Pretty amazing how Paul and Romney fumbling over their answers made frothy and his froth-filled interpretation of the constitution sound by far the smartest.

I don't see how this relates to the Griswold right to privacy, but rather the lack of the power of government to search homes for it without a warrant. If you ban importation into that state he leaves open the possibility of banning them.

Which is a bit odd he brings it up, of course they would ban importation of them along with sale. It definitely seems like a dodge (something you and fly should be proud of, when in doubt, don't say anything that looks bad to the general public!)

lol Jesse Benton

Seems like a weird spot to flip out there, obviously some history that predates the video. The CNN reporter lady must have been going somewhere because what he got asked did not seem like it passed the "WE'RE OUTTA HERE" threshold.

There's a clip of her saying she's "Worried" that Ron Paul will run as a 3rd party. There's gotta be more to it.

Not surprised media could confuse her with some undecided NH voter.

His earlier stop at a restaurant got ruined when a literal mob of reporters swarmed him and ruined any chance of him speaking with people. So they decided their only choice was to basically cancel the stop and leave. I think she was getting to a 'you turned your back on those voters who came to see you, why don't you care about voters?' line.

I'm sure it was a mix of frustration that one of their stops got ruined by the media (which they already dislike in general), and the fact that they seem to particularly dislike CNN. Still seemed like an overreaction.

That's the going to bat part! He's totally wrong. Actually, "wrong" is charitable, that makes it seem like he picked the incorrect side of a debate.

The words he is saying in that answer just have no connection at all to the question he was asked. It's Palinesque.

The absolutely have some connection. Not the one you wanted, but some.

But since you are the Constitutional Law expert, go ahead and explain which parts of what he said was wrong. Challenge: Actually use the words he said.

That entire question/exchange and the way the moderator kept interjecting and following up etc etc were just flat out ******ed. Is this really the most important issue for our country? Because they were forced to spend more time talking about that than anything else.

This isn't true. Note the "Laws applied" section of the wiki you linked. If you read the opinions presented for that very case:

Dissenting opinion:

It's all about creating boogeymen or "gotchas" that will force each candidate to alienate a bunch of people.

You have to learn how to speak out both sides of your mouth to keep from pissing off someone as a politician.

In b4 niggardly.

Ron Paul Supporter Goes For Rush Limbaugh's Throat Like A Rabid Dog 1/9/12

Senior Campaign Advisor, Doug Wead on MSNBC – Jan 9 2012

this is really strange to me. paul usually seems so good at coming off calm and still delivering his message. he must be so sick of this to get this upset..that being said, cnn is such a pathetic joke and that question is just absurd yet unsurprising.

Hahaha, see? Going to bat for Dear Leader. "Ron Paul has to know about the Constitution, he's a Constitution guy!" The emperor having no clothes is a problem for the Imperial Guard.

I've done nothing but explain how what he said was wrong, starting from my first post, which quoted Ron Paul. You keep implying that people are twisting Paul's words, but both Max and I are going straight from the transcript. It really seems you are not reading the thread.

To briefly recap,

The 4th amendment is not what makes laws banning contraceptives unconstitutional, and it's possible Paul does understand that, because look at what he said:

Nothing about contraceptives, he's talking about warrants. I guess he just wanted to talk about the Patriot Act for a minute before trying to answer the question? That's the most charitable explanation.

What part of that isn't wrong?

Yeah...I was actually thinking the same thing., because it seems like they basically all have the same view. States legally can restrict abortion and they should + states should not restrict birth control even if they can.

True...I was hoping initially that he actually changed his mind about the supreme cour't decision about Lawrence and privacy....but he was more likely trying to do what you said.

Tom Woods talking about Ron Paul 1/9/12

But why the Supreme Court ruled it unconstituional doesn't mean Paul agrees the Constitution actually says that.

He's simply bringing up a *different* argument (if the states don't ban importation, then they can't ban the sale). Is that part false?

No break for Ron Paul following New Hampshire

Confounded at least 1 well known politics poster as well...

meh. Paul sounded sick around the new year. And he did do 3 interviews for Sunday shows on Jan 1st. Probably did affect him a bit since there's so many dumbass voters who decide in the last few days.

Unlikely. But mostly quoting your post to thank you for following up on this in this thread.

Intriguingly, I believe that heterosexual sodomy was considered to be protected even when homosexual sodomy was not. It's possible that was just within the confines of marriage though, I can't recall the details so I might be wrong about this, and I think the Supreme Court mentioned this only obliquely in any case. If someone does know the answer, I'm curious.

It just doesn't make sense. More likely is the earlier explanation. He opposes Griswold but someone told him no to mention that. Ever.

Of interest to me is the the question of why Paul thinks the Fourth's Amendment incorporation was correctly decided. That excerpt (assuming Paul stands by it, which isn't clear--maybe he was just confused by the question) is the first indication of that fact to me. Not sure why states' rights doesn't hold true here as well.

So yeah, that did play a small role.

Iirc, some states had laws on the books making anal illegal altogether. Maybe married folks were exempted. Think bjs were outlawed too in some places.