Ron Paul's “South Was Right” Civil War Speech With Confederate Flag

[IceBergSLiM]

Of course you haven't read all of his newsletters. He refuses to release all of them. However, you can find some of them pretty easily. Have you heard of this thing called Google?




The issue is civil liberties. His support for states rights is at the expense of civil liberties. It is the very essence of his position. He does not believe that you have civil liberties against the state governments.



Hopefully it'll never be overturned, much to the anger of Ron Paul and his racist minions.

reading comprehension fail.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Seriously, do you not understand that Ron Paul is totally okay with individual states removing your rights, just not the feds?

Well states are democratic and as a citizen of a state I would have to vote away my rights, I should have the right to vote away my rights..and when that particular experiment in democracy fails I can(as a citizen) more easily change/influence my state and local legislation than change federal legislation(that is the whole point) . I also have the option of moving to a better state. You do realize that by allowing the federal government to "grant" freedoms that should be inherent you also allow them to place restrictions on freedoms...:\.....you can't have one without the other.

States were meant to be sovereign entities not McDonald's like Franchises that that are required to take marching orders from Corporate head quarters.

Like I said I'm not a pure libertarian that ron paul is, but I can respect his argument. Especially today with Federal spending out of control and federal government dictating more and more to the states and to the lives the American people. We were warned this would happen and it has.

 

[RabidMongoose]

It is you that do not understand. Ron Paul supports the Constitution as it is written and amended, not as you wish it was. He believes that not only the 1st and 2nd amendments mean something but that the 4th, 5th, and get ready for the the radical part, that the 9th and 10th are just as important as the 1st or 2nd. The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment applies protections guaranteed in the Constitution to the states. He may or may not agree with the ways in which courts have interpreted this over the years but most certainly is not "totally okay with individual states removing your rights".

If Ron Paul believes in the Constitution as it is written and amended, then why does he want to change it so much right now?

Ron Paul is not in support of the 14th Amendment. He is not in support of the rights as under the 1st Amendment and so on applying against the states. He is on record for saying that the incorporation doctrine, which applies the various amendments from the bill of rights to the states, is 'phony.'

You really have no idea about Ron Paul. He is "totally okay with individual states removing your rights." Your entire post describes someone who is the exact opposite of Ron Paul.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Well states are democratic and as a citizen of a state I would have to vote away my rights, I should have the right to vote away my rights..

That's not the concern. It's that you will vote away the rights of others.

 

[fskimospy]

Well states are democratic and as a citizen of a state I would have to vote away my rights, I should have the right to vote away my rights..and when that particular experiment in democracy fails I can(as a citizen) more easily change/influence my state and local legislation than change federal legislation(that is the whole point) . I also have the option of moving to a better state. You do realize that by allowing the federal government to "grant" freedoms that should be inherent you also allow them to place restrictions on freedoms...:\.....you can't have one without the other.

States were meant to be sovereign entities not McDonald's like Franchises that that are required to take marching orders from Corporate head quarters.

Like I said I'm not a pure libertarian that ron paul is, but I can respect his argument. Especially today with Federal spending out of control and federal government dictating more and more to the states and to the lives the American people. We were warned this would happen and it has.

States were most certainly not meant to be sovereign entities. The definition of sovereignty is exercising the supreme authority over your territory, and states were never designed to do this. (hence the supremacy clause)

 

[IceBergSLiM]

That's not the concern. It's that you will vote away the rights of others.

of what others? The other people in the state? Thats how it should work. If the people of the state want to enact stupid state laws they should be free to do so. If you don't like it you can move to a state with less stupid laws or ralley your fellow citizens and overturn the law. Thats how its meant to be.

 

[RabidMongoose]

of what others? The other people in the state? Thats how it should work. If the people of the state want to enact stupid state laws they should be free to do so. If you don't like it you can move to a state with less stupid laws or ralley your fellow citizens and overturn the law. Thats how its meant to be.

Fortunately, most of us like the Bill of Rights applying to all levels of government and that's how it is. We like our civil liberties. Ron Paul wants to take them away and thinks that big state government is the solution.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

States were most certainly not meant to be sovereign entities. The definition of sovereignty is exercising the supreme authority over your territory, and states were never designed to do this. (hence the supremacy clause)

Then why does it say everything not specified as a duty of the fed in the constitution should be dealt with at the state level?

 

[fskimospy]

Then why does it say everything not specified as a duty of the fed in the constitution should be dealt with at the state level?

That doesn't have anything to do with states being sovereign. In fact, the mere existence of such a statement in the Constitution proves that states are not sovereign as it accepts that the federal government can exert control over them in some areas.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Well states are democratic and as a citizen of a state I would have to vote away my rights, I should have the right to vote away my rights..and when that particular experiment in democracy fails I can(as a citizen) more easily change/influence my state and local legislation than change federal legislation(that is the whole point) . I also have the option of moving to a better state. You do realize that by allowing the federal government to "grant" freedoms that should be inherent you also allow them to place restrictions on freedoms...:\.....you can't have one without the other.

States were meant to be sovereign entities not McDonald's like Franchises that that are required to take marching orders from Corporate head quarters.

Like I said I'm not a pure libertarian that ron paul is, but I can respect his argument. Especially today with Federal spending out of control and federal government dictating more and more to the states and to the lives the American people. We were warned this would happen and it has.

This is just complete revisionist history, unless you have a very different idea of what a 'sovereign entity' is. States were not meant to be sovereign entities. That was one of the driving factors of the Constitution.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Fortunately, most of us like the Bill of Rights applying to all levels of government and that's how it is. We like our civil liberties. Ron Paul wants to take them away and thinks that big state government is the solution.

So you think that you and I and your fellow citizens of xyz state are incapable of enacting parallel protections in their state constitutions and doing so would be "big" government? So you really believe that without the fed "granting" us rrights and freedoms we inherently have none? wow...thats a sad world view.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

This is just complete revisionist history, unless you have a very different idea of what a 'sovereign entity' is. States were not meant to be sovereign entities. That was one of the driving factors of the Constitution.

neither were they meant to be homogenous franchises taking marching orders from corporate head quarters.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

That doesn't have anything to do with states being sovereign. In fact, the mere existence of such a statement in the Constitution proves that states are not sovereign as it accepts that the federal government can exert control over them in some areas.

exactly. Those specific areas defined in the constitution.

 

[RabidMongoose]

neither were they meant to be homogenous franchises taking marching orders from corporate head quarters.

I didn't say that they were, but they were not meant to be sovereign entities. Ron Paul has a very very very poor understanding of US history and the Constitution. Don't believe what he says, you should strive to be better than the lowest common denominator. Actually take the time to understand the Constitution. It will make you realize how Ron Paul is full of it.

 

[fskimospy]

exactly. Those specific areas defined in the constitution.

Therefore by definition, states are not sovereign.

 

[RabidMongoose]

So you think that you and I and your fellow citizens of xyz state are incapable of enacting parallel protections in their state constitutions and doing so would be "big" government? So you really believe that without the fed "granting" us rrights and freedoms we inherently have none? wow...thats a sad world view.

Do you have any understanding of history?

Alabama can't even remove a segregation mandate from its state constitution today.

Other states require belief in a supreme being to run for political office.

So obviously there wouldn't be parallel protections in state constitutions.

And doing so wouldn't be a big state government. Not doing so would be a big state government. Ron Paul is fine with big state government. That's his entire platform.

I don't think that the federal government or state government grants us rights. I think that those rights are applied against both the federal government and state governments and most people would like that, too. I think that most people like the Bill of Rights applying to them against both federal and state governments. That's what people enjoy today. Ron Paul wants to strip people of their rights against state governments.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Therefore by definition, states are not sovereign.

by definition of what? The states are sovereign over everything else not granted by the states to the Fed.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Do you have any understanding of history?

Alabama can't even remove a segregation mandate from its state constitution today.

Other states require belief in a supreme being to run for political office.

So obviously there wouldn't be parallel protections in state constitutions.

And doing so wouldn't be a big state government. Not doing so would be a big state government. Ron Paul is fine with big state government. That's his entire platform.

I don't think that the federal government or state government grants us rights. I think that those rights are applied against both the federal government and state governments and most people would like that, too. I think that most people like the Bill of Rights applying to them against both federal and state governments. That's what people enjoy today. Ron Paul wants to strip people of their rights against state governments.

thats sad that you think rights and freedoms are granted to us by governments. Thats really really sad.

 

[fskimospy]

by definition of what? The states are sovereign over everything else not granted by the states to the Fed.

By the definition of sovereignty. They do not exert supreme authority over their territory, therefore they are not sovereign. As mentioned before, removing excessive power from the states was the entire purpose of the Constitution.

 

[RabidMongoose]

thats sad that you think rights and freedoms are granted to us by governments. Thats really really sad.

I didn't say that, but it's sad that you think that you have no rights and freedoms against (state) government.

I think that I have rights under the Bill of Rights. You think that I don't and that the state government grants them, apparently.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

I didn't say that, but it's sad that you think that you have no rights and freedoms against (state) government.

I think that I have rights under the Bill of Rights. You think that I don't and that the state government grants them, apparently.

no I'd like to believe the rights and freedoms are inherent attribute of being born human on this planet.

in·her·ent/inˈhi(&#601rənt/
Adjective:

Vested in (someone) as a right or privilege

Its the whole concept that "god's law" or "natural law" supersedes the laws of man.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

By the definition of sovereignty. They do not exert supreme authority over their territory, therefore they are not sovereign. As mentioned before, removing excessive power from the states was the entire purpose of the Constitution.

Well this is the chicken and the egg is it? Which came first the federal government giving powers to the state. or the states yield powers to the fed.

 

[fskimospy]

Well this is the chicken and the egg is it? Which came first the federal government giving powers to the state. or the states yield powers to the fed.

It's really not, no matter if the states yielded powers to the fed or not, they do not hold such powers now. Therefore they aren't sovereign.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Do you have any understanding of history?

Alabama can't even remove a segregation mandate from its state constitution today. (They can't, or they wont? ) There are no laws saying you can't leave Alabama either.

Other states require belief in a supreme being to run for political office.
So what? If you don't like that run for office in another state, or get with your local and state legisslature to change the law


So obviously there wouldn't be parallel protections in state constitutions.
(the only thing obvious, is that the people of the states need to pressure the state government to repeal laws that no longer represent their residents. It is the PEOPLES ultimate responsibility to govern themselves.

bolded

 

[IceBergSLiM]

It's really not, no matter if the states yielded powers to the fed or not, they do not hold such powers now. Therefore they aren't sovereign.

ok well this debate we are having isn't anything to do with civil rights or racism now is it?

Can understand why claiming RP is against civil rights is completely ludicrous now? Do you understand how someone could support civil rights and still interpret the 14th amendment from a different angle?