[POLL] Is Ron Paul fit for Presidency?

[RampantAndroid]

The 10th amendment means powers not granted to the federal government - which is a list a lot longer with Paul than with mainstream people.

And I'd argue the federal government has overstepped it's powers. I'd love to see the TSA gone, Obamacare wiped out and LESS federal regulation. Give me an example of a right you think he'd tear down (and how as president, dealing with a divided congress, he'd get it to work.)

He'd undermine rights by preventing the government from protecting them, in the name of giving the powerful 'freedom' and 'rights' not to be contrained by the government.

What you just typed makes no sense. OK, look. The constitution and bill of rights are written to define what the government can do. What it can regulate. What it cannot, and what powers are left for the states. From there, the states define things. Things like a right to privacy for example (let's harp on Santorum's interview) don't exist - he's right. I'm all for the federal government shrinking in size and leaving things to states. That's not to say the federal government has no place - they do.

For example, I want to see two things: a law that states "If you live in WA, and have a WA concealed pistol license and drive to OR or CA, those states must honor that CPL. If you move into another state however, your WA CPL is no longer valid, and you need to get your home state's CPL."

And while we're making things consistent, here's the second:
"If you live in MA and get a same sex civil union, other states must honor it as well." There are things that when some number of states do it, others need to honor it. On the flip side of the coin, no government, federal or state level, should be defining marriage. That's the churches. Instead of this crusade for gay marriage, let's get the crusade to not allow the government to handle marriage, and rather reterm it to be civil union. For everyone. And if you're married, it is by a church.

Suddenly citizens would not have a lot of rights, because their rights infringe on someone else's rights - say, the 'right to pollute' as a 'property right'.

And you think that states won't step in? Is that what you're saying? Because states WILL step in. Some states will over-regulate and drive businesses away. Other states will be lax and draw business, until the citizens elect people who would add more regulations.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Just look at Ron Paul's own words.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul259.html

"If constitutional purists hope to maintain credibility, we must reject the phony incorporation doctrine in all cases — not only when it serves our interests."

Yet another Paul supporter who doesn't even realize what Paul actually stands for. This is so common.

Good job taking it out of context. I've looked around and nowhere do I see him claiming the 14th amendment should be repealed.

Let's look at what he was talking about with your quote, shall we?

Congress can and should act to prevent the federal government from seizing private property, but the fight against local eminent domain actions must take place at the local level.

So he was saying eminent domain cases should be handled by the state government. That kinda makes sense. Why should the federal government be dealing with an issue that is limited to CT, which is one state?

Rather, I've seen Paul say that the 14th amendment does not grant someone born in the US citizenship, that if the parent(s) are here illegally, that the child is not automatically a citizen. And to me, that makes sense and I agree with that view.

So I challenge you: Find for me, in his words (and you'd better show the ENTIRE quote) him saying the 14th amendment should be repealed. He is referring to the incorporation doctrine, which is in fact the court's interpretation. He looks to merely be stating he disagrees with the doctrine, not the amendment.

 

[Plugers]

So I challenge you: Find for me, in his words (and you'd better show the ENTIRE quote) him saying the 14th amendment should be repealed. He is referring to the incorporation doctrine, which is in fact the court's interpretation. He looks to merely be stating he disagrees with the doctrine, not the amendment.

The Goose can't, He's spending too much time trying to think up new KKK jokes and conspiracy theories.

 

[woolfe9999]

Good job taking it out of context. I've looked around and nowhere do I see him claiming the 14th amendment should be repealed.

Let's look at what he was talking about with your quote, shall we?



So he was saying eminent domain cases should be handled by the state government. That kinda makes sense. Why should the federal government be dealing with an issue that is limited to CT, which is one state?

Rather, I've seen Paul say that the 14th amendment does not grant someone born in the US citizenship, that if the parent(s) are here illegally, that the child is not automatically a citizen. And to me, that makes sense and I agree with that view.

So I challenge you: Find for me, in his words (and you'd better show the ENTIRE quote) him saying the 14th amendment should be repealed. He is referring to the incorporation doctrine, which is in fact the court's interpretation. He looks to merely be stating he disagrees with the doctrine, not the amendment.

Why bother to look for such a quote? The discussion was about Paul not believing the Bill of Rights applies to the states. Let's say he doesn't reject the 14th Amendment. Fair enough. But if he rejects incorporation that means the states are not bound by the Bill of Rights. The quote he provided establishes that beyond any doubt. You're right to point this out if it's an error in understanding his full position, but it doesn't change the thrust of what we're complaining about here.

- wolf

 

[First]

Good job taking it out of context. I've looked around and nowhere do I see him claiming the 14th amendment should be repealed.

Let's look at what he was talking about with your quote, shall we?



So he was saying eminent domain cases should be handled by the state government. That kinda makes sense. Why should the federal government be dealing with an issue that is limited to CT, which is one state?

Rather, I've seen Paul say that the 14th amendment does not grant someone born in the US citizenship, that if the parent(s) are here illegally, that the child is not automatically a citizen. And to me, that makes sense and I agree with that view.

So I challenge you: Find for me, in his words (and you'd better show the ENTIRE quote) him saying the 14th amendment should be repealed. He is referring to the incorporation doctrine, which is in fact the court's interpretation. He looks to merely be stating he disagrees with the doctrine, not the amendment.

This is just a mess of an post. Even IF you believed Ron Paul supported most of the 14th Amendment (he doesn't, he has questioned the line "jurisdiction thereof") he has flatly said he does not believe in the incorporation doctrine; both in print (as outlined before in this thread) and on video.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Good job taking it out of context. I've looked around and nowhere do I see him claiming the 14th amendment should be repealed.

Let's look at what he was talking about with your quote, shall we?

He doesn't believe in the incorporation doctrine. End of story. That is what the quote is about.

You cannot deny the fact that Ron Paul is against the incorporation doctrine and is against incorporating the bill of rights against the states.

He is referring to the incorporation doctrine, which is in fact the court's interpretation. He looks to merely be stating he disagrees with the doctrine, not the amendment.

Yes, he is referring to the incorporation doctrine, which is based on the 14th Amendment. My argument isn't about whether he wants to repeal the 14th Amendment or not repeal the 14th Amendment. My issue with him is that he doesn't believe that the bill of rights applies to the states, and that is his actual position, one that most Paulbots have no idea about.

 

[CanOWorms]

All sane people would vote no. Ron Paul is not even fit to run the drive-through at McDonald's.

 

[Darwin333]

No candidate scares me more than Ron Paul. Remember Paul wants to strip people of any protection from state government tyranny. He would also for executions with no jury trial, for abortions to be banned, and for woman and minorities to made second class citizens.

How much of that can he accomplish without Congressional approval?

 

[DCal430]

What exactly does the bill of rights apply to before the 14th amendment if not to the states? :|
Are you saying that before the 14th amendment, people had no right to free speech?

Also, what's the point of that given the Supremacy clause of the Constitution?

The Bill of rights originally only applied to the Federal Government. This is very clear in the constitution.

Less than a hundred years ago before the incorporation doctrine was introduced by the Supreme Court, many states lacked jury trials for criminal offenses and people were routinely denied the right to due process in these states. Schools often had mandatory prayers, with bible study in pubic schools. It is because of the 14th amendment that these things are illegal.

Remember the recent Chicago gun ban before the supreme court, it was the 14th amendment that they said the law violated. A violation of the 2nd amendment through the 14th amendment. Without the 14th amendment Chicago would have been free to ban guns.

 

[DCal430]

How much of that can he accomplish without Congressional approval?

He would need 3/4 of the states to agree with him.

 

[DCal430]

Good job taking it out of context. I've looked around and nowhere do I see him claiming the 14th amendment should be repealed.

Let's look at what he was talking about with your quote, shall we?



So he was saying eminent domain cases should be handled by the state government. That kinda makes sense. Why should the federal government be dealing with an issue that is limited to CT, which is one state?

Rather, I've seen Paul say that the 14th amendment does not grant someone born in the US citizenship, that if the parent(s) are here illegally, that the child is not automatically a citizen. And to me, that makes sense and I agree with that view.

So I challenge you: Find for me, in his words (and you'd better show the ENTIRE quote) him saying the 14th amendment should be repealed. He is referring to the incorporation doctrine, which is in fact the court's interpretation. He looks to merely be stating he disagrees with the doctrine, not the amendment.

The incorporation doctrine is the most important part of the 14th amendment. It is what protects so many of our rights today.

What is IMHO one of the most important sections of the entire constitution. These lines gave new life to constitution IMHO.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[RampantAndroid]

What is IMHO one of the most important sections of the entire constitution. These lines gave new life to constitution IMHO.

What do you think of Paul's statement that if someone sneaks into the country illegally and has a child, that in his opinion the 14th amendment does not grant that child citizenship?

Personally, I agree - I would love to see the requirement be that you have to be here legally - be in on an H1B, Green card or a citizen...if you're here because you snuck across the border, or are on an expired H1B or passport...it should NOT apply.

 

[RabidMongoose]

What do you think of Paul's statement that if someone sneaks into the country illegally and has a child, that in his opinion the 14th amendment does not grant that child citizenship?

Please tell me how that OBGYN is qualified to say that the following doesn't grant citizenship to anyone born in the US:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside"

Look at the plain language. Sure seems like he's against the Constitution. I'm not sure how else you can say that the above statement doesn't grant citizenship to persons born in the United States.

Does Ron Paul not know English? Or does he just rip apart the portions of the Constitution that he disagrees with and yet still calls himself some sort of fucked up defender of the Constitution?

 

[woolfe9999]

Please tell me how that OBGYN is qualified to say that the following doesn't grant citizenship to anyone born in the US:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside"

Look at the plain language. Sure seems like he's against the Constitution. I'm not sure how else you can say that the above statement doesn't grant citizenship to persons born in the United States.

Does Ron Paul not know English? Or does he just rip apart the portions of the Constitution that he disagrees with and yet still calls himself some sort of fucked up defender of the Constitution?

I'm afraid our friend here is conflating the way he wants it to be with what the Constitution actually says. Clearly the same is true with RP, who claims to be a "strict constructionist" of the Constitution. Apparently strict construction applies only to the parts he likes.

 

[woolfe9999]

BTW why are there 9 freaking threads on page one about Ron Paul? I'm so tired of the cult that is his following. I'd love to see the identities of the voters in this poll so we can determine how many whack jobs registered here just to vote for their guru.

 

[NoStateofMind]

You know Ron Paul would have so much more support if he just LIED!

 

[yhelothar]

BTW why are there 9 freaking threads on page one about Ron Paul? I'm so tired of the cult that is his following. I'd love to see the identities of the voters in this poll so we can determine how many whack jobs registered here just to vote for their guru.

 

[yhelothar]

Because the U.S. Constitution only defines and limits the powers of the federal government except where it expressly says otherwise. Without the 14th Amendment, which expressly applies "due process" (interpreted by the SCOTUS as incorporating most of the rights contained in the first 10 amendments) to the states, the only layer of protection for individuals against state governments is the state constitutions. So the answer to your final question is, prior to the 14th amendment, there was no protection against state governments taking away free speech other than state constitutions.

- wolf

The Supremacy Clause states federal law is the supreme law of the land, and if there is ever any discrepancy of federal law with state law, federal law will be held in favor. So I do not see how you reason that without the 14th amendment, a state can decide to ban free speech.

 

[woolfe9999]

The Supremacy Clause states federal law is the supreme law of the land, and if there is ever any discrepancy of federal law with state law, federal law will be held in favor. So I do not see how you reason that without the 14th amendment, a state can decide to ban free speech.

Because the Supremacy Clause has nothing to do with this issue. The Supremacy Clause says that federal legislation trumps state legislation. That doesn't change the fact that the Constitution, by its own terms, applies only to the federal government except in the places where it explicitly says otherwise. The supremacy of federal legislation over state is an entirely different issue than the issue of whether the Bill of Rights, which limits the government's power as against individuals, also applies to the states. It's best just to read up on incorporation doctrine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

 

[RabidMongoose]

The Supremacy Clause states federal law is the supreme law of the land, and if there is ever any discrepancy of federal law with state law, federal law will be held in favor. So I do not see how you reason that without the 14th amendment, a state can decide to ban free speech.

Oh my god, please take the time to understand our Constitution!

Seriously, Paulbots seem to have almost zero understanding of the Constitution. This must be why they have been so easily deceived by Ron Paul.

 

[DCal430]

The Supremacy Clause states federal law is the supreme law of the land, and if there is ever any discrepancy of federal law with state law, federal law will be held in favor. So I do not see how you reason that without the 14th amendment, a state can decide to ban free speech.

LOL Paul Bots are clueless about what the constitution says, just like Ron Paul.

FYI The Supremacy Clause does not say all federal law is the supreme law of the land. Nor does it say the states are bound by the bill of rights. Please study the supremacy clause, federal and state powers under the constitution, and the 14th amendment.

 

[tluxon]

As a conservative leaning individual, I voted no.

As a non-NeoCon conservative, I had no choice but to vote yes, since he's the only one out there who seems to even want to prevent a nuclear world war. That - and the only one who seems to think the Bill of Rights was to protect us from our government rather than the other way around and doesn't believe a private bank (Federal Reserve) should control our nation's money.

 

[DCal430]

As a non-NeoCon conservative, I had no choice but to vote yes, since he's the only one out there who seems to even want to prevent a nuclear world war. That - and the only one who seems to think the Bill of Rights was to protect us from our government rather than the other way around and doesn't believe a private bank (Federal Reserve) should control our nation's money.

Ron Paul would strip you of your Bill of Rights protection. Please read up on Loony Paul opinion on the 14th amendment, and why the 14th amendment is vital to the protection of your rights.

No 14th means things like:

Executions with no trials
Torture could be legal
Abortions Banned
Segregation Legal

The list goes and on. Ron Paul would allow for these things. Value basic liberties and due process vote against Ron Nutcase Paul.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Actually, no 14th Amendment right now would make segregation mandatory in places like Alabama, where segregation is mandated by their state Constitution. Moreover, it would also result in other things like some states forcing all people running for office to have particular religious beliefs.

These are actual real world problems that would come into immediate effect and are only not observed because of the 14th Amendment and the resulting incorporation doctrine. So a vote against Ron Paul is a vote for civil liberties and rights.

Ron Paul is the most anti-civil liberties candidate out there today.

 

[tluxon]

Ron Paul would strip you of your Bill of Rights protection. Please read up on Loony Paul opinion on the 14th amendment, and why the 14th amendment is vital to the protection of your rights.

No 14th means things like:

Executions with no trials
Torture could be legal
Abortions Banned
Segregation Legal

The list goes and on. Ron Paul would allow for these things. Value basic liberties and due process vote again Ron Nutcase Paul.

Oh, give me a break. In a government run amok that does anything it wants without any regard for law already anyway, what difference does it make? Ron Paul is the only one talking like centralized consolidated power is the enemy of The People.

As for banning abortions, he's under attack from the "radical right" for saying that kind of decision is constitutionally left up to the States, so I don't see where you came up with that one.

You got any better candidates? Or are you just an anti-Paulbot?