One cannot guess what it is you need to be told. If you read the Constitution, and then read his positions, you will have your answer. If you are unwilling to do both, then I’d have to say that your interest is disingenuous. It’s like posting a thread in GQ with a link to a book and a link to what someone has said, and then asking the question, “On what matters do the book and the person agree and differ?”.
I am asking the question what Paul’s position is and what he expects the consequences of his policy on federal court jurisdiction to be. If you’re answer is, “go read a book,” then I don’t know why you bother to respond.
I’m not asking you to read a book; I’m asking you to read Paul’s statements. And I’m only asking that because you apparently won’t take my word for it.
Your word for what? All you’ve said so far on the matter is: “He has stressed repeatedly that jurisdiction of the central government is spelled out in quite some detail. In the US Constitution.”
Is this the entirety of Paul’s views on federal court jurisdiction? It doesn’t seem to be a policy statement at all; merely a truism.
He hasn’t said anything about how he views current implementation of jurisdiction, how that might differ with what he believes is proper jurisdiction, why one might be preferable to the other, and what the effect would be if his views were implemented?
If you don’t know, it’s okay to say so. I don’t know either. That’s why I’m asking.
Well, sure he has. I linked to his official letters of office that cover all sorts of issues including his views on the role of the federal judiciary. You are as capable as I am of hunting down those links in the thread and reading those papers.
I told you. He is in favor of federal courts having jurisdiction over federal matters, the whole of which are specified in the Constitution. That IS the answer. What are you expecting me to do, paste the relevant paragraphs here for you?
Paul’s views come from an informed reading of the Constitution and the federalist papers. If you are unfamiliar with these, what sort of answer will possibly appease you? You have already said the plain answer sounds like gibberish to you. What do you want me to do, break it all down into a Readers Digest report?
When I had the same question you have, I did what I’m advising you to do. You want to know? You spend the time.
Incidentally, with respect to the whole racial nonsense, it seems to me that the Clintons are in hotter water than Paul ever was. They’ve pissed off some important black leaders and are working damage control even as we speak.
It is not the answer to the question of why Paul seemingly doesn’t want Americans to have recourse to federal courts when their rights are abrogated by the states. To quote Wikipedia once again on Paul’s “We The People” Act:
"“If made law, the Act would forbid federal courts (including the Supreme Court) from hearing cases on subjects such as the display of religious text and imagery on government property, abortion, sexual practices, and same-sex marriage, unless those cases were a challenge to the constitutionality of federal law.”
So if state laws violate federal constitutional provisions, that’s just dandy with Ron Paul?
If someone dug up a bunch of Hillary Clinton newsletters filled with Ron Paul-style bigotry, and if she claimed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was wrong because it violated “property rights”, she’d be sitting on the sidelines right now watching the other candidates compete. She’d be finished.
Ron Paul gets a bye on the racial embarassment from his supporters because a) they can convince themselves it’s all a “smear” by the nasty media/CIA/Illuminati, b) it overwhelmingly doesn’t apply directly to them, and c) it’s unimportant compared to the goodies they think they’ll win under a Paul presidency.
Lib, perhaps I haven’t followed the conversation in the thread closely enough, and I’d be grateful if you would correct any misimpressions I may be harboring; but I have the sense that Ron Paul would be supportive of an intepretation of the Constitution which declares that, while the Establishment Clause prohibits the Congress from making any law respecting the establishment of a religion, it places no such restriction upon the individual states (cf. the “We the People Act” alluded to in post 69).
Is this a fair impression for me to take?
Sorry to have skipped over the last dozen or so argument posts, but as to the OP:
The government is obviously a large, freedom- and life-consuming monster and becoming more so every day, and mainstream major party candidates are Satan’s whores and won’t do anything about it. Better to go with a guy who might actually dismantle some of the more evil parts of it.
Oh, and I used to be a Lefty Liberal until I realized this.
YAY!!! My new best friend!!!
You are willing to overlook his seemingly non-Libertarian views on social matters? This is presuming that your particular strain of Lefty Liberalness wouldn’t preclude support for such things. Honest question.
I’m not sure you’d call him a “leftist”, but there’s another prominent addition to the “Wack-A-Doodles for Ron Paul” committee - David Icke! (conspiracy theorist who believes that giant lizards secretly rule the world):
“What a joy it has been to see Republican rebel Ron Paul take on the establishment repeaters with such incisive intelligence and common sense. To see this 72-year-old demolish his yes-men rivals with the sheer logic and grasp of his case has been some real ‘change’ and he has exposed both their staggering ignorance and their disinterest in anything, but their own desire for status and power.”
Of course, not even Ron Paul is perfect in Icke’s eyes:
“Paul doesn’t seem to have the big picture and this week he distanced himself from those who say that 9/11 was an inside job, which was disappointing. It was, I would suggest, a major mistake.”
I’m under the impression that the purpose of this board is to offer a place where some people may post questions and other people may choose to answer those questions. Your statements here seem to me to amount to “I refuse to answer. Find out for yourself.” It seems rather strange behavior to me. Again, if you don’t want to answer, why not just refrain from posting?
I get the distinct impression that your responses are on the condescending side. I was under the impression that I was asking a Ron Paul advocate for detail about Ron Paul’s positions. In response, I get condescension and sarcasm. I don’t think this kind of approach will win any support for Ron Paul.
That’s not an answer. That’s a slogan.
How does that answer these questions?: How he views current implementation of jurisdiction, how that might differ with what he believes is proper jurisdiction, why one might be preferable to the other, and what the effect would be if his views were implemented?
Again, if you don’t feel like answering these questions, I would consider a simple “I don’t feel like answering these questions” preferable to sarcasm and condescension.
A summary would do. Do you consider it somehow odd to ask someone who seems to be defending Ron Paul’s views to summarize them?
And how is this enlightening at all? All I get from this statement is an implication that no one else has managed an “informed reading” of such. Or that an “informed reading” (whatever that is) would inevitably lead one to reach the same conclusions Paul has reached.
Yes, I think it is. But if that’s the concern (and in retrospect, that’s possibly what **ascenray ** was rather coyly getting at), then you must be concerned the other way around as well. If you look to the federal courts and grant them status as the ultimate protector of all your rights, then you must also grant that they will have equal power to take away them all. After all, if they have the power to say, “Each state must guarantee rights to gays,” they also have the power to say, “No state may guarantee rights to gays.” For those who oppose Ron Paul’s initiatives in this regard, it is ironic that his position is the one that would protect the marriage of gays in Boston everywhere in the United States, under the full faith and credit clause of Article IV.
Actually, this level of detail is a bit more helpful to me in understanding Paul’s position. For the record, it is not my intent to be coy.
I like to think of myself as a bit of a ratcheter, when it comes to the protection of rights for the individual.
Missed the edit window:
Anyway, thanks for the honest response. I’m not entirely ready to wholeheartedly embrace the inverse proposition with which you would apparently have me calm my concerns. I’m not a good enough rhetorician at this time to submit the killer argument about that, so I’ll just say that I’m not persuaded. But I do appreciate your willingness to engage it openly.
Sorry, then, for having misunderstood you.
Acsenray, I would add in general that, for myself, I like to research these kinds of things by reading original texts rather than commentary texts that only highlight the original. Same reason I like to watch C-Span coverage of something, rather than CNN or Fox News. Commentary can be helpful eventually, but I want to see the unprejudiced version first. And so I will read Paul’s speech or bill before Congress, and only then look at commentaries. I often find that commentators have interpreted matters much differently than I did when I read the particulars in context. That’s why I would encourage people to read his papers (ones he actually wrote, of course). It’s not to put you off. On the contrary, it’s to give you every advantage in understanding more thoroughly what it is you’re asking about. I think that when we’re both familiar with the actual text, our discussion is more productive, informed, and meaningful.
Here’s the full text of Ron Paul’s proposed “We The People Act”.
The language echoes traditional right-wing complaints about the federal courts “legislating” rights that said folks don’t think people ought to have. Paul* mentions several issues (including abortion rights) as areas where the federal courts are supposedly running roughshod over local laws:
"(7) Supreme Court and lower Federal court decisions striking down local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion have wrested from State and local governments issues reserved to the States and the People by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(8) The Supreme Court and lower Federal courts threaten the republican government of the individual States by replacing elected government with rule by unelected judges.
(9) Even supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court’s decisions overturning the abortion laws of all 50 States are constitutionally flawed (e.g. Ely, `The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade’ 82 Yale L.J. 920 (1973))."
It sounds like Paul is more interested in guaranteeing the power of states to have the final say on social issues, than he is in protecting the rights of affected citizens from federal intervention. Unless you believe strongly in the right to interfere in your neighbor’s lives. Maybe I overestimated his libertarianism.
As to the idea that this bill would protect liberal state legislation - let’s face it, states are considerably more likely these days to “crack down” on things like abortion and gay marriage than they are to protect them. Federal courts have a track record of being somewhat more skeptical about challenges to rights in these areas as well as restrictions on free speech, compared to many state courts. One could cite the Supreme Court as a problem, but even here I think we’re more likely to see particular bills struck down for (sometimes debatedly) Constitutional reasons than to see an entire class of legislation declared verboten.
Paul and supporters who like the idea of his bill think federal = evil and state = good, For those concerned about individual freedoms, history speaks differently.
*You know, the text of the “We The People Act” is not specifically signed by Ron Paul. Maybe someone else wrote it without his permission and he’d repudiate it if called on it? :dubious:
I definitely agree with you there. He is more libertarian than the other Republicans, but only because he is more Republican than the other Republicans. The careful observer will note that Paul does not claim to be a libertarian, but a Republican. It is his party of choice, and he has expressed regret before at his brief daliance with the LP. (Sorry, no cite handy.) He sincerely believes the Republican Party has “lost our way”, a phrase he uses repeatedly in speeches and debates. He is a statist and Constitutionalist, and people like him are the reason I left the LP myself many years ago. Republicanism is closer to libertarianism than democratism is, just as Lincoln was more of a libertarian than Jackson was. But close is no cigar.
We can speculate either way, I suppose. But for me, I’d like to know that if I were gay there would be a place in America that I could go and be free to pursue my own happiness in my own way. One could argue whether this would lead to a segregated Republic, but then one need only to look at inner cities and rural farms to see segregation already. We’re all free to speculate, and my speculation would be that the most successful states would be those with the greatest liberty. Just as today, Detroit and Buffalo are dying because of their restricted economies, one could speculate that in a real federation, stagnant states would die as well. And in any case, if a marriage is protected in one state, all other states must recognize that marriage. So it isn’t like I’d have to hide away in Boston and be unable to travel to Seattle.
I think history tells both sides. It was federal backing of Georgia’s demands that resulted in the Trail of Tears. It was federal backing of South Carolina that resulted in the burning of anti-slavery pamphlets mailed to church ministers. A corrupt government at any level is a bad thing. But if it is at the top level, as Paul would argue, then there is no recourse for anyone.
You realize that in both cases you cited (apart from their being relatively ancient history), you’re complaining of the federal government ratifying/enforcing unjust state policies?
In the World The Way It Oughta Be According To Ron Paul, once a state decided to take away one or more of your rights, that would be it. No recourse to any federal court on the grounds that the state was acting unconstitutionally. As it stands now, if a state legislature ratifies an unjust law, you’ve at least got a shot of getting it overturned at the federal level.
Of course, as one Ron Paul supporter who digs the "states’ rights’ theme explained it to me, if you don’t like what your state did to you, you can move to another state. Never mind family ties, health, job etc. - just up and move. :rolleyes: