U.S. Congressman Ron Paul’s website states “Ron Paul of Texas enjoys a national reputation as the premier advocate for liberty in politics today.” He is regularly questioned on his electability, his idealism, and on occasion his sanity. But the nearly universal narrative is that Ron Paul is an honest and principled defender of individual liberty and a strong opponent of government interfering in our lives. Why then would I confidently state that Ron Paul is an enemy of individual liberty, a proponent of intrusive government, and an author of the largest congressional power grab ever attempted in our Nation’s history?
First, The History
While certainly a monumental achievement, in retrospect, The Constitution was a seriously flawed document. While there were discussions at the time of its drafting, slavery was not banned. Slaves were 3/5th of a person and Native Americans were excluded entirely. The rights of the people were not explicitly protected, but this last error was to be corrected right away. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention agreed that a list of amendments that guaranteed the rights of the people would be added to the constitution.
Ten amendments soon followed, collectively known as “The Bill of Rights.” That title is a bit misleading, as the amendments are not declarations of what rights we, as people, innately possess. They were instead restrictions on the Federal Government’s power over the people. This is key, and often overlooked. The Bill of Rights does not protect the individual from the actions of state or local governments.
It was not until the era of Reconstruction that our nation began to seriously expand the rights and protections available to all Americans. The Thirteenth Amendment (1865) freed the Slaves. The Fifteenth Amendment (1870) mandated that people of all races could vote. The Nineteenth Amendment (1920) gave women the right to vote and the Twenty-fourth Amendment (1964) addressed the issue of poll taxes. What then of the Bill of Rights? How does this apply to the states? The answer is the Fourteenth Amendment (1868).
The Fourteenth Amendment is an oddity in that its meaning is not definite. In pertinent part it states that:
To simplify a complex area of Constitutional law; there has been an ongoing debate since the late 19th century regarding the bounds of the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, the question has been what restrictions are placed on the state actions and under which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? One side found this amendment to be functionally inert. A second side found that every protection granted in the Bill of Rights should now apply at the state and local level.
As often occurs, a compromise was reached over time. Each right protected at the federal level via the Bill of Rights is now analyzed by the Court one at a time. This is known as the process of incorporation.
The Supreme Court has limited jurisdiction. Like all federal courts, it cannot hear a case that does not pose an actual controversy involving an actual dispute between adverse parties. As a result the process of incorporation has been slow, but almost all rights afforded by the Bill of Rights now apply to the States. States cannot establish a religion. States cannot interfere with the free exercise of religion. They cannot abridge the right to free speech or freedom of the press. Most recently, as of 2010, States cannot interfere with the right to bear arms.
The only remaining key point is that these rights are not admitted because they are in the Bill of Rights, but because the prevailing notions of which rights are fundamental rights require it. Importantly, this means the protections afforded by the Fourteenth Amendment are not set in stone. Unlike the Bill of Rights, these rights change over time and are subject to the prevailing notions of justice in the nation.
The Supreme Court, in interpretation of The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment has created a base line of protection for individual liberty. It is important to note that this is merely a baseline of protection. No state can violate these protections. Any state can increase the rights provided to its people. Alaska, for example, found that its own constitution’s Right to Privacy protected the personal use of marijuana in the home. The Fourteenth Amendment does not set the rights afforded to the people. It sets the absolute minimum.
The fight for liberty, then, at this time in our nation’s history, is largely fought on the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Constitutional scholars arguing for a more freedom and liberty are pushing for total incorporation of the Bill of Rights. They are advocating that the Constitutional right to privacy extends as far as the one in Alaska’s constitution. These are the battle grounds of freedom.
To be clear, I am not at this point arguing that opponents of the Fourteenth Amendment’s broad reach do not have valid arguments. What should be evident to any honest, objective reviewer of the facts is that one side is a clear proponent of liberty and freedom and the other wants to see those freedoms mitigated.
Ron Paul takes neither side. He opts for something far more destructive to individual freedom.
RON PAUL
It is now time to examine Ron Paul’s views. Ron Paul wrote the following on the importance of Christianity and the Separation of Church and State in his 2003 essay; The War on Religion:
When discussing different interpretations of our founding documents, I will rarely say that someone is absolutely wrong in their interpretation. Ron Paul is absolutely wrong. The “references to God” that Paul mentions are references to “the Creator.” The founding documents are not “replete” with references to the Christian God, per se. This is evident to anyone even vaguely aware of the Founder’s personal views and their attempts to keep the document neutral as well the fact that many were not Christian. The Continental Congress selected a committee to draft the Declaration of Independence. That committee selected Thomas Jefferson to be the primary drafter of the Declaration of Independence. It can be said no more clearly than this:
What else does Ron Paul add to this discussion? Again from his 2003 essay; The War on Religion:
While I view this as a dubious world view, I will not at this time address its validity. I can say, emphatically, that the proponents of freedom and liberty do not tout the necessity of Christianity to teach morality. Proponents of liberty do not view attempts to restrict the attempts by churches to “eclipse the state in importance” as contrary to our founding documents.
What, then, does Ron Paul Propose?
Ron Paul, “the proponent of liberty,” has clearly come out in support of full incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment, right? He has declared that our Constitutional protections on the right to privacy should at least equal that in Alaska, and the right to privacy should protect, at a minimum, small amounts of marijuana in the home, right? What substantive legislation has Ron Paul proposed to bring more freedom to the people, and to push the government, at all levels, out of our lives?
I present HR 539. It states, in pertinent part that:
Ron Paul’s interpretation of Article III section I and II of the Constitution is that Congress can limit the jurisdiction of all federal courts, including the Supreme Court simply by passing a bill. This view is not widely accepted but I will concede it is not without merit. It is certainly not the only view and it is absolutely not the view held by anyone who seriously wishes to limit the powers of Congress.
If Congress can unilaterally remove the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts, this gives them the power to pass any legislation of any sort, on any subject, and simply declare that the constitutionality of the subject matter is not reviewable by the courts. This gives Congress the authority to simply bypass the only branch of government that reviews the constitutionality of their legislation. Thus the basis for my conclusion: Ron Paul is the author of the largest congressional power grab this Nation has ever seen attempted.
The Effect of the Legislation:
With this bill, Ron Paul seeks to strip the Federal courts from reviewing State Constitutions and state and local legislation that relates to “the free exercise or establishment of religion”, “the right of privacy” including its protections of “sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction”, and “any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation.”
What does this mean? First, it means that the progress we have made to securing individual freedoms and liberty in these key areas would be at risk. Any argument that this transfer of power would move the decision closer to the people and is therefore a better way to ensure the protection of our individual liberty is misguided or disingenuous. Again, the Supreme Court in these instances is dictating what the States must do. They are laying a minimum foundation for individual liberty. Any state could elect to increase the protections afforded the people.
What are the results of this bill? States could ban all contraception. States could ban the free practice of any religion or mandate a specific religion. Islam could be banned. Atheists and agnostics could be marginalized or persecuted in any way the States saw fit. States could fund or promote religious leaders of all stripes without fear of constitutional review. States could ban any sexual activity they declared immoral, many simply by enforcing the existing laws that the Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional. They could persecute against homosexuals or bisexual individuals in any way they saw fit. Equal protection would no longer apply to sexual orientation at the state level.
A proponent of freedom and liberty would not seek to jeopardize the rights that are currently guaranteed to all people of the United States. Ron Paul authored a bill to tear down these protections.
Beyond the implications of his bill, what can be deduced about Ron Paul’s purpose? This bill does not increase freedoms or liberty. It specifically opens certain groups to attacks in a way no other Congressman has committed to legislation. This bill specifically seeks to limit the rights of all people who do not believe or behave in a manner that Ron Paul sees fit: religious minorities, homosexuals, users of contraception, and practitioners of anything society could declare sexually deviant.
This legislation seeks to move absolute control over the exercise and establishment of religion, the regulation of sexual practices, and the persecution of sexual orientation to the state level. Coupled with this transfer is the stripping of all constitutional protections afforded to the citizens of those states.
Ron Paul’s view of government is destructive to individual liberty. It specifically targets groups that have and continue to be persecuted and removes their protections. It destroys these fundamental protections and grants authoritarian and unchecked power over the lives of individuals to the States.
Ron Paul is not the champion of individual liberty he claims to be. He seeks to reverse the progress we have made in protecting our freedoms. He is specifically targeting non-Christians and homosexuals. But more destructively, he seeks to open the floodgates to all forms of persecution at the state and federal level. In Ron Paul’s America, Congress could simply bypass the Supreme Court, and thus the Constitution, on any legislation that violates the rights of individuals. Then by a simple act of Congress, people again could be bought and sold. Women could lose the right to vote. Religions could be declared illegal.
Despite our national narrative, we as a nation are not mandated to move towards freedom and liberty. People have the ability to be absolutely wrong and this ability is not restricted to minority viewpoints. A constitutional democracy recognizes the ever present danger of the tyranny of the majority: the idea that democracy alone is not enough to protect the rights of people. Fundamental rights must be established or the Government will attempt to impede on these rights.
Where you stand on the issue of absolute protections and inherent rights defines your commitment to individual liberty. Ron Paul stands as an activist for intrusive government and in firm opposition to the very concept of individual liberty.
First, The History
While certainly a monumental achievement, in retrospect, The Constitution was a seriously flawed document. While there were discussions at the time of its drafting, slavery was not banned. Slaves were 3/5th of a person and Native Americans were excluded entirely. The rights of the people were not explicitly protected, but this last error was to be corrected right away. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention agreed that a list of amendments that guaranteed the rights of the people would be added to the constitution.
Ten amendments soon followed, collectively known as “The Bill of Rights.” That title is a bit misleading, as the amendments are not declarations of what rights we, as people, innately possess. They were instead restrictions on the Federal Government’s power over the people. This is key, and often overlooked. The Bill of Rights does not protect the individual from the actions of state or local governments.
It was not until the era of Reconstruction that our nation began to seriously expand the rights and protections available to all Americans. The Thirteenth Amendment (1865) freed the Slaves. The Fifteenth Amendment (1870) mandated that people of all races could vote. The Nineteenth Amendment (1920) gave women the right to vote and the Twenty-fourth Amendment (1964) addressed the issue of poll taxes. What then of the Bill of Rights? How does this apply to the states? The answer is the Fourteenth Amendment (1868).
The Fourteenth Amendment is an oddity in that its meaning is not definite. In pertinent part it states that:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
To simplify a complex area of Constitutional law; there has been an ongoing debate since the late 19th century regarding the bounds of the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, the question has been what restrictions are placed on the state actions and under which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? One side found this amendment to be functionally inert. A second side found that every protection granted in the Bill of Rights should now apply at the state and local level.
As often occurs, a compromise was reached over time. Each right protected at the federal level via the Bill of Rights is now analyzed by the Court one at a time. This is known as the process of incorporation.
The Supreme Court has limited jurisdiction. Like all federal courts, it cannot hear a case that does not pose an actual controversy involving an actual dispute between adverse parties. As a result the process of incorporation has been slow, but almost all rights afforded by the Bill of Rights now apply to the States. States cannot establish a religion. States cannot interfere with the free exercise of religion. They cannot abridge the right to free speech or freedom of the press. Most recently, as of 2010, States cannot interfere with the right to bear arms.
The only remaining key point is that these rights are not admitted because they are in the Bill of Rights, but because the prevailing notions of which rights are fundamental rights require it. Importantly, this means the protections afforded by the Fourteenth Amendment are not set in stone. Unlike the Bill of Rights, these rights change over time and are subject to the prevailing notions of justice in the nation.
The Supreme Court, in interpretation of The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment has created a base line of protection for individual liberty. It is important to note that this is merely a baseline of protection. No state can violate these protections. Any state can increase the rights provided to its people. Alaska, for example, found that its own constitution’s Right to Privacy protected the personal use of marijuana in the home. The Fourteenth Amendment does not set the rights afforded to the people. It sets the absolute minimum.
The fight for liberty, then, at this time in our nation’s history, is largely fought on the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Constitutional scholars arguing for a more freedom and liberty are pushing for total incorporation of the Bill of Rights. They are advocating that the Constitutional right to privacy extends as far as the one in Alaska’s constitution. These are the battle grounds of freedom.
To be clear, I am not at this point arguing that opponents of the Fourteenth Amendment’s broad reach do not have valid arguments. What should be evident to any honest, objective reviewer of the facts is that one side is a clear proponent of liberty and freedom and the other wants to see those freedoms mitigated.
Ron Paul takes neither side. He opts for something far more destructive to individual freedom.
RON PAUL
It is now time to examine Ron Paul’s views. Ron Paul wrote the following on the importance of Christianity and the Separation of Church and State in his 2003 essay; The War on Religion:
“The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion.”
When discussing different interpretations of our founding documents, I will rarely say that someone is absolutely wrong in their interpretation. Ron Paul is absolutely wrong. The “references to God” that Paul mentions are references to “the Creator.” The founding documents are not “replete” with references to the Christian God, per se. This is evident to anyone even vaguely aware of the Founder’s personal views and their attempts to keep the document neutral as well the fact that many were not Christian. The Continental Congress selected a committee to draft the Declaration of Independence. That committee selected Thomas Jefferson to be the primary drafter of the Declaration of Independence. It can be said no more clearly than this:
“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”
Thomas Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists (1802)
What else does Ron Paul add to this discussion? Again from his 2003 essay; The War on Religion:
“The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage.”
While I view this as a dubious world view, I will not at this time address its validity. I can say, emphatically, that the proponents of freedom and liberty do not tout the necessity of Christianity to teach morality. Proponents of liberty do not view attempts to restrict the attempts by churches to “eclipse the state in importance” as contrary to our founding documents.
What, then, does Ron Paul Propose?
Ron Paul, “the proponent of liberty,” has clearly come out in support of full incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment, right? He has declared that our Constitutional protections on the right to privacy should at least equal that in Alaska, and the right to privacy should protect, at a minimum, small amounts of marijuana in the home, right? What substantive legislation has Ron Paul proposed to bring more freedom to the people, and to push the government, at all levels, out of our lives?
I present HR 539. It states, in pertinent part that:
(3) Article III, section 2 of the Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power to make `such exceptions, and under such regulations' as Congress finds necessary to Supreme Court jurisdiction.
(5) Congress has constitutional authority to set broad limits on the jurisdiction of both the Supreme Court and the lower Federal courts in order to correct abuses of judicial power and continuing violations of the Constitution of the United States by Federal courts.
(11) Congress has the responsibility to protect the republican governments of the States and has the power to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the lower Federal courts over matters that are reserved to the States and to the People by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.
The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--
(1) shall not adjudicate--
(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and
(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).
There are two portions of this bill that must be analysed - the method by which the legislation is enacted and the effect the legislation has on freedoms in our society.
The method of implementation:
Ron Paul’s interpretation of Article III section I and II of the Constitution is that Congress can limit the jurisdiction of all federal courts, including the Supreme Court simply by passing a bill. This view is not widely accepted but I will concede it is not without merit. It is certainly not the only view and it is absolutely not the view held by anyone who seriously wishes to limit the powers of Congress.
If Congress can unilaterally remove the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts, this gives them the power to pass any legislation of any sort, on any subject, and simply declare that the constitutionality of the subject matter is not reviewable by the courts. This gives Congress the authority to simply bypass the only branch of government that reviews the constitutionality of their legislation. Thus the basis for my conclusion: Ron Paul is the author of the largest congressional power grab this Nation has ever seen attempted.
The Effect of the Legislation:
With this bill, Ron Paul seeks to strip the Federal courts from reviewing State Constitutions and state and local legislation that relates to “the free exercise or establishment of religion”, “the right of privacy” including its protections of “sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction”, and “any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation.”
What does this mean? First, it means that the progress we have made to securing individual freedoms and liberty in these key areas would be at risk. Any argument that this transfer of power would move the decision closer to the people and is therefore a better way to ensure the protection of our individual liberty is misguided or disingenuous. Again, the Supreme Court in these instances is dictating what the States must do. They are laying a minimum foundation for individual liberty. Any state could elect to increase the protections afforded the people.
What are the results of this bill? States could ban all contraception. States could ban the free practice of any religion or mandate a specific religion. Islam could be banned. Atheists and agnostics could be marginalized or persecuted in any way the States saw fit. States could fund or promote religious leaders of all stripes without fear of constitutional review. States could ban any sexual activity they declared immoral, many simply by enforcing the existing laws that the Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional. They could persecute against homosexuals or bisexual individuals in any way they saw fit. Equal protection would no longer apply to sexual orientation at the state level.
A proponent of freedom and liberty would not seek to jeopardize the rights that are currently guaranteed to all people of the United States. Ron Paul authored a bill to tear down these protections.
Beyond the implications of his bill, what can be deduced about Ron Paul’s purpose? This bill does not increase freedoms or liberty. It specifically opens certain groups to attacks in a way no other Congressman has committed to legislation. This bill specifically seeks to limit the rights of all people who do not believe or behave in a manner that Ron Paul sees fit: religious minorities, homosexuals, users of contraception, and practitioners of anything society could declare sexually deviant.
This legislation seeks to move absolute control over the exercise and establishment of religion, the regulation of sexual practices, and the persecution of sexual orientation to the state level. Coupled with this transfer is the stripping of all constitutional protections afforded to the citizens of those states.
Ron Paul’s view of government is destructive to individual liberty. It specifically targets groups that have and continue to be persecuted and removes their protections. It destroys these fundamental protections and grants authoritarian and unchecked power over the lives of individuals to the States.
Ron Paul is not the champion of individual liberty he claims to be. He seeks to reverse the progress we have made in protecting our freedoms. He is specifically targeting non-Christians and homosexuals. But more destructively, he seeks to open the floodgates to all forms of persecution at the state and federal level. In Ron Paul’s America, Congress could simply bypass the Supreme Court, and thus the Constitution, on any legislation that violates the rights of individuals. Then by a simple act of Congress, people again could be bought and sold. Women could lose the right to vote. Religions could be declared illegal.
Despite our national narrative, we as a nation are not mandated to move towards freedom and liberty. People have the ability to be absolutely wrong and this ability is not restricted to minority viewpoints. A constitutional democracy recognizes the ever present danger of the tyranny of the majority: the idea that democracy alone is not enough to protect the rights of people. Fundamental rights must be established or the Government will attempt to impede on these rights.
Where you stand on the issue of absolute protections and inherent rights defines your commitment to individual liberty. Ron Paul stands as an activist for intrusive government and in firm opposition to the very concept of individual liberty.
98 comments:
You make a lot of excellent points worth close examination. I will be returning to give further thought to your arguments. Having read this with great interest, I would like to point out that I still support Ron Paul's bid to become President. For two reasons.
First: We're already surrounded by an incredibly intrusive government. The hazards you posit are not trivial, but they exist now only as potential hazards. We already face practical, immediate hazards to liberty that have been written as law.
Second, and by far the most important reason to get behind Dr. Paul - he is the only candidate who is directly and sincerely addressing the root cause of economic issues. Our debt-based money supply is a disaster at every level, and fractional reserve practices are amplifying that disaster exponentially. These 'boring' matters get no mainstream press, but they lie at the heart of the largest wealth transfer in history. It is not possible to overstate the gravity of this problem. There is no greater threat to the nation, and precious few people in Washington with the guts to do something about it.
In short, while you may be right about Ron Paul, we need him anyway. Hazards to Liberty that arise in consequenceto his election will have to be addressed when or if they arise. Right now, there's an even bigger problem at hand.
I do not agree with the conclusion on Ron Paul's intentions presented here; however, it is rational and logical argument and I applaud this.
One aspect you have not taken into consideration is that Ron Paul will not be successful at reshaping the country during a term or two to the extent you have cited. No president has been that sucessful, plus you have congress to worry about ;)
It is true that there will always be dangers in government, regardless of the level, in regards to human rights, civil liberties. However, if these conflicts and mistakes are at a state or local level, there is at least an check and balance with neighboring locales, states and the federal government. It can more easily be corrected.
All that aside... I would like to present the worst case scenario on the flip side:
If the federal government becomes too powerful, it too eclipses personal liberty and civil rights... in a universal way (removing check and balance within the country).
To give you an idea of what type of power the federal government has accrued over the years, which could be a great weapon against the freedom of the people: http://www.dailypaul.com/64971/fema-camps-fully-staffed-ready-to-go
Yes, this is from Daily Paul, but it states bill and executive order numbers which I encourage people look up for themselves.
And, while I do not think there is a conspiracy at work, I do recognize that if the federal government falls into the wrong hands with these tools at it's disposal, the result would be dire.
I am not a Christian, and do worry about the social aspects of the candidates, but Ron Paul is not a threat to these aspects from Federal office, per his own Constitutional stance.
So, again, while I understand your argument, I believe we have a much bigger, more pressing problem with the run away power of federal government and Ron Paul is the only candidate that will address this alarming situation without adding a social agenda at a federal level (compare Bachmann, Perry, etc, on marriage, abortion, porn, etc).
Zeitghost1:
Ponder the threat of an Congress that can bypass the Supreme Court.
Proposed Bill:
1. We are currently in a time of great turmoil with several wars and a floundering economy.
2. Congress hereby declares an official "state of turmoil."
3. As the Supreme Court has constantly failed to properly review the constitution, its power to review any acts of Congress are suspended during a "state of turmoil."
4. To increase stability, elections are suspended until such time as the state of turmoil is declared over by the Congress.
5. All members of Congress who sign this bill become members of "The New Party."
6. All members of Congress who do not sign this bill will be investigated by The New Party for conduct deemed adverse to the Interests of the United Sates.
etc. etc. etc...
Hopefully this is illustrative of the point. If Congress can pass legislation unchecked by the Supreme Court, you no longer have any protections but for hope that the majority of Congress will not abuse their power. The entire point of a constitutional democracy is to prevent the tyranny that can occur by a majority. The fear is much greater when you have a representative democracy, as the representatives can easily act in their own best interests without a system of checks and balances.
Ron Paul seeks to tear down this fundamental protection. And for what? To make it legal for states to persecute homosexuals and non-Christians. Ron Paul is no friend of individual liberty or constitutional Democracy.
aliceleuchte:
You are missing the primary point. There is currently a base line on individual rights. States are free to increase the rights if they do not feel that federal protections go far enough. It is already at a local level.
This law seeks only to remove the minimum protections afforded to specific groups Ron Paul wants to target, specifically homosexuals and non-Christians.
Your link listing executive orders shows a fundamental lack of understanding regarding Executive Power, checks and balances, and Constitutional case law. The author of this the post on the dailypaul is either severely unqualified to discuss constitutional law.
The executive absolutely does not have the powers listed next to those executive orders. Minimal research on the subject would quickly dispel that notion. Please see Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v Sawyer (1952).
Essentially, Truman attempted to temporarily take national control of the steal mills to avert a labor strike. The Supreme Court held that this was in excess of his executive powers.
I invite you to perform some rudimentary research into the bounds of executive power looking at Youngstown and the line of cases that followed.
"Your link listing executive orders shows a fundamental lack of understanding regarding Executive Power, checks and balances, and Constitutional case law."
Actually, I do not misunderstand the power of the Executive order.
However, it doesn't much matter what the Constitutional purpose is, or what bygone cases have declared when the actual practice differs.
Example: recent order by Obama effectively enacting majority of the elements found in the Dream Act after it failed in Congress.
Also, given that the Executive branch controls all these side agencies, like DHS, Justice Dept, EPA etc, who have the ability to make policies with the force of law - and have the means to enforce these policies... the President can simply ignore or enact about anything he wants.
Example, US court ruling Obamacare as unconstitutional, Obama instructed Justice Dept to ignore and for the gov to continue implementation. To ignore rulings.
Another scary one: Obama stood before the Constitution in the National Archives and announced he was enacting, by executive order, prolonged detention for citizens (without charges, without due process).
Not just picking on Obama here, but he has given some great examples recently, lol.
Anyway, the Federal Government is entirely too powerful. It needs a good pruning and Ron Paul would do it without enacting a social agenda (adding regulations to favor Christianity). He would be removing federal regulations.
The article you referenced was absolutely incorrect on the Executive Power and the case law. What you call “bygone cases” are, and always have been, the law of the land. These are not tidbits of antiquity. They are the current binding standards that the President does not have the authority to over ride. No president has acted in direct defiance of a holding by the Supreme Court.
Administrative Law is a nuanced area of law but I will provide a brief summary. Your statement that “the Executive branch controls all these side agencies” and that “the President can simply ignore and enact about anything he wants” is simply not true. All agency power that the executive possesses is granted to it by Congress under the Article One Section One. If you have an issue with the power of agencies, you need to examine the degree to which congress had delegated these responsibilities. Also, the President is not in direct control of the agencies. So he cannot, as you say, “enact about anything he wants.”
On The Healthcare Bill, the Supreme Court has not heard the case. There are differing opinions on the constitutionality of the legislation in differing jurisdictions. Until this is resolved, the Executive must decide how to proceed in enforcing legislation enacted by Congress. He is proceeding well within the bounds of Constitutional authority.
Which executive order authorized the continued uncharged detention of US citizens? I would be surprised if any executive order testing the holding in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld which declared that citizen detanees are entitled to Due Process before an impartial judge.
To say that Ron Paul would not enact his social agenda is an odd statement. He is attempting to enact his social agenda as a congressman. Why would this change if he became president?
Paragraph 4, Second sentence: Please read as: I would be surprised if an executive order testing the holding in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (which declared that citizen detanees are entitled to Due Process before an impartial judge) was not bigger news.
First, I should make clear that I am absolutely in support of full rights and freedoms for any and all people regardless of lifestyle, belief system, etc. Live and let live.
@Jason, I share your concern about a potential tyranny of majority. I don't see Ron Paul's actions here as a malicious attack on freedom, but I do understand how they could be seen in that light.
The key to the destruction of liberty in your scenario is civil instability. The most likely response to that would be martial law, which effectively sidelines the Supreme Court without revoking its powers. So the legal environment enabling the destruction of liberty already exists, there's no need for new bills.
If Ron Paul really wanted to persecute any segment of society, all he would have to do is foster and promote status quo, which can only lead to civil strife that would justify all kinds of civil rights abuse and negation. He'd be trying to push us over the brink, instead of pulling us away from it.
@Zeitghost1:
Ron Paul is pushing to persecute certain segments of the population for not being heterosexual or christian. The fact that he could choose an alternate method to persecute people is not evidence against the fact he is clearly pushing legislation designed to persecute specific groups he finds objectionable.
The key to the destruction of liberty is the removal of fundamental protections. Ron Paul seeks to remove fundamental protections. Further, he seeks to implement a method that lowers the bar for future potential persecutors.
If Ron Paul's Bill passed today you could not hold office in Texas without believing in a supreme being. Homosexual activity would again be outlawed throughout the entire state.
While there is potential for extreme abuse in the future, be clear: Ron Paul is not simply opening the gates to persecution. Ron Paul seeks to use his elected office to strip us of our fundamental rights today.
It is obvious that you have a predetermined stance on Ron Paul's views, perhaps due to the fact he has personal belief?
For the record, I am not Christian, and I have read his stance on these issues in detail and have no objections... at least as his stance applies to him holding Federal office. If it were a state position, I would not support Dr. Paul.
You also seem to stand by the validity of the federal government's current powers, despite the clear violations evident in almost every area of our lives. Like the Federal "income" tax (which was declared unconstitutional a long time ago).
HEALTHCARE ACT: It has not been to the US Supreme Court yet, no. I didn't imply it had.
There was a lower federal court that declared it unconstitutional, in whole because of the mandate. At that point, implementation should have been halted until the constitutional question had been cleared... or at least until an appeal had been won in that case.
PROLONGED DETENTION: Here is a video from Rachel Maddow, copy of the Executive order, and summary of the situation.
Obama stood in front of the Constitution of this country and declared this.
Look, I agree Executive Orders aren't suppose to be all that... but they are being used this way.
Sorry, but this is the reality. no, it isn't suppose to be this way, but this is exactly what is happening.
This is my major concern... to peal back the layers that have been added to the federal government and bring it back in line with the Constitution. Because it is getting scary.
We are marching our future in the wrong direction, and we may not be able to turn around at a later point.
So, that is where I am coming from in all this. I don't see Dr. Paul as trying to obstruct anyone's rights, but limit the government according to the Constitution.
Awww, ya killed my straw man.
I think Ron Paul would argue that if one could not get their heathen sodomy on in Texas, there would be other states where it would be fine, maybe even encouraged. I'm ok with that.
I remain more concerned about the economic oppression of all of society rather than one or two demographics. I believe we are well on our way down that path. I would prefer it if Ron Paul was pro-choice and agnostic. But I'll support anyone I feel I can trust to address our monetary issues. We can't build a free society when the basis of our economy is held hostage by a powerful few.
I like the blog. bookmarked.
Income Tax:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
This is the Sixteenth Amendment in its entirety. It was passed specifically to grant the Federal Government the authority to collect income tax. If a source of information informed you that income tax is unconstitutional I would recommend that you stop collecting information from this source.
Health Care: There is a split in jurisdiction regarding the constitutionality of the health care bill. Several courts have also found the bill to be constitutional. Until that is reconciled the executive has the authority to interpret the constitutionality of the Bill. You may disagree with that interpretation, but the action of the Executive does not exceed the powers granted by the constitution.
The executive order: That order deals with non-citizens. This is a wholly different issue. The Supreme Court has held the standard for citizens and non-citizens is different. Non-citizens are not afforded the same constitutional protections as citizens of the United States.
If you do not see Ron Paul as attempting to obstruct anyone's rights, why did he specifically seek to remove the protections of homosexuals and non-Christians at the state level?
He wrote and presented HR 539, referenced above, which seeks to remove very specific established protections. He seeks to remove the ban on anti-sodomy laws. He seeks to remove the state's ban on establishing a religion. He seeks to remove the requirement that states allow individuals to freely exercise their religion.
Why would someone dedicated to individual liberty and freedom pursue this end?
Ron Paul may argue that you could move to a different state. The more important questions are: Why is Ron Paul specifically targeting his legislation to reauthorize anti-sodomy laws? Why is he specifically targeting his legislation at religious freedom?
Can you make an honest argument as to why a defender of individual freedom would specifically attempt to remove the constitutional protections of minority groups?
If he sees the Constitution as not protecting the rights of certain minority groups and his goal is to maximize liberty for all, why is he not pushing to amend the constitution to provide greater liberty?
INCOME TAX: This has been a very slippery subject for years. I think the wikipedia article does a decent job explaining it.. including the shady issue of what constitutes "income."
Also, there is controversy over the ratification of the 16th Amendment. And given the period of time this amendment was presented and ratified should also be suspect, as it was proposed essentially to fund the Federal Reserve. Reagan's Grace Commission revealed that income tax goes to paying interest of our nation's debt....
Some people, including Harry Reid, still claim that the Federal Income Tax is "voluntary." Which is also bs.
HEALTHCARE: Conventionally, implementation of the law would be halted until the questions are cleared in the courts. That's all I am saying here. I don't like the fact the Administration just shrugged and went about it's business.
PROLONGED DETENTION: That order didn't just deal with non-citizens. Couple this with the Patriot Act, and we effectively have no rights if the Federal government so deems.
Dig deeper.
HR 539: Just read it and it's purpose is to put the Federal courts back within the bounds of the Federal government's purpose as stated within the Constitution.
Currently, the federal courts walk all over the local and state laws - basically erasing any self rule by the People.
Instead, the President gets to select judges that will essentially change the local law without representation of the People. Effectively legislating from the bench.
This bill is not meant to legislate on social issues, install an established religion, or any of that mess. It is meant to bring the federal courts back in line with the Constitution and remove any unconstitutional precedents effectively made law, allowing the states to legislate, as per their 10th Amendment right, on the subjects.
Now, that being said... I can't say that a state won't use this reinstatement of their right to do stupid things, but at least if they do, the people have options: They can go through the political process (as is their responsibility as a citizen), take it to the courts or move.
Much better than the federal government making all the rules. Then it is next to impossible to correct or get away from.
You have to understand that there are people who are being stepped on on the other side of this argument.
Take for example abortion. Those that are pro-life are being forced to support and pay for something they find morally wrong. They are condoning with their tax money what they consider murder, which is against their religion. Like, seriously, there are people who think they are going to go to hell because of this! This isn't right either, lol.
There is a better way, dude. And the answer is to let locales keep their culture and make their own laws. Sure, there are going to be conflicts, but at least it protects individual rights better, and leaves the individual with options.
(Forgive any single lines. I am doing paragraphs according to this little box and, well, it isn't appropriate to the final post width, lol)
Thanks to Jason for the thought provoking guest post and the commentators for a clean discussion. I have a few comments that I think got lost in the debate here and on Twitter.
Jason made the point in the following paragraph:
“The Supreme Court, in interpretation of The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment has created a base line of protection for individual liberty. It is important to note that this is merely a baseline of protection. No state can violate these protections. Any state can increase the rights provided to its people. Alaska, for example, found that its own constitution’s Right to Privacy protected the personal use of marijuana in the home. The Fourteenth Amendment does not set the rights afforded to the people. It sets the absolute minimum.”
I will not deny that there is a legitimate threat of intrusion from the federal government. I cannot accept that the most effective way to negate the potential threat posed by the federal government is to remove the state level protections granted by the 14th Amendment. The issue of State’s rights is taken as a fix-all, but if you limit the minimum Federal protection the States could easily pose substantial threats of their own.
Additionally, I have issues with Paul’s assertion regarding the federal government’s “hostility to religion.” Secularism is not hostility. He falls into that trap of right-wing religious paranoia because the government doesn’t rubber stamp HIS form of religion. I find that fundamentally flawed and all too revealing about Paul’s ultimate mindset. He states:
“The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.”
This is right-wing fear-mongering clap-trap.
“The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance.”
THIS is the point, isn’t it? Churches are supposed to eclipse the state.
Thanks to the Left Hemispheres team for the great atheist posts and Steve Barry for the invite here.
Ron Paul is a 70+ year old Christian [no body is perfect]; but he certainly is no theocrat. He advocates state rights for pragmatic reasons; philosophic reasons; not because of machinations.
America is a Republic whose primary design was to protect its members from tyranny abroad. The Constitution established a framework to which a small, cohesive government could attach itself and grow in efficiency instead of size. The GOP’s and Tea-Partiers love to debate the context and spirit of the Constitution, while the Libs love to point out its errs, such as the thee-fifths compromise. Beware; this debate is a partisan excursion from what really matters [will be gotten to]. For zealots to crow on about the original meaning of the Constitution and the spirituality of the Founding Fathers is as nearly injudicious as trying to portray Alexander as ‘Great’ because he was pagan. Also, Libs sound contrived when they try to talk above the Constitution as though they would have written it better. Why not attack the Magna Carta for only applying to lordship? Later we could go after John Locke perhaps – for practicing alchemy?
The concept that one is free to express themselves in whatever way they want so long as it doesn’t affect others in an undesirable way –freedom- is brand new. Liberty doesn’t flip on and off again like a switch. Right now it is sputtering into existence. Milton Friedman pointed out that, historically, less than a thousandth of a percent on man-kind has escaped tyrannical rule [the kind where most everyone one is either a slave or living in serfdom]. Please think of this point in time as the genesis of reason, peace and liberty. The Constitution is really just a spark; not the flame and, as everyone would agree, even our founders knew that it wouldn’t last.
Ron Paul’s platform is individual liberty, individual accountability, sound money, non-intervention in war, pro-intervention in commerce. That is fucking light-years beyond anyone who has any chance of becoming president of this country. He’s proclaimed that his first order of business as POTUS is to redact his own power from that of a King back to that of a spokesman for the Senate. Never since Jefferson has anyone spoken like this in American history. If Ron accomplishes 1/100th of what he platforms, then I am for him. He’s an old man who will die before he has any chance of affecting any alleged theocratic agenda. What really matters is that most of what Ron Paul wants to do is a step in the right direction. I’d love to discuss the many delta’s between Ron Paul’s campaign and my own personally beliefs, but for now I am absolutely enjoying this monumental time for what it is.
For those who are worried that some states will install some sort of theocracy where kids are taught about Jesus in school or where Blue Laws torment citizens; so what – isn’t that what we have now? Some states are secular while others are theocratic. For us to prove that secularism is best, we must have viable competitive diversity. I’m willing to put my atheistic, libertarian ideology on the line anytime. I’d love for a chance for freedom-loving secular state like New Hampshire to compete with Alabama and whatever the hell they want to do [snake-handling] or teach their kids. I’d rather have Massachusetts bankrupt itself with Romni-care than have the United States bankrupt itself with Obamni-Care (I know that bringing up healthcare is a can of worms but please stick with me). If state activities are good for the people, then other states will copy them and prosper. If they are bad, they will be forced to adapt or die – but most certainly adapt. The key is for states to have the latitude to adapt in policy and accountability for when/if they fail.
Right now the federal government can’t even learn from its own mistakes. Listen to Ron Paul, because he has pointed out our follies every time.
I must also add that the Founding Father discussion is very stacked by Christians who assert the following:
1) Deism is a Christian by proxy
2) Thomas Paine is not a Founding Father.
3) Saying America is a Christian Nation because it's founders where Christian sounds righteous, but saying that America is a White-Slave-Owning nation on the same accord is tasteless.
The whole debate is very stupid because it can’t be won on those terms.
Jason,
I am opposed to the Civil Liberties Act.
I believe that people, including business owners have the right to discriminate. Curves has the right to discriminate against men in the same way as the ‘KKK Shop’ in Macon County Georgia has a right to refuse black clientele [I’ve seen this shop - they sell hoods and crosses and such]. A business is personal property and I believe that people have the right to refuse service or employment with anyone. The exception to this is when the business isn’t personal property, such as government facilities, jobs and contracts.
Jim Crowe Laws where already illegal. No one [especially Ron] has ever stated that abolishing Jim Crowe laws was a bad thing. This connection is demagoguing – to use one of Ron’s favorite words for those who toggle from one obtuse position to the next without entertaining the central concept. This is a staple tactic on the cable news networks. The point is, it was already illegal for government facilities, polling stations, and social systems to prejudice people based on race. The fact that an Execute Order and later Congressional Acts affirmed racial equality is fantastic. However, the legislation over-extended itself via the intrusion into the private sector, which did nothing better than create lasting racial animosity.
This is why Ron Paul says he would vote against the Civil Right Act (not to speak for him).
canaanav:
With regard to your first post:
Not to be rude but you didn't actually address the points of the post. You address tea partiers and libs. You attack the zealots who would attack Alexander the Great and John Locke.
You point out that the concept of fundamental human rights is a relatively new concept.
But then you jump to "Ron paul's platform is individual liberty..." That is the exact point addressed in the post. He clearly does not have that as a platform. He specifically targets homosexuals and non-Christians. This point remains unrefuted, or even addressed by your post.
You then hypothesize that he has order of operations which will allow him to do good during his tenure but that his age will prevent him from doing harm. As you have not cited any basis for his preferential hierarchy, what is his order of priorities, how did you reach this conclusion, and what if it differs from your supposed and, thus far, unfounded order? What if he seeks to do the harm first?
Further, your proposed hypothetical state, where their may be prayer in school, is more benign than certain states actually are right now. The Texas Constitution bans non-believers from holding public office. It also bans homosexuality as a matter of law. The only thing standing in the way of this being reality is the the Supreme Court and judicial review. Ron Paul seeks to tear down these protections while he professes to stand for individual liberty.
If homosexuals are branded as sodomites and jailed for who they are, your proposal is to allow this to continue until the state has a change of heart. How is this a better solution than barring states from criminalizing human nature?
Even if you conclude that Ron Paul offers a better solution, how can you then claim that he is a proponent of individual liberty?
Canaav:
Your second post addresses nothing that I said. I am very confused by its content. Thomas Paine has not thus far been mentioned. Thomas Jefferson has, but he is absolutely a founding father.
Your third post addresses the following:
Your opinion of the Civil Liberties Act. That grants reparations to interned Japanese Americans. This has not been addressed. How is this relevant?
The rights of private companies to discriminate, which has not been addressed. How is this relevant?
Jim Crow Laws, which have not been addressed. How is the relevant?
Canaanav: you are just posting talking points. You have addressed nothing of substance: Jim Crow, private property ownership, internment of the Japanese, Thomas Paine, The Magna Carta, Alchemy...
You appear to be running through a litany of pre-formed talking points. You have not addressed anything I have written or any objection posted about Ron Paul.
I recommend taking a break from your talking points to examine the actual criticisms of Ron Paul that have been brought up. If you disagree with those criticisms, formulate a response as to why. If you take the time to do this we may be able to start an actual dialogue.
Fun stuff Jason,
My original comment on twitter was something like, “I’m surprised that you didn’t mention Building 7 in your assessment of Ron Paul.”
Your connections from mined snippets and quotes from the web are rubbing elbows with the cruise missile that hit the Pentagon.
The presidency was a frivolous position created for a general who didn’t want to be King of the United States, George Washington. Ron Paul realizes this and he wants to decimate (divide by 10) the power of the president in his term. Your whole piece centers on the idea that Ron is an old tyrant with sunken in eyes, who wants to exercise his executive power to keep gays from getting married and install theocracy? – question mark because you’re losing me. I was actually following you in the article, but started to lose you in the commentary.
Here’s some of my ‘snippets’ to counter yours pertaining to Ron’s decades old position on Executive Orders:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCyU3-QLg2M - This one is particularly sweet because Ron is coming out against an Executive Order that removed federal funding for abortion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKFEU2vsal0&playnext=1&list=PL4C05A091E4D44E3D
You debate like William Lane Craig. Reel it back in a bit.
Hi Jason,
I am commenting in the commentary on other comments.
You asked:
"Can you make an honest argument as to why a defender of individual freedom would specifically attempt to remove the constitutional protections of minority groups?"
I assumed that Ron's opposition to the Civil Rights Acts was what you were asking about. Sorry if it was off the mark.
Keep up the awesome debate, guys!
*getting comfy on the couch, with computer and popcorn*
canaanav:
I am not quoting "mined snippets and quotes from the web" from the web. I am questioning Ron Paul's actual legislative history and his interpretation of the Constitution. I am questioning his stated position on the separation of church and State and the influence he wants Christianity to have over the people.
Neither of your youtube vidoes address anything I have stated. I have not, at any point, questioned Ron Paul's position on executive orders.
And I was not referencing the civil rights act. Again, I was referring to Ron Paul's HB 539.
Again, you state you disagree with my post. You even go so far as to compare it to the 9-11 conspiracy theories. But you have yet to address any portion of it.
If you disagree with any part of my post, please let me know. I would be happy to discuss it.
@Canaanav For the sake of argument let’s think this out while stripping away all the other talking points about Presidential power, Romney/ObamaCare, Christian theocrats, Jim Crow, persecutions, etc. Not that I am trying to dismiss anyone’s points and concerns, but it isn’t central to the point as I see it.
If I grant you that Paul himself is only interested in state’s rights as a philosophy, and not for “machinations;” there is still a problem with the legislation that he wrote and proposed. What happens when these Constitutional baseline protections/rights are removed and individual states have *more* power over an individual’s life then they do now or even the Federal government has now? This is the argument at hand. Whether or not Paul “intends” this ill effect is actually moot. The result is the same whether it is intended or not. Why is the Federal government the “Big Bad” and the states get a pass? Not that the Federal government shouldn’t be held in check, quite the opposite; but each state is a STATE. It is a government just as flawed as the Federal gov, but on a smaller scale. That smaller scale, in relation to individuals is irrelevant. It is still a state which could infringe on liberty. The Federal/State dichotomy has the effect of one protecting the citizens from the other. Back and forth. I am not claiming that this is perfect. I AM claiming that it is better than neutering either one to give more power to the other.
If you’re going to argue that he doesn’t *intend* this to happen (which I disagree with) fine, but realize it has consequences down the road. It is myopic. HR 539 Section 3(1) as cited above is a frightening precedent to set that erodes the rights of people within their states.
I don't disagree with almost all of Paul's goals that you mentioned (“…individual liberty, individual accountability, sound money, non-intervention in war, pro-intervention in commerce.”). I disagree and disapprove of the methods being used to achieve them. Dismantling Constitutional "baseline" protections is short sighted and smacks of a "scorched earth" ideology to achieve his ends. This is the same as Tea Partiers cheering for the S&P downgrade or Nero fiddling away. It is ideological warfare and damn the consequences.
OK - lots to think about with this post. I see both good and bad with this bill.
Let's start with the marriage stuff: Traditionally, states have had the power to regulate marriage in particular, such as setting limitation on who may marry (1st cousins can marry in some states, but not in others), minimum ages required for marriage, etc.
I don't see Ron Paul in this bill attempting to violate individual liberties, but to prevent the feds from usurping states rights on this matter. For the record, it's a slippery slope from gay rights, which the majority of American support these days, to rights for polygamists - and the laws against polygamy are already being challenged based on the gay right movement.
I think that what Ron Paul is trying to do here is to limit the ability of the Court establish a broad right over the state's rights to regulate marriage. So far, no one has legally declared gays to be distinct minority group worthy of special protections OVER AND ABOVE protections provided to all citizens. In other words, they don't get SPECIAL treatment under the constitution - just equal treatment.
All of that said, if they're not entitled to SPECIAL treatment under the a constitution, then it follows that states should have the rights under the 10th Amendment to regulate marriage how they see fit. Don't forget, this bill would also prevent the Court from declaring any state gay marriage law unconstitutional. It works both ways.
I also don't see this bill as something Ron Paul to step on anyone's rights. State rights are also important under the constitution. For the record, I don't believe or not believe in gay marriage. I do believe that if states are going to regulate marriage (and there is a strong libertarian argument that they shouldn't be doing it in the first place - it should be a religious institution), that whether it is legalized or not should be a matter of state law, not an imposition of federal will on the states. As for legal benefits of marriage, particularly tax benefits, wouldn't it make more sense for the tax code and other laws to be written to apply equally to married and unmarried folks, so there is no unequal treatment in the first place? I don't see this law limiting those options.
As for the rest of the bill, the US Supreme Court has already declared rights to privacy, and the right to exercise religion is guaranteed in the 1st Amendment AND made applicable to the states via the 14th Amendment. Let's not forget the all important 4th Amendment, where the right to privacy is litigated repeatedly in Motions to Suppress evidence collected in violation of the 4th Amendment - also as applied to the state through the 14th Amendment.
I do see Ron Paul's point in submitting the bill - the courts have entirely too much power in making broad proclamations about our rights, and increasingly those decisions wind up clarifying that we DON'T have certain rights instead of acknowledging that we do have them. I.E. in recent years, the court clarified that we have to cough up ID if requested by a police officer. On the other hand, religion, speech, and privacy are so intertwined with the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, these matters are litigated on a daily basis. I see this portion of the bill being tossed out by the Supreme Court in a heartbeat the first time states use provisions of the bill to trample individual liberties. Of course, they do so repeatedly every day of the week - in particular parental rights, and the Supreme Court takes very few of those cases.
All of that said, I'm still strongly supporting Ron Paul for president. I don't think the bill will pass in the first place.
Hi Steve,
I’m sorry for the excursions from the article. I was commenting on some of the commentary thus far. You guys run a great forum by keeping people in line.
Even Ron Paul says that the weakest argument for anything proposed on the floor is whether or not it’s Constitutional. In my original post I was hinting at how fruitless it is to parade the Constitution around as the source of our rights. The American Revolution has proved that Rights come from those who say they want them and are willing to fight for them. Liberties are taken; they are never granted by governments. Freedom is a new concept, so for this reason we’re still convinced that everything [including liberties] must come from a writ, law or edict. On the contrary, Rights come from our willingness to fight for them. Liberty is taken in spite of writ, law or edict.
Steve’s question:
“What happens when these Constitutional baseline protections/rights are removed and individual states have *more* power over an individual’s life then they do now or even the Federal government has now? That is the argument at hand.”
What are we really afraid of here? Are people worried that an iron fisted microstate will keep their citizens oppressed? I’m surprised that people care so much about states going awry when it comes to their own governance. Personally, I believe that smaller government is always better [I’m no anarchists of course]. I believe that, given the chance to compete in free markets, secular states with government enforcement of contracts and property rights will outperform those who want to control people on social agenda. After all, sometimes it’s the Supreme Court we need protection from. Last time I checked the Supreme Court was OK with incarcerating us for smoking weed, groping us at airports, spying on us in the interest of stopping terror, and even assassinating US citizens with terror ties abroad. Fear of limited government is patently irrational and, in my opinion, ironically stems from insecurity with freedom.
Those who are concerned about small government abuse of power as an [un]intended consequence [Jason], which is the argument at hand, seem unconfident that freedom could survive without an overarching fascism that installs it via writs, laws and edicts. The real argument at hand is viability. Our ‘democracy’ is half pregnant. We have a ‘free society’ that can ban whatever they want, incarcerate whomever –even without Habeas Corpus, go to war with whomever, and tax for whatever reason. None of our freedoms will survive unless we localize the runaway power exercised by the fed.
Enjoying reading. I do have a question for those not in favor of Ron Paul:
What candidate do you find most suitable, out of those running? and ideally?
Paula:
Again, as I stated in my original position, I am absolutely not claiming that Ron Paul does not have a defensible constitutional position. I am saying that his position is not that of someone who is attempting to maximize liberty. To be clear: he is not simply targeting marriage. He is not pushing for broad states rights protections. He is specifically targeting two groups: Non-Christians and Homosexuals. He is targeting his legislation at the holding in Lawrence v. Texas (Declaring Texas’s anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional based on the right to privacy). To be clear, he did not recklessly or unintentionally target Lawrence. He specifically states “any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices…”
Further, as you point out, the 4th amendment right to privacy applies to the states. But be clear, this bill makes no distinction between the 1st and 4th amendment’s right to privacy. He seeks to remove federal jurisdiction on any state matter involving the right to privacy. So Katz v. United States would only apply to the federal government. States, and state police forces, would no longer be required to provide its citizens a “reasonable expectation of privacy” with regard to search and seizure.
And to say states rights play an important role in our Constitution is correct. But it ignores the fact that this bill is not targeting areas where people’s rights are being trampled by the Supreme Court. It is targeted at areas where the Supreme Court is providing greater protections than are afforded at the state level. If, as you say, this is done to protect against broad abuses of federal power such as the mandatory showing of identification, why is Paul not targeting these areas? He is specifically targeting areas that states have consistently been oppressive than the federal government.
Ron Paul is not pushing for broad freedoms with this legislation. He is not stepping to defend the people in areas where the Federal Government is being oppressive. He is targeting the base line protections afforded to homosexuals and non-Christians. These are not actions intended to promote individual liberty. The intent is oppression.
I am following along with these comments, and was waiting for a Ron Paul supporter to actually address the issues contained in the original article. The general consensus seems to be, that these issues addressed in this article are not germane to Ron Paul’s position.
And that:
1. The anti-gay, anti-establishment clause result is unintended, or
2. It is irrelevant because it will not pass, or
3. It is acceptable because removing this “power from the federal government,. Further, transfering it to the states is necessary to promote liberty and a just society.
I will address these in turn, and hope that someone will respond.
The Results are not Unintended
First, the anti-gay, and anti-nonchristian effects of this legislation are not unintended. They are absolutely the point of this proposed legislation. To be clear about this: The day this legislation passed, people would be eligible for prosecution for what goes on in their bedrooms; and not just homosexuals. Many states have laws on their books that ban sodomy regardless of the gender of the engaging partners. These would once again become active and valid law. This does not promote liberty; it invites police into your home, and your neighbor’s home so that they may drag you before a judge and jury to decide if the specific sexual activity they observed is evil enough to deprive you of liberty. This should be disgusting to any person who supports human rights, and basic freedoms. Indeed, it is clear to me that this would be condemned by many more who commented above if only another politician had proposed it.
The Legislation is not too Unpopular to be Relevant
In above comments people have discussed in vague and generalized ways that the federal government has far too much power, and this is why we need a Ron Paul in office. Although this legislation may not be valuable, his platform as a whole warrants taking the good with the bad. The economy is of far greater import.
I find it absurd that it must pointed out to supposed champions of liberty that it is dangerous to sacrifice the rights of groups you do not belong to, in order to seat a leader who has a solution to economic ills. Other people’s fundamental rights are just that; fundamental. They cannot take a back seat to your bank account balance.
The far more obvious question is "what did you just say?" Ron Paul tried to pass this legislation. Achieving this deprivation of rights is important to him. The idea seems to be that Ron Paul spends his time trying to enact anti-gay, anti-establishment clause legislation that is in direct contrast to the beliefs that libertarians hold most dear, but this is okay, because it won't pass? These issues are clearly important to him. For any honest defender of liberty, this should be condemned, but it cannot be ignored.
The States Should not Have this Power
Supporters seem to be claiming that the states should have this power, either because, in general the protection of liberty properly falls with the states, or because states will ultimately compete, and this competition yields the best system of government. This is the most unacceptable claim made above.
Claiming that states should have the power, because as a general rule, they should be responsible for these things ignores the specific rule that people’s rights will be stripped from them the day this legislation happens. Claiming this to be a justified result puts States control of power above actual rights of actual citizens in this country. This is a horrific and unacceptable result. Appropriate division of power is not more important than individual liberty; it is intended as a means to achieve greater liberty. And much more importantly, appropriate division of power should not result in the deprivation of rights if it is executed correctly. In short, if the federal level protects individual liberty more than states, the power correctly lies with them.
I am following along with these comments, and was waiting for a Ron
Paul supporter to actually address the issues contained in the
original article. The general consensus seems to be, that these issues
addressed in this article are not germane to Ron Paul’s position.
And that:
1. The anti-gay, anti-establishment clause result is unintended, or
2. It is irrelevant because it will not pass, or
3. It is acceptable because removing this “power from the federal
government,. Further, transfering it to the states is necessary to
promote liberty and a just society.
I will address these in turn, and hope that someone will respond.
The Results are not Unintended
First, the anti-gay, and anti-nonchristian effects of this legislation
are not unintended. They are absolutely the point of this proposed
legislation. To be clear about this: The day this legislation passed,
people would be eligible for prosecution for what goes on in their
bedrooms; and not just homosexuals. Many states have laws on their
books that ban sodomy regardless of the gender of the engaging
partners. These would once again become active and valid law. This
does not promote liberty; it invites police into your home, and your
neighbor’s home so that they may drag you before a judge and jury to
decide if the specific sexual activity they observed is evil enough to
deprive you of liberty. This should be disgusting to any person who
supports human rights, and basic freedoms. Indeed, it is clear to me
that this would be condemned by many more who commented above if only
another politician had proposed it.
The Legislation is not too Unpopular to be Relevant
In above comments people have discussed in vague and generalized ways
that the federal government has far too much power, and this is why we
need a Ron Paul in office. Although this legislation may not be
valuable, his platform as a whole warrants taking the good with the
bad. The economy is of far greater import.
I find it absurd that it must pointed out to supposed champions of
liberty that it is dangerous to sacrifice the rights of groups you do
not belong to, in order to seat a leader who has a solution to
economic ills. Other people’s fundamental rights are just that;
fundamental. They cannot take a back seat to your bank account
balance.
The far more obvious question is "what did you just say?" Ron Paul
tried to pass this legislation. Achieving this deprivation of rights
is important to him. The idea seems to be that Ron Paul spends his
time trying to enact anti-gay, anti-establishment clause legislation
that is in direct contrast to the beliefs that libertarians hold most
dear, but this is okay, because it won't pass? These issues are
clearly important to him. For any honest defender of liberty, this
should be condemned, but it cannot be ignored.
The States Should not Have this Power
Supporters seem to be claiming that the states should have this power,
either because, in general the protection of liberty properly falls
with the states, or because states will ultimately compete, and this
competition yields the best system of government. This is the most
unacceptable claim made above.
Claiming that states should have the power, because as a general
rule, they should be responsible for these things ignores the specific
rule that people’s rights will be stripped from them the day this
legislation happens. Claiming this to be a justified result puts
States control of power above actual rights of actual citizens in this
country. This is a horrific and unacceptable result. Appropriate
division of power is not more important than individual liberty; it is
intended as a means to achieve greater liberty. And much more
importantly, appropriate division of power should not result in the
deprivation of rights if it is executed correctly. In short, if the
federal level protects individual liberty more than states, the power
correctly lies with them.
I am following along with these comments, and was waiting for a Ron
Paul supporter to actually address the issues contained in the
original article. The general consensus seems to be, that these issues
addressed in this article are not germane to Ron Paul’s position.
And that:
1. The anti-gay, anti-establishment clause result is unintended, or
2. It is irrelevant because it will not pass, or
3. It is acceptable because removing this “power from the federal
government,. Further, transfering it to the states is necessary to
promote liberty and a just society.
I will address these in turn, and hope that someone will respond.
The Results are not Unintended
First, the anti-gay, and anti-nonchristian effects of this legislation
are not unintended. They are absolutely the point of this proposed
legislation. To be clear about this: The day this legislation passed,
people would be eligible for prosecution for what goes on in their
bedrooms; and not just homosexuals. Many states have laws on their
books that ban sodomy regardless of the gender of the engaging
partners. These would once again become active and valid law. This
does not promote liberty; it invites police into your home, and your
neighbor’s home so that they may drag you before a judge and jury to
decide if the specific sexual activity they observed is evil enough to
deprive you of liberty. This should be disgusting to any person who
supports human rights, and basic freedoms. Indeed, it is clear to me
that this would be condemned by many more who commented above if only
another politician had proposed it.
The Legislation is not too Unpopular to be Relevant
In above comments people have discussed in vague and generalized ways
that the federal government has far too much power, and this is why we
need a Ron Paul in office. Although this legislation may not be
valuable, his platform as a whole warrants taking the good with the
bad. The economy is of far greater import.
I find it absurd that it must pointed out to supposed champions of
liberty that it is dangerous to sacrifice the rights of groups you do
not belong to, in order to seat a leader who has a solution to
economic ills. Other people’s fundamental rights are just that;
fundamental. They cannot take a back seat to your bank account
balance.
The far more obvious question is "what did you just say?" Ron Paul
tried to pass this legislation. Achieving this deprivation of rights
is important to him. The idea seems to be that Ron Paul spends his
time trying to enact anti-gay, anti-establishment clause legislation
that is in direct contrast to the beliefs that libertarians hold most
dear, but this is okay, because it won't pass? These issues are
clearly important to him. For any honest defender of liberty, this
should be condemned, but it cannot be ignored.
The States Should not Have this Power
Supporters seem to be claiming that the states should have this power,
either because, in general the protection of liberty properly falls
with the states, or because states will ultimately compete, and this
competition yields the best system of government. This is the most
unacceptable claim made above.
Claiming that states should have the power, because as a general
rule, they should be responsible for these things ignores the specific
rule that people’s rights will be stripped from them the day this
legislation happens. Claiming this to be a justified result puts
States control of power above actual rights of actual citizens in this
country. This is a horrific and unacceptable result. Appropriate
division of power is not more important than individual liberty; it is
intended as a means to achieve greater liberty. And much more
importantly, appropriate division of power should not result in the
deprivation of rights if it is executed correctly. In short, if the
federal level protects individual liberty more than states, the power
correctly lies with them.
I am following along with these comments, and was waiting for a Ron Paul supporter to actually address the issues contained in the original article. The general consensus seems to be, that these issues addressed in this article are not germane to Ron Paul’s position.
And that:
1. The anti-gay, anti-establishment clause result is unintended, or
2. It is irrelevant because it will not pass, or
3. It is acceptable because removing this “power from the federal government,. Further, transferring it to the states is necessary to promote liberty and a just society.
I will address these in turn, and hope that someone will respond.
The Results are not Unintended
First, the anti-gay, and anti-nonchristian effects of this legislation are not unintended. They are absolutely the point of this proposed legislation. To be clear about this: The day this legislation passed, people would be eligible for prosecution for what goes on in their bedrooms; and not just homosexuals. Many states have laws on their books that ban sodomy regardless of the gender of the engaging partners. These would once again become active and valid law. This does not promote liberty; it invites police into your home, and your neighbor’s home so that they may drag you before a judge and jury to decide if the specific sexual activity they observed is evil enough to deprive you of liberty. This should be disgusting to any person who supports human rights, and basic freedoms. Indeed, it is clear to me that this would be condemned by many more who commented above if only another politician had proposed it.
The Legislation is not too Unpopular to be Relevant
In above comments people have discussed in vague and generalized ways that the federal government has far too much power, and this is why we need a Ron Paul in office. Although this legislation may not be valuable, his platform as a whole warrants taking the good with the bad. The economy is of far greater import.
I find it absurd that it must pointed out to supposed champions of liberty that it is dangerous to sacrifice the rights of groups you do not belong to, in order to seat a leader who has a solution to economic ills. Other people’s fundamental rights are just that; fundamental. They cannot cannot be sidelined because their protection is inconvenient.
The far more obvious question is "what did you just say?" Ron Paul tried to pass this legislation. Achieving this deprivation of rights is important to him. The idea seems to be that Ron Paul spends his time trying to enact anti-gay, anti-establishment clause legislation that is in direct contrast to the beliefs that libertarians hold most dear, but this is okay, because it won't pass? These issues are clearly important to him. For any honest defender of liberty, this should be condemned, but it cannot be ignored.
The States Should not Have this Power
Supporters seem to be claiming that the states should have this power, either because, in general the protection of liberty properly falls with the states, or because states will ultimately compete, and this competition yields the best system of government. This is the most unacceptable claim made above.
Claiming that states should have the power, because as a general rule, they should be responsible for these things ignores the specific rule that people’s rights will be stripped from them the day this legislation happens. Claiming this to be a justified result puts States control of power above actual rights of actual citizens in this country. This is a horrific and unacceptable result. Appropriate division of power is not more important than individual liberty; it is intended as a means to achieve greater liberty. And much more importantly, appropriate division of power should not result in the deprivation of rights if it is executed correctly. In short, if the federal level protects individual liberty more than states, the power correctly lies with them.
Testing. Apologies if your comment didn't go through. Something is up with Blogger. Please try again if your comment disappeared.
FKNBLGR
I am following along with these comments, and was waiting for a Ron Paul supporter to actually address the issues contained in the original article. The general consensus seems to be, that these issues addressed in this article are not germane to Ron Paul’s position.
And that:
1. The anti-gay, anti-establishment clause result is unintended, or
2. It is irrelevant because it will not pass, or
3. It is acceptable because removing this “power from the federal government,. Further, transferring it to the states is necessary to promote liberty and a just society.
I will address these in turn, and hope that someone will respond.
The Results are not Unintended
First, the anti-gay, and anti-nonchristian effects of this legislation are not unintended. They are absolutely the point of this proposed legislation. To be clear about this: The day this legislation passed, people would be eligible for prosecution for what goes on in their bedrooms; and not just homosexuals. Many states have laws on their books that ban sodomy regardless of the gender of the engaging partners. These would once again become active and valid law. This does not promote liberty; it invites police into your home, and your neighbor’s home so that they may drag you before a judge and jury to decide if the specific sexual activity they observed is evil enough to deprive you of liberty. This should be disgusting to any person who supports human rights, and basic freedoms. Indeed, it is clear to me that this would be condemned by many more who commented above if only another politician had proposed it.
The Legislation is not too Unpopular to be Relevant
In above comments people have discussed in vague and generalized ways that the federal government has far too much power, and this is why we need a Ron Paul in office. Although this legislation may not be valuable, his platform as a whole warrants taking the good with the bad. The economy is of far greater import.
I find it absurd that it must pointed out to supposed champions of liberty that it is dangerous to sacrifice the rights of groups you do not belong to, in order to seat a leader who has a solution to economic ills. Other people’s fundamental rights are just that; fundamental. They cannot cannot be sidelined because their protection is inconvenient.
The far more obvious question is "what did you just say?" Ron Paul tried to pass this legislation. Achieving this deprivation of rights is important to him. The idea seems to be that Ron Paul spends his time trying to enact anti-gay, anti-establishment clause legislation that is in direct contrast to the beliefs that libertarians hold most dear, but this is okay, because it won't pass? These issues are clearly important to him. For any honest defender of liberty, this should be condemned, but it cannot be ignored.
The States Should not Have this Power
Supporters seem to be claiming that the states should have this power, either because, in general the protection of liberty properly falls with the states, or because states will ultimately compete, and this competition yields the best system of government. This is the most unacceptable claim made above.
Claiming that states should have the power, because as a general rule, they should be responsible for these things ignores the specific rule that people’s rights will be stripped from them the day this legislation happens. Claiming this to be a justified result puts States control of power above actual rights of actual citizens in this country. This is a horrific and unacceptable result. Appropriate division of power is not more important than individual liberty; it is intended as a means to achieve greater liberty. And much more importantly, appropriate division of power should not result in the deprivation of rights if it is executed correctly. In short, if the federal level protects individual liberty more than states, the power correctly lies with them.
@Alice
Caananav asked me that question on Twitter. Respectfully, I think that it is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Answering the question in any detail would only serve to potentially hijack the conversation. I know what Ron Paul's stated goals are, but the legislation is proof of what he would set out to accomplish and the means he would use. I do not accept it. I find it fundamentally flawed.
Having said that, I will state that I don't like any of the candidates and my ideal candidate is not running. At this time I do not belong to any political party.
Part 1:
I am following along with these comments, and was waiting for a Ron Paul supporter to actually address the issues contained in the original article. The general consensus seems to be, that these issues addressed in this article are not germane to Ron Paul’s position.
And that:
1. The anti-gay, anti-establishment clause result is unintended, or
2. It is irrelevant because it will not pass, or
3. It is acceptable because removing this “power from the federal government,. Further, transferring it to the states is necessary to promote liberty and a just society.
I will address these in turn, and hope that someone will respond.
The Results are not Unintended
First, the anti-gay, and anti-nonchristian effects of this legislation are not unintended. They are absolutely the point of this proposed legislation. To be clear about this: The day this legislation passed, people would be eligible for prosecution for what goes on in their bedrooms; and not just homosexuals. Many states have laws on their books that ban sodomy regardless of the gender of the engaging partners. These would once again become active and valid law. This does not promote liberty; it invites police into your home, and your neighbor’s home so that they may drag you before a judge and jury to decide if the specific sexual activity they observed is evil enough to deprive you of liberty. This should be disgusting to any person who supports human rights, and basic freedoms. Indeed, it is clear to me that this would be condemned by many more who commented above if only another politician had proposed it.
Test test. - Jason
The following comment was submitted by a reader. Due to whatever issues Blogger is having at the moment, apparently some people cannot comment. If you're having problems send your comment(s) to our email via the Contact page. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Brian said...
I am following along with these comments, and was waiting for a Ron Paul supporter to actually address the issues contained in the original article. The general consensus seems to be, that these issues addressed in this article are not germane to Ron Paul’s position.
And that:
1. The anti-gay, anti-establishment clause result is unintended, or
2. It is irrelevant because it will not pass, or
3. It is acceptable because removing this “power from the federal government,. Further, transferring it to the states is necessary to promote liberty and a just society.
I will address these in turn, and hope that someone will respond.
The Results are not Unintended
First, the anti-gay, and anti-nonchristian effects of this legislation are not unintended. They are absolutely the point of this proposed legislation. To be clear about this: The day this legislation passed, people would be eligible for prosecution for what goes on in their bedrooms; and not just homosexuals. Many states have laws on their books that ban sodomy regardless of the gender of the engaging partners. These would once again become active and valid law. This does not promote liberty; it invites police into your home, and your neighbor’s home so that they may drag you before a judge and jury to decide if the specific sexual activity they observed is evil enough to deprive you of liberty. This should be disgusting to any person who supports human rights, and basic freedoms. Indeed, it is clear to me that this would be condemned by many more who commented above if only another politician had proposed it.
Brian's comment continued...
The Legislation is not too Unpopular to be Relevant
In above comments people have discussed in vague and generalized ways that the federal government has far too much power, and this is why we need a Ron Paul in office. Although this legislation may not be valuable, his platform as a whole warrants taking the good with the bad. The economy is of far greater import.
I find it absurd that it must pointed out to supposed champions of liberty that it is dangerous to sacrifice the rights of groups you do not belong to, in order to seat a leader who has a solution to economic ills. Other people’s fundamental rights are just that; fundamental. They cannot cannot be sidelined because their protection is inconvenient.
The far more obvious question is "what did you just say?" Ron Paul tried to pass this legislation. Achieving this deprivation of rights is important to him. The idea seems to be that Ron Paul spends his time trying to enact anti-gay, anti-establishment clause legislation that is in direct contrast to the beliefs that libertarians hold most dear, but this is okay, because it won't pass? These issues are clearly important to him. For any honest defender of liberty, this should be condemned, but it cannot be ignored.
The States Should not Have this Power
Supporters seem to be claiming that the states should have this power, either because, in general the protection of liberty properly falls with the states, or because states will ultimately compete, and this competition yields the best system of government. This is the most unacceptable claim made above.
Claiming that states should have the power, because as a general rule, they should be responsible for these things ignores the specific rule that people’s rights will be stripped from them the day this legislation happens. Claiming this to be a justified result puts States control of power above actual rights of actual citizens in this country. This is a horrific and unacceptable result. Appropriate division of power is not more important than individual liberty; it is intended as a means to achieve greater liberty. And much more importantly, appropriate division of power should not result in the deprivation of rights if it is executed correctly. In short, if the federal level protects individual liberty more than states, the power correctly lies with them.
My intention was not to hijack the conversation. I was sincerely curious.
Aliceleuchte:
I not yet located any candidate to support. If you want my suggestion on an alternative libertarian candidate, I would suggest Gary Johnson.
I am not a libertarian. But unlike Ron Paul, Gary Johnson appears to be.
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/
I didn't mean to imply that was your intention. My apologies. I just didn't want the conversation to become about Paul's comparison to other candidates.
It's all good, dude. I could see how it could. The conversation is awesome, so I wouldn't want that to happen either :)
I think the basic argument that is arising through this discussion is if the Constitution is really the best system of government.
There are arguments against each level of government, and possible abuses (all 100% valid). So, which is worse:
One government over everyone violating our rights, leaving us no choice but to leave the country if we don't like it, or
Multiple, localized governments, giving us the option to stay in the US and make a home in an area more in line with our individual views and needs?
I honestly would prefer the local government corruption, with the option of remaining in the US and having means & grounds to combat the corruption... as opposed having to become an ex-patriot and having no claim to enact change in my own country.
So, I am for the Constitutional system this country was founded to reflect.
aliceleuchte:
The debate you proposed is absolutely a legitimate debate. More central to the issue here
1. Should we steadfastly adhere to a power shift to the states, when doing so in some instances deprives people of liberty. Answering this question in the affirmative seems puts more import on delegation of powers than individual freedom. Sacrificing individual liberty, so that state and local governments have the right to invade peoples bedrooms is not, in some opinions a defensible position.
2. Is the person that went out of his way to propose this intentional deprivation of rights an actual proponent of liberty, and more importantly is he worthy of support?
I understand what you mean, but I know of no one (in this conversation and the majority of citizens) who is claiming that the Federal gov should be allowed to run amok at the expense of the States and smaller municipalities. They should, in effect, balance each other. The legislation that Paul co-authored would remove one set of those protections at the Federal level leaving large portions of the population susceptible to local abuses. I do not see a defensible difference in allowing States or local governments the possibility to infringe on rights just so it could be said that “at least it is not the Federal government.” There are plenty of State and localities across the U.S. that would immediately begin to enact laws to criminalize behavior or beliefs that are completely antithetical to liberty. I do not find that acceptable and I believe it is unconstitutional.
David Boaz (executive vice president of Cato Institute) asked other Libertarians "If you had to choose, would you rather live in a country with a department of labor and even an income tax or a Dred Scott decision and a Fugitive Slave Act?”
(Part 2)
4) Your reading of HR539 is very well put together. As I said, I pay pretty close attention to Dr. Paul, and feel I can offers some additional insight. I think you correctly read that this is an explicit bid to return to a more federal distribution of government. In some way, pushing back against the drift of 14th Ammendment incorporation. And you fear for the resulting persecution of classes of people you care about, should they no longer have special status - ie special protections from federal courts. I think the fears are debatable. However, when you ascribe motives of attack to this, you are jumping at shadows. Dr. Paul is very clear in his belief that the states are better positioned to regulate these things for their citizens than the feds are. In the same way that each state decides its minimum age to marry, or when drivers licenses can be obtained, or how its tax structure will be put together, etc, etc, etc. He has no agenda for harming or diminishing any of the constituencies you list: religious minorities, homosexuals, users of contraception, or any other deviants (your word). To the contrary, he has stated very clearly and emphatically that "the state" (which can be any level of government) has no business meddling in your personal life. Every person should be free to worship or not - in any way they choose, so long as they do no harm. Likewise, they should have any kind of sex they want, contract to any kind of long-term commitment they want, under the umbrella of any religion they want, and the government would do better to stay out of it altogether. The strong and explicit pro-liberty, pro-privacy, pro-individual statements and positions that he takes are extremely numerous. You have to really read between the lines to see his motivation as otherwise.
5) I think it is fine to worry about reactionary state governments taking a law like this and going back to the stone age. Had this bill gotten any serious attention these would be exactly the lines of debate that would be indicated. But the assumption that Federal courts are always on the side of individual protection vs. the states is misguided. These same limits on jurisdiction, as proposed in HR539 can also serve to protect states like New York (and previously, CA etc.) who want to grant marriage privileges to gay people, only to find themselves wrapped up in federal courts, their state laws struck down. With these explicit restrictions, the federal courts could not try to decide what is permissible in your bedroom, or whether your private book collection is any of their business. Remember that Dr. Paul is a federal legislator, and seeks to diminish "the state's" power. That means he can attempt to restrict the federal government (of which he is a part). If he were a state legislator, you would find him trying to tie the hands of the state government also -- that is the primary component of his philosophy: Government exists to protect our rights, our liberty, and our property. Anything else they might do is mischief.
That’s enough for now, I suppose. Sorry for the length, but I wanted to try to respond to your well-constructed concerns with sufficient depth.
(Part 1)
Introduction: I linked in here from a comment on a different article. I was hoping to discover why that commenter asserted so vigorously that Ron Paul has a "history of promoting a christian only theocratic world view." I pay pretty close attention to his positions and statements, and find the assertion puzzling - so here I am. I'll jump in, if you don't mind...
Analysis:
1) Wow. Great exposition on the importance of and slightly squirrely interpretation/implementation of the 14th ammendment. It is important to remember that the founders, in the Bill of Rights, were restricting the Federal government only. In particular, they (state delegates) were quick (Ammendment no. 1!) to bind the federal government from establishing an official national religion (like the church of England), because they were keen to reserve that power to their states, should that be important to them. Massachusetts' first constitution, drafted principally by Madison, required their governor to be a Christian man, for example.
2) I didn't catch the atheist bent to this blog until I got to the part about Paul's 2003 Essay. You jump to the conclusion that whenever he says "God" he is promoting Christianity. You peel off a very lengthy rebuttal to this notion, before the word Christianity even appears in your quote of his essay. So I looked around a bit more and saw how atheist-centric the blog is. Now I understand the sensitivity and the bit of conclusion jumping. In fact his essay used the word Christian just twice in all the quoted content you provide. (The whole article arises out of the pushback on Christmas, but the arguments he makes, and that you quote, apply equally to Passover or Ramadan. Or even to some atheist holiday - I can't name one, sorry.)
3) In your final rebuttal to this article, you infer that his position, as a proponent of freedom and liberty, is that Christianity is necessary to teach morality. Your bias causes you to read too much between the lines. He says that government cannot teach morality and civility. And that the state (and its supporters) are jealous of people's allegiance to their faith(s). Feel free to plug any church, any faith, any philosophy (including atheism) into his argument and it holds up. Paul's point is not to ram anything down your throat. But to encourage any and all voluntary institutions that compete with the state.
(Continued)
(I hope part one doesn't double-post... it doesn't seem to have appeared the first time :-/ Sorry for any confusion)
(Part 1)
Introduction: I linked in here from a comment on a different article. I was hoping to discover why that commenter asserted so vigorously that Ron Paul has a "history of promoting a christian only theocratic world view." I pay pretty close attention to his positions and statements, and find the assertion puzzling - so here I am. I'll jump in, if you don't mind...
Analysis:
1) Wow. Great exposition on the importance of and slightly squirrely interpretation/implementation of the 14th ammendment. It is important to remember that the founders, in the Bill of Rights, were restricting the Federal government only. In particular, they (state delegates) were quick (Ammendment no. 1!) to bind the federal government from establishing an official national religion (like the church of England), because they were keen to reserve that power to their states, should that be important to them. Massachusetts' first constitution, drafted principally by Madison, required their governor to be a Christian man, for example.
2) I didn't catch the atheist bent to this blog until I got to the part about Paul's 2003 Essay. You jump to the conclusion that whenever he says "God" he is promoting Christianity. You peel off a very lengthy rebuttal to this notion, before the word Christianity even appears in your quote of his essay. So I looked around a bit more and saw how atheist-centric the blog is. Now I understand the sensitivity and the bit of conclusion jumping. In fact his essay used the word Christian just twice in all the quoted content you provide. (The whole article arises out of the pushback on Christmas, but the arguments he makes, and that you quote, apply equally to Passover or Ramadan. Or even to some atheist holiday - I can't name one, sorry.)
3) In your final rebuttal to this article, you infer that his position, as a proponent of freedom and liberty, is that Christianity is necessary to teach morality. Your bias causes you to read too much between the lines. He says that government cannot teach morality and civility. And that the state (and its supporters) are jealous of people's allegiance to their faith(s). Feel free to plug any church, any faith, any philosophy (including atheism) into his argument and it holds up. Paul's point is not to ram anything down your throat. But to encourage any and all voluntary institutions that compete with the state.
(Continued)
(hope part one does not double-post... it seems to have not appeared the first time. Sorry for any confusion.)
VFP:
Thanks for taking the time to write what appears to be a thoughtful response. But your first half did not post.
Jason
(Part 1)
Introduction: I linked in here from a comment on a different article. I was hoping to discover why that commenter asserted so vigorously that Ron Paul has a "history of promoting a christian only theocratic world view." I pay pretty close attention to his positions and statements, and find the assertion puzzling - so here I am. I'll jump in, if you don't mind...
Analysis:
1) Wow. Great exposition on the importance of and slightly squirrely interpretation/implementation of the 14th ammendment. It is important to remember that the founders, in the Bill of Rights, were restricting the Federal government only. In particular, they (state delegates) were quick (Ammendment no. 1!) to bind the federal government from establishing an official national religion (like the church of England), because they were keen to reserve that power to their states, should that be important to them. Massachusetts' first constitution, drafted principally by Madison, required their governor to be a Christian man, for example.
2) I didn't catch the atheist bent to this blog until I got to the part about Paul's 2003 Essay. You jump to the conclusion that whenever he says "God" he is promoting Christianity. You peel off a very lengthy rebuttal to this notion, before the word Christianity even appears in your quote of his essay. So I looked around a bit more and saw how atheist-centric the blog is. Now I understand the sensitivity and the bit of conclusion jumping. In fact his essay used the word Christian just twice in all the quoted content you provide. (The whole article arises out of the pushback on Christmas, but the arguments he makes, and that you quote, apply equally to Passover or Ramadan. Or even to some atheist holiday - I can't name one, sorry.)
3) In your final rebuttal to this article, you infer that his position, as a proponent of freedom and liberty, is that Christianity is necessary to teach morality. Your bias causes you to read too much between the lines. He says that government cannot teach morality and civility. And that the state (and its supporters) are jealous of people's allegiance to their faith(s). Feel free to plug any church, any faith, any philosophy (including atheism) into his argument and it holds up. Paul's point is not to ram anything down your throat. But to encourage any and all voluntary institutions that compete with the state.
(Continued)
(hope this is not a double-post...)
(Part 1)
Introduction: I linked in here from a comment on a different article. I was hoping to discover why that commenter asserted so vigorously that Ron Paul has a "history of promoting a christian only theocratic world view." I pay pretty close attention to his positions and statements, and find the assertion puzzling - so here I am. I'll jump in, if you don't mind...
Analysis:
1) Wow. Great exposition on the importance of and slightly squirrely interpretation/implementation of the 14th ammendment. It is important to remember that the founders, in the Bill of Rights, were restricting the Federal government only. In particular, they (state delegates) were quick (Ammendment no. 1!) to bind the federal government from establishing an official national religion (like the church of England), because they were keen to reserve that power to their states, should that be important to them. Massachusetts' first constitution, drafted principally by Madison, required their governor to be a Christian man, for example.
2) I didn't catch the atheist bent to this blog until I got to the part about Paul's 2003 Essay. You jump to the conclusion that whenever he says "God" he is promoting Christianity. You peel off a very lengthy rebuttal to this notion, before the word Christianity even appears in your quote of his essay. So I looked around a bit more and saw how atheist-centric the blog is. Now I understand the sensitivity and the bit of conclusion jumping. In fact his essay used the word Christian just twice in all the quoted content you provide. (The whole article arises out of the pushback on Christmas, but the arguments he makes, and that you quote, apply equally to Passover or Ramadan. Or even to some atheist holiday - I can't name one, sorry.)
3) In your final rebuttal to this article, you infer that his position, as a proponent of freedom and liberty, is that Christianity is necessary to teach morality. Your bias causes you to read too much between the lines. He says that government cannot teach morality and civility. And that the state (and its supporters) are jealous of people's allegiance to their faith(s). Feel free to plug any church, any faith, any philosophy (including atheism) into his argument and it holds up. Paul's point is not to ram anything down your throat. But to encourage any and all voluntary institutions that compete with the state.
(Continued)
I am not certain what I misstated about the fourteenth amendment. I made it clear that the bill of rights originally did not apply to the states and that current Supreme Court jurisprudence is incorporating the protections provided by the first 8 amendments and applying them to the states one at a time. If you believe this is inaccurate, I would like to know why.
In “The War on Religion” I do conclude that whenever he mentions God, he is referring to Christianity. He states “The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America.” Note, he does not say religious. He does not say deist. He does not say faith based. He says robustly Christian. Further, he refers to “churches” as the object of the hatred of the left. And he refers to “churches” as the teachers of morality and civility. He does not say religious institutions. While God could refer to many religions, it is clear that Ron Paul is not intending to be so inclusive when referencing his preference in faith. While you invite me to plug any belief system into his argument, he does not. He holds a world view that he and secularism are at war. “Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage.”
I will point the slight irony that you accuse me of overreaching in my analysis of Ron Paul, but to make your case, you conclude that I am decidedly “atheist-centric.” But to do this you must go outside of anything I wrote and impute your general feeling of this blog onto me. As a first time guest writer, to assume this is valid is severely dubious. You say his article only mentions Christian twice. I only use the word atheist once, the same number of times I use the word Islam and agnostic. In Ron Paul’s article, which is noticeably shorter than my post, he uses the words “Christian” four times, “Christianity” once, and “church” seven times. How many times did he reference “Islam”, “Buddhism”, “Judaism”, or any other religious belief? In an article about a “war on religion” how many other religions did he defend as providers of morality? The answer is zero. He sees a war on religion, but only defends Christianity.
A re-link from my original post: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
If you can conclude that I am a decidedly biased atheist when my post only mentions atheism once, and in the same breath as Islam and agnosticism, how can you honestly question the legitimacy of my conclusion?
(Part 2)
Your take on my analysis of HR 539 is off. I am not saying Ron Paul is attacking “classes of people I care about” and attempting to remove their “special status.” Traditional social liberalism tends to hold a position that, lack of better phrasing, it is self evident that all men are created equal and entitled to life liberty and...happiness or property...you choose; essentially, equal protection individual liberty. I am not suggesting anyone have a “special status.” I am stating that no government, at any level, should be able to violate certain fundamental rights. And I am stating that Ron Paul is specifically targeting the fundamental rights of certain groups. I am not saying that the Federal Courts are always correct. I am saying that Ron Paul is neither making a broad push towards states rights nor is he specifically targeting areas where the Federal courts are restricting freedom.. He is specifically targeting areas where the Federal Courts are providing broader protections than the states.To Quote my earlier post:
“He is not pushing for broad states rights protections. He is specifically targeting two groups: Non-Christians and Homosexuals. He is targeting his legislation at the holding in Lawrence v. Texas (Declaring Texas’s anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional based on the right to privacy). To be clear, he did not recklessly or unintentionally target Lawrence. He specifically states he is removing protection for “any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices…”
And to say states rights play an important role in our Constitution is correct. But it ignores the fact that this bill is not targeting areas where people’s rights are being trampled by the Supreme Court. It is targeted at areas where the Supreme Court is providing greater protections than are afforded at the state level. If, as you say, this is done to protect against broad abuses of federal power such as the mandatory showing of identification, why is Paul not targeting these areas? He is specifically targeting areas that states have consistently been oppressive than the federal government.
Ron Paul is not pushing for broad freedoms with this legislation. He is not stepping to defend the people in areas where the Federal Government is being oppressive. He is targeting the base line protections afforded to homosexuals and non-Christians. These are not actions intended to promote individual liberty. The intent is oppression.”
VFP:
(part 1)
I am not certain what I misstated about the fourteenth amendment. I made it clear that the bill of rights originally did not apply to the states and that current Supreme Court jurisprudence is incorporating the protections provided by the first 8 amendments and applying them to the states one at a time. If you believe this is inaccurate, I would like to know why.
In “The War on Religion” I do conclude that whenever he mentions God, he is referring to Christianity. He states “The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America.” Note, he does not say religious. He does not say deist. He does not say faith based. He says robustly Christian. Further, he refers to “churches” as the object of the hatred of the left. And he refers to “churches” as the teachers of morality and civility. He does not say religious institutions. While God could refer to many religions, it is clear that Ron Paul is not intending to be so inclusive when referencing his preference in faith. While you invite me to plug any belief system into his argument, he does not. He holds a world view that he and secularism are at war. “Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage.”
I will point the slight irony that you accuse me of overreaching in my analysis of Ron Paul, but to make your case, you conclude that I am decidedly “atheist-centric.” But to do this you must go outside of anything I wrote and impute your general feeling of this blog onto me. As a first time guest writer, to assume this is valid is severely dubious. You say his article only mentions Christian twice. I only use the word atheist once, the same number of times I use the word Islam and agnostic. In Ron Paul’s article, which is noticeably shorter than my post, he uses the words “Christian” four times, “Christianity” once, and “church” seven times. How many times did he reference “Islam”, “Buddhism”, “Judaism”, or any other religious belief? In an article about a “war on religion” how many other religions did he defend as providers of morality? The answer is zero. He sees a war on religion, but only defends Christianity.
A re-link from my original post: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
If you can conclude that I am a decidedly biased atheist when my post only mentions atheism once, and in the same breath as Islam and agnosticism, how can you honestly question the legitimacy of my conclusion?
(Part 1)
VFP:
I am not certain what I misstated about the fourteenth amendment. I made it clear that the bill of rights originally did not apply to the states and that current Supreme Court jurisprudence is incorporating the protections provided by the first 8 amendments and applying them to the states one at a time. If you believe this is inaccurate, I would like to know why.
In “The War on Religion” I do conclude that whenever he mentions God, he is referring to Christianity. He states “The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America.” Note, he does not say religious. He does not say deist. He does not say faith based. He says robustly Christian. Further, he refers to “churches” as the object of the hatred of the left. And he refers to “churches” as the teachers of morality and civility. He does not say religious institutions. While God could refer to many religions, it is clear that Ron Paul is not intending to be so inclusive when referencing his preference in faith. While you invite me to plug any belief system into his argument, he does not. He holds a world view that he and secularism are at war. “Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage.”
I will point the slight irony that you accuse me of overreaching in my analysis of Ron Paul, but to make your case, you conclude that I am decidedly “atheist-centric.” But to do this you must go outside of anything I wrote and impute your general feeling of this blog onto me. As a first time guest writer, to assume this is valid is severely dubious. You say his article only mentions Christian twice. I only use the word atheist once, the same number of times I use the word Islam and agnostic. In Ron Paul’s article, which is noticeably shorter than my post, he uses the words “Christian” four times, “Christianity” once, and “church” seven times. How many times did he reference “Islam”, “Buddhism”, “Judaism”, or any other religious belief? In an article about a “war on religion” how many other religions did he defend as providers of morality? The answer is zero. He sees a war on religion, but only defends Christianity.
A re-link from my original post: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
If you can conclude that I am a decidedly biased atheist when my post only mentions atheism once, and in the same breath as Islam and agnosticism, how can you honestly question the legitimacy of my conclusion?
Jason,
Re: Part 1.
Thanks for your reply. A few clarifications:
a) We have no disagreement regarding the 14th. I was merely (I thought) reinforcing your position.
b) To be fair, Ron's article asserts that "the Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian, yet religiously tolerant America." You say, "He does not say religious..." But he does, in the same sentence, say "religiously tolerant." Given the fact that what passed for religious diversity at the time was a mix of Christian sects, I think his statement of the Founders' vision is about right.
c) As I said at the intro, I am new to the blog. Sorry, I didn't realize you were a guest author. I did, however, read a heightened sensitivity and resistance to Christianity in your post, which brings to mind other strong atheist arguments I've seen. Sorry to have projected other discussions onto yours. That's just a synthesis of experience peeking through.
d) You correctly say he defends only Christianity in this particular essay. That's not too hard to figure, since the essay was a topical response to the discussion, already very public, of the so-called "war on Christmas." In the title, he broadens the context to "war on religion." Already, we get a hint that Dr. Paul's thinking is wider on this subject than perhaps you give him credit for. Further, he has dozens of public statements defending other religions. He was a lone voice (at least in the poll-driven world of politics) defending the so-called "ground zero mosque" and the folks who were developing it. There are lots of similar examples. So this essay does not convince me that he is a Christian theocrat wannabe. I think he uses a current topic, the so-called "war on Christmas," to beat one of his favorite drums: we shouldn't fear voluntary associations that undercut the government.
Jason,
re: part 2
I saw these replies above also, in response to Paula. I have only one counterpoint for you:
In Lawrence v. Texas, the ruling was based not on privacy, but on due process. So it can be argued that HR539 actually *protects* the Lawrence ruling from challenges based on privacy.
At the risk of being an apologist, I'd like to point out a few things that might soften your position a bit.
1)Ron Paul makes hundreds of "on-the-record" statements on the house floor. And often introduces bills (like this one) that are intended to be debate starters.
2) On the whole, it is *very* hard to characterize his work as intolerant, theocratic, racist, anti-semitic, homophobic, or anything like that. There is just a mass of counter evidence. The one issue that is clearly the toughest for him is abortion, as he is fundementally opposed to it. Even on this issue, probably the most divisive we face as a nation, he prefers to let states find their own way, refusing to endorse any federal ruling on it. He knows that many states would allow it, but still thinks it is best to let them do what they want.
3) The reason I stumbled in here is that I find accusations of "theocrat" or "anti-semite" etc. so hard to understand. Dr. Paul (unlike so many in politics) is open to answer any question, and operates from clearly discernable principles. The idea that he is some kind of culture war mole - carefully hiding his true agenda of theocracy and slave-holding - is just ridiculous to me. All that talk and writing and debating and voting to weaken government and strengthen individuals is just a crafty cover story for an opposite agenda? It just doesn't compute.
You may have a point about the actual outcomes, should HR539 ever become law. But the idea that you are correct about intent will just continue to sound like fantasy to me.
Anyway, thanks again for your careful analysis.
VFP:
I am busy, and will respond in greater detail soon(ish), but I will make this response:
Your attempt to read HR 539 as possibly protecting individual liberty is severely misguided.
Lawrence v. Texas does use the due process clause of the 14th amendment. But, as explained in my original post, the court uses the due process clause as the method for incorporation. In Lawrence v. Texas the Court held that the right to privacy applied at the state level via the due process clause of the 14th amendment. So to say that Lawrence was decided on due process grounds and not privacy grounds is incorrect. The court used the due process clause of the 14th amendment to incorporate the right to privacy.
Further, the suggestion that this law prevents states from challenging the holding in Lawrence v. Texas is confusing. How would a state make a right to privacy argument? What right to privacy do you see a state having? And in what conception would a state argue that barring anti-sodomy laws violates its right to privacy?
Your alternative interpretation of HR 539 is without merit.
More importantly, you miss the main point. Lawrence v. Texas bound the states from enforcing anti-sodomy laws. On June 26, 2003, the date this decision was issued, thirteen states still had anti-sodomy laws on the books. (Idaho, Utah, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, Virginia and Michigan). This decision banned these states from enforcing them.
Ron Paul is specifically targeting his legislation to overturn Lawrence v. Texas. He seeks not only to remove federal jurisdiction over the right to privacy, he seeks to make this retroactive, thus destroying the protections provided by Lawrence v. Texas. Further, so for added clarity, he specifically states this ban on reviewing the right to privacy includes “any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction.”
Ron Paul proposed a law that strips the federal courts of the power to review state decisions on the right privacy, he made the application retroactive, and he specified that he was targeting any issue involving “sexual practices.” You could not formulate a more targeted attack on the individual liberty protected in Lawrence v. Texas.
Jason said: Your alternative interpretation of HR 539 is without merit.
Ouch. I didn’t really think you’d accept it ;->
I admit that I don't know the true motivation of Dr. Paul with this piece of proposed legislation. And although I could posit alternative motivations, I am not comfortable claiming I can read his mind on it. I suspect Paula is getting pretty close to it in her comments above, but I won't speculate further.
Speaking for myself, however, I think that the 14th amendment has been problematic from the start. Enacted as it was, as a part of the reconstruction, it was initially passed with a pretty narrow intent. My belief is that this amendment was written to mean that former slaves are now citizens, and must be treated under the law as equal citizens to everyone else. That's it. To my "plain language" eye, that's all it actually says. It has been morphed over time to serve the purpose of incorporating specific liberties into state restrictions.
But we have used this one amendment to invert the entire notion of the republic. No longer are the states true "states" with their own sovereignty, confederated only on the basis of open inter-state borders, commerce, and citizenship, and also on war making, treaty making, and other international relation topics. Instead, we have a primary central government pressing its relationship directly with the citizens, relegating the states to tinkerers. (16th and 17th amendments continue this trend.)
It has taken 100+ years to bring us to the Kennedy decision, where we still have disagreement on which of the federal "privileges and immunities" it covers. So IMO, the 14th has been a bit of a hash all along. (in fact as I understand it the "privileges and immunities" phrase is pretty much a dead branch. Cases don't reference this at all, but focus on the "due process" bit. Which is weird to me, because it seems easier to define the priviledges and immunities found in the bill of rights.)
I would be happier to have an explicit amendment that demands any member state must include the first 8 amendments in their own constitutions, in recognition of our natural rights and the founding principles of the republic. That would be much more straightforward, and would allow the states to interpret all of this for themselves.
Just a thought. None of this defends the language of HR 539, btw. It is just me thinking out loud, FWIW.
VFP:
You have proposed, as a protection of individual liberty, an amendment that requires each state to uphold the 1st eight amendments of the bill of rights.
Although I find it commendable that you recognize that a State's ability to trample the rights of its citizens in the name of appropriate division of power, I think you may be missing the point.
As an example, the federal courts are currently providing protections necessary for a free society. Namely, federal, state, and local police are currently prohibited from arresting people for having consensual sex. This is a right that should be recognized by any free and just society.
If you put states rather than federal courts in charge of constitutional interpretation this ceases to be the case.
Promoting legislation that allows states to interpret the constitutionality of sexual behavior will severely limit the rights of our nations citizens
To be clear, anti-sodomy laws, in many states, are not limited to homosexuals, so any claim that this is carving out special rights for a small group is incorrect.
Promoting a shift of protections of our rights to the states rather than the federal government, will result in a less free society.
So the question for Ron Paul is, Don't you have something better to do with your time? and, more importantly, What kind of society do you actually want?
The question for others is, In promoting this legislation, and a shift of the protection of our liberties to the states, aren't we making a less free society? The answer to this is an absolute affirmative. The obvious follow up question is why?
Is appropriate division of power more important than the rights of our citizens today? and, if not, than this is not the appropriate division of power.
VFP:
My point has been clear from the beginning. That is a defensible reading of the 14th amendment. Using the privileges and immunities clause is, for example the method Justice Thomas used in McDonald v. Chicago to incorporate the 2nd amendment.
My point is, and has been, that a proponent of freedom and individual liberty should either read the 14th amendment more broadly or do as you suggest: push for a new amendment that provides total incorporation of the first 8 amendments.
Ron Paul does neither. He proposes legislation that targets, among other groups, homosexuals. He is directing legislation specifically at removing their fundamental rights.
There is no mystery here. Ron Paul understands the Constitution. Ron Paul is acting on his own free will. The only logical conclusion is this: Ron Paul is specifically pushing to remove the fundamental and inalienable rights of homosexuals because he wants them removed.
Yes, Jason, you have been very clear. I'll post one more, just in case it might be a little bit helpful:
I said I didn't want to guess at Dr. Paul's motives. I did find, however, after re-reading the text of the bill at the link you provided, that there is all kinds of cool stuff there at the congressional record site. I found Dr. Paul's remarks, made when introducing the bill. They are very explanatory of his motives and perspective.
introductory remarks
I don't expect reading them will change your mind, but I did find them a bit enlightening as to the thought process. Maybe you will too.
I think you may particularly like:
"Some may claim that an activist judiciary that strikes down State laws at will expands individual liberty. Proponents of this claim overlook the fact that the best guarantor of true liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to liberty is concentrated power. This is why the Constitution carefully limits the power of the Federal Government over the States."
That seems to be the crux of it, right there. As usual, Dr. Paul has his spear pointed at an over-reaching federal government.
You have argued that this particular case does not represent an over-reach, but rather a necessary check/balance. It is an honest disagreement, I think.
My point is that Dr. Paul does in fact consistently and relentlessly point his spear at over-reaching federal government, rather than at people or classes of people.
Thanks for the stimulating discussion. I appreciate your respectful civil tone and thorough thinking. I learned a few things, which was my goal at the outset.
Thanks for the civil discussion. In closing:
To argue that Ron Paul is targeting legislation at homosexuals to increase rights is either disingenuous or severely mistaken.
Ron Paul speaks of the fear of concentrated power, and the necessity of deferring rights to the states. But the truth is that incorporation of fundamental rights, like the right to freely exercise your religious beliefs, removes power at all levels of government. And if a state does not feel the federal government has done enough, they can protect that right further.
The incorporation of the free exercise clause is not a power grab. It is a guarantee that no level of government can interfere with your right to exercise your religious beliefs. A guarantee not possible is Ron Paul's America.
Ron Paul has conflated the issue and presented a false dichotomy. He phrases two options; either the Federal Government has the power or the states do. This is the absolute denial of the principle of individual liberty and inherent rights.
He denies the very existence of the third option: No government at any level should have the power to violate the individual rights of its citizens.
Some serious misconceptions in the post that leads the author astray.
"The Bill of Rights does not protect the individual from the actions of state or local governments."
This is completely false. You're basically saying the founding fathers were only afraid of a large federal government, and not afraid of a large state government. That's absurd.
There were 2 sides to the debate about the amendments.
1 side didn't want to list any rights, for fear that if some rights were listed, that they would be reduced to only those listed rights.
The other side felt that the most basic and important rights should be listed, so that they could never be taken away.
The 9th and 10th amendments were the solution in order to satisfy both sides. The 9th amendment basically stating that the order matters, and you can not add amendments that take away previous rights, and the 10th amendment which says anything which is not specifically listed is off limits.
Anything not taken up by the 10th amendment is passed down to the states, and then local communities and on down to the individual.
What the author doesn't seem to get however is that each state then has it's own constitution. It's hard to say what each state can or can't do, because each state is different based on their constitution. In the state constitution, the states are picking up more duties.
It is the duty of the federal government to ensure that the states do not take away the rights. And likewise, the states are supposed to ensure the local communities don't do it.
This is why federal law > state law > local law > personal choice. But then in terms of the bulk of laws, it is supposed to work in reverse.
Also, the only reason the constitution doesn't ban slavery is because they couldn't, not because many didn't want to. We would not have been 1 country, the states that relied on slavery wouldn't have joined the union.
This is good because eventually the influence of the northern states helped us fix the problem. Where as if we had broke into 2 countries at the start, we may have not been able to get rid of it so easily - if we could have stood up to the british seperately.
Also, the northern states provided a safehouse, which enabled things like the underground railroad. If not for states rights, and had the issue been decided federally from the start, we might have had an entire country where slavery was legal and those safehouses would have been gone. So while the 10th amendment and states rights is often blamed for slavery, in reality it actually went further towards ending it.
The wisdom of the constitution and the founding fathers is that they defined the basic rights for citizens. As pointed out, slaves were treated as 3/5's a citizen. The good thing here is that it only takes correcting the ignorance of the 3/5's of a citizen part, and then you've automatically still definied what it means to be a free individual.
To cite the constitution as flawed because of this is to simply not understand the history, and to only focus incorrectly on the negative things some states did, and not the positives on how it went on to fix a problem which couldn't have been solved with the stroke a pen to begin with.
I challenge you to show me a solution that is better than what the founding fathers did considering the situation.
Thanks for the comment.
First, on the subject of federal supremacy, and the fact federal laws trump state laws, I think you misunderstood my post. I recognize that Federal law trumps state law. I further recognize that states have constitutions. I, as an example, reference Texas's state constitution. I believe you see a disagreement between us where there is not one.
On the constitution being a flawed document, you have explained why the constitution was flawed. But this does not change the fact that the constitution was flawed. I do not disagree that permitting slavery was a compromise. Clearly the 3/5 compromise was...well, a compromise. That does not alter the fact that the Constitution was a flawed document.
One minor point on your history. Prior to 1850, slaves simply had to get to the north. But in 1850, Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Act which required the North to recognized that slaves were property. And it required the return of all escaped slaves to their owners. I note this only for your edification.
As far as the Bill of Rights protections not originally applying to the states, you are simply mistaken.
While I do not normally suggest this, I would recommend reading something as basic as the wikipedia entry on incorporation. I will provide the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights
In pertinent part, it says:
"The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to the 1890s, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government. Under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments, by virtue of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution."
Thanks for taking the time to post.
If you don't trust Wikipedia on the original bounds of the bill of rights, a simple internet search will provide an identical result in all instances. This is not disputed history.
In regards to the bill.
What this bill is about is in regards to the Supreme Court and other such courts basically writing their own laws, and deciding on issues which are supposed to be up to congress/government.
Meaning, the Supreme Court is stepping beyond what it's supposed to be doing, and the bill would give CONGRESS the ability to fix it. Where as currently the supreme courts is the ultimate say, and you have all the activist judges and such.
He is trying to take away the supreme courts ability to create laws which infringe on peoples right, of which has no checks and balances. The supreme court is NOT the part of government that creates laws, that's the job of congress.
In regards to the religion - prayer in school. It would prevent people from making laws that prevents people from saying people can't have public prayer, and things like that.
It does not in any way establish religion, because that would be unconstitutional, and any bill congress wrote that did such would be unconstitutional.
OF WHICH IS NOT part of what the supreme court can not do based on the bill. The supreme court could still rule that what congress did was unconstitutional. So to suggest that the check is completely removed is just wrong.
Thanks for taking the time to write. I am not exactly sure where to start, other than I would suggest that you begin with a basic history of the Constitution.
For example, you do not believe that the Bill of Rights originally applied only to the Federal Government. You could look to something as simple as the Wikipedia entry on incorporation to see that you are incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights
It states in pertanent part:
"The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to the 1890s, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government."
Your take of history and the underground railroad seems to be absent certain key pieces of legislation such as the Fugitive Slave Act, which stated that slaves were property and must be returned to their owners if found in the free states.
As far as your contention that he is attempting to take away the Supreme Court's ability to infringe on people's rights, this Bill is specifically targeted, in part, at the holding in Lawrence vs. Texas.
Please understand that the phrase "legislating from the bench" is hyperbole. It does not actually mean that the Supreme Court is passing legislation. No one is actually saying, as you suggest, that the Supreme Court is creating laws.
You have provided an overly simplistic and severely mistaken view of history and the Constitution. Until you get a handle on the basic facts and history, there is not anyway to actually have a discussion on this topic.
To be clear, you have not expressed an opinion about this topic. You have expressed only an opinion about your own severely inaccurate view of the world. Until you acquire a baseline level of accurate knowledge, I simply do not believe we can have a fruitful discussion.
If you would like me to suggest some basic reference material on our nation's history I would be happy to do so.
Again, thanks for taking the time to comment.
Jason:
I do not consider the failure of the courts to properly uphold the constitution as being evidence of it's intent.
You don't seem to take into account that the government is limited in what it can do by the constitution. Unless something is specifically listed, government has no place in it.
The states ALSO have their own constitutions. And is supposed to follow that pattern. Because the 10th amendment does NOT give all powers to the states, it gives it down the line unto the individual.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"
"not delegated / nor prohibited". It does not in any manner say the states are open to do whatever they want. It says - those not delegated by the congress are passed to the states OR the people.
Madison even introduced an amendment very similiar to that of the part being cited in the 14th amendment among the bill of rights, but it was not ratified by the senate.
Is it not then clear what the intent of the constitution is and was among the founders?
The Fugitive Slave Act: The states ignored it, and it was later deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
"The states ignored it, and it was later deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court."
This should read State Supreme Courts.
I have no idea what idea you are trying to express nor do I know what point you think you are refuting.
You are not addressing any aspect of anything I have said.
The constitution is a document of limited government, not a document of limited rights.
You are viewing states with all those powers falsely, because you are interpreting the constitution as a document of limited rights, rather than a document of limited government.
And this is a very COMMON problem with the constitution, as is documented by history.
If you read the constitution as limited rights, it means the states and government are free to do whatever they want(as they do now basically). Just so long as they do not impede on those basic rights.
However, if you read the constitution as a document of limited government, then it means anything not specifically listed is by default off limits.
You can not establish a religion in a state - unless the states constitution says you can. In which case it could still be ruled unconstitutional.
ONLY if you view the constitution as limited rights could you come to such a conclusion.
To say that the states have all this power, as per your false dichotomy claim is to ignore the wording of the 10th amendment and how the government operates.
The only false dichotomy that exists is the one you are presenting by misrepresenting the issue by pretending as if the states have all this uncontrolled power. And then you go on to call the constitution a flawed document.
It's not the constitution that is flawed, it's your interpretation of it that is. And I don't care how many people in history have made the same mistake, it's still an error and it's still outside what the founding fathers intended.
And if that was not enough, you then have the Supremacy Clause, which establishes the constitution as the law of the land.
"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."
As early as 1796 the federal government was slapping down state laws based on the constitution.
Your comments are incoherent. I cannot respond because you are not making any sense. Again, I don't know what you think my argument is, nor can any sense be made of your comments.
Thanks,
Jason
in the end, here, i find this article to be well written and it makes a strong argument, but it is all a bait and switch... you are coming from the point that the federal govt grants rights. yes, i know u say they are inherent, but the whole article is about taking rights away. if said rights are inherent then no army and no navy and no govt can take them away... i have life because God, or Nature granted me life, not govt...I have liberty because i own my own central command (my mind, I am the final decision maker for myself, whether there is a gun to my head or not. Basically this is either a legal bait and switch, vote for my progressive agenda that actually takes away rights and property under legal guise or this is just info meant to cloud truth...either way, this article although well written is hogwash and comes from the point of view that i am owned by govt in some sort of way and that govt is God and God or Nature is not....flawed reasoning...
Anonymous:
The origin and nature of rights is a subject I simply did not have time to address in this article.
There are many theories on the origin of the rights of man. Examples include John Locke's social contract theory, Mill's brand of utility, and other theories including what is inherent in the nature of man.
I will not, in this small space, do more than say, at the core of constitutional democracy is the idea that man has inherent rights. This is not to say that man's rights cannot be violated. This is to say that it is unjust for either an individual or government to do so.
At the core of defining a just Government is defining the bounds of that Government. An unjust government can act in violation of the rights of its people. It could, for example, deprive its citizens of life liberty or property without due process of the law.
While you say you have life because it was granted to you and you have liberty because you have free will, you also have these because no government has unjustly taken them away.
Yes, you are "the final decision maker for yourself" but this is certainly an incomplete definition of liberty. A man imprisoned without cause, for example, still has free will. But his liberty has been taken away.
I do not claim that the Government owns the individual. Quite the opposite. A just government, among other qualities, has absolute limits on its power. An unjust government can deprive its citizens of equality and liberty. Ron Paul seeks to grant states powers that no just government can have. He then, by definition, seeks an unjust form of government.
I hope you have it in you to continue this dialogue. But before we get into it, I want to make sure I understand your thesis.
The original 10 amendments limited the power of the national government to interfere in the lives of individuals. After the passage of the 14th amendment, the national government became more interested in limiting the power of the states to interfere in the lives of individuals as well.
Since this time, the national government has been ever-so-slowly guaranteeing the rights of individual citizens on an issue by issue basis, and that Ron Paul wishes to dial back those freedoms for people he doesn't like.
is that more or less your argument?
(Other) Steve:
Close, and likely close enough. But a few points of clarification:
1. Technically, it would be the first 8 amendments, not 10.
2. I would not say that the national government became more interested in limiting the power of the states. But the 14th amendment has been read to incorporate the rights to the states. With regard to incorporation, this is a complex process of determining the bounds of the 14th amendment.
3. Ron Paul is specifically targeting legislation to target people he does not want protected. Or he is targeting legislation at all people for rights he does not want protected. I would be comfortable with either of these readings as a possibility.
Obviously, there are other points I am making. But yes, your summary of a large portion of my argument is fairly accurate.
Thanks, Jason, for that clarification. I'd like to discuss the issue by somewhat centering it around the 14th amendment.
So by your phrase "incorporate the rights to the states" are you referring to individual rights or rights reserved to state governments?
If individual, then are you positing that correct interpretation of the constitution requires one to accept that the national government has the federated right to guarantee those individual rights which state governments ought already to protect?
For some reason the software cut off my remarks. I'll continue now.
I think the issue begins to devolve partly through differing views on federalism itself. Those views can be represented on a spectrum.
On one end of the spectrum there are those who interpret the constitution such that that the only purpose of the national government is to represent us in foreign affairs; as a sort of outward facing people speaking as one entity to the world.
But in matters internal, the national government is to keep its figurative nose out of the sovereign states, and most assuredly out of the lives of individuals. For these people the amendment that changed the election of senators from state houses to the popular vote was a power grab by the national government. Hence, for these folks, we've had a largely illegitimate National government since about 1913.
On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who believe that a correct reading of the constitution requires it to be revised, not only by amendments, but by deconstructing its "original intent" in order to bring about a "more perfect union."
The problem is that we also have black and white laws that tend toward one side of the philosophical debate or the other.
I'm not trying to say that the problem has no solution, only that world view has more to bear on the issue than a strict reading of any particular law might reveal.
And I realize I haven't gotten to your statement about Ron Paul yet. I'm still just trying to lay the groundwork for discussion.
Part 1
(Other) Steve:
To clarify Incorporation for the discussion:
"Incorporation" is a legal term. It is the process by which the Supreme Court has applied the protections found in the first 8 amendments to the states. I will explain this using the free exercise clause”
The Supreme Court has extensive case law defining the bounds of the First Amendment "free exercise" which prevents the Federal Government from interfering with an individual’s free exercise of religion. As a brief definition, if congress is going to infringe on the free exercise of religion, they must show a compelling interest to legislate in that area and they must show that the legislation is narrowly tailored to meet those needs. The federal government cannot, for example, terminate an employee for refusing to work on Saturday due to their religious beliefs.
When the Supreme Court incorporated the 14th amendment in the late 1930’s this meant that the exact same protections afforded at the federal level regarding the free exercise of religion applied at the state level via the due process clause of the 14th amendment. This right was thus incorporated to the states and local governments. If the court then states that a federal law violates the free exercise clause, a state law of the same nature would be in violation as well.
What we then are provided is a baseline of protections for the free exercise of religion. In the 193o’s to 1950’s state and local laws directed at Jehovah’s Witness’s for example were reviewed by the Supreme Court and found to be unconstitutional. No government at any level can direct legislation targeting Jehovah’s Witnesses.
(Part 2)
Why do I call it a base line of protection? Many individuals feel that the Supreme Court has not gone far enough in protecting the free exercise of religion. The opinion in Employment Division v. Smith, for example addressed a state law directed at the possession of Peyote. The court found the law was facially neutral, not directed at any religious group, and narrowly tailored to suit the purposes. The also concluded that states were absolutely entitled to make religious exceptions if they wanted to, as Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico already did. They simply were not required to. So a base level of protection is granted, and the states are guaranteed the right to expand that level of protection.
Ron Paul seeks to completely eliminate this base level of protection by:
1. Removing the jurisdiction of Federal Courts from reviewing state decision based on the free exercise of religion, and
2. Retroactively invalidating all case law based on the 14th amendment incorporation of the free exercise clause.
Here are a few free exercise cases that would be invalidated the day Paul’s law passed:
Niemotko v. Maryland (1950) - The clear unwarranted discrimination against particular religious groups in issuing licenses to appear in parks and public places violates the free exercise of religion.
Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) – You cannot have a religious test for public office. (This invalidates the Texas Constitutional requirement that you believe in a Supreme Being to hold office)
Sherbert v. Verner (1963) – You cannot deny employment benefits based on religious employment restrictions
And then there’s the 14th amendment itself. I’m not a constitutional scholar, so I don’t make any claims about my conclusions being more valid than yours. Indeed, I found your article illuminating on the subject of incorporation, a concept that doesn’t make it into popular print often, if at all.
The problem that many have with incorporation though, is that it presupposes a federated right that the national government owns. Many do not believe this was ever intended, simply because it puts the national government into a position superior to sovereign state governments.
My rough understanding is that the states created the national government to represent them in very limited ways, with the understanding that they did not give up any sovereign rights in the process.
However, if the national government has more of a “soul” than that of a zombie, states tend to get nervous about their own status, given the enormous resources available to the national government that allows them to sort of run the show through intimidation.
So this is really, in my opinion, the real problem. We simply do not agree on the role that the national government should take in our lives.
Enter Ron Paul, an unreconstructed constructionist, a cultural conservative and one who would like to tear down the legal protections for certain protected classes because those delegated rights make him uncomfortable.
That word “delegated” is important. And this is, I suspect, the reason for Paul’s attack in this proposed legislation. He doesn’t believe anyone should be in a “protected class” by the national government because he doesn’t believe our rights come from there.
I’m not saying that you’re saying this by the way. Clearly you are not. All I am saying is that Paul has bigger fish to fry. I wish he he had chosen not to introduce this legislation at all. It’s short-sighted and ignorant and makes him look like a homophobic religious nut.
But if he was going to attack the assumption that the national government has the right to grant us rights (in essence) what other legislation could he have introduced? I believe he is attacking the assumption that the national government has this right to dispense at all. But to attack it makes it look like an attack on a class of people. So what other class of people would he have included in this legislation other than the ones he did?
In other words, to make the attack at all is to make yourself look like an idiot. But to accept the assumption that the government has the right to give you rights and then proceed down the road from that point is to concede your own tightly-held view that all power issues from the people.
In other words, it’s a very difficult situation from which to extricate yourself.
It’s a shame, because I don’t believe Mr. Paul is the dangerous kook he is being portrayed as in your article. He’s a very kind and gracious human being, at least in person. And his writings do seem consistent with being liberty-minded.
...and if I my incoherent argument hasn't left you gasping for breath by now, let me add that I'm quite open to the fact that I may have created a straw man argument.
It could be that by presenting Ron Paul's dilemma as a choice between defending a greater principle or acquiescing to a world view he may or may not hold as to the proper constitutional relationship between sovereign citizens and their national and state governments, I may have just undercut my own argument.
So I'm grateful that you've so carefully outlined your position without vitriol or rancor. This is just the best online political discussion I think I've been in for ages.
My part 2 did not post. I will ignore that and respond to your argument when I have a chance to read it and draft a response; probably later this evening.
Jason
Opening Response:
First, federal law trumps state law. This is is found in the body of the Constitution, Article VI Clause 2, which is known as the Supremacy Clause:
“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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”
Hamilton on the Supremacy Clause:
Federalist paper 44 - "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."
Federalist paper 33 - “But it is said that the laws of the Union are to be the supreme law of the land. But what inference can be drawn from this, or what would they amount to, if they were not to be supreme? It is evident they would amount to nothing...the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies, and the individuals of whom they are composed. It would otherwise be a mere treaty, dependent on the good faith of the parties, and not a government, which is only another word for POLITICAL POWER AND SUPREMACY.”
Or you could look to the original Case law on the subject. I would suggest In McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 (1819), and Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816) as a good place to start. There is no serious debate about this. The Supremacy Clause is quite clear, and there is no historical record of any other intended meaning.
The argument of the article is basically unsound because it confuses the structure of the government with the politicians philosophy about freedom. To say that Ron Paul is against liberty for the individual in any form or fashion or than he wishes to attack certain groups on account of his believe that we are better protected if the power is more in the hands of the states is simply missing the point.
No government, regardless of the structure, will be able to protect the people from abuse if the wrong person(s) is in power. We can only hope to limit the abuse by disseminating the power. This can be done best if more power rests in the hands of the states, which is what Ron Paul proposes. Thus, his actual contributions to render a different proportion of power to the states is the opposite of what the writer claims. Indeed, as a group, we are better protected when the states have more power.
We already have little freedom, and the course of action by our governmental structure that the writes would like to see continue will ultimately leads us to a far more powerful central government that will enslave us even more.
thus, I completely disagree with the writer.
I would argue that Ron Paul was actually trying to return the jurisdiction FROM the federal government TO the states (not the other way around). In essence, you have it backwards. If the federal government can't rule on a law that defined marriage, then any law passed by the federal government can be overturned by the states and the surpreme court would be unable to rule that the state must follow the federal law.
Got to it sooner than I thought I would. Other Steve:
It should be noted that this is not some old arrant piece of legislation from his past. This was proposed in 2009, after his initial campaign for the presidency. You have not contended that
As to your position that Ron Paul is targeting no one but that they are merely casualties in his crusade for a more perfect union, I understand the argument. It was, in fact, my assumption until I attempted to map out what his actual core beliefs were.
First, I am not a libertarian. I agree with large portions of certain libertarian strains of thinking. I fully support, for example the maximizing of individual liberty. To this end, last election cycle II felt that Ron Paul was contributing something worthwhile to the national dialogue. After reading HR 539, I had to ask: Why would someone claim to be a proponent of liberty and then target legislation at homosexuals and non-Christians?
I do not find your answer compelling. The primary reason is the legislation is not a broad indictment of the 14th amendment. It does not seek to remove incorporation in its entirety. It is narrowly tailored to attack specific groups. Recall, almost every right under the first 8 amendments has been incorporated: Freedom to practice religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, right to assemble and associate. The prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure, and the right to a grand jury; the protection against the taking of private property without compensation; the right to a public trial, the right to counsel; the right to a jury trial, and the protection against double jeopardy and the right to privacy... The list goes on.
Ron Paul could have proposed legislation directed against incorporation in its entirety if that was his issue. With HR 539, he did not. He selected very specific targets. He targeted the prohibition on states establishing a religion. He targeted minority religious groups. He targeted “sex” and “sexual practices.” He targeted “sexual orientation” twice.
He specified that his attack on the right to privacy was targeted at any “claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction.” He limited his attack on equal protection “to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation.”
He is not attacking the broad power of the federal government. He is specifically attacking non-Christians and homosexuals. As far as I can tell, the only explanation as to why Ron Paul would specifically target the rights afforded to homosexuals and non-Christians. Ron Paul wants these fundamental protections removed.
Jake Beasley,
You need to get a more firm grasp of the Supremacy Clause, the 14th amendment, and general civics.
I would recommend reading Jason's article more carefully, and the subsequent comments.
Jake Beasley:
Your do not understand the basic legal framework of the United States. Among your most basic errors, state courts do not review federal laws.
I would check out this handy flow chart: http://goo.gl/2sl6r
Thanks,
Jason
Jake - Typo correction. (You do not understand not understand the basic legal framework of the United States.)
And now I understand why libertarians hate Hamilton with an undying passion. His "government vs. treaty" phrase is quite telling. I had never read that before. And I had forgotten about the relevance of the supremacy clause to this argument, so thanks for enlightening me.
I'm almost ready to concede your point about Pauls' bill, but how could he have created one which attacked the concept of incorporation? I would think that the subject for an amendment instead.
I do think that his bill is a nasty piece of work, by the way, and if passed, could be dangerous to liberty in general. Incorporation or not, the appearance let alone reality of discrimination is bad enough to warrant killing such an ill-begotten piece of legislation.
I was incorrect in my assumption that this is about the 14th amendment. This is about the supremacy clause. A more educated libertarian than I needs to address this issue head on.
None of the other posts here have addressed your theory specifically, so I think you win the point unless somebody comes up with a reasoned argument that consists of more than talking points.
(Jason. Cover your ears for a moment :)
People, Jason is a very, very good debater. He is just the kind of person you want on your side. We libertarians need to up our game if we expect to turn hearts and minds toward a less-intrusive national government.
Thanks for a great discussion, Jason.
(Other) Steve:
Would a broad attempt to alter the application of the 14th amendment be properly addressed by an amendment? My position would be yes. But Ron Paul’s reading of the constitution is as follows (from HR 539): Congress has constitutional authority to set broad limits on the jurisdiction of both the Supreme Court and the lower Federal courts in order to correct abuses of judicial power and continuing violations of the Constitution of the United States by Federal courts.
From my original post:
“Ron Paul’s interpretation of Article III section I and II of the Constitution is that Congress can limit the jurisdiction of all federal courts, including the Supreme Court simply by passing a bill. This view is not widely accepted but I will concede it is not without merit. It is certainly not the only view and it is absolutely not the view held by anyone who seriously wishes to limit the powers of Congress.
If Congress can unilaterally remove the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts, this gives them the power to pass any legislation of any sort, on any subject, and simply declare that the constitutionality of the subject matter is not reviewable by the courts. This gives Congress the authority to simply bypass the only branch of government that reviews the constitutionality of their legislation. Thus the basis for my conclusion: Ron Paul is the author of the largest congressional power grab this Nation has ever seen attempted.”
So yes. I would say that to simply removed the jurisdiction of the federal courts on the entire 14th amendement would require an amendment. But under that reading of the constitution, HR 539 would have to pass as an amendment as well.
As I originally stated, Ron Paul holds as expansive a view of Congressional authority as can be read into the constitution. It is why I initially stated that “Ron Paul is the author of the largest congressional power grab this Nation has ever seen attempted.”
So a short answer would be: Ron Paul believes Congress can simply bypass the federal court system by placing broad limits on their jurisdiction to correct judicial abuses. While he views Congress as having the power to place broad limits, he elected to focus on very narrow limits; thus my conclusion that this is intentionally targeted legislation, focused on discriminating against particular groups.
(other) Steve:
Thanks for participating in the discussion. It is great to see people actually exploring the issues and challenging their views. Finding the answer that best supports the facts and not the answer the best supports one's opinions is an undertaking not everyone is willing to honestly attempt.
Thanks for taking the time to read and consider my post.
Jason
Just a quick note, in followup...
Jason and I finished our discussion above with a pretty good understanding of each others' points, I think.
In yesterday's DeMint Forum, Ron was asked specifically about the 14th amendment and his interpretation of it. The question focused on abortion, but the exchange and discussion was a bit broader than that. See the youtube video, starting at 16:38:
Ron Paul answers question about the 14th amendment
I don't think this video changes Jason's position, nor mine. But it is a nice, direct first-person accounting of Dr. Paul's thinking on this topic. It should help reduce the guesswork, anyway.
Ron Paul on the incorporation of the bill of rights:
"The phony "incorporation" doctrine, dreamed up by activist judges to pervert the plain meaning of the Constitution, was used once again by a federal court to assume jurisdiction over a case that constitutionally was none of its business."
http://ronpaulquotes.com/Texas_Straight_Talk/tst070102.html
"If anything, the Supreme Court should have refused to hear the Kelo case on the grounds that the 5th amendment does not apply to states. If constitutional purists hope to maintain credibility, we must reject the phony incorporation doctrine in all cases..."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul259.html
From what I can tell, Paul doesn't believe in incorporation for any of the bill of rights, and if he were President I'd assume he'd nominate judges that agree with him.
Anonymous:
No one is contending that Ron Paul supports incorporation.
Thanks,
Jason
"Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God..."
Um, clearly Ron Paul is not familiar with the Federalist Papers, the Founders personal letters and two specific 'no tests of religion for elected office' exist in the Constitution.
No wonder Ron Paul is a moron.
Post a Comment