Rep. Ron Paul for Prez

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by iella

The Bill of Rights lays out a lot of rights that are protected under law. Nowhere is there a "Right to eat at whatever restaurant I want." The federal government exists to protect those rights that are specifically defined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Do other rights exist? Yes, that's why the 9th Amendment is there. But again, I don't see "Right to eat at whatever restaurant I want" to be one of those fundamental, inalienable rights.

You seem to be confused on how the constitution works. Specific rights aren't enumerated in the constitution. It is up to the Supreme court to determine who is a federally protected class under the constitution. Furthermore, the constitution does specifically say the federal government can regulate business as much as it feels like under the interstate commerce clause. Hate to burst your bubble.

Originally Posted by iella

The Constitution was put into place to protect citizens from an overreaching federal government, not to give the government purchase to "protect" us from each other by regulating how we think and behave. Disputes between people or groups of people can and ought to be mostly regulated at the state or even (preferably) local level.

Actually the constitution was put in place to give the federal government more power. Prior to the creation of the constitution there were the Articles of the Confederation. The federal government was extremely weak and the U.S. almost became a failed state. That is the whole reasoning behind the creation of the Constitution: to strengthen the federal government. And you want to bring us back to the dark ages when the U.S. was on the brink of disaster.

Originally Posted by iella

Obviously, this is a conservative interpretation. We can agree to disagree.

It has nothing to do with a conservative or liberal interpretation. It has to do with historical fact and historical fantasy. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by SeanL

You seem to be confused on how the constitution works. Specific rights aren't enumerated in the constitution.

Seriously?

You mean specific rights like freedom of speech, or the press, or the right to peacably assemble, or petition the government for redress of grievances, etc., etc...

Are these the sort of specific rights which aren't enumerated in the constitution? Because they are quite specifically enumerated in the constitution.

I think it'd be slightly more plausible to say that the enumeration of specific rights within the constitution does not negate other rights not enumerated in the constitution, or per the 9th:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

That's not too hard to understand, is it?

But of course the next question is "oh yeah, sez who?" and that, imo, is plainly addressed in the 10th:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The answer to the aforementioned question, "oh yeah, sez who?" is "the States respectively, or to the people"...it damn sure doesn't say "The Supremes on High."

So when the Supremes on High step in to the States and start enumerating unenumerated rights, what they're doing is what the old folks used to call "usurpation".

Usurpation: illegal seizure and occupation of a throne.

It's a full-on power play, a territorial pissing match over who gets to be the king with the United States stepping across a very clearly delineated boundary.

Personally, I'm a little partial (not committed, much less devoted...just partial) to some old school liberal superstitions, "self-government" being on of those kinds of thing. I'm also a bit of a fan of the principle of subsidiarity, and my guess is the dead white guys that wrote the constitution were quite familiar with the concept if not the exact same phrase.

Moreover, or maybe as a subset of subsidiarity, I think it's good to have what I like to call a "separation of powers", not just functionally, but geographically as well. In this I mean that it's wise to have political subdivisions that are not...well...merely geographical subdivisions of the super power.

Anyhoo...I think if you take a regard for self-government and mix in a little principle of subsidiarity, then you get an argument for State's having...let's call it a "right"....to tell the United States to go away from time to time.

Mix in the fact that Constitution unequivocally states that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states and you have a pretty fair case for the constitutionality of "State's Rights."

(And i haven't even mentioned yet that we could bring back Jim Crow laws if only we had State's Rights!)

But I digress.

We all know that the "rule of law" is situational, and that political power comes out of the business end of a gun. Any question of "State's Rights" was effectively put to rest by 1865.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Seriously?

You mean specific rights like freedom of speech, or the press, or the right to peacably assemble, or petition the government for redress of grievances, etc., etc...

Are these the sort of specific rights which aren't enumerated in the constitution? Because they are quite specifically enumerated in the constitution.

I think it'd be slightly more plausible to say that the enumeration of specific rights within the constitution does not negate other rights not enumerated in the constitution, or per the 9th:



That's not too hard to understand, is it?

But of course the next question is "oh yeah, sez who?" and that, imo, is plainly addressed in the 10th:



The answer to the aforementioned question, "oh yeah, sez who?" is "the States respectively, or to the people"...it damn sure doesn't say "The Supremes on High."

So when the Supremes on High step in to the States and start enumerating unenumerated rights, what they're doing is what the old folks used to call "usurpation".



It's a full-on power play, a territorial pissing match over who gets to be the king with the United States stepping across a very clearly delineated boundary.

Personally, I'm a little partial (not committed, much less devoted...just partial) to some old school liberal superstitions, "self-government" being on of those kinds of thing. I'm also a bit of a fan of the principle of subsidiarity, and my guess is the dead white guys that wrote the constitution were quite familiar with the concept if not the exact same phrase.

Moreover, or maybe as a subset of subsidiarity, I think it's good to have what I like to call a "separation of powers", not just functionally, but geographically as well. In this I mean that it's wise to have political subdivisions that are not...well...merely geographical subdivisions of the super power.

Anyhoo...I think if you take a regard for self-government and mix in a little principle of subsidiarity, then you get an argument for State's having...let's call it a "right"....to tell the United States to go away from time to time.

Mix in the fact that Constitution unequivocally states that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states and you have a pretty fair case for the constitutionality of "State's Rights."

(And i haven't even mentioned yet that we could bring back Jim Crow laws if only we had State's Rights!)

But I digress.

We all know that the "rule of law" is situational, and that political power comes out of the business end of a gun. Any question of "State's Rights" was effectively put to rest by 1865.

Dude, I was clearly referring to the 14th amendment in the Constitution - in particular the equal protection clause. I didn't mean the entire constitution. It just says all laws must be applied equally. It doesn't specifically say which laws, or what specific rights people may enjoy. Just all laws in general.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by SeanL

Dude, I was clearly referring to the 14th amendment in the Constitution - in particular the equal protection clause. I didn't mean the entire constitution. It just says all laws must be applied equally.

You're correct. It should have been obvious to me that you weren't referring to the entire constitution, inasmuch as it's evident that you're wholly unfamiliar with the 9th and 10th amendments.

Cheers

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

You're correct. It should have been obvious to me that you weren't referring to the entire constitution, inasmuch as it's evident that you're wholly unfamiliar with the 9th and 10th amendments.

Cheers

The tenth amendment only comes into play when the constitution doesn't give the federal government certain powers. So I"m not sure exactly what power(s) I previously stated that weren't granted by the Constitution. Maybe you can elaborate with a more thoughtful and intelligent post, besides making ambiguous and snide one-liners.

[iella]

Originally Posted by SeanL

You seem to be confused on how the constitution works. Specific rights aren't enumerated in the constitution. It is up to the Supreme court to determine who is a federally protected class under the constitution. Furthermore, the constitution does specifically say the federal government can regulate business as much as it feels like under the interstate commerce clause. Hate to burst your bubble.

Specific rights ARE enumerated in the Bill of Rights and other amendments. The idea of a "federally protected class" didn't even really come into play until 1964 with the Civil Rights Act.

This is the text of Section I of the 14th Amendment:

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. (source)

Nowhere is there a propensity to categorize based on race or anything else that is now considered "federally protected." This statement is actually much broader and more powerful than it would have been if the text stated, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States on the basis of color, ethnicity, or religion." There is absolutely no reason for these provisions to be included since every person of every color, ethnicity, and religion belong equally under "citizens of the United States" (assuming they are, of course).

People of certain color, ethnicity, and religion are already protected because they fall under "everyone." Why was there a need to define "federally protected classes"? If states were enacting laws that endangered the life, liberty, and property of ANYONE, the original text of the 14th Amendment should have been enough for the federal government to step in and strike those laws down. The Lawrence vs. Texas case you cited is a perfect example of this.

I still think the issue we're primarily disagreeing on is the matter of which rights ought to be protected by the federal government. I'm sticking by my statement that the "right to eat at any restaurant you choose" should not be federally protected.

Also, the interstate commerce cause is used to justify all kinds of abuses of power by the federal government. The fact that the precedent exists doesn't mean it's correct. Last year, Congress was thinking about forcing a change in the college football bowl system under the auspices of the commerce clause. It's gotten a little ridiculous.

Consider also the example of a mom-and-pop restaurant that sources all ingredients and other materials locally. How do they fall under the jurisdiction of the commerce clause? Shouldn't they be subject to the business laws of their state and not to the federal government?

Actually the constitution was put in place to give the federal government more power. Prior to the creation of the constitution there were the Articles of the Confederation. The federal government was extremely weak and the U.S. almost became a failed state. That is the whole reasoning behind the creation of the Constitution: to strengthen the federal government. And you want to bring us back to the dark ages when the U.S. was on the brink of disaster.

The Constitution was put into place to DEFINE the power of the federal government. Defining something can either make something stronger where it was once weak (as in the case of the Articles of Confederation), or it can weaken something that has become too strong (as I believe it should be used now). It's a big jump to go from "the Articles of Confederation are too weak, we need a stronger federal government" to "the Constitution gives the federal government the right to step in wherever and whenever it wants to enact whatever laws they see fit." If the latter were the case, why did we bother to fight and die to separate ourselves from the British monarchy in the first place?

I also find your claim that I "want to bring us back to the dark ages when the U.S. was on the brink of disaster" to be rather incendiary hyperbole. I am not proposing a return to the Articles of Confederation. I am, in fact, quite fond of the Constitution as it currently stands. You claim that a more limited federal government would bring us to the brink of disaster. I would counter that our current bloated, debt-ridden, politically deadlocked federal government, as well as our public culture of entitlement and state-dependence, IS currently bringing our country toward economic, political, and international disaster. We can discuss these things without straw man attacks.

It has nothing to do with a conservative or liberal interpretation. It has to do with historical fact and historical fantasy. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

If you read the actual text of the Constitution, how much of what the federal government does today is explicitly spelled out? A lot of the federal government's current power is derived from interpretations of things like the commerce clause. So yes, it is absolutely a matter of interpretation.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by iella

Specific rights ARE enumerated in the Bill of Rights and other amendments. The idea of a "federally protected class" didn't even really come into play until 1964 with the Civil Rights Act.

This is the text of Section I of the 14th Amendment:



Nowhere is there a propensity to categorize based on race or anything else that is now considered "federally protected." This statement is actually much broader and more powerful than it would have been if the text stated, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States on the basis of color, ethnicity, or religion." There is absolutely no reason for these provisions to be included since every person of every color, ethnicity, and religion belong equally under "citizens of the United States" (assuming they are, of course).

People of certain color, ethnicity, and religion are already protected because they fall under "everyone." Why was there a need to define "federally protected classes"? If states were enacting laws that endangered the life, liberty, and property of ANYONE, the original text of the 14th Amendment should have been enough for the federal government to step in and strike those laws down. The Lawrence vs. Texas case you cited is a perfect example of this.

I still think the issue we're primarily disagreeing on is the matter of which rights ought to be protected by the federal government. I'm sticking by my statement that the "right to eat at any restaurant you choose" should not be federally protected.

Also, the interstate commerce cause is used to justify all kinds of abuses of power by the federal government. The fact that the precedent exists doesn't mean it's correct. Last year, Congress was thinking about forcing a change in the college football bowl system under the auspices of the commerce clause. It's gotten a little ridiculous.

Consider also the example of a mom-and-pop restaurant that sources all ingredients and other materials locally. How do they fall under the jurisdiction of the commerce clause? Shouldn't they be subject to the business laws of their state and not to the federal government?



The Constitution was put into place to DEFINE the power of the federal government. Defining something can either make something stronger where it was once weak (as in the case of the Articles of Confederation), or it can weaken something that has become too strong (as I believe it should be used now). It's a big jump to go from "the Articles of Confederation are too weak, we need a stronger federal government" to "the Constitution gives the federal government the right to step in wherever and whenever it wants to enact whatever laws they see fit." If the latter were the case, why did we bother to fight and die to separate ourselves from the British monarchy in the first place?

I also find your claim that I "want to bring us back to the dark ages when the U.S. was on the brink of disaster" to be rather incendiary hyperbole. I am not proposing a return to the Articles of Confederation. I am, in fact, quite fond of the Constitution as it currently stands. You claim that a more limited federal government would bring us to the brink of disaster. I would counter that our current bloated, debt-ridden, politically deadlocked federal government, as well as our public culture of entitlement and state-dependence, IS currently bringing our country toward economic, political, and international disaster. We can discuss these things without straw man attacks.



If you read the actual text of the Constitution, how much of what the federal government does today is explicitly spelled out? A lot of the federal government's current power is derived from interpretations of things like the commerce clause. So yes, it is absolutely a matter of interpretation.

You said:
"The Constitution was put into place to protect citizens from an overreaching federal government"

By your own admission you were wrong.

Moreover, the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment - doesn't specifically enumerate rights. It merely says all laws must be applied equally. It doesn't have to specifically say people have the right to sit at the lunch counter or what have you.

Anyhow, the fact that you and your boy Ron Paul are arguing against the reasoning behind the Civil Rights Act - one of the most celebrated pieces of legislation in U.S. History - shows how crazy Paul's position is.

[iella]

Originally Posted by SeanL

You said:
"The Constitution was put into place to protect citizens from an overreaching federal government"

By your own admission you were wrong.

I actually believe I was right on both counts. The Constitution was written to strengthen the federal government beyond what the Articles of Confederation provided, but also to ensure that the federal government would not become too powerful in the future.

Think about it - if the intent was to have a really strong federal government that could overrule the states on a whim, why have any discussion of states' rights at all? The founders, being not far removed from the British monarchy, were very well aware of what an overreaching central government could do. The point of the weakness of the Articles of Confederation was that they didn't want a powerful central government. They realized that the original Articles were too weak to keep the country together, but that doesn't mean they wanted what we have today. Is it really so ridiculous to say, "We've come to far, let's start thinking about moving in the opposite direction"?

Moreover, the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment - doesn't specifically enumerate rights. It merely says all laws must be applied equally. It doesn't have to specifically say people have the right to sit at the lunch counter or what have you.

Thus, any rights that aren't specifically enumerated in the Constitution are open to debate. That's all we're doing - challenging what the government has done thus far. I think it's the sign of a healthy democracy, you seem to feel otherwise.

Anyhow, the fact that you and your boy Ron Paul are arguing against the reasoning behind the Civil Rights Act - one of the most celebrated pieces of legislation in U.S. History - shows how crazy Paul's position is.

"The fact that you are arguing... shows how crazy..." Is this meant to be a serious argument? You're effectively saying, "The fact that you disagree with me is enough for me to dismiss you." I suppose that's how today's politics work. You are not the first person to disagree with Dr. Paul, and I will certainly not hold a grudge against you for doing so. I hope you will give us the same respect.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by iella

I actually believe I was right on both counts. The Constitution was written to strengthen the federal government beyond what the Articles of Confederation provided, but also to ensure that the federal government would not become too powerful in the future.

Think about it - if the intent was to have a really strong federal government that could overrule the states on a whim, why have any discussion of states' rights at all? The founders, being not far removed from the British monarchy, were very well aware of what an overreaching central government could do. The point of the weakness of the Articles of Confederation was that they didn't want a powerful central government. They realized that the original Articles were too weak to keep the country together, but that doesn't mean they wanted what we have today. Is it really so ridiculous to say, "We've come to far, let's start thinking about moving in the opposite direction"?



Thus, any rights that aren't specifically enumerated in the Constitution are open to debate. That's all we're doing - challenging what the government has done thus far. I think it's the sign of a healthy democracy, you seem to feel otherwise.



"The fact that you are arguing... shows how crazy..." Is this meant to be a serious argument? You're effectively saying, "The fact that you disagree with me is enough for me to dismiss you." I suppose that's how today's politics work. You are not the first person to disagree with Dr. Paul, and I will certainly not hold a grudge against you for doing so. I hope you will give us the same respect.

It is exceedingly difficult to show a politician respect when he openly attacks legislation that protects minority rights (especially given is track record with regard to racist comments).

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by SeanL

(especially given is track record with regard to racist comments).

I'm starting to see why these rumors have been spun by his detractors, and I'm also starting to see why such allegations don't hold much water.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

I'm starting to see why these rumors have been spun by his detractors, and I'm also starting to see why such allegations don't hold much water.

They are not rumors, there is literature where this smut about blacks and gays are written in black and white.