RE: The Ron Paul Evolution

RE: The Ron Paul Evolution (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

DomKen -> RE: The Ron Paul Evolution (5/3/2008 9:24:02 PM)
Too keep this short I'm going to respond without quoting. Section 1 is a legal finding of fact. Passing it makes abortion first degree murder but dumps it in the states laps. There is no wiggle room. If a post fertilized egg is a human being then intentionally destroying it is murder no ifs ands or buts. Section 3 is completely unconstitutional. Article 3 section 2 of the US Constitutiuon states: quote: The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States There is simply no way to pass a law and include in that law a provision that the courts can't review that law. So Section 1 does not give states the right to decide how to handle abortion and Section 3 is blatantly unconstitutional. Not exactly what I'd call what I'd expect from a guy claiming to hold the Constitution as nearly sacred and one supposedly interested in devolving power to the states on this matter.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: The Ron Paul Evolution (5/3/2008 11:28:44 PM)
My precinct: 103% Republican. Chances of Obama winning my precinct: -13.67% Voting strategy: vote for Rue Paul in the hopes that enough people will write in Paul to knock McBush out of the race (in my precinct).

GoddessDustyGold -> RE: The Ron Paul Evolution (5/3/2008 11:49:44 PM)
quote: quote: The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States And this is precisely where we must agree to disagree. I do not feel that these, and many other laws, are anything that the federal level of governemnt should be mixing into. So let's leave the touchy situation of abortion alone for a moment and find another hot button. I also believe, as does Dr., Paul, that medical marijuana should be legal and should be up to each state. (In fact I believe that it should be legal and taxed, period.) But that aside, at least we have come to the point where, at least medically, the safety and valid use of the drug jas been considered and is legal in some places. Yet, California has problems and is threatened from time to time due to federal drug laws. In Arizona, the right to medical marijuana and a perscription for such, has been passed twice by the people, on a legitimate ballot. But it has never been officially enacted due to the touchy situation with the federal law. In the end, My point is that the rights of individual states have been overthrown by federal law in way too many cases. It is insidious and people need to wake before they realize that everything we seem to take for granted now has been (and is being) eroded away by the screaming of a few special groups with a personal agenda. Using this issue as a reason to dismiss Dr. Paul is poor judgement in My opinion. Especially since he has no plans to stop anyone from receiving an abortion under any local/state law. He simply believes that it is not the right of the feds to force states to give them and fund them. And he found a way to present a bill that would enable this power to go back to the states. Let the court review the cases. shrug The answers, in most instances should be simple. *"Not under the scope of our authority. Go back to your state lawmakers."*

NeedToUseYou -> RE: The Ron Paul Evolution (5/3/2008 11:51:25 PM)
Anyway, just wanted to come back and state, I've not whimped out on replying to the perceived unconsitutional stances of Ron Paul. I had to go take a 4 hour long test yesterday or today(depending on your timezone) for licensing purposes(passed, hehe), and only got 1 hour of sleep before hand, 4 hours without a cigarette. I was going crazy. Today, I have to do some stuff, and monday I have to run to springfield. I'll probably dredge this thread and respond on tuesday or weds, as that will be the earliest day I'll have any real time to compile a lengthy, response.

DomKen -> RE: The Ron Paul Evolution (5/4/2008 5:42:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold quote: quote: The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States And this is precisely where we must agree to disagree. I do not feel that these, and many other laws, are anything that the federal level of governemnt should be mixing into. You bolded the wrong phrase. The relevant part is "the laws of the United States." I included the entire quote rather than omit with ellipsis to avoid any claims of selective quoting. Once more I want someone to try and square Paul's supposed adoration of the US Constitution with Section 3 of the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005 and 2007. Don't try and argue that it doesn't plainly say what it says. Don't wax philosophical on states rights vs. federalism. Simply explain the fact that Paul sponsored a bill that is obviously and without doubt unconstitutional in such an outrageous fashion.

GoddessDustyGold -> RE: The Ron Paul Evolution (5/4/2008 10:25:30 AM)
quote: Once more I want someone to try and square Paul's supposed adoration of the US Constitution with Section 3 of the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005 and 2007. Don't try and argue that it doesn't plainly say what it says. Don't wax philosophical on states rights vs. federalism. Simply explain the fact that Paul sponsored a bill that is obviously and without doubt unconstitutional in such an outrageous fashion. Sorry, can't do that. Because I already gave you My opnion. No philosophical waxing about it. Admittedly, it is My opinion, just as your statements are your opinion. I bolded the phrase I did, as it shows the writers are referring to laws that arise out of that constitution...not all laws, everywhere, including the laws of the individual states. The federal law only supercedes state law in the areas over which it has power and authority. States rights were an important factor in the framing of the constitution and it bodes ill, IMO, to throw that away now. As the Supreme Court of the Land, power and authority has been abused over and over. Again, it is, as I said in a previous post in this very thread, as a response to your post concerning constutional reverence and interpretation, it must be a judgement call. I apparently interpret the constitution and the original intent of the framers differently than you do.

DomKen -> RE: The Ron Paul Evolution (5/4/2008 10:49:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold quote: Once more I want someone to try and square Paul's supposed adoration of the US Constitution with Section 3 of the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005 and 2007. Don't try and argue that it doesn't plainly say what it says. Don't wax philosophical on states rights vs. federalism. Simply explain the fact that Paul sponsored a bill that is obviously and without doubt unconstitutional in such an outrageous fashion. Sorry, can't do that. Because I already gave you My opnion. No philosophical waxing about it. Admittedly, it is My opinion, just as your statements are your opinion. I bolded the phrase I did, as it shows the writers are referring to laws that arise out of that constitution...not all laws, everywhere, including the laws of the individual states. The federal law only supercedes state law in the areas over which it has power and authority. States rights were an important factor in the framing of the constitution and it bodes ill, IMO, to throw that away now. As the Supreme Court of the Land, power and authority has been abused over and over. Again, it is, as I said in a previous post in this very thread, as a response to your post concerning constutional reverence and interpretation, it must be a judgement call. I apparently interpret the constitution and the original intent of the framers differently than you do. I'm trying real hard to understand the concept that writing a federal law that specifically tries to keep the federal courts from reviewing issues arising from the enforcement of that law isn't an unconstitutional infringement on the seperation of powers but I just can't make the leap. Under your theory it would be just great for Congress to pass a law establishing the Church of Ken as the official state religion and add a Section forbidding judicial review. How about a law forbidding any criticism of Congress or the POTUS with such a section? Kind of makes a joke of seperation of powers. Which certainly is not what the Founders intended.

Alumbrado -> RE: The Ron Paul Evolution (5/4/2008 11:08:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold Sorry, can't do that. Because I already gave you My opnion. No philosophical waxing about it. Admittedly, it is My opinion, just as your statements are your opinion. I bolded the phrase I did, as it shows the writers are referring to laws that arise out of that constitution...not all laws, everywhere, including the laws of the individual states. The federal law only supercedes state law in the areas over which it has power and authority. States rights were an important factor in the framing of the constitution and it bodes ill, IMO, to throw that away now. As the Supreme Court of the Land, power and authority has been abused over and over. Again, it is, as I said in a previous post in this very thread, as a response to your post concerning constutional reverence and interpretation, it must be a judgement call. I apparently interpret the constitution and the original intent of the framers differently than you do. You are joking aren't you?? The 'states rights' issue has been a smokescreen to try to justify slavery, and denying US citizens their rights to vote, and not be tortured, robbed, and even killed by local authorities. It has been shot down repeatedly in the federal courts. You can interpret the intentions of the framers any way you want, and decry the Supreme Court for ruling against such things, but those decisions have kept us free from tyranny as surely as did the Continental Army.

subfever -> RE: The Ron Paul Evolution (5/4/2008 11:11:30 AM)
We are free from tyranny?

Alumbrado -> RE: The Ron Paul Evolution (5/4/2008 11:16:41 AM)
Is that your snarky way of saying that slavery and Jim Crow were no big deal?

GoddessDustyGold -> RE: The Ron Paul Evolution (5/4/2008 11:17:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold quote: Once more I want someone to try and square Paul's supposed adoration of the US Constitution with Section 3 of the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005 and 2007. Don't try and argue that it doesn't plainly say what it says. Don't wax philosophical on states rights vs. federalism. Simply explain the fact that Paul sponsored a bill that is obviously and without doubt unconstitutional in such an outrageous fashion. Sorry, can't do that. Because I already gave you My opnion. No philosophical waxing about it. Admittedly, it is My opinion, just as your statements are your opinion. I bolded the phrase I did, as it shows the writers are referring to laws that arise out of that constitution...not all laws, everywhere, including the laws of the individual states. The federal law only supercedes state law in the areas over which it has power and authority. States rights were an important factor in the framing of the constitution and it bodes ill, IMO, to throw that away now. As the Supreme Court of the Land, power and authority has been abused over and over. Again, it is, as I said in a previous post in this very thread, as a response to your post concerning constutional reverence and interpretation, it must be a judgement call. I apparently interpret the constitution and the original intent of the framers differently than you do. I'm trying real hard to understand the concept that writing a federal law that specifically tries to keep the federal courts from reviewing issues arising from the enforcement of that law isn't an unconstitutional infringement on the seperation of powers but I just can't make the leap. Under your theory it would be just great for Congress to pass a law establishing the Church of Ken as the official state religion and add a Section forbidding judicial review. How about a law forbidding any criticism of Congress or the POTUS with such a section? Kind of makes a joke of seperation of powers. Which certainly is not what the Founders intended. I cannot take your two examples and they both do fall under the purview of the constitution. There is already written law that was ratified with the original document concerning no state religion and no infringment on the right to practice a religion of choice. But...NO STATE RELIGION. It isone of the thing that makes this country different. Therefore that could be challenged. Critism of Congress would fall under the constitutional right to free speech. Unfortunately, there is no allowance for "right to choose" with regards to a federal abortion law, nor is there anything concerning federal intervention or authority regarding the growing, processing and selling of a substance such as marijuana/hemp. We know that these were and continue to be what many consider moral issues and he who screams the loudest gets their way. It is a matter of interpretation and how much power you feel the SCOTUS as well as the other two branches should be able to take. Just because one agrees with and wants the right to choose, does not make it right that it is a federal law. It just means that they need to work in their own state to pass acceptable laws that satisfy the majority of the population of that state. I would say that the reason for Section three, with which you have issue, and I do understand why, is that it is written in order to ensure that this is not once again overturned by the SCOTUS if challenged. Because the law already states that this is an individual state matter, and any challenge would receive the answer "go back to your state lawmakers. It is not a federal concern." We now find ourselves in the unfortunate position of having the be more than specific when framing a new bill/law, to ensure that it isn't for naught as soon as someone gets their sensibilities upset. There are many things over which the federal government now maintains power...too much power, IMO. Things that were never meant, with good cause and from the beginning, to be left in the hands of the states and the people. This sensitive issue is just one of them.

GoddessDustyGold -> RE: The Ron Paul Evolution (5/4/2008 11:30:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold Sorry, can't do that. Because I already gave you My opnion. No philosophical waxing about it. Admittedly, it is My opinion, just as your statements are your opinion. I bolded the phrase I did, as it shows the writers are referring to laws that arise out of that constitution...not all laws, everywhere, including the laws of the individual states. The federal law only supercedes state law in the areas over which it has power and authority. States rights were an important factor in the framing of the constitution and it bodes ill, IMO, to throw that away now. As the Supreme Court of the Land, power and authority has been abused over and over. Again, it is, as I said in a previous post in this very thread, as a response to your post concerning constutional reverence and interpretation, it must be a judgement call. I apparently interpret the constitution and the original intent of the framers differently than you do. You are joking aren't you?? The 'states rights' issue has been a smokescreen to try to justify slavery, and denying US citizens their rights to vote, and not be tortured, robbed, and even killed by local authorities. It has been shot down repeatedly in the federal courts. You can interpret the intentions of the framers any way you want, and decry the Supreme Court for ruling against such things, but those decisions have kept us free from tyranny as surely as did the Continental Army. I actually thought about this argument when I was writing My response and I had a feeling that someone would bring this up. This is a valid comment. I would remind you that we had the thirteenth amendment (not just a SCOTUS declaration) and this was morally and legally ratified by the states in a proper manner. It concerned the abolition of slavery. Rightly so. It is now a legally ratified part of the "law of land". I do have to wonder if there was an actual amendment to the constitution proposed regarding the right to choose, if it would ever be ratified, state by state. Yet the federal law stands, only as a result of a Supreme Court decision. Many people feel that this did not (and does not) come under the scope of SCOTUS authority. The Thirteenth Amendment Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865. Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. *Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.* Edited to add the amendment verbiage. Bold emphasis Mine.

DomKen -> RE: The Ron Paul Evolution (5/4/2008 11:33:35 AM)
Alright what if Congress passes a law ordering Utah to make the FLDS the state religion of the state with a section forbidding federal review. Are you really ok with that? We have a Constitutionally mandated seperation of powers for a very good reason.

Alumbrado -> RE: The Ron Paul Evolution (5/4/2008 11:37:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold I actually thought about this argument when I was writing My response and I had a feeling that someone would bring this up. This is a valid comment. I woudl remind you that we had the thirteenth amendment (not just a SCOTUS declaration) and this was morally and legally ratified by the states in a proper manner. It concerned the abolition of salvery. Rightly so. It is now a legally ratified part of the "law of land". I do have to wonder if there was an actual amendment to the constitution proposed regarding the right to choose, if it would ever be ratified, state by state. Yet the fedeal law stands, only as a result of a Supreme Court decision. Many people feel that this did not (and does not) come under the scope of SCOTUS authority. OK, now I know you are joking... slavery was ended by a terribly destructive war, not an amendment. And in case after case, even with that amendment in place, 'state's rights' remained the rallying cry for segregationists, defending Jim Crow laws, and various violent atrocities.

DomKen -> RE: The Ron Paul Evolution (5/4/2008 11:41:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold I actually thought about this argument when I was writing My response and I had a feeling that someone would bring this up. This is a valid comment. I would remind you that we had the thirteenth amendment (not just a SCOTUS declaration) and this was morally and legally ratified by the states in a proper manner. It concerned the abolition of salvery. Rightly so. It is now a legally ratified part of the "law of land". I do have to wonder if there was an actual amendment to the constitution proposed regarding the right to choose, if it would ever be ratified, state by state. Yet the federal law stands, only as a result of a Supreme Court decision. Many people feel that this did not (and does not) come under the scope of SCOTUS authority. The Thirteenth Amendment Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865. Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. *Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.* Edited to add the amendment verbiage. Bold emphasis Mine. How is this of any concern? I have no issue with your or Paul's stance on the matter. My issue is Paul's claims in regards to the Sanctity of Life Act. He claimed the law would devolve power to control abortion to the states while the reality is it defines life as beginning at conception which makes all abortion murder which is a far cry from his claim. He further claims to revere the Constitution while trying to get a clearly unconstitutional law passed.

GoddessDustyGold -> RE: The Ron Paul Evolution (5/4/2008 11:55:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold I actually thought about this argument when I was writing My response and I had a feeling that someone would bring this up. This is a valid comment. I woudl remind you that we had the thirteenth amendment (not just a SCOTUS declaration) and this was morally and legally ratified by the states in a proper manner. It concerned the abolition of salvery. Rightly so. It is now a legally ratified part of the "law of land". I do have to wonder if there was an actual amendment to the constitution proposed regarding the right to choose, if it would ever be ratified, state by state. Yet the fedeal law stands, only as a result of a Supreme Court decision. Many people feel that this did not (and does not) come under the scope of SCOTUS authority. OK, now I know you are joking... slavery was ended by a terribly destructive war, not an amendment. And in case after case, even with that amendment in place, 'state's rights' remained the rallying cry for segregationists, defending Jim Crow laws, and various violent atrocities. Yes, and that is one of the purposes of a legally ratified amendment in the first place. All these things were struck down by SCOTUS because, with the ratification of the thirteenth, they now had the legal power to address these situations. It did fall under their authority as a part of the ratified federal law.

GoddessDustyGold -> RE: The Ron Paul Evolution (5/4/2008 11:58:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Alright what if Congress passes a law ordering Utah to make the FLDS the state religion of the state with a section forbidding federal review. Are you really ok with that? We have a Constitutionally mandated seperation of powers for a very good reason. Congress cannot make such a law in the first place since it is already against the constitutionally ratified federal law to have a state religion.

DomKen -> RE: The Ron Paul Evolution (5/4/2008 12:01:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold I actually thought about this argument when I was writing My response and I had a feeling that someone would bring this up. This is a valid comment. I woudl remind you that we had the thirteenth amendment (not just a SCOTUS declaration) and this was morally and legally ratified by the states in a proper manner. It concerned the abolition of salvery. Rightly so. It is now a legally ratified part of the "law of land". I do have to wonder if there was an actual amendment to the constitution proposed regarding the right to choose, if it would ever be ratified, state by state. Yet the fedeal law stands, only as a result of a Supreme Court decision. Many people feel that this did not (and does not) come under the scope of SCOTUS authority. OK, now I know you are joking... slavery was ended by a terribly destructive war, not an amendment. And in case after case, even with that amendment in place, 'state's rights' remained the rallying cry for segregationists, defending Jim Crow laws, and various violent atrocities. Yes, and that is one of the purposes of a legally ratified amendment in the first place. All these things were struck down by SCOTUS because, with the ratification of the thirteenth, they now had the legal power to address these situations. It did fall under their authority as a part of the ratified federal law. You're simply wrong. Jim Crowe was not struck down due to the 13th amendment. Jim Crowe was struck down using the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment which is precisely the clause used to strike down virtually all states rights arguments and is the bedrock to the right of privacy decision in Griswold v Connecticut and subesquently Roe v Wade. I strongly doubt going anywhere near the 14th will do your argument any good.

DomKen -> RE: The Ron Paul Evolution (5/4/2008 12:06:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Alright what if Congress passes a law ordering Utah to make the FLDS the state religion of the state with a section forbidding federal review. Are you really ok with that? We have a Constitutionally mandated seperation of powers for a very good reason. Congress cannot make such a law in the first place since it is already against the constitutionally ratified federal law to have a state religion. Pardon me? SCOTUS, as well as most of America, has found a right to privacy implied in the Constitution. The Sanctity of Life Act attempts to take that right away and to prevent judicial review of that taking away of a right. Now you claim Congress make such a law? Which is it? Can Congress pass a law and forbid judicial review or not?

GoddessDustyGold -> RE: The Ron Paul Evolution (5/4/2008 12:17:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold I actually thought about this argument when I was writing My response and I had a feeling that someone would bring this up. This is a valid comment. I woudl remind you that we had the thirteenth amendment (not just a SCOTUS declaration) and this was morally and legally ratified by the states in a proper manner. It concerned the abolition of salvery. Rightly so. It is now a legally ratified part of the "law of land". I do have to wonder if there was an actual amendment to the constitution proposed regarding the right to choose, if it would ever be ratified, state by state. Yet the fedeal law stands, only as a result of a Supreme Court decision. Many people feel that this did not (and does not) come under the scope of SCOTUS authority. OK, now I know you are joking... slavery was ended by a terribly destructive war, not an amendment. And in case after case, even with that amendment in place, 'state's rights' remained the rallying cry for segregationists, defending Jim Crow laws, and various violent atrocities. Yes, and that is one of the purposes of a legally ratified amendment in the first place. All these things were struck down by SCOTUS because, with the ratification of the thirteenth, they now had the legal power to address these situations. It did fall under their authority as a part of the ratified federal law. You're simply wrong. Jim Crowe was not struck down due to the 13th amendment. Jim Crowe was struck down using the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment which is precisely the clause used to strike down virtually all states rights arguments and is the bedrock to the right of privacy decision in Griswold v Connecticut and subesquently Roe v Wade. I strongly doubt going anywhere near the 14th will do your argument any good. Simple. With the ratification of the thirteenth amendment, the 14th amendment applied to all men and women. Not just caucasian men and women. And I would remind you that we are again, speaking of an amendment to the constitution. Not an interpretation of something by SCOTUS which can cause disagreement.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625