Is Ron Paul supporting individual freedoms, or freedom of State Government for unlimited rule?

there has to be a centralised body of law to protect those who may fall prey to the workings of some backwardass community.

aka: The Constitution


It seems to me that all thats holding us back from actual freedom is the fear that has been driven into people of "too much freedom"...

"Well if drugs are going to be legal then everyone is gonna run around doing drugs!!!!"

or

"Theres gonna be segragation again if certain legislature is passed! Its just too much freedom!!! Oh no!"

The only governing body needed is one that HONESTLY upholds The Constitution. Think about this realistically for a second. Assuming the governing body is honest and not crooked as they are now...and then some...why in thier right minds would they allow segregation to happen, for example. OBVIOUSLY human rights need to be protected so ofcourse there would be measures in place to handle extremes such as that.

People need to #ing relax...

Originally posted by fallow the light
reply to post by Maslo

 

And the states could make a law that no one can jam or jelly toast at 5pm, on the second Tuesday, of ever other month............ Would they? lol I'm sure they wouldn't.

Just because you are hung, does not mean your going to be a porn star.

At any moment I could do any thing, just because I can..... But I don't. I pick my moves wisely. Like most people.

Shall we see what States are currently passing as legislation even though it's clearly in violation of Federal Law, now imagine if you take that law away and let them do whatever they please.

Maryland's Declaration of Rights:

Article 36

"That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefore either in this world or in the world to come."

Article 37

"That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God;"

www.godlessgeeks.com...

Mississippi State Constitution. Article 14 ("General Provisions"), Section 265

"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state."

North Carolina's State Constitution, Article 6 Section 8

"Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."

Pennsylvania's State Constitution, Article 1 Section 4

"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."

South Carolina's State Constitution, Article VI

"No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."

Tennessee's State Constitution, Article 9 Section 2

"No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."

Texas' State Constitution, Article 1 Section 4

"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

www.godlessgeeks.com...

Now keep in mind this is just one little area where they are making rules on, now imagine they have no oversight whatsoever in any area by the Federal Government.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


Localized mob rule? Really? Compared to Federal mob rule? We're not talking about po-dunk towns making their own laws. We're talking about State Governments, that make a lot of their own laws already, and have budgets & millions of government employees...Your portrayal of overall-wearing, straw hat & pitchfork mobs overrunning "civilized society" with bigotry is laughable.

Each individual person in the state they live in, would have more sway & say over the laws & conditions they lived under. Your vote would count, and it might feel like democracy again.

Federal government couldn't swoop in and kill legislation that was unanimously voted on at the state level. (Texas against TSA groping, Decriminalization of marijuana, industrialization of marijuana)

Each state could decide for themselves how to handle all of the bi-partisan BS that tears this nation in two.

reply to post by jessejamesxx


So if a State wanted to bring back slavery that would be ok in your book?

C'mon now

Originally posted by kro32

Shall we see what States are currently passing as legislation even though it's clearly in violation of Federal Law, now imagine if you take that law away and let them do whatever they please.

Maryland's Declaration of Rights:

Article 36

"That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefore either in this world or in the world to come."

Article 37

"That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God;"

www.godlessgeeks.com...

I read your first example to see if I wanted to continue, and I'm not sure what point you are trying to get across. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, if that's what you're trying to show. Did you even read it?

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by jessejamesxx

 

So if a State wanted to bring back slavery that would be ok in your book?

C'mon now

How is that a fair example? It couldn't and wouldn't ever happen. I think it's a fair assumption that states couldn't violate human rights if they wanted to, especially something so extreme.

At least troll creatively.

reply to post by kro32


Is it ok to want to bring back slavery? Sure, I don't care what people want to do. If you are asking if it is ok to actually implement slavery, then I think they might have a very, very hard time implementing such a stupid notion. But, on the other hand, I am reminded that about 50% of my wages already go toward things I don't approve of, and I have no choice over, so maybe I am already enslaved by the Federal Govt, what would the difference be if it was the State instead?

Originally posted by jessejamesxx

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by jessejamesxx

 

So if a State wanted to bring back slavery that would be ok in your book?

C'mon now

How is that a fair example? It couldn't and wouldn't ever happen. I think it's a fair assumption that states couldn't violate human rights if they wanted to, especially something so extreme.

At least troll creatively.

Why not?

If you take away federal law...what is stopping them?

I guess even you would admit that some federal law is needed...so now it is just a difference in opinion in how much.

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

Did you ever stop to consider that possibly the reason there has been no terrorist attacks in 10 years is because of the Patriot Act?

You cannot discount that possibility and frankly I find it hard to believe that after 9/11 the terrorists considered their job over, packed up and went home.

Like I said, I have friends in anti-terrorism, and I also have friends in the FBI, and my somewhat informed opinion (not their opinion, just my own, from conversations with them) is that the Patriot Act hasn't done anything, and that we actually have no foreign threat of terrorism whatsoever.

In fact, the FBI parade from Kansas City to Denver (where they publicly announced they were trailing their suspect )was all for show, and that guy was no threat. The Times Square smoke-bomber was a real terrorist, but his ineptitude shows that he did not have any sophisticated foreign connections, he acted alone, and the Patriot Act did nothing to help or hinder him. The Shoe Bomber was domestic, and also inept. The safeguards we have in place that are very effective, such as the radiation monitoring, are working great, and they are not helped or hindered by the Patriot Act. After 9/11 it was discovered that our own Intelligence Network was extremely lacking in interpersonal relationships and development, and they had relied too heavily on technology. That has now been corrected, and any thrwarted terrorist attempts are usually a result of actual, in-person intelligence developed by people on the ground. The Patriot Act has nothing to do with that side of intelligence work.

As I said before, it was a decent piece of legislation, for the time after 9/11, and it may have been enacted with the best of intentions, but here we are 10 years later, with a 3rd generation of an Act that has only limited liberties, and has not provided any umbrella of protection. It is beyond its useful life, and it is time for it to go!

While we are on the subject, the TSA procedures are all for show as well. They might stop a complete amatuer with no experience and no funding, but they won't stop any basic chemist, or any career criminal, or anybody with any decent funding for bribes and research. They are all for show.

reply to post by jessejamesxx


You have no problem with the government telling you that you must believe in a God in order to hold office? That is certainly your right If you wish to be told what to do I suppose.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Perhaps not slavery as that was an extreme example but remember that is wasn't so long ago that segregation was in full force backed by laws on the books. Thinking this could not happen again is not wise in my opinion.

What if California decides it wants a completely open border with Mexico. No restrictions just free travel both ways. Immigration is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution so according to Paul's belief in the 10th amendment this would be up to California.

reply to post by kro32


Is it possible that segregation could return? Yes.

In a true "free market" is it likely that segregation could return? Extremely NO. In fact, if you watch television, you will see that the ads are specifically designed to attract a certain genre of people. There are ads aimed at children, ads aimed at teens, ads aimed at women, ads aimed at men, ads aimed at blacks, and ads aimed at Hispanics. (There are no ads aimed at whites, because those are currently illegal. In fact, I saw two TV shows this week with Real Estate agents blatantly breaking the Fair Housing Laws!)

So, there is a huge market and profit potential, and I highly doubt any significant number of businesses are going to turn away that money.

But, if we got rid of the laws (such as Fair Housing) it would open up some new opportunities to market to white people, or old people, or young people. The anti-discriminatory laws have made it legal to target minorities, and have probably led to the fleecing of minorities in many ways. Getting rid of the laws, would probably make things even more equal and fair.

In short, I highly doubt segregation would be rampant, and in those few isolated cases that it pops up.....who cares? If some white supremisist wants to open an "all-white" pawn shop, why is it any of my business? If some black lady wants to open an "all-black" catering company, more power to them. I think they will either find a narrow niche where they are happy, or they will be run out of business by their more open-minded counterparts, either way is fine with me.

reply to post by kro32


I thought California already did that when they decided to extend scholarships, and driver's licenses, and public benefits to illegal aliens?

One of the few responsibilities that Paul (and our Founding Fathers) believes is entirely up to the Federal Government is ensuring our sovereignty from foreign threats. The #1 most important reason to have a Federal Government, is to have a unified defense force. I think securing the borders falls in that purview.

reply to post by kro32


To piggyback off your earlier post, here are some of Florida's more ridiculous and current laws! I don't believe the Federal Govt needs to step in and make any more laws, but the States have already done a fine job of making just about everything illegal!

These are just a few I noticed from one Chapter of the Florida Statutes the other day. There are 1000 Chapters!

798.01 Living in open adultery.—Whoever lives in an open state of adultery shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. Where either of the parties living in an open state of adultery is married, both parties so living shall be deemed to be guilty of the offense provided for in this section.
History.—s. 1, ch. 1986, 1874; RS 2595; GS 3518; RGS 5406; CGL 7549; s. 772, ch. 71-136.

798.02 Lewd and lascivious behavior.—If any man and woman, not being married to each other, lewdly and lasciviously associate and cohabit together, or if any man or woman, married or unmarried, engages in open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, they shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
History.—s. 6, ch. 1637, 1868; RS 2596; GS 3519; RGS 5407; CGL 7550; s. 773, ch. 71-136.

800.02 Unnatural and lascivious act.—A person who commits any unnatural and lascivious act with another person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. A mother’s breastfeeding of her baby does not under any circumstance violate this section.
History.—s. 1, ch. 7361, 1917; RGS 5425; CGL 7568; s. 778, ch. 71-136; s. 2, ch. 93-4.

823.01 Nuisances; penalty.—All nuisances that tend to annoy the community, injure the health of the citizens in general, or corrupt the public morals are misdemeanors of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.083, except that a violation of s. 823.10 is a felony of the third degree.
History.—s. 47, Feb. 10, 1832; RS 2704; GS 3680; RGS 5624; CGL 7817; s. 932, ch. 71-136; s. 32, ch. 73-334; s. 66, ch. 74-383; s. 1, ch. 75-24; s. 41, ch. 75-298; s. 18, ch. 83-214; s. 3, ch. 2001-57.

836.04 Defamation.—Whoever speaks of and concerning any woman, married or unmarried, falsely and maliciously imputing to her a want of chastity, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
History.—s. 1, ch. 3460, 1883; RS 2419; GS 3260; RGS 5091; CGL 7193; s. 990, ch. 71-136.

Originally posted by MasloHow is tyranny of state government better than tyranny of federal government? Especially since it’s easier to pass laws which are against minorities and civil liberties in smaller government than in federal government. Is trumping civil liberties suddenly OK when its State government doing it?

I don't see his support for State and local rights as an endorsement for any of the behaviors, laws or impositions you cited. All he is saying is that the people of a locality often have very different views on social norms and in light of our right to self governance it is an anathema for the broad and over powerful federal government to mandate all Americans live under the same set of rules for social and fiscal conduct.


I don't see how that could be viewed negatively.

I see where you are unsatisfied that certain individuals who might be born into a State who chose to govern counter to the US majority would be sort of imprisoned by their poverty and lack of mobility.

However, I see it the opposite, the majority (who happen to live in large cities and have liberal views) are mandating the governance for the rural minority and because the laws are national level regardless of where we live or how different our views we are stuck living according to the mandates of the city dwellers.

City and rural America have very different sets of problems and issues and one size governance does not indeed fit all...

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Miraj

 

As far as I know he holds the opinion that if killing a unborn child is murder, then there is no difference between abortion and say stabbing a pregnant woman..

Fundamental human right issues like these should not be decided by mob rule, but by educated discussion in court. This has already happened - Roe vs. Wade.
Making abortion arbitrarily extempt from it shows that Ron Paul is OK with trumping of basic woman rights, as long as its done by local mob rule, and not by federal government.

My point in this thread is that democracy is NOT freedom (of the individual). Democracy is simply dictatorship of the majority. Democracy leads to freedom ONLY if majority is pro-freedom. If majority is not pro-freedom, democracy will lead to more restriction of freedoms.

While I will agree that democracy is not perfect, I think that any intelligent person will agree that it is preferable to dictatorship. While our incredibly powerful central government is not quite a dictatorship yet, allowing them more power will eventually lead to that if it isn't kept in check by guys like Ron Paul.
Personally, I'm pro-choice as long as it is done responsibly (first trimester) but I completely support the idea that the will of the majority should be upheld by government as apposed to a powerful central rule, where the will of the minority (not a black joke against Obama) is the law of the land.
While there have been several historical cases against democracy (Jim Crow Laws for example) we can also see that the will of the masses can be changed through intelligent discourse and petitioning of government for a redress of grievances, as was set forth in our constitution.

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Just by seeing the racism here on ATS, even with the T&C, I think anyone who thinks there would not be "white only" clubs that pop up around the nation over night is delusional. And if you don't think those clubs would be packed...then you are also delusional.

And there would be "blacks only" stores, just like there was under segregation. One thing that such practices PREVENTED was total monopolies--can't have total monopolies when you won't offer EVERYONE the same goods. Yes, it's a moral shame to throw someone out of your store for something as minor as the color their skin was. But we get this really idealized set of blinders on when we think that NO GOOD can come of evil, you're living the Christian's game.

not just to you, but I keep seeing this issue about "blacks" coming up, and I feel I have to address it.

who in their right mind in this day and age would put up a "whites only" sign?
how many white people are really going to shop there and support that kind of person?
how many black people want to support those types of people?


I dare them to put that sign up.
Literally.

Ron Paul has those racist Newsletters in his past.

There are photos of him with top leaders of White Supremicists.

He has taken campaign donations from white supremicist groups and refused to give it back when confronted by it.
Oh look there he is with one of them White Supremacy donors

Ron Paul does a mean Masonic Handshake, don't believe me watch this,

RP's A Masonic handshaker

Put it all together and you got an elitist who pals around with well, the kind of guys who would love the States to have all the power so they could turn a State into pre-1960 Americana. Back of the bus, we don't serve your kind here is A-OK with good ole boy Ron Paul as long as the State wants it that way after he gives them the power.

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by Maslo

 

Point 1 is twisted..

As far as I know he holds the opinion that if killing a unborn child is murder, then there is no difference between abortion and say stabbing a pregnant woman..

Exactly, he considers any form of abortion murder, has his own opinions or views, and wants to allow states to dictate on this issue. If a woman is raped or a child molested and they choose this path and their own state government criminalizes them for this, this is perfectly justifiable to people like you and Ron Paul. But hey, it's all just twisting your views right?

Point 3

Reference?

Ron Paul believes that marriage is a states issue, he agrees with the state being allowed to ban gay marriage. For myself I don't think marriage should be the business of federal or state government, it should be a personal matter. If you don't believe that opposition against gay marriage is discrimminatory then you're kidding yourself. Admittedly there was one time I felt that gay marriage should be a states issue, but then I looked back to the stance of conservatives in the 60's and their views that interracial marriage was a states decision, that put me off. If we leave marriage to the state to decided, how far can the state go?