"Occupy" Protests

The Doctor wrote: Paul believes that prayer in public schools should not be prohibited at the federal or state level, nor should it be made compulsory to engage in. What's the problem here? He's not saying "you HAVE to pray". He's saying "you can pray if you want, the government has no place deciding for you".  In 1997, Paul introduced a Constitutional amendment giving states the power to prohibit the destruction of the flag of the United States In line with his beliefs, he want the States, not the federal government to decide.  In 1997, Paul voted to end affirmative action in college admissions.Paul criticizes both racism and obsession with racial identity:I don't agree with affirmative action either. I agree it can breed racism.  As for gay marriage:  Paul opposes all federal efforts to define marriage, whether defined as a union between one man and one woman, or defined as including anything else as well. You've said it yourself: he opposes FEDERAL efforts to define marriage. He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states, and not subjected to "judicial activism".  What is neo con about this? Not quite as clear cut as supporting gay marriage.  Why is it so pure about supporting gay marriage? Many supporters also have an agenda. Many democrats don't support gay marriage either. I don't see this. In fact, it is so called "judicial activism" which has made the first real inroads into gay marriage. In 2004, he spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996. This act allows a state to decline to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countriesStates vs Federal government. Again.    Shall I go on?No. We don't want you to continue to show your ignorance of what a neo-con is and of Ron paul's views regarding the constitutional powers given to states and the federal government...

The Doctor wrote: He criticized the Supreme Court's decision overturning Texas' sodomy laws stating that the court set a "dangerous" precedent by giving people a right to privacy in their sexual relationships. He opposes the Civil Rights Act.

The Doctor wrote: He criticized the Supreme Court's decision overturning Texas' sodomy laws stating that the court set a "dangerous" precedent by giving people a right to privacy in their sexual relationships.

Where did he say that?

The Doctor wrote: He opposes the Civil Rights Act.

There's more than one, but yeah he opposes laws that tell you how to conduct your personal life.

The Doctor wrote: States rights has been a conservative principle since before the Civil War.  Basically, let the states interfere with personal rights if they want to and don't use the federal government to protect those rights.  That's what it all comes down to.  Also, neo-cons love to proclaim "judicial activism" whenever they make a decision they don't agree with.  Where's Paul's cries of judicial activism over the Citizens United ruling?  Oh wait, he hasn't made an outcry about that.

Not really. States rights was the principle of the Anti-Federalists. The same group which, for the time, would have been the ones preaching for the government to stay out of the private social affairs of the people.

The federal government isn' there to protect the rights of the residents of the State. It has a specific function. When you start to give it the power to do more, the potential for abuse rises exponentially. It's very hard to control a State government. It's impossible to control the Federal government. You can't overstep those boundaries the second something happens in a State that you disagree with. You need to fight that on the State level. When you're a federal Congressman, that's not really the fight you've chosen.

The Citizens United ruling would be an area of law applicable to the Federal court. It was a 1st amendment issue brought against a federal entity. That's the purpose of the Supreme Court. Ruling on a State's laws is not.

You're not really making any sense.

The T wrote: The Doctor wrote: The T wrote: The Doctor wrote: Paul believes that prayer in public schools should not be prohibited at the federal or state level, nor should it be made compulsory to engage in. What's the problem here? He's not saying "you HAVE to pray". He's saying "you can pray if you want, the government has no place deciding for you".  In 1997, Paul introduced a Constitutional amendment giving states the power to prohibit the destruction of the flag of the United States In line with his beliefs, he want the States, not the federal government to decide.  In 1997, Paul voted to end affirmative action in college admissions.Paul criticizes both racism and obsession with racial identity:I don't agree with affirmative action either. I agree it can breed racism.  As for gay marriage:  Paul opposes all federal efforts to define marriage, whether defined as a union between one man and one woman, or defined as including anything else as well. You've said it yourself: he opposes FEDERAL efforts to define marriage. He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states, and not subjected to "judicial activism".  What is neo con about this? Not quite as clear cut as supporting gay marriage.  Why is it so pure about supporting gay marriage? Many supporters also have an agenda. Many democrats don't support gay marriage either. I don't see this. In fact, it is so called "judicial activism" which has made the first real inroads into gay marriage. In 2004, he spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996. This act allows a state to decline to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countriesStates vs Federal government. Again.    Shall I go on?No. We don't want you to continue to show your ignorance of what a neo-con is and of Ron paul's views regarding the constitutional powers given to states and the federal government... States rights has been a conservative principle since before the Civil War.  Basically, let the states interfere with personal rights if they want to and don't use the federal government to protect those rights.  That's why I don't like any form of government, federal or state, but the attempt here is to reduce the likelihood of abuse. The federal government is much more powerful than the states. That's what it all comes down to.  Also, neo-cons love to proclaim "judicial activism" whenever they make a decision they don't agree with.  Where's Paul's cries of judicial activism over the Citizens United ruling?  Oh wait, he hasn't made an outcry about that.Why would he? The Supreme court said that government shouldn't censor political ads when funded by corporations or others. Why would he protest against the courts saying "no" to government censoring of anything?

Because to make that ruling, the Court had to make two leaps from the plain language of the Constitution.  The first is that corporations are persons.  Nowhere in the Constitution does it allow for rights of corporations.  The second is that spending money is speech.  I'd love to know how you go from freedom to speak to freedom to buy candidates.

The T wrote: The Doctor wrote: "Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment "right to privacy". Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards." - This is the quote.  Again, he believes that states have the power to interfere in private sexual relationships.  This is a neo-con principle through and through.  If you wish to call me ignorant or whatever, T, have at it.  If you don't see that as neo-con, well, I don't know what to tell you. I don't agree with nobody regulating sexual conduct (or most any conduct that doesn't harm others really) but in this case Paul is defending the States' rights over the federal government. He says "ridiculous as sodomy laws may be" recognizing that he doesn't agree with such stupid laws, but he's trying first to get the federal monster out of the picture. I see that as the explanation for this.

Well, you may not agree with anybody regulating sexual conduct.  And I would not label you a neo-con.  But Paul clearly does agree with the states regulating sexual conduct even if he thinks it is stupid.

The Doctor wrote: "Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment "right to privacy". Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards." - This is the quote.  Again, he believes that states have the power to interfere in private sexual relationships.  This is a neo-con principle through and through.  If you wish to call me ignorant or whatever, T, have at it.  If you don't see that as neo-con, well, I don't know what to tell you.

Did you read that? That clearly expresses his opinion. However, the law often says something different than what you believe. I don't mean it as an insult, but you've clearly done very little scholarly research on the Constitution. In the Constitution, you have a very specific right to privacy. Privacy is a bad word for it. You have a right to be free from Federal searches without a warrant. You don't have a right to privacy. As undesirable as you may find that, I personally think it's the only sane conclusion you can reach consistent with a system of property rights, that is what the Constitution expresses.

The neo-con principle would be that the government should limit sexual relationships. They are never really concerned with what the government can legally do.

The Ron Paul position would be there shouldn't be laws on any level against sodomy although Ron Paul does not personally see this as behavior he agrees with, but regardless of this opinion, the federal judiciary does no have the power to overturn State sodomy laws.

You're taking such a shallow view of the political system .

The T wrote: The Doctor wrote: The T wrote: The Doctor wrote: The T wrote: The Doctor wrote: Paul believes that prayer in public schools should not be prohibited at the federal or state level, nor should it be made compulsory to engage in. What's the problem here? He's not saying "you HAVE to pray". He's saying "you can pray if you want, the government has no place deciding for you".  In 1997, Paul introduced a Constitutional amendment giving states the power to prohibit the destruction of the flag of the United States In line with his beliefs, he want the States, not the federal government to decide.  In 1997, Paul voted to end affirmative action in college admissions.Paul criticizes both racism and obsession with racial identity:I don't agree with affirmative action either. I agree it can breed racism.  As for gay marriage:  Paul opposes all federal efforts to define marriage, whether defined as a union between one man and one woman, or defined as including anything else as well. You've said it yourself: he opposes FEDERAL efforts to define marriage. He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states, and not subjected to "judicial activism".  What is neo con about this? Not quite as clear cut as supporting gay marriage.  Why is it so pure about supporting gay marriage? Many supporters also have an agenda. Many democrats don't support gay marriage either. I don't see this. In fact, it is so called "judicial activism" which has made the first real inroads into gay marriage. In 2004, he spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996. This act allows a state to decline to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countriesStates vs Federal government. Again.    Shall I go on?No. We don't want you to continue to show your ignorance of what a neo-con is and of Ron paul's views regarding the constitutional powers given to states and the federal government... States rights has been a conservative principle since before the Civil War.  Basically, let the states interfere with personal rights if they want to and don't use the federal government to protect those rights.  That's why I don't like any form of government, federal or state, but the attempt here is to reduce the likelihood of abuse. The federal government is much more powerful than the states. That's what it all comes down to.  Also, neo-cons love to proclaim "judicial activism" whenever they make a decision they don't agree with.  Where's Paul's cries of judicial activism over the Citizens United ruling?  Oh wait, he hasn't made an outcry about that.Why would he? The Supreme court said that government shouldn't censor political ads when funded by corporations or others. Why would he protest against the courts saying "no" to government censoring of anything?  Because to make that ruling, the Court had to make two leaps from the plain language of the Constitution.  The first is that corporations are persons.  Nowhere in the Constitution does it allow for rights of corporations.  The second is that spending money is speech.  I'd love to know how you go from freedom to speak to freedom to buy candidates. Spending money on an idea (or candidate or whatever) in a way is related to speech. Basically, none should tell none how to use one's money. And supporting a specific candidate is a way of exercising freedom of choice and, in a way, of speech. Now, personhood of corporations is a difficult topic but in the end it is necessary in many ways to protect them and even the people who are part of the corporations. It has been abused, I know, but I can see many point in favor of granting some rights to corporations which are in the end creations of groups of people with specific goals.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: The Doctor wrote: "Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment "right to privacy". Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards." - This is the quote.  Again, he believes that states have the power to interfere in private sexual relationships.  This is a neo-con principle through and through.  If you wish to call me ignorant or whatever, T, have at it.  If you don't see that as neo-con, well, I don't know what to tell you. Did you read that? That clearly expresses his opinion. However, the law often says something different than what you believe. I don't mean it as an insult, but you've clearly done very little scholarly research on the Constitution. In the Constitution, you have a very specific right to privacy. Privacy is a bad word for it. You have a right to be free from Federal searches without a warrant. You don't have a right to privacy. As undesirable as you may find that, I personally think it's the only sane conclusion you can reach consistent with a system of property rights, that is what the Constitution expresses. The neo-con principle would be that the government should limit sexual relationships. They are never really concerned with what the government can legally do. The Ron Paul position would be there shouldn't be laws on any level against sodomy although Ron Paul does not personally see this as behavior he agrees with, but regardless of this opinion, the federal judiciary does no have the power to overturn State sodomy laws. You're taking such a shallow view of the political system .

I love when people try to call out my academic credentials.  I suppose those several classes in Constitutional Law in law school don't count much as scholarly research, eh?  Probably not from your p.o.v. as law schools are inherently liberal.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: The T wrote: If he really thinks states can regulate sexual conduct, this is a point in which I would totally disagree with him.  He does not if numerous interviews with Lew Rockwell and publications  he's written are to be believed.

Exactly. And the three books I've read from him seem to totally contradict this anyway. He doesn't believe in regulating private conduct in general.