Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread

[Sholar]

Originally Posted by twofingerted

First, their are three groups all with differing opinions on what the law should be. My point is that you are oppressing the minority in favor of the majority. This, even though unintended, is opression of the rights of the two cities opposed to the large group to self govern. Wouldn't each city be better left to make it's own laws?

That depends on the law. That's my entire point.

(And surely the opinions of the people within those cities is not unanimous. What about the rights of people within one block to negate those laws? Or of one person?)

It's not weird. We simply believe that the more localized a government the more ability individuals have to govern themselves and protect their rights appropriately.

Right. That's where the question of whether anti-miscegenation laws promoted freedom comes from.

[twofingerted]

Originally Posted by Brons

Not if Ron Paul gets his way tho.

Broad brushed again...

[FlyWf]

Originally Posted by Low Key

He changes his positions every 15 minutes or so, I doubt it'll be a problem for him.

Well we can open it up to the rest of the group. If the We the People Act is just Ron Paul instituting the logically derived perfect level of federalism(and is not a pretty obvious response to Lawrence v. Texas and gay marriage and whatnot), and if it had been passed prior to Loving v. Virginia, is everyone(AlexM, Tom, etc.) of the agreement that Loving was wrongly decided? That America would be better off if the court had not be allowed to hear that case?

Ron Paul might even say that requiring states to allow interracial marriage is just another situation where the political left increasingly uses the federal judiciary to do in court what it cannot do at the ballot box: advance an activist, secular, multicultural political agenda of which most Americans disapprove.

[Sholar]

Originally Posted by FlyWf

LOL, is twofingerted gonna have to go to bat for anti-miscegenation laws now?

Originally Posted by twofingerted

Not even close to what I said.

It should be up to states to decide. Marriage is not a federal power as per the constitution.

Seriously. Writing out sentences like that should be a hint that you've adopted a position with some really bad consequences for individual liberty. If that's your goal...isn't this a problem?

We don't even have to invent hypothetical city-states, here. American history is good enough.

[Low Key]

Originally Posted by twofingerted

Not even close to what I said.

It should be up to states to decide. Marriage is not a federal power as per the constitution.

It should be up to the states to decide.

When left up to states in the 20s, they decided they all like discrimination.

Do you not see why RP wanting to return to discrimination is a problem for some people, and why you back policy that leads to discrimination might lead people to think you support discriminatory policy?

[twofingerted]

Originally Posted by Sholar

That depends on the law. That's my entire point.

(And surely the opinions of the people within those cities is not unanimous. What about the rights of people within one block to negate those laws? Or of one person?)

Obviously, but, this is why states governments are broken down into counties. It mitigates the power down to each individual person. Do you really want it the other way around. Power from the top down? A few to rule the many? It's ok if you agree with this but it is difficult to levy it with a belief in individual rights.

Right. That's where the question of whether anti-miscegenation laws promoted freedom comes from.

Obviously, they don't. No system of government is ever perferct, however. This is why you need to place the most power in the individuals in a society because it allows for the most rapid and just change of unjust laws. Top down rule promotes only tyranny never liberty.

[Brons]

Originally Posted by twofingerted

Broad brushed again...

Ok, let me quote you:

Originally Posted by twofingerted

Federal courts can't make decisions on state laws, except in only certain circumstances. For example, if a state law violates someones first amendment rights it can be brought in front of a federal court on grounds it is unconstitutional.

Now, let's quote the We The People Act:

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;

Yeah, it's exactly what Ron Paul wants.

[twofingerted]

Originally Posted by Low Key

It should be up to the states to decide.

When left up to states in the 20s, they decided they all like discrimination.

Do you not see why RP wanting to return to discrimination is a problem for some people, and why you back policy that leads to discrimination might lead people to think you support discriminatory policy?

It's not the 1920's. You are discussing dated laws without historical context.

Women and minorities had little say in our legislative process then.

[Sholar]

Originally Posted by twofingerted

Obviously, they don't. No system of government is ever perferct, however. This is why you need to place the most power in the individuals in a society because it allows for the most rapid and just change of unjust laws. Top down rule promotes only tyranny never liberty.

True or false: The incorporation of the bill of rights shifted power from states to citizens.

[twofingerted]

Originally Posted by Brons

Ok, let me quote you:




Now, let's quote the We The People Act:



Yeah, it's exactly what Ron Paul wants.

I already gave an answer to this above. You can find it.

[Low Key]

And how is marriage not in the purview of the constitution?

If two gays get married in one state, then move to another state that invalidate their marriage, which is nothing more than a legally binding document, some might say a contract, how is that not a violation of the contract clause?

[FlyWf]

twofingerted:

Hypothetically, if a state wanted to ban interracial marriage, would you have a problem with that? Would Ron Paul, do you think?

[Low Key]

Originally Posted by twofingerted

It's not the 1920's. You are discussing dated laws without historical context.

Women and minorities had little say in our legislative process then.

Good point. We have, what, one openly gay federal legislator? (who is retiring, no less)

I see how that's different.

[Brons]

Originally Posted by twofingerted

I already gave an answer to this above. You can find it.

Give it again please.

Really, you accuse me of broad brush attacks even though I'm 100% correct.

[twofingerted]

Originally Posted by Low Key

And how is marriage not in the purview of the constitution?

If two gays get married in one state, then move to another state that invalidate their marriage, which is nothing more than a legally binding document, some might say a contract, how is that not a violation of the contract clause?

States currently have a choice to decide wether to recognize a marriage between a man and a woman from another state.