While I support Ron Paul’s efforts to be included in the upcoming Fox debate, this does not mean that I agree with his views, consider his views to actually be libertarian, or even think he makes very much sense. I supported Paul’s inclusion in recent posts because of believing this to be the case of any candidate, regardless of what I think of their views. Unfortunately, despite his reputation for supporting freedom and defending the Constitution, Paul’s public statements and writings demonstrate that his view of the Constitution could result in a reduction in individual liberty.
Ron Paul’s statement in the House of Representatives opposing an amendment to ban flag burning on June 3, 2003 provides one example of how Paul’s views are inconsistent with regards to supporting individual liberty. (Hat tip to Irregular Times). Paul makes many excellent points against such an amendment:
First off, I think what we are trying to achieve through an amendment to the Constitution is to impose values on people- that is, teach people patriotism with our definition of what patriotism is. But we cannot force values on people; we cannot say there will be a law that a person will do such and such because it is disrespectful if they do not, and therefore, we are going to make sure that people have these values that we want to teach. Values in a free society are accepted voluntarily, not through coercion, and certainly not by law, because the law implies that there are guns, and that means the federal government and others will have to enforce these laws.
Here we are, amending the Constitution for a noncrisis. How many cases of flag burning have we seen? I have seen it on television a few times in the last year, but it was done on foreign soil, by foreigners, who had become angry at us over our policies, but I do not see that many Americans in the streets burning up flags. There were probably a lot more in previous decades, but in recent years it averages out to about eight, about eight cases a year, and they are not all that horrendous. It involves more vandalism, teenagers taking flags and desecrating the flag and maybe burning it, and there are local laws against that.
Then we get to Paul’s extreme version of federalism, which ignores the extension of Constitutional liberties to the states under the 14th Amendment:
Under the Constitutional principle of federalism, questions such as whether or not Texas should prohibit flag burning are strictly up to the people of Texas, not the United States Supreme Court. Thus, if this amendment simply restored the state’s authority to ban flag burning, I would enthusiastically support it.
If there was an amendment restoring the state’s authority to ban free speech would he also support this? It isn’t even clear that he currently believes states do not have the authority to ban free speech as he also argues:
Let me emphasize how the First Amendment is written, “Congress shall make no law.” That was the spirit of our Nation at that time: “Congress shall make no laws.”
This is hardly the only time Ron Paul has expressed his disbelief in First Amendment rights. As I’ve previously noted, Paul has incorrectly claimed that, “The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers.” He has also supported keeping “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, has co-sponsored the school prayer amendment, and supported keeping the Ten Commandments on a courthouse lawn. Paul has both criticized secularism and claimed that the Founding Fathers envisioned a Christian America. Ron Paul’s version of the Constitution is contradicted in the writings of the founding fathers, many court decisions, and in the view of most historians.
I also find it curious that Paul comes to such a restrictive interpretation of the Constitution with regards to First Amendment rights but has no problem with the ambiguities of the Second Amendment when he defends the rights of individuals to own guns. Unfortunately Paul interprets the Constitution based upon his own personal views as opposed to how it was actually written.
Traditionally libertarians have opposed restrictions on individual liberty at any level of government, not only when coming from the federal government. Rights are believe to be based upon the individual, not state or local governments. Ron Paul’s willingness to tolerate violations of individual liberties as long as this comes from a state as opposed to the federal government explains why so many white supremacists neo-Nazis are backing his campaign. What is more puzzling is why any libertarian would support a candidate whose views are so inconsistent with individual liberty.
“If there was an amendment restoring the state’s authority to ban free speech would he also support this? It isn’t even clear that he currently believes states do not have the authority to ban free speech as he also argues”
It all depends on your Constitutional POV. There has been a precedent which explicitly stated that the Bill of Rights DID NOT APPLY to the states.
Enter the 14th Amendment and the social activism of judges in the 20th century who have selectively applied the 14th Amendment clause to the causes they were bias on.
And not all of the Bill of rights are incorporated by these judcial activists using the 14th Ammendment
So what we have had is a judicial branch circumventing Article 5 which states in black and white how the Constitution can be changed to promote a social reform
So now since power is gained by one side (the Federal Gov) there has to be a removal from another side (state’s rights)
Enter Dr. Paul
The effort of this amendment was to impose a removal of rights from the people by the FEDERAL government, something that is prohibited by the 10th Amendment.
Dr Paul explains ther problem using non-constitutional reasoning with the abuse of private property rights (which is a big thing to him).
This is how he speaks. He is not direct but kinda make the point indirectly.
If you read his articles and watch his speeches, you see this is how he is .. personally, I wish he would be more direct but the individual has the fundamental right to be themselves.
So no, Dr. Paul is not pro-States dodging the Constitution although they do have this right under the 10th Ammendment but is this action he is for restoring the balance of the Constitution that was usurped unconstitutionally by the Judicial Branch.
The problem is with his ideas, not how he speaks.
Ron,
RP does not say he supports states banning flag burning. What he says its he supports a states’ right to ban flag burning. You don’t even address his citation of the First Amendment, which begins “Congress shall pass no law,” a provision implying that state governments do have purview in this instance. There’s a difference between saying states should ban flag burning and saying that states have the Constitutional authority to do and should do it. (BTW, the reason why he would support a Constitutional amendment “restoring” the power is because of Supreme Court ruling that states don’t have the right to do it, which, in his view, would correct the Court’s Constitutional overeach.)
And here’s a point I’ve made before, and I’ll make it again: there are other issues involved with speech that have local implications in other ways. For instance, anti-fraud and anti-slander laws at the state level clearly infringe upon freedom of speech; do you think states should repeal those laws? The same with flag burning, and he even states this in one of the exerpts you posted. You have issues like disturbing the peace, vandalism, arson, and others involved with flag burning that have local importance. These types of cases justify the right of states to deal with this matter as they see fit, and for the First Amendment to apply mainly (if not exclusively) to federal jurisdiction.
You must have missed the rest of the article, when he flat out states that no level of government should inhibit free speech or civil liberties, and he flat out opposes the federal government doing this on the grounds of blanket restricting people’s liberties everywhere. But he is a strict constructionist, and as such, he would not do something that, in his view, violates the Constitution to enact his agenda. He acknowledges this when he talks about a whole host of other libertarian views of his, including drugs and prostitution. He regularly rails against abuses of executive power as a part of this.
“RP does not say he supports states banning flag burning. What he says its he supports a states’ right to ban flag burning.”
That’s exactly the problem I pointed out. He supports the right of states to ban flag burning. In claiming that states have the right to restrict civil liberties, his philosophy is essentially an authoritarian, anti-freedom philosophy and not libertarianism.
“You don’t even address his citation of the First Amendment, which begins “Congress shall pass no law,” a provision implying that state governments do have purview in this instance. ”
I most certainly did address this. The 14th Amendment extends these rights to the states.
“You must have missed the rest of the article, when he flat out states that no level of government should inhibit free speech or civil liberties”
No, I did not miss anything. That is not what he is saying with his view of federalism.
It seems to me that the fifth amendment covers individual liberties:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I think the fourteenth amendment also overrules state laws depriving life, liberty or property without due process of law.
Timur,
Of course the Bill of Rights covers individual liberties. The problem is that Paul does not believe that they apply to the states
I think that is carrying it too far. His primary influences are Ayn Rand (it seems he named his sons after them), Fredric Bastiat, Ludwig Von Mises, and Friedrich Hayek. These people weren’t exactly lightweights on the issue of individual rights so I doubt he would sit idly by while individual rights are being violated. That’s one of his core principles.
Also, my point was that the fourteenth amendment overrules the states so he would have to follow that.
And if he allows the states to ban flag burning, I think that is an error in his interpretation of the Constitution.
I am not saying you have a valid concern here, I am simply stressing that I believe it to be a needle in a very large haystack of individual rights violations by the federal government has and the massive continued violations of individual rights that would continue under any of the other candidates.
I meant to say:
I am not saying you don’t have a valid concern here.
Also the word has after government should be eliminated.
“Also, my point was that the fourteenth amendment overrules the states so he would have to follow that.”
You miss my point that Paul does not agree with that the fourteenth amendment extends Constitutional liberties to the states.
“And if he allows the states to ban flag burning, I think that is an error in his interpretation of the Constitution.”
Exactly. He misinterprets the Constitution in a manner which is contrary to the view that he would support civil liberties. He might personally believe in civil liberties, and would defend civil liberties with regards to the federal government, but the end result of a government along his views would be greater restrictions on civil liberties. Even his defense of civil liberties would be limited as he doesn’t believe in separation of church and state.
I am not sure what specifically he would do about church and state that would affect our civil liberties, even if he says there is no official separation of church and state.
Regarding the fourteenth amendment, states can still be challenged for violating rights in the courts because this is an issue of interpretation.
Paul has supported school prayer. He opposes abortion rights. We now see him repeating the memes of the religious right which advocates teaching evolution in the schools. He has sided with the religious right on same sex marriage. The religious right will continue to push their agenda, and it appears Paul will continue to go along with them. Separation of church and state is an important principle which is needed to preserve our liberties.
Saying that it is ok to support a president who advocates bad things doesn’t matter because he can be challenged in court is rather absurd. First, I would avoid supporting a candidate whose views would essentially lead to the abolishment of the Bill of Rights in the first place. Secondly, the president would be appointing judges, and would further tip the balance away from judges who actually respect Constitutional rights.
If he is for the Bill of Rights, why would he be for abolishing them? He is against public schools and against government involvement in marriage. He is for individual rights specifically and doesn’t believe in collective rights. We haven’t even defined separation of church and state, where it is in the Constitution and what the President’s role is in it.
There haven’t been judges who respected Constitutional rights for years, so there is not much of a balance to tip away from.
Again, I am not saying I don’t agree with you on some of the problems with his views. I just see many many more problems with the other candidates and believe they are a greater threat to liberty, by far.
My point is not that he advocates bad things, but one of the reasons we have a supreme court is to interpret the Constitution and if Ron Paul has an interpretation that the courts believe is incorrect, they will overrule him.
“My point is not that he advocates bad things,”
That is not what I meant to say. However he does advocate bad things when he denies separation of church and state, and when he denies that Constitutional liberties applies to the state. If he is wrong on fundamental issues such as this he should not be elected, as opposed upon counting upon the Supreme Court to overrule him. The problem is compounded by the fact that the next president will tip the balance of the court, which has already been moving in too conservative a direction.
“If he is for the Bill of Rights, why would he be for abolishing them?”
He is not for abolishing them, but that would be the effect due to his denial of separation of church and state, and due to his denial of the extension of constitutional liberties to the states.
“There haven’t been judges who respected Constitutional rights for years, so there is not much of a balance to tip away from.”
The balance has been moving away from respects for individual liberty due to the appointment of conservative judges by Republican presidents. We don’t need more of this from Paul.
Unfortunately, the only precedent I am aware of that says that Constitutional liberties apply to the state is the 1925 decision regarding the fourteenth amendment.
I agree with you that the Constitution doesn’t go far enough in its protection of liberties, but the problem is with the Constitution as is, rather than Ron Paul. He is just adhering to what it says.
The Constitution needs to be amended to include one of the original amendments proposed by Madison:
“No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.”
Unfortunately, Congress did not approve this amendment but it should be revisited and I agree with you that the Constitution should apply to the states, but don’t agree with you that it currently does in most cases as written. This is a flaw in the Constitution that certainly needs to be rectified.
As for appointing supreme court justices, I would think that Paul, like any other candidate, would appoint justices that agree with his fundamental beliefs so I think they would be more libertarian than conservative. This is also a questionable supposition, in my opinion, to think that Ron Paul would work to restrict individual liberties in any way when everything he says has been to increase individual liberties and reduce the power of government.
It is inconsistent for him to believe in individual rights and to believe in States rights at the same time. States have no rights, but as I a said earlier, the Constitution does not provide sufficient protection for individual rights.
“It is inconsistent for him to believe in individual rights and to believe in States rights at the same time.”
Exactly, but but that is exactly what he advocates. Paul is a social conservative states’ right advocate far more than a libertarian.
Paul is not just adhering to what the Constitution says. He is interpreting it in a manner consistent with his social conservative and pro-states’ rights views.
“This is also a questionable supposition, in my opinion, to think that Ron Paul would work to restrict individual liberties in any way when everything he says has been to increase individual liberties and reduce the power of government.”
That is not what I was saying. I was saying that this would be the result of Paul’s views, not what he is working for, due to his bizarre interpretation of the Constitution.
“I would think that Paul, like any other candidate, would appoint justices that agree with his fundamental beliefs so I think they would be more libertarian than conservative.”
Paul is more a conservative than a libertarian, despite being libertarian in some areas, and his appointees would reflect this. He would be willing to appoint people who do not believe in separation of church in state, who do not respect abortion rights, and who do not believe that Constitutional rights apply to the states.
I agree that he has some social conservative influence, but I don’t agree that his social conservatism trumps his respect for individual rights when he places emphasis on the latter first.
I fear that much of this will be speculation until each of the issues we have discussed is discussed by Ron Paul and others to clarify exactly which they give precedence to.
I question the use of the word “bizarre” because if his interpretation of the Constitution is bizarre, then the standard for bizarre interpretations is very low as there have been some very bizarre interpretations of the Constitution in the last hundred years allowing the Federal government to do basically anything it wants.
Paul’s interpretation ranks among the more bizarre when looked at in its entirety. It is an essentially “religious” view from the point of view that he talks about the Constitution as if it is the word of God. In reality the Constitution was a political compromise made by various individuals with different views, and was never intended to be taken as inflexible in the manner in which Paul does. He also interprets it in a manner consistent with his socially conservative views, such as in his denial of separation of church and state when this was one of the fundamental principles supported by the framers.
Where does he talk about the Constitution as if it was the word of God?
Jefferson also was considered a strict constructionist even if he was also considered a hypocrite for following through with the Louisiana purchase?
Although the Constitution was a compromise, no doubt, it does have meaning, even if the meaning can be interpreted differently to some degree. It is not flexible and bendable to the political will of the moment. The question is, what is the law of the land and what does it mean? Ron Paul has an answer that may not be to your liking, but I don’t see it being more of the mark than other interpretations or the outright ignoring of the document completely.
As for the belief in the separation of church and state, that is what is outlined in the first amendment and it refers to Congress. State churches existed after the Constitution was ratified.
Ron Paul would adhere to the first amendment. What else do you have in mind with regards to separation of church and state?
“Where does he talk about the Constitution as if it was the word of God?”
I’m referring to the matter in which he calls upon it, as if the meaning of the Constitution is a fixed truth.
“As for the belief in the separation of church and state, that is what is outlined in the first amendment and it refers to Congress. State churches existed after the Constitution was ratified.”
This shows how trying to take the Constitution literally, word for word, can give a different impression than was intended by the framers. First of all, separation of church and state is not based purely upon the First Amendment. The body of the Constitution itself was intended to support this by its lack of references to God (except for outlaying a religious test for office) which was quite radical at the time. Many of the founding fathers felt that no Bill of Rights was necessary to stipulate these rights. Writings of the founding fathers make it clear that the intent was a strict separation of church and state, not the more restricted interpretation you give.
State churches did exist at the time. So did slavery. This is why the extension of Constitutional liberties to the states is so important.
The battle for liberty has been an ongoing one through history. The founding of the United States was one step along the way, but it was not frozen at that point. That is not what the framers of the Constitution intended. They would never have expected these concepts to have been frozen in time as Paul does. The founding fathers had radical ideas, and initially were unsuccessful in applying them to the states. Over time that battle for freedom was won. Paul is a reactionary who wants to turn back the clock in a manner which would reduce our liberties.
“Ron Paul would adhere to the first amendment. What else do you have in mind with regards to separation of church and state?”
It has already been demonstrated that he would not adhere to it totally as he denies an important part–separation of church and state. As he believes it does not apply to the states, his adherence to it doesn’t mean very much.
I agree with you that the founders did intend the separation of church and state and that is why Jeffersion was instrumental in the Virginia statute of religious freedom and termed the phrase “separation of church and state”.
However, here is a quote from Jefferson from his second inaugural address:
“In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it, but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of the church or state authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies….”
Unfortunately, the Constitution does not provide for this separation at the state level, even if it should. I agree with you that there should be a separation of church and state at every level, but it should be amended in the Constitution because it is clearly not in the document itself.
And the very fact we are having this discussion means this issue needs to be put to bed once and for all explicitly in the Constitution itself.
As for Ron Paul, I do agree with you that he is literally right, but contextually wrong, but I don’t agree that he is about to turn back the clock. He is simply not campaigning or making a big deal about these issues and this leads me to believe that he won’t even get to this issue anywhere in his one or two terms for president.
We simply don’t have any other legitimate choice for president so I will take conservative leaning libertarian over liberals and conservatives who deviate far more from the Constitution and do far more damage to the law than Ron Paul will.
The problem as I said above is that it doesn’t apply to the States and therefore is a flaw in the Constitution, not in Ron Paul.
The Constitution needs to be amended to resolve this issue once and for all, but he is supporting what the actual law says rather than ignoring it.
You are just demonstrating my point that this has been an evolving process in which the extension of Constitutional liberties did not come until a later point with the14th Amendment. Paul wants to turn back the clock and create a system which would result in less liberty. This is why so many white supremacists and neo-Nazis are backing Paul. They realize that, regardless of what Paul intends, Paul’s views on the Constitution and states’ rights represent their best chance to bring fascism to America.
If we really had a candidate who was the sole defender of liberty, and if we really had a case where there was such deviation from the Constitution that only Paul would reverse this, you would expect wide spread interest in his candidacy. Instead we have a candidate stuck at 4 percent in the national polls for good reason. It doesn’t matter whether he is campaigning on these issues. You need to look at what his philosophy of government would actually bring about.
I agree that this is an evolving process but I think you are overexaggerating what Paul wants to do and overly fearful. He wants to turn back the clock on the last hundred years as he said where the growth of the federal government has been tremendous and the drop in our liberties has been proportionate. If he goes overboard a bit, I will prefer that to the continued growth of government and loss of liberty and continue the existing trend. You would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater by focusing on two or three issues, which legitimate as they are, pale in comparison with the vast reduction of our civil liberties in the last hundred years.
The reason his candidacy is stuck where it as, and he has made strides considering where he started from, is because people are afraid of change and the status quo, not because they are concerned about states rights vs. the federal government. I don’t think most people have investigated the issue to this level.
As for the neo-nazis, they mistake his philosophy of non-preferential treatment to one of “getting the Jews” or “getting the Blacks” out of power. If you read their website, their most honest members concede that Ron Paul has nothing to do with their movement and recommend to their members that they not vote for Ron Paul.
Also, keep in mind that they vote for Ron Paul out of pragmatic convenience and not because of principle. It is quite clear to anyone who reads or hears what he says that it has absolutely nothing to do with white supremacist thought.
I think that in some ways the neo-Nazis understand the consequences of Paul’s views far better than the libertarians who support Paul.
And what consequences would be those:
The reduction of the power of the federal government and the return of rights to the people? I doubt they want blacks, jews and gays to have more rights.
Neo-Nazis believe in a racist philosophy. Ron Paul believes in an individualist philosophy. Look at what he writes on Racism on his website where he quotes Rand, I believe.
I think you are putting your attention to areas which are legitimate, but not of real consequence in this election and neglecting the real destruction of our liberties by both parties that exist right now and no one is willing to curtail those excesses except Ron Paul. Sure, some of his ideas may go to far, but he is the President, not the King and he will have to work with Congress starting from today’s conditions working to reduce the power of the federal government. The issues we are discussing will have no practical relevance any time soon.
“The issues we are discussing will have no practical relevance any time soon.”
I totally disagree. Besides the problems related to the “war on terror,” the major danger we currently face to restrictions on civil liberties comes from the religious right. One more vote on the Supreme Court might be all it takes for them to eliminate abortion rights, and from there push more of their agenda.
If Paul’s view of government should prevail, it would also open up the door to white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups beginning to push their agenda in some states.
It makes no sense to ignore all matters other than what a candidate speaks about during a campaign. There’s far more at stake. Many of the major issues are never even part of a campaign. The issues related to 9/11 and Iraq didn’t come up in the 2000 campaign (or Bush mislead when he claimed to oppose nation building). It turned out that the views of Bush and Cheney on issues beyond the campaign mattered quite a bit. Similarly we need to look at all the consequences of electing someone like Paul. It is unsafe to support him just because he is rignt on some issues, like Iraq and the Patriot Act, but so wrong on other issues.
“The reduction of the power of the federal government and the return of rights to the people? I doubt they want blacks, jews and gays to have more rights.”
No–they want the ability to deny other people rights. Paul’s views would allow them to do so, which is why Ron Paul is the best candidate for neo-Nazis to support.
He won’t allow them to deny people rights. The fourteenth amendment still protects them.
He is right on almost all the issues and the dangers we face right now is the increasing size of the federal government, the devaluation of our currency, the reduction of our rights and all the issues Ron Paul advocates. It is completely inconsistent for him to create an environment where rights will be violated if he is the biggest proponent of individual rights by far. The other candidates are by far, more dangerous because they do nothing to curb our empire or the power of the federal government.
As I already noted, Paul does not believe in the extension of rights under the 14th Amendment. Paul is hardly right on almost all the issues when the policies he supports would lead to far more deterioration in freedom than is advocated by many of the other candidates.
The 14th amendment is pretty clear so I am not sure how he will be able to duck that issue, but in any case, we will just have to disagree as you believe his policies will lead to significanly less freedom and I believe his policies will lead to significantly greater freedom.
There are a few things I’d like to point out;
1. Ron Paul is not a Social Conservative as mentioned in another article. If Ron Paul was a Social Conservative, I don’t think you’d have him trying to end the war on drugs or in Afghanistan or ending the Federal Reserve, or any of those types of things. All of these come from Libertarian philosophers. What Social Conservative in Congress do you know who says that we should legalize all drugs? Or reduce military spending? Not many. If any at all.
Secondly, despite your shortcomings in critical thinking, Paul overcomes his feelings towards something and supports what the Constitution gives him the authority to do. Do you really think that he that he wouldn’t just outright outlaw abortion in general? Instead, despite, again, either ignorance or selective knowledge, he has introduced into legislature to overturn Roe V. Wade, which sets the precedent for abortion to be a federal topic, and given back to the states. You’ll notice that many things that expand Federal Government are things he is against. Including flag burning. He does not ever give the impression that he is for laws prohibiting flag burning. In fact, if you fact checked yourself, which I will be doing in most of your other fallacious articles, you’d see that he actually hints towards not banning it;
“a question I would like to ask the proponents of this legislation is this: What if some military officials arrived at a home to report to the family that their son had just been killed in Iraq, and the mother is totally overwhelmed by grief which quickly turns to anger. She grabs a flag and she burns it? What is the proper punishment for this woman who is grieved, who acts out in this manner? We say, well, these are special circumstances, we will excuse her for that; or no, she has to be punished, she burned a flag because she was making a political statement. That is the question that has to be answered. What is the proper punishment for a woman like that? I would say it is very difficult to mete out any punishment whatsoever.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. The process may well be legal, but it is unwise.” You realize that he is acknowledging that the process is legal, right? So, if he did support flag burning, why wouldn’t he go along with something he finds perfectly constitutional? Again, I think you’re lacking critical thinking skills.
As for the 14th amendment, if you had done your research on Ron Paul (and you haven’t, obviously), you’d know that Ron Paul is a starch OPPONENT of the 14th amendment, as it goes against the original intent of most of the founding fathers; excluding especially, Alexander Hamilton. Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, Patrick Henry, & many other anti-federalists or Jeffersonians. If you look into Ron Paul more you’d see that Paul avoids the racial issue by saying he’d support a new amendment as long as it did not give the federal gov’t power over the states.
As for the pledge of allegiance, it is not a federal mandated, nor endorsed, pledge. Any state, like Florida, that does require it, should have it struck down on the grounds of the 1st amendment (like in Florida). It is a voluntary act. Are you saying that praying in public school should be banned to? That is also a voluntary act.
Another error on your part is not reading the bill in which he co-sponsored. Here, I’ll save you the trouble. I’ll quote the whole bill and you tell me if there is anything wrong with it;
“Constitutional Amendment – Declares that: (1) to secure the people’s right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience, neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people’s right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed; and (2) neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion.”
This is hard to misrepresent, and I am hoping that you’re not a liar. I would rather you be ignorant about the amendment than you be a liar. Or, a deceiver in this case.
Going through and fact checking your work is becoming interesting. You jump to conclusions too quick or you do not do enough research. The bill has to do with, again, states rights. Believe it or not, even though you disagree, the first amendment is specifically for CONGRESS of the federal gov’t. And unbeknown to you, some states had state established official religions. Until the 14th amendment. And we’ve discussed this before. The reason Paul disagreed with the 14th amendment was because it was against what the original founders (anti-federalists & Jeffersonians) had in mind for the States.
After fact checking your whole article, I have to say that Ron Paul again impresses me with his consistency in his beliefs. Whether you agree with him or not, he is consistent in his beliefs. Have to admire that. Well, it was fun fact checking. Thank you for giving me something to do, and maybe you’ll popularize my post in order to try and correct the misinformation you’ve spread. Thanks again.
I thought I’d mention one more thing.
I can see why you criticize him for not being “Libertarian” but I think it’s a bit ignorant, too. Instead of criticism, he should be receiving praise! Finally, a politician who puts aside his own personal views and follows the Constitution, and the original intent of the Founding Fathers. The 14th amendment DOES give precedent and jurisdiction over the States. I recommend watching the lecture of Thomas E. Woods Jr. if you have any doubts of that. The 10th amendment,t this was meant to give power to the states. States were allowed to have their own state sponsored religion. Not to be abridged by the Federal government. All of Paul’s views are consistent with his beliefs, which he accurately portrays. I do disagree that this country is a Christian nation, seeing as that would abridge the 1st amendment but he’s not perfect. No one is claiming that he hasn’t made mistakes before. However, this is an HONEST and consistent politician. You don’t see that often.
And I think your criticism of him being a social conservative is a bit weak. You’ll notice that much of the GOP are very radical (which I don’t have aproblem with radicalism in and of itself, just depends on the belief that’s radical). If Ron Paul were to be a conservative, he would be a very lukewarm candidate for the neo-conservatives. Most GOP members would outright outlaw abortion. They would continue this war in Afghanistan and in Iraq. They would continue the war on drugs. However, Paul, who has never done drugs, wants to END the war on them. He wants to get out of Afghanistan & Iraq to focus on the real terrorists. He wants the states to have jurisdiction over abortion (although he disapproves of it). That is a very, very lukewarm candidate for such a radical party. If Ron Paul just wanted votes and was truly a social Conservative, he would disregard the anti-federalism to continue the Conservatives slap in the face, disrespectful to the Constitution policies.
Just a thought.
Tyler,
It is interesting to see how you attempt to defend Paul despite failing to understand his positions and without knowledge of his actual record. Throwing in insults throughout your response only highlights how weak your facts are and how illogical your position is.
You base your claim that Paul is not a social conservative by misstating his position on abortion. Paul certainly does vary from the traditional social conservative line in some areas, including at times on specific points related to abortion law, his overall record is extremely conservative. His voting record on the issue can be reviewed here.
“As for the 14th amendment, if you had done your research on Ron Paul (and you haven’t, obviously), you’d know that Ron Paul is a starch OPPONENT of the 14th amendment, as it goes against the original intent of most of the founding fathers;”
You misunderstand the significance of this issue, as well as the views of the founding fathers, here. There was disagreement over both the issues of slavery and of extending the Bill of Rights to the states. To ultimately give rights to the slaves and to extend the Bill of Rights to protect individuals against acts of state governments, as well as the federal government, is consistent with the views of many of the founding fathers. It was the natural extension of the American Revolution to extend liberties in this manner.
Paul’s opposition to the 14th Amendment would allow for tyranny at the state level, which is one reason why so many Neo-Nazi groups support Paul. Opposition to the amendment does not change the fact that this is now part of the Constitution. While Paul claims to base his positions on support of the Constitution, he picks and chooses what he wants to follow, similar to other conservatives who pick and choose from portions of the Bible.
While the 14th Amendment was a step forwards in promoting individual liberty, nothing you say changes the fact that allowing school prayer would be a step backwards. This is also another clear indication of the social conservative views which you deny Paul has. It is strange that you deny that Paul is a social conservative and then proceed to defend social conservative viewpoints.
School prayer is not a voluntary act for those who oppose this. Even Mike Huckabee has admitted there are plenty of other places for prayer and this is not needed in the public schools.
“Believe it or not, even though you disagree, the first amendment is specifically for CONGRESS of the federal gov’t. And unbeknown to you, some states had state established official religions.”
You might actually read what I have written on the subject (as well as the large body of work elsewhere on separation of church and state) before making such ridiculous remarks and straw man attacks. Someone who is showing as much ignorance as you do in your comment is certainly in no position to make statements such as “unbeknown to you” which contradict what I have written.
To try to make this simple enough for you to possibly understand. As I mentioned above the Bill of Rights was initially written to limit the power of the Federal government. This allowed for states to ignore these rights, including (as I have discussed) the establishment of official state religions. The 14th Amendment helped to extend the Bill of Rights to the states, as was desired by many of the founding fathers. Amending the Constitution to change from the views of the founding fathers is consistent with the original Constitution, but in this case the 14th Amendment is not inconsistent with the views of many of the founding fathers. This protects individuals from infringement upon their liberties by state governments as well as by the federal government.
Paul is generally consistent in his beliefs. He even does vary from the current Republican line in some areas. The problem is that he is a consistent supporter of conservative viewpoints which are contrary to promoting individual liberty.
‘As for the 14th amendment, if you had done your research on Ron Paul (and you haven’t, obviously), you’d know that Ron Paul is a starch OPPONENT of the 14th amendment, as it goes against the original intent of most of the founding fathers; excluding especially, Alexander Hamilton. Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, Patrick Henry, & many other anti-federalists or Jeffersonians.’
Tyler, Alexander Hamilton wrote (with James Madison and a couple of lesser collaborators) ‘The Federalist.’ He was the leader of the Federalist Party.
Being the sinister ‘elitist’ of whom conservatives like to expound at length, I really stopped paying attention to what you were writing after that. I
I will say, as Ron did, that without the 14th Amendment then every state is free to entirely dimiss constitutional rights at its own discretion. Every state is free to enact whatever laws it wishes, limited only by its own state courts. The little tyranny of the mob would be far less restricted. Even as it is necessary for state and local government to seriously work to prevent larger tyranny from the state, the federal government (especially the court system) serves an important role in checking local tyranny by entrenched interests and the tyranny of the majority against the minority.
Of course, I wouldn’t have to explain this if you didn’t think Alexander Hamilton was an ‘anti-Federalist.’
Eclectic Radical,
If you would’ve read what I said a little more carefully, you’d see a period. I was saying that the 14th amendment is something that Hamilton would support. Jefferson, Adams, Mason, & Henry were all anti-federalist’s.
Secondly, it appears as though you and Ron both forget that there are state constitutions. Many of which include the bill of rights. SO, the 14th amendment simply gives the federal government the power to override the states, even if that’s what the people in the states wanted.
But of course you probably love tyranny!
Ron,
Throwing insults is something that you do subtly through your articles. So, you’re not quite so innocent yourself. Secondly, saying that it shows the strength of my article is a straw man. A ludicrous, yet entertaining, straw man.
But let’s get to the meat of the subject, I see someting that caught my interest. You say that Paul is a social conservative then you say that Huckabee says he opposes school prayer.. who would the GOP really pick? Obviously Huckabee. So, I am not sure if you want to change what you said around so it makes a little more sense or not.
Paul’s record is Conservative in the sense of what was intended by the majority of the Founding Fathers. A small central government. I don’t doubt that he might have slipped up, and perhaps he has his reasons, but I would say that he is the most consistent small government Libertarian out there.
I have not said anything about slaves, I agree, most of the Founding Father’s did want to give slaves rights. Not to override the states rights. As I’ve mentioned earlier, now we’re getting into a topic of anti-federalists & federalists. If you would like to debate one whether a strong national government is necessary, I’d love to do that. But let’s stick to the topic for now. As you can tell, Paul has a clearly anti-federalist stance. So, Paul most certainly does have a Founding Fathers mentality. The better one, anyway.
Secondly, I agree, again, that constitutionally amending the 14th amendment is quite consistent with the Founding Fathers (the amendment process itself, not necessarily the 14th amendment itself).
On a side note, it is actually debated, not by kooks or conspiracy buffs, on whether or not that amendment was truly, rightly ratified. This is a subject matter for a different time, though.
Paul disagrees with the 14th amendment being a belief in the Founding Fathers. This is why he has tried to get it taken out of the Constitution. He votes, sometimes, not in favor of the current constitution, I see and concede your point there, but of the Constitution that the Founding Fathers (anti-federalists, with Jefferson) actually WANTED.
As for school in prayer, I do not think it is a step backwards, and believe me, even as a Christian myself, I can’t stand shoving Christian beliefs, or any beliefs for that matter, down anyone’s throat. Which is something that I believe to be anti-Christian in itself. However, the freedom to pray in school without having to worry about political correctness is far from shoving religion down people’s throats. This is what the issue is here. It’s a freedom issue. Which is consistent with the Founding Father’s original intent.
Also, I think it’s been forgotten that many states have their own Constitutions anyway. If the people wanted to outlaw church & state, they could. If they wanted freedom of speech, they could. The federal government has no business, in an ideal Founding Father’s America, in State’s issues. Besides, the federal government could easily pass a law that is contrary to the Constitution. Even the Bill of Right’s (just look at the PATRIOT act.. then look at Paul’s vote on it) can be bypassed. I think it’s fallacious to argue that the federal government is there to protect the individual. To end a quote with Jefferson, “A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.”
Before you try to counter that, don’t forget about the State Constitutions that were made before the 14th amendment. And even after that already include equality. Besides, eliminating racism is not through politicians. It’s through philosophy.
Tyler,
“But of course you probably love tyranny!”
No, we are defending liberty here while you are taking the side of tyranny.
“it appears as though you and Ron both forget that there are state constitutions.”
Again, as I mentioned above, you are in a poor position to make claims as to what someone else knows, or has forgotten, when you show such poor understanding of the subject. Resorting to straw man arguments such as this only highlights the weakness of your arguments. Of course we know there are state constitutions. That in no way reduces the importance of extending the Bill of Rights to apply to state governments.
“You say that Paul is a social conservative then you say that Huckabee says he opposes school prayer.. who would the GOP really pick? Obviously Huckabee. So, I am not sure if you want to change what you said around so it makes a little more sense or not.:
What I said makes perfect sense. If you do not have the intelligence to understand this it is your own problem. In simpler terms, Paul is even to the right of Mike Huckabee on this issue.
“He votes, sometimes, not in favor of the current constitution, I see and concede your point there, but of the Constitution that the Founding Fathers (anti-federalists, with Jefferson) actually WANTED.”
No, he votes based upon his interpretation of the Constitution, which is often quite different from what the Founding Fathers wanted. Besides, the Constitution itself does provide for amendments. While extending the Bill of Rights to the states is consistent with the views of many of the Founding Fathers, even if it wasn’t this is what the Constitution currently calls for as amended.
“Which is something that I believe to be anti-Christian in itself. However, the freedom to pray in school without having to worry about political correctness is far from shoving religion down people’s throats. This is what the issue is here. It’s a freedom issue.”
The freedom issue here is being free from having religious views imposed. Prayer does not belong in the schools. We are not going to agree with this, but regardless, you are taking an extreme far right wing view here, contradicting your argument that Paul is not a conservative.
“If they wanted freedom of speech, they could. The federal government has no business, in an ideal Founding Father’s America, in State’s issues.”
Again you are taking an extreme far right wing view which contradicts both the Constitution as amended and the view of many of the Founding Fathers. Individual liberty is more important that state’s rights. The view which you and Paul support is a view in opposition to individual liberty and a view which would promote tyranny–which is why so many neo-Nazis wound up supporting Paul.
“Besides, eliminating racism is not through politicians. It’s through philosophy.”
Nobody’s talking about eliminating racism. This is about changing the Constitution to provide equal rights to people regardless of race (and regardless of state laws).
“Again, as I mentioned above, you are in a poor position to make claims as to what someone else knows, or has forgotten, when you show such poor understanding of the subject. Resorting to straw man arguments such as this only highlights the weakness of your arguments. Of course we know there are state constitutions. That in no way reduces the importance of extending the Bill of Rights to apply to state governments.”
The Bill of Rights are in the State’s Constitution. Even before the 14th amendment.
“What I said makes perfect sense. If you do not have the intelligence to understand this it is your own problem. In simpler terms, Paul is even to the right of Mike Huckabee on this issue”
Wrong. For example, Paul defends gay marriage, not directly, but while acknowledging it, indirectly. By making it so that the state does not give out “licenses”. That’s a nice Libertarian view right there. Go Ron (Paul)!
“No, he votes based upon his interpretation of the Constitution, which is often quite different from what the Founding Fathers wanted. Besides, the Constitution itself does provide for amendments. While extending the Bill of Rights to the states is consistent with the views of many of the Founding Fathers, even if it wasn’t this is what the Constitution currently calls for as amended.”
Uh… Did you forget that the Father of the Bill of Rights was an anti-federalist? Much like Ron Paul? It’s not his interpretation of the Constitution meant to be like the Founding Fathers, it IS the Constitution that the Fathers’ adopted.
“The freedom issue here is being free from having religious views imposed. Prayer does not belong in the schools. We are not going to agree with this, but regardless, you are taking an extreme far right wing view here, contradicting your argument that Paul is not a conservative.”
I agree the issue is free from having religious views imposed. Which is why I support voluntary prayer in school. If somebody wants to pray, let them. As long as the school or teacher doesn’t demand it, there’s nothing being imposed. Again, I am showing the Libertarian side of Ron Paul.
“Again you are taking an extreme far right wing view which contradicts both the Constitution as amended and the view of many of the Founding Fathers. Individual liberty is more important that state’s rights. The view which you and Paul support is a view in opposition to individual liberty and a view which would promote tyranny–which is why so many neo-Nazis wound up supporting Paul.”
I think you give the neo-nazi’s entirely too much credit. The “Nazi’s” now are not nearly as intelligent as the Nazi’s back in Hitler’s day. Many people supported Paul. Including military men, minorities, and young people. So, what? You present a straw man argument of the worst kind. Secondly, if you haven’t read the Anti-Federalist Papers, I suggest you do so. Even if you have, take a second gander. This whole notion that the Founding Father’s wanted a large central government is untrue. Yes, some did. Not all. If they all wanted that, they all would have done that. In fact, it was the Federalists that didn’t really care for a Bill of Rights. It was the ones that support STATE governments that wanted a Bill of Rights in the first place. The Constitution that’s been amended now is a slap in the face to the Founding Father’s. It’s a shame but true.
“Nobody’s talking about eliminating racism. This is about changing the Constitution to provide equal rights to people regardless of race (and regardless of state laws).”
I mention that because that is mostly what the 14th amendment is about. It’s a touchy subject. But if the philosophy, one much like Paul’s, got popular, you’d find a lot more tolerant people. People that don’t think in collectivist terms but in individual terms.
First of all, you are correct, I misread your comments about Hamilton and see that just looking at the portion I myself quoted in my reply.
That’s the only thing you are right about.
A state recently admended its state constitution to strip a portion of its citizens of basic individual rights of choice in which the government has no business meddling. Some years ago, states had the power to disenfranchise significant portions of their populations from taking part in state government. It took Federal intervention to change the latter, ultimately it will take Federal intervention to change the former.
As for tyranny…
Philosophically, I’m an anarcho-socialist. I’d love to see the world change in such a matter that there was no true ‘nation/state’ and that such government as existed was merely the means by which civil society minisitered to communal needs which the private sector could not address.
The problem is, that is a utopian ideal that will not ever become a reality. So my practical political philosophy is Democratic Socialist.
I don’t deny that expanded government power can be threat to individual freedom. I simply reject the idea that a small government will be beneficial to human freedom. Too small a government allows private interests with the money and the power to do so to oppress Americans without anyone to stop them. Right now, as flawed as the American government is, American business is a far greater threat to the freedoms of individual Americans. Much of this has been facilitated by government policies of which conservatives on both sides of the aisle approved very strongly.
Tyler,
This is really getting no where. You started out denying that Paul is a conservative and then you argue for far right wing positions which essentially prove my point. (That is not to say that he doesn’t hold some views which do differ from other conservatives.) Like Paul, you have also created a revisionist history to attempt to support your viewpoint.
“This whole notion that the Founding Father’s wanted a large central government is untrue”
Nobody is saying that. You are the big government guy here, except you think that moving this to the state level makes it less of an issue. My concern is with the rights of the individual, not level of government.
“I mention that because that is mostly what the 14th amendment is about. It’s a touchy subject. But if the philosophy, one much like Paul’s, got popular, you’d find a lot more tolerant people. People that don’t think in collectivist terms but in individual terms.”
You are the collectivist here, again at the state level. You are basically repeating a line Paul tried to use when his racist past and ties were exposed and Paul his remaining supporters tried to argue around it. This doesn’t hold up very well considering that most libertarians distanced themselves from Paul when his past was exposed. By the end his support came down to white supremacists, Neo-Nazis, and a handful of naive people like you who have no real idea of what Paul believes in but fell for the rhetoric of his enthusiastic supporters.
Talking about whether people think in collectivist terms or in individual terms means little when discussing the structure of government. What is necessary is to place Constitutional limits on the power of government to preserve the rights of the individual. Adding a Bill of Rights was an important addition to the Constitution in terms of protecting individual liberty. Amending the Constitution is certainly not a slap in the face of the Founding Fathers. They recognized that this would be needed and provided for such amendments right in the Constitution. Just as adding a Bill of Rights was necessary to preserve individual liberty, it is also necessary that these limitations of the federal government be extended to the state governments.
The white supremacists and neo-Nazis who support Paul understand the consequences of his views far better than you do. Unrestrained state governments have historically been the tool used by those who desire to restrict individual liberties, and this will be true again if Paul’s bizarre view of the Constitution were applied.
Actually, the biggest objectors to the Bill of Rights were the furthest ‘left’ of the Founders (though ‘left’ and ‘right’ are not so easy to separate when dealing with the politics of those days.) People on this side of the argument believed including a ‘bill of rights’ in a constitutional document of national law would imply that the government grants those rights. They believed in natural rights over enumerated rights and did not believe that individual liberties could be boiled down to a list. They specifically argued against the Bill of Rights on the basis that ‘some fool’ would come along and say those were the only rights the government was bound to respect.
They anticipated Ann Coulter. Now there’s prescience. 🙂
In retrospect the Bill of Rights has probably turned out to be a good idea, regardless of the motivations of those who opposed it. There is no way to know for certain if we might have developed a stronger tradition of respect for natural rights as opposed to specifically enumerated rights but most likely failing to specifically enumerate such rights would have made it easier to government to violate these rights.