Erpsssarwtc

[ThatGuy113]

Whats your point? Are you just getting your copy and past fix for the day?

The point is Homeslice said Ron Paul does not use religion in policy making.

The point was proved valid by Ron Pauls own words. Stop ignoring the actual info but saying its irrelevant

 

[OGEvilgenius]

He said it's not such a rigid line actually (and made clear reference to the specific issues he was talking about), once again, your ability to comprehend context doesn't exist and you ignore his countless other points about how limited Federal government power should be (including, but not limited to, a Theocratic form of government).

The word rigid means he clearly doesn't mean what you are claiming he means.

 

[ThatGuy113]

He said it's not such a rigid line actually (and made clear reference to the specific issues he was talking about), once again, your ability to comprehend context doesn't exist and you ignore his countless other points about how limited Federal government power should be (including, but not limited to, a Theocratic form of government).

The word rigid means he clearly doesn't mean what you are claiming he means.

Your reaching for arguments now. Rigid would be in the same boat as Thomas Jeffersons "sovereign reverence" . Once again he said the founding fathersnever mentioned it, At least half of those founding fathers were vocal about it all over their writings.

and if you still want to argue about it see the other speech I posted from him where he is clearly scolding his fellow politicians for not directly convaying church law and morals in the Federal Government's policies.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

The point is Homeslice said Ron Paul does not use religion in policy making.

The point was proved valid by Ron Pauls own words. Stop ignoring the actual info but saying its irrelevant

Yeah, he does want religious institutions to become more important than government - by limiting the role of government completely (and not by giving Religious institutions the power to institute force to enforce policy either, but by allowing them to exist freely and by limiting the role of the government in other peoples lives). This is not at all at odds with Jefferson, even if Jefferson would rather other institutions rose in place of religious ones. It is completely ideologically consistent and not at odds with the constitution or the fathers intent either.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

Your reaching for arguments now. Rigid would be in the same boat as Thomas Jeffersons "sovereign reverence" . Once again he said the founding father never mentioned it, At least half of those founding fathers were vocal about it all over their writings.

I'm not reaching for anything, I'm just actually reading what the guy has written. You are taking bits and pieces out of context, ignoring words completely and in general are completely misrepresenting him on every level.

 

[ThatGuy113]

If I was really taking bits and pieces I wouldnt post the entire articles (Let alone link you directly to the sources on news articles, You can always google speeches and find them so I leave that up to you ) because I would know that the rest of the article would disagree with what Im saying. That is why I read them several times over and in their entirety. Im not taking him out of context. Even if you continue to argue with the Christmas speech the Pope speech is still fully intact and in beautiful contextual technicolor.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

The pope speech says the exact same thing. Limited government.

 

[ThatGuy113]

No the pope speech is not about limited government. (Remember Ron Paul is only for limited FEDERAL government, he does not care how the states operate)

It is actually saying the the people in the legislature who honered him after his death were actually working against him and that was against the correct way to dictate public policy. He is obvioulsy advocating for the direct transplant of the churches moral beliefs. He does also mention he believes that the churches are too involved in government but thats only in the case of utilizing government services to help the churches i.e. social crutches. Other then that he shows he dislikes the issue that most politicians do not believe public policy should be directly based on the laws of the church.

• 
  "The political left has been highly critical of the Pope's positions on abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, feminism, and contraception. Many liberals frankly view Catholicism as an impediment to the fully secular society they hope to create"
  
  

  • 
    
    
    
    
    
    Your talking out of your ass now "limited government" does not equate to the separation of church and state and was not in the conversation to begin with. This was about his religious flip flops on how the church should be used to define SECULAR public policy.
    ​

  ​

  ​

  
  ​

 

[UncleBuck]

ronald the bigoted theocrat.

the more i learn about this guy, the more it confirms what i know about what a closet wing nut the guy is.

 

[deprave]

Here its your buddy

What Ron Paul says the founding fathers said:

The War on Religionby Rep. Ron Paul, MD
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD​

As we celebrate another Yuletide season, it's hard not to notice that Christmas in America simply doesn't feel the same anymore. Although an overwhelming majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, and those who don't celebrate it overwhelmingly accept and respect our nation's Christmas traditions, a certain shared public sentiment slowly has disappeared. The Christmas spirit, marked by a wonderful feeling of goodwill among men, is in danger of being lost in the ongoing war against religion.
Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. 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 growing bias explains why many of our wonderful Christmas traditions have been lost. Christmas pageants and plays, including Handel's Messiah, have been banned from schools and community halls. Nativity scenes have been ordered removed from town squares, and even criticized as offensive when placed on private church lawns. Office Christmas parties have become taboo, replaced by colorless seasonal parties to ensure no employees feel threatened by a “hostile environment.” Even wholly non-religious decorations featuring Santa Claus, snowmen, and the like have been called into question as Christmas symbols that might cause discomfort. Earlier this month, firemen near Chicago reluctantly removed Christmas decorations from their firehouse after a complaint by some embittered busybody. Most noticeably, however, the once commonplace refrain of “Merry Christmas” has been replaced by the vague, ubiquitous “Happy Holidays.” But what holiday? Is Christmas some kind of secret, a word that cannot be uttered in public? Why have we allowed the secularists to intimidate us into downplaying our most cherished and meaningful Christian celebration?
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. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.
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. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.



What Thomas Jefferson actually said.

Thomas Jefferson's letter to theDanbury Baptist Association in 1802. The original text reads: "... 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 and State." Jefferson reflected his frequent speaking theme that the government is not to interfere with religion

The earlier Jefferson quote from a few pages back combats the argument Paul makes about it just dealing with preventing a Church of England in America.




I think you guys just call me copy paste because you get pissed when I actually have proof. I could have just posted this a while ago but you guys dont like seeing the real evidence.

How much clearer does it have to be for you?





Extra Credit

Treaty of Tripoli

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."


The only reason I back up my arguments is because you cant discredit the actual argument because I proved with contextual evidence that Ive got history on my side.

and fun fact.
Ron Paul said this
"Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God......"
The constitution does not mention god or Christianity anywhere. I would say that Ron Paul is arguing that America was built on the idea that this is a Christian nation, sounds like he is saying Christianity is officially endorsed to me.


Definition of the phrase establishment of religion - A state religion (also called an official religion, established church or state church) is a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state.



Supreme Court ruling in 1947 Everson v. Board of Education
"The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another...... Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State." "




​

I don't get why this is some kind of smoking gun for you or a big deal. Ron Paul wants to protect freedom of religion which is separation of church and state. How this takes a nosedive into theocracy for you is beyond me, and it could be a paritially true...I mean its speculation at best but....so what really? you never speculate? I bet your speculating right now

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.


Ron Paul is a religious person so of course he would say something like that....this is not an uncommon thing to say for a christian. To me its its not that big of a deal if he is a christian.....

[video=youtube;G2gTFBhQ7Ko]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2gTFBhQ7Ko[/video]

 

[lifegoesonbrah]

You are trying way too hard. Are you scared that the guy who wants to legalize heroin will mandate church?

Anti-Paulites are funny, they read all of Ron Paul's writings from 30 years ago and still don't understand his overall philosophy.

How do you have so much time to hate? I don't read about Obamas college writings day in and day out because I think he's retard. You guys work way too hard for political ammunition, instead of reading about your lord and savior Obamas policies you would rather read about a philosophy that you supposedly hate. I guess what I am trying to say is that you are either:

A) Closet Paulbots
B) Ultra losers with WAY too much time on your hands

 

[sync0s]

(Remember Ron Paul is only for limited FEDERAL government, he does not care how the states operate)

Right, because the bill of rights doesn't exist.

 

[ThatGuy113]

I don't get why this is some kind of smoking gun for you or a big deal. Ron Paul wants to protect freedom of religion which is separation of church and state. How this takes a nosedive into theocracy for you is beyond me, and it could be a paritially true...I mean its speculation at best but....so what really? you never speculate? I bet your speculating right now

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.


Ron Paul is a religious person so of course he would say something like that....this is not an uncommon thing to say for a christian. To me its its not that big of a deal if he is a christian.....

[video=youtube;G2gTFBhQ7Ko]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2gTFBhQ7Ko[/video]

Yet he attacks his fellow constituents for not following church morals in legislation (check that Pope speech). I think that would be considered the advocation of direct church law being applied to Federal law in regard to abortion, gay rights and so forth. He is saying the separation of church and state is not valid in the context of how the country should be run because a serious separation of church and state has no basis in the constitution or in the founding fathers own writings. C'mon man.

 

[ThatGuy113]

Right, because the bill of rights doesn't exist.

Yea cause you were so afriad of the federal government violating your rights, what makes the state government so innocent in your eyes? They screw people over just as bad as the feds do.


Once again you would not need a power transition to the states if people actually took part in the political process. If you actually elected your local, state and then federal legislators on a regular basis we wouldn't have this HUGE disconnect between your local hometown and Washington. Everyone has a political opinion but I believe only 53% of people voted in the 2008 election (That was a good year). Nice. Were supposed to be the beacon for democracy yet on a regular basis we cant even get half of the voting population out to the polling stations.

 

[deprave]

Yet he attacks his fellow constituents for not following church morals in legislation (check that Pope speech). I think that would be considered the advocation of direct church law being applied to Federal law in regard to abortion, gay rights and so forth. He is saying the separation of church and state is not valid in the context of how the country should be run because a serious separation of church and state has no basis in the constitution or in the founding fathers own writings. C'mon man.

No thats not what he is saying, he is saying that the founding father had to have been influenced by their religion in their life, the pargraph is saying that they didn't write about a RIGID separation extensively that is true they didn't write about it much, certainly not about a RIGID speration(this is not an uncommon view).... he argues that most of the writings are referring to just that, a head church like the church of england at the time or a theocracy, so ironically enough its funny how you twist this into being a theocratic statement when its the opposite...no where is he or has he "advocated of direct church law being applied to federal law"...he is not for any of the examples you have given...your just kind of making stuff up here and drawing your own conclusions at this point, you have exaggerated this whole thing pretty far because you managed to misinterpret once sentence, please go back and read over everything you wrote...

 

[ThatGuy113]

Just to preface I had a more long winded argument but my browser froze so I will make it as quick as possible.

Using religion as a moral compass when weighing out policy decisions is different then directly implementing church belief into government policies. Those policies dictate how people live their life because a religious group sees them as dangerous to their faith filled society.

Liberty defined by a quick google search- The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life.

Honestly what are the reasons to justify a stance against gay marriage? (co sponsoring defense of marriage act), sodomy in the bedroom in his home state? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html specifically the third paragraph on that page, why should the states have any right to decide what ANYONE does in the bedroom let alone let Ron Paul say there is no promise of privacy granted to citizens) etc......

"the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards." - Ron Paul

Literally what is the problem that he has with it? His problem is only based in his religious intolerance. What else could it be, it doesnt hurt the economy, it doesnt hurt anyone else (I will allow the abortion topic to be excluded because of the whole life starts when debate even though I believe it happens much later then Paul does but everything else is inexcusable). The only reason hes against it is because its against religious doctrine. Im sure there are a lot of religions out there that have to deal with society ruining religious doctrine but the arent trying to legislate the sinners into stopping. They realize that they live in their world and the other religious groups live in theirs and this country allows for that.

You can choose not to participate instead of outlawing what other people do that has no ill effect on anyone. Isnt that the original idea of how we are supposed to live our lives?

He says government has always stayed out of marriage through history but then said he would vote against gay marriage legislation because marriage to him is only between a man and a woman.

To me that would be a huge indicator of Ron Paul justifying Christian morals in restricting what people can do. No other reason then that.


He wants to reinstate penalties for flag burning (so much for that right to free speech)

The issue is he wants the states to be what the federal government currently is. Even if Ron Paul legalized Marijuana, states could still outlaw it and arrest you under his version of states rights. So we get 50 rogue states acting independently and constantly contradicting each other. Sounds so productive. Good luck guaranteeing equal rights across the country.

I dont think you could find any other justification for his actions. Whats liberty if it is not your version of liberty but someone else's. The only way to get around that is not to outlaw but to accept and realize that they wont interfere with your daily life and the favor should be returned (Isnt that the kind of approach Paul wants to take with foreign policy? lol). Like in all seriousness Im not trying to be a dick this time but these are some serious issues reflecting Ron Paul.

 

[deprave]

Just to preface I had a more long winded argument but my browser froze so I will make it as quick as possible.

Using religion as a moral compass when weighing out policy decisions is different then directly implementing church belief into government policies. Those policies dictate how people live their life because a religious group sees them as dangerous to their faith filled society.

Liberty defined by a quick google search- The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life.

Honestly what are the reasons to justify a stance against gay marriage? (co sponsoring defense of marriage act), sodomy in the bedroom in his home state? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html specifically the third paragraph on that page, why should the states have any right to decide what ANYONE does in the bedroom let alone let Ron Paul say there is no promise of privacy granted to citizens) etc......

"the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards." - Ron Paul

Literally what is the problem that he has with it? His problem is only based in his religious intolerance. What else could it be, it doesnt hurt the economy, it doesnt hurt anyone else (I will allow the abortion topic to be excluded because of the whole life starts when debate even though I believe it happens much later then Paul does but everything else is inexcusable). The only reason hes against it is because its against religious doctrine. Im sure there are a lot of religions out there that have to deal with society ruining religious doctrine but the aren't trying to legislate the sinners into stopping. They realize that they live in their world and the other religious groups live in theirs and this country allows for that.

You can choose not to participate instead of outlawing what other people do that has no ill effect on anyone. Isnt that the original idea of how we are supposed to live our lives?

He says government has always stayed out of marriage through history but then said he would vote against gay marriage legislation because marriage to him is only between a man and a woman.

To me that would be a huge indicator of Ron Paul justifying Christian morals in restricting what people can do. No other reason then that.


He wants to reinstate penalties for flag burning (so much for that right to free speech)

The issue is he wants the states to be what the federal government currently is. Even if Ron Paul legalized Marijuana, states could still outlaw it and arrest you under his version of states rights. So we get 50 rogue states acting independently and constantly contradicting each other. Sounds so productive. Good luck guaranteeing equal rights across the country.

I dont think you could find any other justification for his actions. Whats liberty if it is not your version of liberty but someone else's. The only way to get around that is not to outlaw but to accept and realize that they wont interfere with your daily life and the favor should be returned (Isnt that the kind of approach Paul wants to take with foreign policy? lol). Like in all seriousness Im not trying to be a dick this time but these are some serious issues reflecting Ron Paul.

First off.. You reference paragraph 3 on http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html

Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.

I think from a legal standpoint he is correct on this actually, because he is a strict constitutionalists and pro-10th amendment this is why he takes this side, also because of his opinions on the 14th amendment. I also feel like this article in parituliar is kind of trying to pander to social conservatives because he knows they would take his side on this, it starts out with "We social conservatives" . I don't really agree with him on this or his position with the 14th amendment really but to be fair he does say in this article "Sodomy laws are ridiculous". This is a constitutional and legal stance he is taking here and its not that he agrees with the law but that he is disagreeing with the supreme court decision. (which he does state here just not very clearly)

So I think this really addresses all your points really if you can understand it from this perspective. I am not sure why you go as far as to say "I dont think you could find any other justification for his actions." but I think you just felt you were on a roll..

This is Ron Paul's way of thinking and I think this is what you are missing (Legal Constitutional), As you research Paul you will learn this, even if he has to say/do things controversial he defends Constitutional Law no matter what, even if he disagrees with it. I think someone who follows the constitution as strictly as him is better then someone who completely ignores it, not that I agree with this ideology entirely but I think its for the best and better than the others. You will learn that he does have kind of an odd opionion on the 14th amendment and I see you obviously already disagree with the 10th amendment but I encourage you to explore that further. I hope this help you to better understand some of Dr Paul's writings and opinions.


If you want to go ahead and provide sources for the other things you said like "flag burning" and such I will go ahead and address those also.

regarding "Even if Ron Paul legalized marijuana, states could still outlaw it and arrest you under his version of states rights. So we get 50 rogue states acting independently and constantly contradicting each other. Sounds so productive. Good luck guaranteeing equal rights across the country." -
I will just let you rethink that because again I think you just felt you were on some kind of roll here, but if you want to stick by it I will write a reply for that, just let me know.

 

[ThatGuy113]

So just to put it simply, he believes that the state itself should be able to violate rights of minority groups that disagree with the people running the state because the states are given that right. When does states rights get to trump personal liberty and equal protection? How is that justifiable.

That's where I draw my line.

You want this guy but theres a chance he could rogue and do whatever he wants and wont allow the feds to help people being violated by their local state government but as long as he sticks to his "constitutional conservatism" its ok?



Because the definition of rights is in the eye of the beholder and if your local state doesnt quite think you deserve rights then your SOL with no protection from the feds. Thats how you get this guy

(George Wallace for all the kiddies that dont know)


I think Ron Paul said the enforcement of federal civil rights on the 60's is the reason why the Patriot act can exist and your house gets raided today. Thats a bit questionable.

"If you try to improve relationships by forcing and telling people what they can't do, and you ignore and undermine the principles of liberty, then the government can come into our bedrooms........And that's exactly what has happened. Look at what's happened with the PATRIOT Act. They can come into our houses, our bedrooms our businesses ... And it was started back then."
- Ron Paul



Honestly here though. The civil war ended in 1865. Reconstruction failed and Pauls analyses would explain what happened there (or in any international conflict that the United States has gone on short of the two World Wars). HOWEVER that's where it stops making sense. Yes we couldn't force reconstruction and a restructuring of societies morals in the south but it literally took 99 years for some form of civil rights to move into the south. Of course that was forced integration (something Truman had done to the armed forces a decade earlier).
In Ron Paul's world forced segregation was totally ok because the states have the "power" to exercise that law due to his opinion that the Federal Government has no right to enforce that (racial equality on a national level) because it doesnt fit into his box of conservatism.

The best part about ^ that is if we would of never sent those national guard units in and continued our laissez-fair style policy then I wouldn't think twice that state racism would have continued several decades after that if not up to this point in history.

You cant say oh the people would of figured it out and the social situation would of gone away. No. Southerners are loud and proud about their heritage and if the feds never dealt with in the 60's god only knows where wed be today. We only assume they would of changed because society DID change in the 60's (thanks to the feds) so now today we see the problems with the social situation in the south back then, when they just saw it as perfect southern life.

[video=youtube;hLLDn7MjbF0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=hLLDn7MjbF0[/video]








He thinks society will just fix itself automatically. Which is inherently untrue for the minority groups that face persecution.


So hes a rich old white man that gets to screw over other minority groups facing persecution every day in parts of this country while facing no persecution outside of the political arena?

I get that hes all about the constitution and his conservative scope of it but he doesnt represent the majority of Americans. (Voting and non voting) So even if he sticks to his constitutional guns those guns can backfire and shoot the hopes of your rights down to the ground.



Ron Paul on whether marijuana would be allowed by states under his policy. ​

Meet the Press: 2007 “Meet the Candidates” series , Dec 23, 2007

​

Q: "But you would decriminalize it?" -Russert
A:" I would, at the federal level. I don’t have control over the states. And that’s why the Constitution’s there." -Paul


Sounds to me like he would be ok with a state outlawing it because thats within their rights (He has no right to stop them cause of his "limited" power)

Remember decriminalization is not legalization either. So it wouldnt be to crazy if states continued to outlaw it considering he just said it would be up to them.



Flag burning ":​

In 1997, Paul introduced a Constitutional amendment giving states the power to prohibit the destruction of the flag of the United States.[SUP][96][/SUP] In June 2003, he voted against a Constitutional amendment to prohibit the physical "desecration" of the flag of the United States.[SUP][97][/SUP] He believes that prohibiting flag burning is a state power, not a federal power." -wiki

I would say that he would allow the states to outlaw that form of free speech ^

The fact is it could be argued states rights do not trump free speech. So why does he think the State has the right to restrict that freedom?

If You dont question Ron Paul the way you think I should question 9/11 then your not getting it. Never have I seen a candidate with so many of these problems that have shown their ugly heads in the past few decades. There is more questions about his career and the questionable things hes been involved with then we could count but he gets a pass from his supporters every time. These all are serious issues ive heard Paul supporters say Ron Paul will promise us, equal rights doesn't look so promising.


He wants to restore America to the first half of the 20th century.

 

[ThatGuy113]

I provide a counter plan for the way Ron Paul wants to go about this. If he did not go the way of states rights he has been advocating but rather work to reform or repeal the seventeenth amendment. You wouldnt have to worry about the 50 power vacuums that would erupt through his current plan. (I do know he already disagrees with the 17th amendment but I dont understand why its not his main focus) I still would not vote for him but I think this would be a lot more productive and keep the legislature united in Washington seeing the big picture issues instead of just 50 little power graspers seeing only singular state issues.

Wiki -

The Seventeenth Amendment (Amendment XVII) to the United States Constitution established direct election of United States Senators by popular vote. The amendment supersedes Article I, § 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, under which senators were elected by state legislatures. It also alters the procedure for filling vacancies in the Senate, allowing for state legislatures to permit their governors to make temporary appointments until a special election can be held. Under the original provisions of the Constitution, senators were elected by state legislatures; this was intended to ensure that the Federal government contained representatives of the states, and also to provide a body not dependent on popular support that could afford to "take a more detached view of issues coming before Congress."[SUP][1][/SUP] However, over time various perceived issues with these provisions, such as the risk of corruption and the potential for electoral deadlocks or a lack of representation should a seat become vacant, led to a campaign for reform.Reformers tabled constitutional amendments in 1828, 1829 and 1855, with the issues finally reaching a head during the 1890s and 1900s. Progressives, such as William Jennings Bryan, called for reform to the way senators were chosen. Elihu Root and George Frisbie Hoar were prominent figures in the campaign to maintain the state legislative selection of senators. By 1910, 31 state legislatures had passed motions calling for reform. By 1912, 239 political parties at both the state and national level had pledged some form of direct election, and 33 states had introduced the use of direct primaries. With a campaign for a state-led constitutional amendment gaining strength, and a fear that this could result in a "runaway convention", the proposal to mandate direct elections for the Senate was finally introduced in the Congress. It was passed by the Congress and on May 13, 1912, was submitted to the states for ratification. By April 8, 1913, three-fourths of the states had ratified the proposed amendment, making it the Seventeenth Amendment. Secretary of State Bryan formally declared the amendment's adoption on May 31, 1913.
Critics of the Seventeenth Amendment claim that by altering the way senators are elected, the states lost any representation they had in the federal government and that this led to the gradual "slide into ignominy" of state legislatures,[SUP][2][/SUP] as well as an overextension of federal power and the rise of special interest groups to fill the power vacuum previously occupied by state legislatures. In addition, concerns have been raised about the power of governors to appoint temporary replacements to fill vacant senate seats, both in terms of how this provision should be interpreted and whether it should be permitted at all. Accordingly, noted public figures have expressed a desire to reform or even repeal the Seventeenth Amendment.

I get the appeal of a local government being more equipped to handle local issues then the feds but the issue is a lot of those policies that get put under states rights are based on religious and discriminatory conflicts.

Your putting power into more hands in the government, a government that you already dont trust.

 

[deprave]

So just to put it simply, he believes that the state itself should be able to violate rights of minority groups that disagree with the people running the state because the states are given that right. When does states rights get to trump personal liberty and equal protection? How is that justifiable.

No, he believes that states rights trump federal rights...not they they "trump personal liberty and equal protection"...Again please refer to the part I highlighted in red, this article is him saying he disagrees with the supreme courts decision but DOESN'T agree with the law.

You want this guy but theres a chance he could rogue and do whatever he wants and wont allow the feds to help people being violated by their local state government but as long as he sticks to his "constitutional conservatism" its ok?



I think Ron Paul said the enforcement of federal civil rights on the 60's is the reason why the Patriot act can exist and your house gets raided today. Thats a bit questionable.

"If you try to improve relationships by forcing and telling people what they can't do, and you ignore and undermine the principles of liberty, then the government can come into our bedrooms........And that's exactly what has happened. Look at what's happened with the PATRIOT Act. They can come into our houses, our bedrooms our businesses ... And it was started back then."
- Ron Paul

​

Ron Paul believes in individualism, Individualist believe that every individual has rights therefore if every individual has rights then all "groups" that you can put people in have those same rights.

Honestly here though. The civil war ended in 1865. Reconstruction failed and Pauls analyses would explain what happened there (or in any international conflict that the United States has gone on short of the two World Wars). HOWEVER that's where it stops making sense. Yes we couldn't force reconstruction and a restructuring of societies morals in the south but it literally took 99 years for some form of civil rights to move into the south. Of course that was forced integration (something Truman had done to the armed forces a decade earlier).
In Ron Paul's world forced segregation was totally ok because the states have the "power" to exercise that law due to his opinion that the Federal Government has no right to enforce that (racial equality on a national level) because it doesnt fit into his box of conservatism.

The best part about ^ that is if we would of never sent those national guard units in and continued our laissez-fair style policy then I wouldn't think twice that state racism would have continued several decades after that if not up to this point in history.



You cant say oh the people would of figured it out and the social situation would of gone away. No. Southerners are loud and proud about their heritage and if the feds never dealt with in the 60's god only knows where wed be today. We only assume they would of changed because society DID change in the 60's (thanks to the feds) so now today we see the problems with the social situation in the south back then, when they just saw it as perfect southern life.

He thinks society will just fix itself automatically. Which is inherently untrue for the minority groups that face persecution.

Ron Paul praises the civil rights movement for ending segregation, he does not think segregation was okay, his problem with The Civil Rights Again again is a constitutional law stance..and its also Individualism philosophy. Fundamentally different ways of thinking.

So hes a rich old white man that gets to screw over other minority groups facing persecution every day in parts of this country while facing no persecution outside of the political arena?

Ron Paul is one of the few politicians who speak out against the legal system bias toward minorities.

Ron Paul on whether marijuana would be allowed by states under his policy.

​

Meet the Press: 2007 “Meet the Candidates” series , Dec 23, 2007

​

Q: "But you would decriminalize it?" -Russert
A:" I would, at the federal level. I don’t have control over the states. And that’s why the Constitution’s there." -Paul


Sounds to me like he would be ok with a state outlawing it because thats within their rights (He has no right to stop them cause of his "limited" power)

Did you just say he would be okay with a state outlawing marijuana? Haven't you heard? It is already outlawed. Ron Paul has pushed bill after bill for hemp and marijuana legilization. Dr Paul has also said many times he thinks all drugs should be legal.

Flag burning ":

​

In 1997, Paul introduced a Constitutional amendment giving states the power to prohibit the destruction of the flag of the United States.[SUP][96][/SUP] In June 2003, he voted against a Constitutional amendment to prohibit the physical "desecration" of the flag of the United States.[SUP][97][/SUP] He believes that prohibiting flag burning is a state power, not a federal power." -wiki

I would say that he would allow the states to outlaw that form of free speech ^

The fact is it could be argued states rights do not trump free speech. So why does he think the State has the right to restrict that freedom?

he does not think that, you put words in his mouth again...this was a federal law....

If You dont question Ron Paul the way you think I should question 9/11 then your not getting it. Never have I seen a candidate with so many of these problems that have shown their ugly heads in the past few decades. There is more questions about his career and the questionable things hes been involved with then we could count but he gets a pass from his supporters every time. These all are serious issues ive heard Paul supporters say Ron Paul will promise us, equal rights doesn't look so promising.

Ive researched him quite a bit, manys things I "questioned", Quite a few things I disagree with, I am sorry that you just don't get. Ron Paul is incredibly consistent on everything and has high integrity thats why its easy for me to sit here and explain this to you or anything you write about in a matter of 10 minutes. I always know where Ron Paul stands on something and what he would say or do. I am not more worried about him "going rogue" then obama or romeny when he has been not only consistent but predicitable for his entire career. If I say Mitt Romney said this or Obama said that you'd have to lookup an explination. You say Ron Paul said or did something I can just explain it on the fly (just as anyone who has researched DR PAUL could)