Ron Paul voted to not protect children from harm

Originally posted by kozmo

Originally posted by ClintK
That's exactly the problem with the term "state's rights." That's exactly what I meant when I said it's a confused term that has been bandied about over the last 3 decades. Discrimination is not prohibited by the Constitution. We had the chance to pass the Equal Rights Amendment back in the 1970s and it fell short. Therefor, in the minds of many "state's rights" advocates, that is a right reserved for states.

Again, it's a confused term. People interpret it any way they want. Do some research on it. You obviously have your own interpretation of what it means. Other people would disagree with your interpretation.

Nice try though. Anything else you need cleared up?

Sure, you can clear up why you continue to connect issues that have no connection; these are called non-sequiturs and you commit them regularly. There is absolutely no "problem" with State's Rights unless you are the Federal Government who regularly attemps to abrogate them!

I think you confuse the role of the Constitution in our Republican form of government and the role of the legislature. The Constitution is a contract between the people and the government and it clearly defines that which is governed by the state and that which shall be governed by the Federal Government. Those powers not SPECIFICALLY tasked to the Federal Government remain the sole authority of the several states. The legislature is the body that passes laws and regulations, in addition to coining money and setting budgets. As a result, the legislature is free to pass a law banning racial discrimination, and they have under numerous statutes.

That being said, those powers not specifically enumerated in the Constitution to the Federal Government are the right of the state. Just as with gay marriage, it is a state's rights issue, not a federal government issue. It is only a confused term to those who do not understand the Constitution. If one would take the time to read some of the writings offered by the nation's founding fathers, the exact interpretation of State's Rights is very simple and elementary.

What, specifically, are the non-sequiturs? I'm not following you here.

I really think you have a shallow, idealistic understanding of "state's rights." They're based on the 10th Amendment which states, "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."

So if the Constitution doesn't say you can't do it. That's what the whole "state's rights" thing is based on.
Period.

BTW, Ron Paul certainly has been a proponent of legislation that would enable racism. He actually sponsored legislation that would keep the IRS from investigating private schools suspected of using race as a factor in denying admission.

Well never mind> I won't be around to read it anyway. I'm leaving for Ontario.

Originally posted by ClintK
What, specifically, are the non-sequiturs? I'm not following you here.

I really think you have a shallow, idealistic understanding of "state's rights." They're based on the 10th Amendment which states, "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."

So if the Constitution doesn't say you can't do it. That's what the whole "state's rights" thing is based on.
Period.

BTW, Ron Paul certainly has been a proponent of legislation that would enable racism. He actually sponsored legislation that would keep the IRS from investigating private schools suspected of using race as a factor in denying admission.

Here is a non-squitur: "BTW, Ron Paul certainly has been a proponent of legislation that would enable racism. He actually sponsored legislation that would keep the IRS from investigating private schools suspected of using race as a factor in denying admission."

You assert that Paul is a proponent/sponsor of legislation that enables racism because he wants to keep the IRS from investigating private school's admission practices. BZZZZT! Wrong! First of all, it is not the IRS' charter to investigate discrimination, hence the proposed legislation. Secondly, Paul believes that PRIVATE insitutions have the right to determine their clientele sans government interference. And again, he is right as the Constitution does not state that the Federal Government has the right or authority to force a private institution to engage in commerce with anyone it chooses not to. The state, however, could assume that responsibility as provided for in the Constitution.

The only shallow and idealistic understanding of State's Rights are yours, friend. Stated very simply - read it - "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." It is plain to see... the Constitution tells the Federal Government the limit of their powers. If the Constitution does NOT grant the authority to the Federal Government, then it is a State Right. If the Constitution does not prohibit the state from doing it, it is a State Right.

I'm still confused how you're not grasping this?

reply to post by ClintK

BTW, Ron Paul certainly has been a proponent of legislation that would enable racism. He actually sponsored legislation that would keep the IRS from investigating private schools suspected of using race as a factor in denying admission.

Yeah right... Sigh! You people will go to no end to smear his name.... The IRS is an illegal entity and has no authority to "investigate" anything. They are a private corporation and the collection arm of the banking cartel given free reign over the American people by the treasonous congress. Ron Paul once again has done what all congressmen should have done however being the lone guy most of the time doing the right thing he does what he can.

It has nothing to do with racism that dog won't hunt!

Was watching an episode of Breaking Bad, season 4 episode four, the dea agent was going through the lab notes of a meth cook, and for a split second in between the pages of the lab notes there was a Ron Paul for president sticker, now at first I was like oh they are maybe trying to subliminally implant Ron Paul for president, then I realized oh its in a bad guy thats now dead lab notes, just something interesting I thought I would add completely off topic.

reply to post by kro32


Are you an idiot?

You must be an idiot.

That last statement "500 some odd kids could be dead if it was up to ron paul."

NO. Why? Because he's not against the Amber alert system. AT ALL. Also, that bill wanted to make activities OUTSIDE of the country illegal. This sets a precedent, since outside of the country falls withing the jurisdiction of the country you are currently in...

Which isn't constitutional and shouldn't be signed into law. It's unsound.

Also, what he says has A TON of merit. Not many programs that were setup by the people that have gone federal have done a better job after being federal. Once it goes federal then there becomes specific rules to adhere too... In theory these rules would be sound, in practice -- it's all about budget.

So yeah, you are just blinded by the progandous headline and your sheer will to "protect kids." Last I checked kids grow into adults too, yet -- we don't get the same attention. Adults also care for kids -- so allowing a mom of 6 to go missing on a federal amber alert system that is designed for children and reserves spots on the alert system for children only would in fact do more damage to children.

This isn't like a.... black and white issue... things are often much more complicated than most can comprehend...

You being one of those people that doesn't comprehend the subtleties of such a system. Also, it's a congressman's duty to uphold the constitution... Things don't have to be federal to be efficient... the system already works and doesn't need to be federal which is exactly Dr. Paul's stance. Making it go federal means slips through cracks and ill efficiency.

Grow up.

P.S.

You can't prevent crime, you can only issue justice after the fact. There will always be people who do terrible things to other people... and the goal of eliminating these activities outright sacrifices the way we live life as we know it....

Tons of kids wouldn't go missing if they had competent parents... competent parents and non parents shouldn't be punished or penalized because of the existence of bad parents. This is hilariously obvious. Also, nobody is saying turn a blind eye... or who cares about kids. This is called political rhetoric and obviously Dr. Paul is an enemy to those that want the seat of the executive... so they are willing to twist things in their favor.

(I love kids, I protect the ones in my life... it's my job as their guardian. In the event that I do need help, there are agencies for that. We don't need to federalize anything for the "safety" of minors. Go drink some more koolaid.)

Go Dr. Paul.

Was watching an episode of Breaking Bad, season 4 episode four, the dea agent was going through the lab notes of a meth cook, and for a split second in between the pages of the lab notes there was a Ron Paul for president sticker, now at first I was like oh they are maybe trying to subliminally implant Ron Paul for president, then I realized oh its in a bad guy thats now dead lab notes, just something interesting I thought I would add completely off topic.

It's not interesting at all. The meth lab technician is the meth lab technician and has nothing to do with Dr. Paul. It's like saying a child molester supported Obama, so therefore -- defacto, Obama is a bad apple because he's admired by pedo's.

It's just completely false logic. You also don't know the real circumstances of the meth cook. Like, why was he cooking meth? Or, what was his political alignment before he started cooking meth. Correlation does not equate to causation... meaning -- just because a criminal liked Paul's policies doesn't mean Paul is a criminal and/or a bad politician with bad policy.

It just -- doesn't.

Again, what you are saying is "interesting" is just a horrible and baseless observation and is akin to a murderer having "GTA' on his games shelf, or a human trafficker having the movie "Taken" in his collection.... GTA nor the film Taken have anything to do with these criminals other than the fact that they too -- like entertainment.

There were criminals before politics, there were murderers before video games... and in the light of "Video games train killers" it's interesting to note that since the mainstream explosion of violent video games the crime rate in the U.S. has actually declined.

reply to post by hawkiye


You are 100% correct, but as this thread has showed, normal folk are too stupid to see through it. That is why the "save the children b.s" works so well.....the average voter is an idiot, and lacks the intelligence to actually understand the base logic behind the very laws that govern them.

So, time and time again politicians will use the "save the children" garbage because they understand that people are frigging idiots and it works. Those that actually use logic, reason and common sense in their actions get idiotic thread like this one made about them, which was done either by a political hack, a paid internet troll...or one of the LEGIONS of ignorant American voters (that last one should scare the heck out of all of us).

I used to think the future was going to be so bright....with the advent of the internet....information at the tips of anyone's fingers....I thought the advancement of society would progress exponentially. Imagine my surprise when, 35 years later, I find that people are as stupid, if not dumberer (lol) than any time I can every remember.....

I would like to take this time to invent a time machine and go back 20 years or so to slap every mom and dad in America and tell them to pull their heads out of their asses and give two craps about the education of their children. We are now stuck with an entire generation of IDIOTS and we are all paying the price.....

reply to post by kro32


Every time the federal government has declared war on something in the recent past it has failed and now the op wants them to take away the control of an effective local system and replace it with a bloated ineffective federal monster - there comes a point when people should be judged as to hysterical to engage in decision making and I think you qualify.

There are plenty of better ways to protect children including physical education as a mandatory grade, securing the borders, ending the drug war ending all wars,making prison into an actual punishment, keeping bicyclists out of the road and onto the sidewalk, endorsing free contraceptives.

I have to wonder why the title of this OP is "Ron Paul voted to not protect children from harm" as opposed to... say,

Ron Paul voted to not create a new federal program in lieu of state's AMBER Alert system?

Then citing the success of the state's AMBER alert system and wondering why the federal government thinks they need to take it over?

Has the federal government ever "improved" a state program they took over? I wonder?

reply to post by kro32

I don't much care for RP, but he did the right thing in this case. There are several flaws in that bill, not the least of which being that it would criminalize some anime! I hate pedophiles as much as the next guy, but I don't want to be arrested for watching me some Evangelion....

Originally posted by kro32

Ron Paul voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids.

This is the bill he voted against:

Vote to adopt the conference report on the bill that would assign a national coordinator for AMBER alerts. AMBER alerts is an alert system for missing children, make available additional protections for children and set stricter punishments for sex offenders. Two-time child sex offenders would be subjected to mandatory life sentence. The measure would make it a crime to pander visual illustrations of children as child pornography. It would increase maximum sentences for a number of specified crimes against children. It would also make it a crime to take a trip to foreign countries and engage in illicit sexual conduct with a minor. It also would enlarge law enforcement’s wiretap and electronic surveillance abilities in investigations of child pornography. Reference: Child Abduction Prevention Act; Bill S 151 ; vote number 2003-127 on Apr 10, 2003

Now you are probably asking yourself why any normal thinking person would oppose such a thing as this. Well his reasons are that it's not in the Constitution......what?

However, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that making the AMBER Alert system a Federal program is neither constitutionally sound nor effective law enforcement. All Americans should be impressed at the demonstrated effectiveness of the AMBER system in locating missing and kidnapped children. However, I would ask my colleagues to consider that one of the factors that makes the current AMBER system so effective is that the AMBER Alert system is not a Federal program. Instead, states and local governments developed AMBER Alerts on their own, thus ensuring that each AMBER system meets the unique needs of individual jurisdictions. Once the AMBER Alert system becomes a one-size-fits all Federal program (with standards determined by DC-based bureaucrats instead of community-based law enforcement officials) local officials will not be able to tailor the AMBER Alert to fit their unique circumstances. Thus, nationalizing the AMBER system will cause this important program to lose some of its effectiveness.

chip91.wordpress.com...

I'm sorry but protecting children should be bound by no jurisdiction whatsoever and should be a priority no matter what any piece of paper says. To date there have been 523 children recovered from predators using this system and they might very well be dead if it had been up to Ron Paul.

www.missingkids.com...

Ron Paul for President...yeah ok

No where in this post does he vote to not protect children. You're just not comprehending what he is saying. I'm pretty sure that my state, Illinois, already has an AMBER alert system so it seems redundant to install an AMBER alert system in states that already have one. It's a waste of taxpayer's money at a time when we are going down the drain financially.

Obviously, you're just trying to make Ron Paul look bad. But, a lot of people can clearly glean from this story that this is a non-issue. Maybe you should find something that is actually worth arguing about. Just because he votes 'no' a lot does not mean anything if he has a valid explanation for all his votes one way or the other.

Shouldnt this thread be renamed to something like "Ron Paul voted against the AMBER alert system going federal" or something?

Are you trying to make it look bad for the sake of it OP?

Did you even read the information you posted?

Hes not against protecting children from harm,hes against making the AMBER alert system federal and less effective,instead of letting the state,local governments and the parents handling it.

Did the lack of effectiveness of the federal government after Hurricane Katrina not teach people anything at all? You can't put your faith in a system that is broken from top to bottom.

Originally posted by BillyBoBBizWorth
Shouldnt this thread be renamed to something like "Ron Paul voted against the AMBER alert system going federal" or something?

Are you trying to make it look bad for the sake of it OP?

Did you even read the information you posted?

Hes not against protecting children from harm,hes against making the AMBER alert system federal and less effective,instead of letting the state,local governments and the parents handling it.

I'm pretty sure the OP was trying to do just that. There's a lot of this on ATS and it seems more and more like the mainstream media spin on things. Whether it's left or right leaning users who are doing it they have all learned a lot on how to spin things from the idiot box.

reply to post by seedofchucky


Personal attacks are unflattering. Can you focus on just giving the facts.

reply to post by kro32


Did you not read your own post? He does not want the system under the feds. He didn’t say he was against the Amber system he wants it left to individual cities and states.

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by gsmith524
This thread has a very misleading title and is clearly just a futile attempt to demonize the only politician in America that will restore this country to greatness. OP, you need to look at the bigger picture and realize that big brother is NOT who we the people need to rely on. Bigger government equates to bigger problems. These programs should only be run by independent states, more federalized programs just leads to socialism. Would you rather live in a free republic, or a socialist state that creates a false sense of security for yourself?

Why do I have to keep asking what "bigger problems" came with federalizing this program?
I get the whole "we do not need anyone doing anything for us" attitude but it does not always seem realistic to me.

I wasn't so much referring to this program specifically, but more as a generalization. It's ultimately our own responsibility to protect our children and families. This program may not have gotten better or worse through federalization, but it's just another step to becoming dependent on the government instead of being self reliant. Smaller government is better, we can't rely on the fed to protect us from harm.

reply to post by kro32


The state does not own children.

That's why.

As far as I've known the AMBER alert system only clogs the police radios and telephones with wrong information because all of the sudden everybody is looking around thinking people are acting suspicious, and if you check some statistics you would most likely see that the alert hurts more than it helps.