they can bring suit to strike it down. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-attacks-the-1964-civil-rights-act-ron-paul-doesnt-get-america/608262.md?page=5)