It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Ron Paul's lack of mainstream support and constitutionalism

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 10:56 PM
Questions have always risen here regarding how unfair the media is towards Ron Paul and how the mainstream voters are "ignorant sheeple" for not having voted this man in as president, or by the least not giving him enough attention. The only mystery here should be why mainstream conservatives seem to shut him, since he follows original republican/conservative principals to the core, it should be obvious as to why other voting groups do not go for him.

What sets Ron Paul apart from your typical rightwing politician is that he is straightforward about where he stands. Over the decades Ron Paul has remained on the same platform policy that he started on... not mention the man is among the few Republicans to admit the error of invading Iraq, in addition to having not voted for it at the time. Apart from that there is really little difference between him and the political base for most Republican/conservative politicians stand on. Ron Paul conflicts with mainly liberals and a significant amount of independents and moderates on a number of issues. As a progressive Ill happily list the few of them below:

Ron Paul has a poor record of civil and citizen rights in his history of being a congressman. Firstly the man outright opposed the National Voting Rights Act of 1965 in which the Act prohibited states from imposing any "voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure on the basis of the race or color of an American citizen. The act was eventually passed but all states and Ron Paul was one of only a minority who had voted against it. The act also reinforced the 15th amendment section one to which Paul proclaimed himself a staunch supporter of. Pauls strong support from such racist groups as storm front has also added to his poor record and in such hasn’t won him much attention from the minorities in America, in particular blacks.

It should be noted that I agreed with other aspects of his votes such as his voting for 'the Federal Election Integrity Act" in which voters were required proof of citizenship, which I think is the responsibility of any American and that there should be no excuse not to have a passport or a birth certificate, for anybody. His comments regarding race relations.....

"By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called 'diversity' actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups."

... to which I myself agreed with. That there are elements within minority groups who isolate themselves only to further lack of understanding. However that being said his history of voting on the basis of race relations is poor and has given myself and other progressives, along with minorities a distaste for any support of him. Paul’s history of strict laws regarding immigration and illegals seeks amnesty, has further caused him distaste within the Latino Hispanic community who continue to mainly stand behind the Democrats and who have been an important voting population within the nation. His repealing birthright citizenship, although understandable in my opinion, has further caused a dislike among the Hispanic community and is also in conflict with the 14th amendment of the constitution.

One would think for a staunch libertarian somebody’s personal sexuality would not be a worry to Paul at all, so long as it’s kept to ones own life.... not with Paul however. Ron Paul supported the Defence of Marriage Act despite libertarians in general opposing it. His reasoning was that "it was a danger to conservative values". Marriage, as any real constitutionalist should have figured, is more of a religious and cultural event, that should not have any place under the constitution in the first place as it is mixing religious and cultural values with states:

To further my conflict with Paul where I focus mainly on his lack of standing when it comes to separation of church and state Paul happily co-sponsored the school prayer amendment and, although a Christian myself, the fact Paul here voted in keeping the Ten Commandments on a courthouse lawn showed that the man has no intention of keeping separation of church and state, but rather to play the role of that standing. Quoted from Paul himself:

"Religious morality will always inform the voting choices of Americans of all faiths...The collectivist left is threatened by strong religious institutions,

Now not only does this chase away any chances of him gaining sufficient liberal support to get him or any individual like him into public office, but it also further indicates to individuals such as myself that he has no real standing with the constitution, but rather only praises the 'idea" of it.

When it comes to international relations there are things progressives/non-Paulers such as I agree with Paul and other things we conflict. Ron Pauls opposition of the Iraq war only further re-established his staunch standing over the founding values of the Republican party. Paul was one of the few Republicans at the time of the voting for the war who opposed it and was upfront regarding the lies and irresponsibility of it.

Along with this honest foreign policy standing as a Republican, Paul is an isolationist, which does no good for our nation’s democratic standing on the world stage. I agree with him regarding our dirty hands around the world and the need to withdraw our bases, I agree on his "police state" standing..... however, we do have a moral obligation to speak out again those who oppose human rights, and not acknowledging such events as the "genocide in Dafur" as an excuse for being an isolationist does nobody good.

Interms of the economy many progressives including myself have obvious disagreements with him, as is abortion. It’s obvious his policies conflict with those progressives, minorities and many independents. In addition his opposition to the Iraq war and his criticism of various republican politicians has further cost him and individuals on a similar belief any chances among mainstream conservatives. This is why the man got such low support in the presidential elections, this is why his appeal is limited.

[edit on 23-4-2009 by Southern Guardian]

posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 11:45 PM
RP is totally anti-environment.

for that reason alone, i don't like him. i used to kinda fancy him ...

posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 12:14 AM

Same-sex unions

Paul opposes all federal efforts to redefine marriage, whether defined as a union between one man and one woman, or defined as including anything else as well. He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states, and not subjected to judicial activism.[198]

For this reason, Paul voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004. In 2004, he spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act (passed in 1996) which uses the U.S. Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause to prohibit states from being compelled to recognize same-sex relationships as marriages, even if treated as marriages in other states. The Defense of Marriage Act also prohibits the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even if treated as marriages in other states. He co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.[198][199]

Paul has said that federal officials changing the definition of marriage is "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty."[200] Paul stated, "Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages."[201] He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[202] Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[203][204] Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."[203]

In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed from the jurisdiction of federal courts "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction" and "any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation."[130]

If made law, these provisions would remove sexual practices, and particularly same-sex unions, from federal jurisdiction.

Civil Rights Act of 1964

Paul wrote of his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964: It "not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism.

Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees.

Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife."[238]

Voting Rights Act

In 2006, Paul joined 32 other members of Congress in opposing the renewal of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, originally passed to remove barriers to voting participation for minorities.[237]

Paul has indicated that he did not object to the voting rights clauses, but rather to restrictions placed on property rights by the bill.[238] He felt the federal interference mandated by the bill was costly and unjustified because the situation for minorities voting is much different than when the bill was passed 40 years ago. Many of Texas' Republican representatives voted against the bill, because they believe it specifically singles out some Southern states, including Texas, for federal Justice Department oversight that makes it difficult for localities to change the location of a polling place or other small acts without first receiving permission from the federal government.[239]

The bill also mandated bilingual voting ballots upon request, and in a letter opposing the bill for this reason, 80 members of Congress including Paul objected to the costly implications of requiring bilingual ballots.[239] In one example cited in the letter, the members detailed how Los Angeles spent $2.1 million for the 2004 election to provide ballots in seven different languages and more than 2,000 translators, although one of the requirements of gaining United States citizenship is ability to read in English, and another California district spent $30,000 on translating ballots per election despite receiving only one request for Spanish documents in 16 years. The legislators also noted that printing in foreign languages increases the chances of ballot error, pointing out a specific example of erroneous translated ballots that had been used in Flushing, New York.[240]

Interesting post.

Information on RP and the Civil rights act is tough to least by doing a google search. I will try to find more info on I've heard this info before...and have seen people label him as a racist...but then again..when is a Republican NOT labeled a racist?

I understand his stances...I think it's unfortunate that a Civil Rights Act was even needed...because we are all equal...despite our skin/sex/religion.

The issue of Racism will long be a scar on this country...i long for the day that it isn't..and most likely..I will never live long enough to see it.

I don't view RP as an isolationist either...I view him as a non interventionalist. He believes in diplomacy and trade with other countries.

This country will never rid the world of evil. We should help with charity and feeding the world..not blowing things up. Whenever we take action almost always results in more enemies. Military action should only be used when this country is attacked directly or is in imminent danger....not to mention..we can't afford it anyway.


As a free-market environmentalist, Paul sees polluters as aggressors who should not be granted immunity or otherwise insulated from accountability. Paul argues that enforcing private property rights through tort law would hold people and corporations accountable, and would increase the cost of polluting activities - thus decreasing pollution.[206]

He claims that environmental protection has failed in communist countries such as China, citing lack of respect for private property: "The environment is better protected under private property rights .... We as property owners can't violate our neighbors' property. We can't pollute their air or their water. We can't dump our garbage on their property ....

Too often, conservatives and libertarians fall short on defending environmental concerns, and they resort to saying, 'Well, let's turn it over to the EPA. The EPA will take care of us .... We can divvy up the permits that allow you to pollute.' So I don't particularly like that method."[207]

I actually think this is viable. Private property rights looks be a good method of enforcing environmental policies if one looks at it in this regard.

I'm going to look for more info on all of this (if i can find it) before I comment further.

All of the quotes are from wikipedia.

posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 02:54 AM
You did your research SG...

I did not know those points as well as Davids additive post.

I have few things that I really like and I am certain there are things I do not like as my ideology informs me in a very different way. I'm a science guy, I think gay people are what they are, I think the ultimate control will be a corporate one, Anti global warming people make me nuts ( my dad designed the first artificial environment for RR space station project that did not launch, CO2 was his "problem" in the design)...

I don't know, we live in a crazy world,,, more than enough for everybody, enough land so that every soul could grow armies of food... I think mankind will look back at us
and recall a barbaric short sighted selfish people.

I'm tired guys


log in