Quote:
Originally Posted by [Phill]
Worth noting that anti sodomy and anti interracial marriage laws are still "on the books", they just dont get used because of the SCOTUS rulings. But if the We The People act has the right language they would instantly reactivate.
Re Ron Paul worse than any other politician on gay rights and abortion in the primary - it is asking the wrong question. The better question is why did you phrase it so that Jon Huntsman who signed multiple pro life bills as governor get given a pass by you as being less of a danger to abortion rights.
But sure, overlooking that and taking the same Phone Booth clause of overlooking the speed to which he would make his own party vote against him and probably impeach him I do think he is noteworthy as the only politician in that primary who has tried multiple times to undermine the balance of powers in the constitution by using the legislative body to restrict the power of the judicial branch. Even Newt and Romney were only talking about pushing through a constitutional amendment and frankly I think only Ron Paul would be arrogant enough to try and push through a bill as dangerous as the We The People act.
I thought they'd been stricken but maybe I was wrong. I can see how a We The People type act would at least allow similar laws to be passed if not make the old laws automatically effective again.
I mentioned Jon Huntsman only because my understanding is he's a lot more moderate than the other candidates. I'm not super familiar with his positions on individual issues. I said "probably" Jon Huntsman for that reason.
Wouldn't constitutional amendments that ban gay marriage or abortion be much more detrimental for abortion/marriage rights than a We The People type bill? The former seems like an outright nationwide ban, whereas the latter seems to only allow individual states to ban if they choose to. Certainly, with a We The People act on the books, you could at least still get married in the northeast if you were gay (not that I'm saying that's ok, you should be able to do that anywhere, but it seems better than the constitutional ban).
Quote:
Originally Posted by [Phill]
Reactionaries like Paul because he would empower them to do everything just short of stoning gay people. He didnt just disagree with the supreme court overruling a ban on sodomy but he though they shouldnt have even heard the case under states rights. He thinks the civil rights act is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever passed and is actively worried about the inevitable SCOTUS case about gay marriage that will apply the 14th amendment and legalise it across the nation.
As for the last paragraph, that just isnt true. Picking up on a small number of backsliding examples of the federal government and then combining it with literally two examples from this month of states actions is a terrible way to start.
Some states have tried to ban being Muslim. The fed stops them. As recent as 2000 Texas was prosecuting people for gay sex. The fed stopped them. Arizona passed a law literally designed to racially harass latinos. The fed stopped them (mostly). Multiple states tried to pass ID laws to strip voting rights for racial minorities and other vulnerable people and the fed stopped them (under the Voting Rights act). Literally over 100 new pro life laws have been passed and signed in the past 2 years. Multiple mosques have had construction blocked then later resumed due to the first amendment. Multiple states dont just stop you playing online poker but stop gambling of any kind and used to raid home games (I stopped paying attention to poker a few years ago, I dont know if it still happens). Since you said the last few decades I can easily go right back to the civil rights movement but I do not feel the need to explain to you how the fed won a lot of hard fought battles against Ron Paul supporters on that. Roe v Wade would also be included in this where states used to force women to have their rapists babies against their will until the fed stopped that practice - something so barbaric I doubt anyone would ever advocate it now
Look, no one is saying the fed is perfect, but it is clearly better than the states on civil rights. It just isnt even close. And this is while the fed has forced them to give people civil rights, if the fed didnt exist who ****ing knows what would be going on in Mississippi today if they dont have to worry about the first, 14th and other nice amendments you take for granted. States rights is the politics of hatred.
I'm stunned that you can brush aside the Patriot Act, War on Drugs, NDAA, and TSA as just a "small number of backsliding examples". Those are big deals, to me and to a lot of other people. Among the most important civil rights issues as far as I'm concerned. And I still can't play online poker without fear of the DOJ shutting everything down thanks to the Federal Govt and the UIGEA, and that is a big part of my livelihood.
Also states have been legalizing marijuana (at least on a medical basis) and gay marriage for a while, it started well before this month. States started legalizing medical marijuana in 1998 and gay marriage in 2004. But the feds will still raid you for making marijuana for your own legal prescription.
And note that I did agree that the federal courts have protected civil liberties many times. The constitution was a huge step forward and has definitely prevented local governments from doing lots of harmful and backwards things.
I did cherry pick a few examples of federal government being awful on civil liberties and states being good, but I think they're significant enough that you can't just make a blanket statement that federal government is good for civil liberties and states are bad.