Woohoo! A fan! 
Exactly, and this is moronic. What about unconstitutional state laws? As I have been saying since the very beginning. He wants to give the decision to restrict your access gay marriages, blowjobs, and abortions to local morons. You think you’d end up with more liberty? You wouldn’t.
He fails to consider that consitutuinal interperetation of the 14th amendmant renders this law unconsitutional, but I guess he’d just ignore those decisions.
Like in San Francisco and Vermont, you mean?
When did I say such a thing? Let me reiterate that supporting a person’s position is not the same thing as recognizing the validity of his argument. That’s why I have atheist friends.
No, in fact I just posted the portion of the bill that recognizes the full authority of federal courts to determine the constitutionality of all legislation, including this one.
A so begins the inevitable march to world domination.
You got it, baby. Today electrons, tomorrow nuclei!
I’m sorry Lib, but you’ve greatly misinterpreted this bill. If Paul had proposed a bill to prohibit the Federal government from enacting any laws on “religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion” then he would be acting to support the Tenth Amendment. But his bill only restricted the federal courts and so it would have the opposite effect - it would have given Congress and the President the unrestricted power to pass legislation on any of the issues without any worries about be overruled by the courts.
If FDR had tried to pass a law back in 1932 saying that the courts couldn’t rule on any issue involving the national economy would you have called that a victory for the Tenth Amendment?
You’re wrong. Once again: "“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…”
Not my battle. Once again: “Let me reiterate that supporting a person’s position is not the same thing as recognizing the validity of his argument.”
Okay, I openly admit that I’m not exactly a great political debater, so what I’m wondering here is whether there is a strict divide between issues that are state and federal matters, or is it open to interpretation?
I’m guessing the latter.
Oh, and as far as the disparity between official polls and the FOX News debate poll which showed Ron Paul winning go… well, as a poster on another forum put it (roughly paraphrased), the people with cell phones who are inclined to dial in to such a poll are generally younger, possibly college students, and, out of all the Republican candidates, Ron Paul’s drastically abnormal viewpoints say “Fuck you, Dad!” far better than any of the other contenders.
Federal matters are enumerated in the US Constitution. State matters are enumerated in the various state constitutions. For example, Vermont matters are enumerated in the Vermont constitution. In the event of any conflict between the federal constitution and a state constitution, Article Six of the US Constitution applies.
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.
And yes, I understand that the phone polls are unscientific. But if you’re worried about what Paul’s ideas would do for your liberty, unfounded though your worry may be, just wait until Herr Romney puts his Homeland Gestapo on your ass, all constitutions be damned. Enjoy.
Thanks for the info.
As a registered independent leaning heavily towards Democrat, though, you don’t need to tell me how scary all of the Republican candidates are. 
What exactly is a “Constitutionalist”?
I like you Lib and I know your political beliefs are sincerely held, but those beliefs are different form the mainstream and they do tend to bias your perception of other people’s political beliefs. I will certainly concede that Paul’s beliefs are also off the mainstream but they are not libertarian or constitutionalist on many issues. Paul has openly stated that he wants to prohibit abortion and gay marriages and supports the conservative religious agenda. His We The People Act was created to increase the powers of the federal government to legislate in those areas. Regardless of whether or not you happen to agree with Paul’s views on abortion and gay marriage, you cannot argue that this is a limit on the federal government - another politician could have used the exact same language to write a bill increasing the federal government’s power over the interstate commerce clause. Paul wrote the bill in such a way that it gave the appearance that it was limiting federal powers but that’s no more true in reality than Justice Marshall’s Marbury decision in which he greatly expanded the power of the Supreme Court while supposedly denying it had jurisdiction in the case before it.
Only if by “all legislation” you mean “all federal legislation.” Whole Bean is correct that the federal courts would be prevented from determining the constitutionality of *state *legislation.
The bill would also prevent federal courts from reviewing “any claims based upon the right of privacy.” So 4th amendment claims would be out since those claims are not about federal statutes, regulations, or procedures so would not qualify for the exception. Thus, under the Bill, if the FBI puts hidden cameras in your bathroom, you’re just out of luck. That would suck.
Are nominations for the SDMB Understatement of the Year Award still open?
Broadly speaking, Constitutionalism is a Lockean philosophy that law exists (or ought to exist) to limit government.
That’s why opposing sides on the Second Amendment have opposite interpretations based on a comma. Words always serve the interpreter. But in his bill, Paul cites Article Four, section four, guaranteeing the states a Republican (as in, fashioned after a Republic) government. His interpretation is always Constitutionalist, i.e., that every word in the founding document proscribes some limitation to government. Again, whether or not you agree with either his interpretation or his intent, he is consistently representing his philosophical views. Any argument that is consistent with its rules — even if its premises are false — is logically valid. All I have said is that Paul has offered a valid argument for the view he holds. That does not make him crazy. In fact, it’s the opposite. The other candidates are crazy because their views are based on political expediency. Their policy statements are completely arbitrary, designed for the sole purpose of not losing critical votes. If you have an understanding of Paul’s philosphy, you can see him coming from a mile away. The others are more apt to sneak up on you.
That’s not how I read it, and it almost certainly is not how he intends it to read. You’re talking about a man who is on record as saying, “The biggest threat to your privacy is the government. We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens’ personal matters.” He has voted against everything from national ID cards to the Patriot Act.
Once again, you need only look to his political philosophy to determine that the FBI has no authority to put cameras in your bedroom. It isn’t a matter of some amendment or statute giving them authority, because no amendment or statute can give government any authority. Government is not authorized by the law, but only restricted by it. Where he falls short, in my opinion, is his abdication of fighting tyranny at a state level. In my own view, the abridgment of natural rights is an ethical abomination, whether it’s done by a street mugger or a Governor.
Clear legislative text trumps legislative intent, and the text is quite clear.
Are you saying a court could review the FBI’s action in the absence of the 4th amendment? If you’re not saying that, then regardless of the source of government authority, under Paul’s Bill citizens would have no federal remedy for the FBI search I described.
Right, but the text is clear as well. The federal courts will decide the constitutionality of federal laws.
Apparently, my point wasn’t made. Let us set aside all the existing usurpations of alleged privacy rights and stipulate, for the sake of argument, that if the FBI bugged our bedrooms, it would represent some unprecedented invasion of them. According to Paul’s bill, the federal court may review the constitutionality of any federal statute that authorizes the bug. By Paul’s reasoning, the Tenth Amendment (and maybe even moreso, the Ninth) precludes Congress from legislating such authority. In his view, you don’t have to search the interstices and penumbras of the Constitution to extrapolate the existence of any particular right. Rights are the default state of affairs for people, but not for Congress. As I say, if he felt this same way about states, he’d almost be a libertarian.
Umm, right. But an FBI search is not a law, and would be outside the scope of that exception.
You wrongly assume there must be a Congressional statute to authorize the bug. That’s not the way it works. The FBI is granted a bunch of discretionary powers. I used this example precisely because it is the sort of action that can be taken by a government actor without specific statutory authority. The reason the FBI cannot bug your bedroom now, without a warrant, is the 4th amendment. But under Paul’s Bill, you would have no such remedy.
Oy. How many times and how many ways must I say that I KNOW that!? It doesn’t work that way because of how the system has evolved, which is Paul’s whole point. He wants to restore Republicanism, because he sees the usurpation of state’s powers by the federal government. Again and again I’ve begged that people separate the support of an argument from a defense of its validity. If this can’t be done, then we may as well just leave you with the final word. I am not trying to explain to you how things work — not being a lawyer, I wouldn’t presume. What I’m trying to explain is how the philosophy of Constitutionalism is in this case validly applied by Paul. I feel like I can speak to that with confidence.
The federal government isn’t a monolith - it was intentionally set up with a system of checks and balances so that some parts of the federal government would restrict the activities of other parts of the federal government. So removing the power of the judicial branch to restrict the power of the legislative branch has the overall effect of increasing the power of the federal government.