Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: The Ron Paul Evolution


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: The Ron Paul Evolution Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The Ron Paul Evolution - 5/4/2008 12:29:09 PM   
Alumbrado


Posts: 5560
Status: offline 		Which brings us full circle... are you seriously claiming that the 'state's rights' argument is valid, and the federal courts have no business intepreting the Constitution in a manner that prevents states from promoting slavery, segregation, etc?

(in reply to GoddessDustyGold)
Profile   Post #: 81
RE: The Ron Paul Evolution - 5/4/2008 12:34:18 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline 		No. The 13th did nothing but prevent any one from being held as chattel. It had nothing to do with anything else and most certainly had nothing to say on issues of racial inequality.

The 14th is what said that all laws and rights must apply equally to all. The two are related as being passed after the US Civil War but they are seperate amendments dealing with seperate issues.

But I'll repeat the question that is pertinent: Can Congress pass a law forbiding judicial review of that law? If it can what is to prevent Congress from doing anything? How are our rights protected under your intepretation?

(in reply to GoddessDustyGold)
Profile   Post #: 82
RE: The Ron Paul Evolution - 5/4/2008 12:43:51 PM   
GoddessDustyGold


Posts: 2822
Joined: 4/11/2004
From: Arizona
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

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?


I have less concern that Congress can pass a law that forbids SCOTUS review, but rather that they can include in a proposed law that, upon passage, this is a federal stance on an issue and, as such, if it is challenged, the SCOTUS should uphold the Congressional law by standing by the fact that it is a state matter, and not a federal matter.
Once again, I hold with the idea that the purpose of the wording is to ensure that SCOTUS honors the intent of the proposed law (if it had ever passed) and does not begin to mix in again on a federal level, something that is clearly meant to be in the hands of each individual state.   
By the same token, we could say that there is a federal stance on no state religion, and just because one state thinks they should have the right to declare a state religion, does not mean that SCOTUS must agree and give them that right.  There is already a legal federal stance on the matter.  The Constitution was framed by Deists who had a belief in God and built the law of the land around Judeo-Christian tenets.  That is who we are, like it or not.  However, the federal government also does not force any of it's citizens to adhere to either Judaism or Christianity.  Citizens are free to have no belief in any god, or to pray 5 times a day while facing east, or to have Wiccan ceremonies in the forest, and still receive equal protection.
The federal stance would be that there is reason to believe, on a federal level, that life may begin at conception.  Therefore, it is up to each state to make their own decisions and laws regarding this.  The Federal Government would not make any specifric law that would force the entire country, state by state, to obey.  Not the right to life nor the right to choose. 
Would you feel better if this was all in amendment form?  I probably would, but the orginal law regarding right the choose was never an amendment to the constiitution.  If you feel this way, then have at it, and start working on your legalese.  Then we can see if it ever gets ratified.  I don't care of you want to take to pro or con. 
Justdo it legally. 

_____________________________

Dusty
They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety
B Franklin
Don't blame Me ~ I didn't vote for either of them
The Hidden Kingdom


(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 83
RE: The Ron Paul Evolution - 5/4/2008 12:52:42 PM   
subfever


Posts: 2895
Joined: 5/22/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

Is that your snarky way of saying that slavery and Jim Crow were no big deal?


Not being snarky at all, and certainly not referring to the distant past. Just a simple question to clarify if you really believe that no tyranny exists here. 

(in reply to Alumbrado)
Profile   Post #: 84
RE: The Ron Paul Evolution - 5/4/2008 12:53:06 PM   
Alumbrado


Posts: 5560
Status: offline
quote:

Once again, I hold with the idea that the purpose of the wording is to ensure that SCOTUS honors the intent of the proposed law (if it had ever passed) and does not begin to mix in again on a federal level, something that is clearly meant to be in the hands of each individual state. 



Except that the Constitution clearly says that only the Supreme Court can decide what is or isn't 'clearly meant'.

The under the flawed notion of 'state's rights', the right to decide who could and couldn't vote was clearly meant to be decided locally.. according to the legislators.  The right to shoot an unarmed person running away was a states right until the USSC 'meddled' in it. The right to segregate schools was another example.

If you can't agree with those 'state's rights', then how is the concept valid elsewhere?

(in reply to GoddessDustyGold)
Profile   Post #: 85
RE: The Ron Paul Evolution - 5/4/2008 12:53:08 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold
I have less concern that Congress can pass a law that forbids SCOTUS review, but rather that they can include in a proposed law that, upon passage, this is a federal stance on an issue and, as such, if it is challenged, the SCOTUS should uphold the Congressional law by standing by the fact that it is a state matter, and not a federal matter.
Once again, I hold with the idea that the purpose of the wording is to ensure that SCOTUS honors the intent of the proposed law (if it had ever passed) and does not begin to mix in again on a federal level, something that is clearly meant to be in the hands of each individual state.

What are you talking about? The law in question says
quote:

the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof--
      `(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or

      `(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates--

        `(A) the performance of abortions; or

        `(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.'.


      Nothing there about respecting Congress' stand on the issue not that such would be Constitutional either. SCOTUS is allowed to disagree with the Congress.

      One more time, is it ok for Congress to pass a  law with a provision forbiding judicial review? How is Ron Paul's claimed stance on respect for the Constitution reconciled with this unconstitutional bill?


        BTW the Founders were not setting up a Judeo-christian nation. Please stop dragging in irrelevancies and stick to the subject at hand. I'll happily deal with whatever your other complaints are once you directly deal with the issues brought up in this thread that you voluntarily entered.


      < Message edited by DomKen -- 5/4/2008 12:57:49 PM >

      (in reply to GoddessDustyGold)
      Profile   Post #: 86
      RE: The Ron Paul Evolution - 5/4/2008 12:56:51 PM   
      GoddessDustyGold


      Posts: 2822
      Joined: 4/11/2004
      From: Arizona
      Status: offline
      quote:

      ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

      Which brings us full circle... are you seriously claiming that the 'state's rights' argument is valid, and the federal courts have no business intepreting the Constitution in a manner that prevents states from promoting slavery, segregation, etc?


      No, I am not.  We have legally ratified amendments to our constitution as "law of the land" tha tthis is not acceptable.
      Please show Me where there is a law in the constitution that allows for the right to terminate pregnancy.  It is a matter of sensitive interpretation, and many, like ot or not, strongly disagree with the SCOTUS interpretation and the fact that this was done on a federal level.

      _____________________________

      Dusty
      They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety
      B Franklin
      Don't blame Me ~ I didn't vote for either of them
      The Hidden Kingdom


      (in reply to Alumbrado)
      Profile   Post #: 87
      RE: The Ron Paul Evolution - 5/4/2008 12:57:16 PM   
      Alumbrado


      Posts: 5560
      Status: offline
      quote:

      ORIGINAL: subfever

      quote:

      ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

      Is that your snarky way of saying that slavery and Jim Crow were no big deal?


      Not being snarky at all, and certainly not referring to the distant past. Just a simple question to clarify if you really believe that no tyranny exists here. 


      Since I was clearly referring to history, and I never said anything meaning the same as the words you've put up, I'll have to ask you to take your derail elsewhere, I'm not playing.

      (in reply to subfever)
      Profile   Post #: 88
      RE: The Ron Paul Evolution - 5/4/2008 12:58:10 PM   
      SugarMyChurro


      Posts: 1912
      Joined: 4/26/2007
      Status: offline
      quote:

      ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold
      The Constitution was framed by Deists who had a belief in God and built the law of the land around Judeo-Christian tenets.


      Gee, this came up in a previous Ron Paul thread:
      http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=1416700

      As has already been pointed out too.

      I don't know why this deist thing is so often misunderstood. Wishful thinking perhaps? I mean look at what Ethan Allen said...! The same tired shit again and again...What explains it?

      I think I know...


      (in reply to GoddessDustyGold)
      Profile   Post #: 89
      RE: The Ron Paul Evolution - 5/4/2008 1:05:45 PM   
      GoddessDustyGold


      Posts: 2822
      Joined: 4/11/2004
      From: Arizona
      Status: offline
      quote:

      ORIGINAL: DomKen

      What are you talking about? The law in question says
      quote:

      the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof--
          `(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or

          `(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates--

            `(A) the performance of abortions; or

            `(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.'.


          Nothing there about respecting Congress' stand on the issue not that such would be Constitutional either. SCOTUS is allowed to disagree with the Congress.

          One more time, is it ok for Congress to pass a  law with a provision forbiding judicial review? How is Ron Paul's claimed stance on respect for the Constitution reconciled with this unconstitutional bill?


            BTW the Founders were not setting up a Judeo-christian nation. Please stop dragging in irrelevancies and stick to the subject at hand. I'll happily deal with whatever your other complaints are once you directly deal with the issues brought up in this thread that you voluntarily entered.




          Shall not have the jurisdiction.  Wording is a bitch.  And the wording is bad.  But the intent, to Me, is clear.
          If we pass this law (which we didn't), it is a done deal.  We are stating it is not a federal matter.   Get back to your own state and argue there.
          SCOTUS did a "we do not have jurisdiction" type of response in the "eminent domain" case.  They threw it back at the state in question. 
          Same idea.
          As already stated, I don't think these things should be in Congressional committees anyway, unless it is to frame an actual amendment.  I haven't seen that happening yet.
          I have to be somewhwere in 20 minutes.  I will try to get back here later. 

          _____________________________

          Dusty
          They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety
          B Franklin
          Don't blame Me ~ I didn't vote for either of them
          The Hidden Kingdom


          (in reply to DomKen)
          Profile   Post #: 90
          RE: The Ron Paul Evolution - 5/4/2008 1:10:23 PM   
          Alumbrado


          Posts: 5560
          Status: offline
          quote:

          ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold

          quote:

          ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

          Which brings us full circle... are you seriously claiming that the 'state's rights' argument is valid, and the federal courts have no business intepreting the Constitution in a manner that prevents states from promoting slavery, segregation, etc?


          No, I am not.  We have legally ratified amendments to our constitution as "law of the land" tha tthis is not acceptable.
          Please show Me where there is a law in the constitution that allows for the right to terminate pregnancy.  It is a matter of sensitive interpretation, and many, like ot or not, strongly disagree with the SCOTUS interpretation and the fact that this was done on a federal level.


          The Constitution is a document that prohibits the government from acting in certain ways... the notion that someone's rights only exist if they are literally spelled out in the document, and they cannot be created or extended by court interpretations falls apart as badly as the state's rights argument.
          That also includes situations where those rights may be delineated by an interpretation that conflicts with someone else's perceived rights... like the 'right' to be free from going to public school with minorities.

          Abortion is a hot button issue, by definition no amount of pointing out what the courts have ruled the Constitution says,  is going to change the mind of someone who is doesn't believe that the courts have a right to rule against their own opinions.

          But it now seems that you are saying that the 'state's right' to 'force women to die being breeders', or to 'murder unborn innocent children' isn't valid anyway...which is where I came in.

          (in reply to GoddessDustyGold)
          Profile   Post #: 91
          RE: The Ron Paul Evolution - 5/4/2008 1:12:02 PM   
          subfever


          Posts: 2895
          Joined: 5/22/2004
          Status: offline
          quote:

          ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

          quote:

          ORIGINAL: subfever

          quote:

          ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

          Is that your snarky way of saying that slavery and Jim Crow were no big deal?


          Not being snarky at all, and certainly not referring to the distant past. Just a simple question to clarify if you really believe that no tyranny exists here. 


          Since I was clearly referring to history, and I never said anything meaning the same as the words you've put up, I'll have to ask you to take your derail elsewhere, I'm not playing.


          If anything, my comment had the potential to put the OP (Has Ron Paul laid the foundation for a new era of libertarianism in America?) back on track. It's really about liberty, or the lack of it.

          No derail intended.

          (in reply to Alumbrado)
          Profile   Post #: 92
          RE: The Ron Paul Evolution - 5/4/2008 1:22:22 PM   
          SugarMyChurro


          Posts: 1912
          Joined: 4/26/2007
          Status: offline           		Maybe I missed something in this thread...

          In what way has Ron Paul evolved? He seems like the same tired blowhard to me. What's new?


          (in reply to subfever)
          Profile   Post #: 93
          RE: The Ron Paul Evolution - 5/4/2008 1:39:15 PM   
          DomKen


          Posts: 19457
          Joined: 7/4/2004
          From: Chicago, IL
          Status: offline
          quote:

          ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold
          Shall not have the jurisdiction.  Wording is a bitch.  And the wording is bad.  But the intent, to Me, is clear.
          If we pass this law (which we didn't), it is a done deal.  We are stating it is not a federal matter.   Get back to your own state and argue there.
          SCOTUS did a "we do not have jurisdiction" type of response in the "eminent domain" case.  They threw it back at the state in question. 
          Same idea.
          As already stated, I don't think these things should be in Congressional committees anyway, unless it is to frame an actual amendment.  I haven't seen that happening yet.
          I have to be somewhwere in 20 minutes.  I will try to get back here later. 

          What eminent domain case? The big eminent domain case that SCOTUS reviewed they did make the decision. They specifically said that the governments eminent domain abilities were so broad that a bunch of states passed laws limiting entities in their states from fully exercising those eminent domain 'rights.' Those laws do not could not further expand eminent domain simply by stating that SCOTUS did not have jurisdiction.

          As to your claim that the wording is bad, are you prepared to defend that Ron Paul's people wrote the bill and he read and presented it to congress without anyone noticing the bill's manifest failings.

          But ultimately I couldn't care less about your opinions on anything, all I'm concerned with is you either defending Ron Paul's claims in regards to this bill or admitting it isn't defensible.

          Once more Paul claimed the bill would revert to states the ability to decide what to do on abortion. However section 1 of the bill defines human life as legally beginning at conception which would make abortion first degree murder with no state having any leeway.

          Paul claims to revere the US Constitution but Section 3 of this bill attempts to prevent judicial review which is directly at odds with the seperation of powers.

          (in reply to GoddessDustyGold)
          Profile   Post #: 94
          RE: The Ron Paul Evolution - 5/4/2008 1:46:23 PM   
          Alumbrado


          Posts: 5560
          Status: offline
          quote:

          SCOTUS did a "we do not have jurisdiction" type of response in the "eminent domain" case.  They threw it back at the state in question. 


          In order for a case to go from state to federal court, there must be a showing of 'compelling federal interest'... the USSC would have simply declined to hear Kelo if there were no jurisdiction.

          And what they ruled is that the people in each state brought the eminent domain problems upon themselves, via their elected officials, and that the best (not only, but best) remedy would be for the people of each state to get up off their collective lazy asses and pass local laws stopping the practice.  

          (OK, the Court didn't really say 'collective'... )

          (in reply to DomKen)
          Profile   Post #: 95
          RE: The Ron Paul Evolution - 5/4/2008 3:53:31 PM   
          subfever


          Posts: 2895
          Joined: 5/22/2004
          Status: offline
          quote:

          ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

          Maybe I missed something in this thread...

          In what way has Ron Paul evolved? He seems like the same tired blowhard to me. What's new?




          The original OP asked:

          Has Ron Paul laid the foundation for a new era of libertarianism in America?

          He did not ask how Ron Paul has evolved.

          In other words, are more people discussing the concept of liberty, and working towards pursuing it, due to Paul's influence?

          (in reply to SugarMyChurro)
          Profile   Post #: 96
          RE: The Ron Paul Evolution - 5/4/2008 4:37:34 PM   
          DomKen


          Posts: 19457
          Joined: 7/4/2004
          From: Chicago, IL
          Status: offline
          quote:

          ORIGINAL: subfever

          quote:

          ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

          Maybe I missed something in this thread...

          In what way has Ron Paul evolved? He seems like the same tired blowhard to me. What's new?




          The original OP asked:

          Has Ron Paul laid the foundation for a new era of libertarianism in America?

          He did not ask how Ron Paul has evolved.

          In other words, are more people discussing the concept of liberty, and working towards pursuing it, due to Paul's influence?


          You're misusing the word liberty and libertarian. Liberty is roughly equivalent to freedom. A Libertarian is a tax protestor and/or pot head who will go along with anything in pursuit of their goals. For instance a basic plank of virtually all Libertarian organizations is the complete elimination of most of government at all levels which would directly result in most people rapidly having no liberty at all.

          Paul himself by advocating the elimination of the EPA and all interstate pollution regulation is opposing my and your liberty to be alive and healthy amongst many other examples.

          Please either study those you think support what you think is right or be honest in what it is you support. Next you or somebody will be claiming the US Constitution Party isn't a bunch of theocrats out to do away with the US Constitution simply because of their name.

          (in reply to subfever)
          Profile   Post #: 97
          RE: The Ron Paul Evolution - 5/4/2008 6:06:49 PM   
          GoddessDustyGold


          Posts: 2822
          Joined: 4/11/2004
          From: Arizona
          Status: offline
          quote:

          ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

          But it now seems that you are saying that the 'state's right' to 'force women to die being breeders', or to 'murder unborn innocent children' isn't valid anyway...which is where I came in.


          ?????????????  I have no idea where you are getting this.
          Text can be a very funny thing. 

          _____________________________

          Dusty
          They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety
          B Franklin
          Don't blame Me ~ I didn't vote for either of them
          The Hidden Kingdom


          (in reply to Alumbrado)
          Profile   Post #: 98
          RE: The Ron Paul Evolution - 5/4/2008 6:11:12 PM   
          GoddessDustyGold


          Posts: 2822
          Joined: 4/11/2004
          From: Arizona
          Status: offline
          quote:

          ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

          quote:

          SCOTUS did a "we do not have jurisdiction" type of response in the "eminent domain" case.  They threw it back at the state in question. 



          And what they ruled is that the people in each state brought the eminent domain problems upon themselves, via their elected officials, and that the best (not only, but best) remedy would be for the people of each state to get up off their collective lazy asses and pass local laws stopping the practice.  

          (OK, the Court didn't really say 'collective'... )


          Yes, they really should get up off those lazy asses.  In the situation we are addressing, the people in each individual state do not have the power to get up off their asses and so anything since it is a federal law.  I dont; think it should be a federal law, so that is My objection.

          _____________________________

          Dusty
          They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety
          B Franklin
          Don't blame Me ~ I didn't vote for either of them
          The Hidden Kingdom


          (in reply to Alumbrado)
          Profile   Post #: 99
          RE: The Ron Paul Evolution - 5/4/2008 6:18:07 PM   
          GoddessDustyGold


          Posts: 2822
          Joined: 4/11/2004
          From: Arizona
          Status: offline
          quote:

          ORIGINAL: DomKen

          quote:

          ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold
          Shall not have the jurisdiction.  Wording is a bitch.  And the wording is bad.  But the intent, to Me, is clear.
          If we pass this law (which we didn't), it is a done deal.  We are stating it is not a federal matter.   Get back to your own state and argue there.
          SCOTUS did a "we do not have jurisdiction" type of response in the "eminent domain" case.  They threw it back at the state in question. 
          Same idea.
          As already stated, I don't think these things should be in Congressional committees anyway, unless it is to frame an actual amendment.  I haven't seen that happening yet.
          I have to be somewhwere in 20 minutes.  I will try to get back here later. 

          What eminent domain case? The big eminent domain case that SCOTUS reviewed they did make the decision. They specifically said that the governments eminent domain abilities were so broad that a bunch of states passed laws limiting entities in their states from fully exercising those eminent domain 'rights.' Those laws do not could not further expand eminent domain simply by stating that SCOTUS did not have jurisdiction.

          As to your claim that the wording is bad, are you prepared to defend that Ron Paul's people wrote the bill and he read and presented it to congress without anyone noticing the bill's manifest failings.

          But ultimately I couldn't care less about your opinions on anything, all I'm concerned with is you either defending Ron Paul's claims in regards to this bill or admitting it isn't defensible.

          Once more Paul claimed the bill would revert to states the ability to decide what to do on abortion. However section 1 of the bill defines human life as legally beginning at conception which would make abortion first degree murder with no state having any leeway.

          Paul claims to revere the US Constitution but Section 3 of this bill attempts to prevent judicial review which is directly at odds with the seperation of powers.



          He made a point.  And a good one.  This issue should not be in the hands of the federal government and there should not be a blanket law of the land concerning this.  However he tried to get there, good or bad, properly or improperly, he made the point.
          I don't care about your opinions either, other than as they relate to the federal government assuming more and more power via all three branches and whether or not you think that is acceptable or if there should be some way that we, the people, along with our elected representatives and senators, can stop it.  That is what Dr. Paul represents as "Hope for America"...and that is what I agree with.

          _____________________________

          Dusty
          They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety
          B Franklin
          Don't blame Me ~ I didn't vote for either of them
          The Hidden Kingdom


          (in reply to DomKen)
          Profile   Post #: 100
          Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
          All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: The Ron Paul Evolution Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
          Jump to:





          New Messages No New Messages
          Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
          Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
           Post New Thread
           Reply to Message
           Post New Poll
           Submit Vote
           Delete My Own Post
           Delete My Own Thread
           Rate Posts




          Collarchat.com © 2025
          Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

          0.094