then ending pretty much every major trade agreement we have is????

[x] collectives do not act

(didn't read thread)

Yes they do. Read about a dozen other threads debating it.

I've read well over a dozen debating it. And they don't. This is fun! Are you sure you don't want to post some academic paper to buttress your assertion?

I'm sure I dont want to hijack this thread discussing an assertion that the ACist havent been succesful in supporting through over 2 years of debate.

So says 2+2's local Fuhrer.

Because U.S. intervention benefits U.S. corporations.

Sick but true -- say maybe we the people can get together and take charge of our country. It's a interesting idea anyway...

Ron Paul Rocks. We have a choice. His record speaks for itself.
Did not vote himself a payraise.
Voted against Iraq war.

Yes. RP is for actually allowing free trade. WTF do we need a "free trade agreement" for? Do you want to sell? Do we want to buy? Let's trade. Keep the [censored] government out of it.

Introduced this bill:

You may think the effects of that bill would be confined to abortion and gay marriage, but you'd be wrong. Paul's home state of Texas, for example, has a clause in its state constitution prohibiting atheists from taking office which is invalidated by Supreme Court decision...oops, that's gone. Privacy is also the basis for Texas v. Lawrence - oops, sodomy (including the heterosexual variety) is now back on the books in about fifteen states, so being gay is once again a crime in Texas in and of itself. Anyone remember Griswold vs. Connecticut? Sorry, but the states now regain the right to ban contraceptives - I hope the Southerners on the forums are happy with those anti-sex toy laws, because they're about to be drastically extended.

Last time I talked about Dr. Paul's record, I largely constrained myself to "genocide". I've done some more research since then. Should we go on to discuss some more bills?

Because they free-ride on us and have since WWII.

Isnt (2) totally redundant? If they cant adjudicate issues in paragraph (1), under what circumstances would they be relying on decisions regarding items in par (1)?

1 is merely looking forward; 2 prevents all previous cases from having any precedential value. It's the provision that reverses Lawrence and Griswold.

well, they are both looking forward really. What future case not excluded by paragraph 1 ever find precedential value in a Paragraph 1 case?

Not a big deal, but it still looks inoperative to me.

If the bill only contained paragraph 1, the older cases would still be good law and technically unable to be overridden (although, if they were ignored, there wouldn't be a forum to sue in.) Paragraph 2 says "Lawrence is no longer binding on federal (and by extension, state) courts."

I can see the need for paragraph 2 if the entire section had any applicability to state courts that can adjudicate a paragraph one case, but I dont see the "by extension". At best its implied but poorly drafted and paragraph 2 should specify that prior Fed decisions have no precedential value for future state cases.

Wait - now I'm confused. Are you for or against democracy?

What exactly does this bill do besides allow democracy to work without interference from unelected, lifetime-appointed officials?

P.S. Are you and DVaut1 the same account? He's been missing lately and you two are pretty redundant in your posting style and content.

It is not Congressman Paul's prerogative to allow the federal government to dictate how states use the powers delegated to them by the constitution. As it stand now, the federal government can prohibit anything they wish--contraceptives, atheism, sodomy, poker. Just because they haven't banned anything you like (yet), and a state government might under this bill, doesn't mean it's a good idea to perpetuate unlimited federal power.

QFT!

Does the Fourteenth Amendment ring a bell?

Fortunately, we're a republic, not a democracy, and a republic whose Constitution includes extensive protection for minority rights, at that. For example, our Constitution beyond the shadow of a doubt bars a state from banning atheists from holding office, as was the Founding Fathers' clear intent. Congressman Paul, though, introduced legislation explicitly preventing anyone from going to court to defend that right.

The fact that someone being against a Congressman's not just opposing, but introducing legislation to repeal Lawrence seems like a troll to you speaks volumes about the quality of this board.

Not to mention that your posts are nothing at all like Dvaut1's. When you can't argue your position, roll out the trolling or gimmick account accusation.

So let me get this straight - a left-leaning status-quo supporter is bringing up the CONSTITUTION to make his case AGAINST Ron Paul?!?!?!

Oh the irony!

Did the Founding Fathers plan on expressly permitting abortion on demand at the federal level as well? That would seem to be your implication. (And I am not even willing to concede that they would have been against a state law banning atheists from holding office.)

His point is that actions speak louder than words. The Constitution is fine for RP, as long as it fits his world view and agenda. If it doesnt, meh, its just a piece of paper to be legislated to remove the offending portions.