Yup, you did.
…which ruling states that outlawing sodomy is unconstitutional. Which is precisely the opposite of what jsgoddess’s link says.
But that applies just as equally to the state governments as it does to the federal government. Why is it more desireable to live under a state government that could revoke my precious rights than to live under a federal government that can revoke my precious rights? Either way, my precious rights are revoked, so what exactly do I get out of supporting Ron Paul on this issue?
D’oh! :smack:
I completely misread that, both in the original post and in the quote. My bad.
I think it falls under the concept that the closer you are to the person, the better the judgment of the government. A good example would be California’s medical marijuana laws that conflict with the Federal government. The CA legislators are closer to the people actually affected by the laws, so they have better judgment on the matter than the sweeping generalizations that the Federal government makes.
He basically thinks that the Federal government does not have a Constitutional right to rule on social policy, and that those matters should be left up to the states to determine what is in the best interest of their population. That goes for all those sticky social issues like abortion, gay marriage, drug laws, etc.
A bizarre take? I read the bill. Its declared purpose is “To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts”.
Personally, Lib, I would have thought you of all people would have hated this bill. By removing one of the major checks on legislative action, it greatly increases the power of Congress to pass laws banning things. As somebody who opposes government control, I’d have assumed you’d oppose this. Of course, if Paul hadn’t proposed this bill, I would have assumed he would oppose this, based on some other things he has said. But apparently there are limits to his libertarian principles. Ron Paul’s principle seems to be that he’s against the government restricting anything - unless it’s restricting something Ron Paul thinks should be restricted. If you changed the names, I’m sure any politician would agree with a principle this flexible.
If you don’t mind, I’ll do my own thinking. But whenever you make correct guesses, I’ll let you know.
Better odds, and nothing more. If a blue state sets things up the way you like, at least you can move there. But I don’t support Ron Paul. Not in the sense you likely mean. I think government without consent is a tyranny at any level — federal, state, or local.
ETA: Yeah, that’s what I said.
Paul isn’t a libertarian. He’s a Constitutionalist. The reason I left the Libertarian Party was that it was infested with Constitutionalists and other statists and recidivists. Personally, I would disband the legislature. But if people listened to me, we’d all be crazy.
Yeah, you’ll start any minute now.
Uh huh. That’s why I have these legions of supporters and sympathizers. My views are commonplace and uncontroversial.
A better example would be the Civil Rights movement circa 1960.
Well, a better example for me, anyway. Not so much for Ron Paul.
There you go Miller, spouting off again. If blacks, women, and gay people want rights they wouldn’t be living in the south in the first place, would they?
You seem to be focusing on the “my own” part. I’m focusing on the “thinking.”
Since I’m so bad at thinking and all, I looked back over your BBQ Pit posts for the past year hoping to steal a witty retort.
Yeah, uh, that really told me!
So, now you’re claiming that you don’t agree with Paul about getting rid of the Federal courts’ oversight of legislatures.
So, if you don’t agree with him, why are you defending him? Or is this more of that newfangled “thinking”?
I was registered Democrat up until about eight years ago, when I became undeclared. I’ve been about as vocal a critic of this administration as a person can be. Right now, Ron Paul has my vote over any of the Democratic candidates.
Because I like him. If this country were based on defending only the people with whom you agree, pruny old farts like you and me would have no protectors. I really don’t give a shit about the squabbling over ancient scribbles and which branch has the biggest dick. I just don’t like to see a position misrepresented, even when it’s one I don’t agree with.
But no one is misrepresenting him, that I’ve seen.
He wants to do away with judicial oversight of congressional decisions regarding certain aspects of life. The Act doesn’t say anything about getting rid of the congressional decisions, just the oversight.
In what way is that a misrepresentation of the bill he’s put forth?
waves a little flag with Liberal’s name on it 
I’m certainly not a lawyer, but the way I read the bill is that he wants to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts to federal matters. I already quoted his reasoning, which is that the Constitution specifies certain federal crimes. He believes that the jurisdiction of federal courts should apply to those and only those. And that’s exactly what one would expect a Constitutionalist to do.
But he is not, as you say, advocating getting rid of the court’s oversight of Congress. In fact, the bill specifically says, “The Supreme Court of the United States and all other Federal courts … are not prevented from determining the constitutionality of any Federal statute or administrative rule or procedure in considering any case arising under the Constitution of the United States…”.
What it does, as I see it, is put the onus on the federal court to shit or get off the pot. If a matter is unconstitutional, then it must so declare. Otherwise, it needs to concern itself with matters of piracy, treason, and counterfeiting and nothing else. It is a consistent position to hold based on his principles.