It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Is Ron Paul supporting individual freedoms, or freedom of State Government for unlimited rule?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Our Constitution does give the Federal government power to step into State affairs when individual rights demand it. We have a Court system for this reason. Ron Paul has been fairly clear on this issue that States should be allowed to do as they wish, remembering of course, they have the same State Constitutions as our Federal Government, concerning rights of individuals. Thus, through the third branch of power, the judicial branch, our Federal government could impose sanctions or fines against a State violating rights of people. Ron Paul actually addressed this point during the recent debates, where he stated (something to the effect of) that the Federal government should not send FBI into a state to mandate the state comply with regulations and laws.

We have an under utilized Court system, and an over increasingly huge executive branch. We used to have speedy hearings in this country and now they last forever. We used to have petitions of redress by citizens for a legal ruling on a law as to its constitutionality. Now a person has to have standing in order to challenge the legal constitutionality of a law. Not to mention a whole lot of money.




posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 
Yes, and when one of these theocrats who does NOT believe in limited government manages to sweep into office on a wave of discontent and manages to have majority party support in both branches of congress due to typical party-line politics, and then makes a sufficient series of related supreme-court appointments/etc., we have a federal change of these policies limiting freedoms on a national level - supposedly trumping all states' abilities to countermand.

Then...what? The nullification movement that so many have villified as racist and backwards suddenly comes into vogue because the other side finally realizes that seating too much authority in a far-removed central government was a stupid idea from the get-go?

I hate this argument. Everyone says "Oh, if we give power to the states, then everyone will make bad decisions I won't like!" Well, that shows a sad lack of faith in your fellow man and americans in general, as well as admitting impotence to effect positive change at a more local level. Kansas is a good case in point, everyone got riled up about their excessively-controversial textbook/science changes...and look how long that lasted. One, maybe two years?

If SCIENCE caused that much of a ruckus, how much moreso will actualy human rights and civil liberties violations, which would be simply retarted steps to take in the first place?

Can we all please start approaching this realistically now? Allowing this centralization has prevented any states from working to end the drug war, which has ruined hundreds of thousands of lives at the least, and wasted who knows how many billions of dollars. It has prevented any valid medical/scientific research on entire ranges of substances, as well as industrial innovation and benefit, thus also harming employment, housing, the environment, and a range of other issues.

It has caused states in some cases to have to adopt LESS-stringent federal standards on some emissions and environmental issues, thanks to lobbying efforts and "regulatory" agencies that glad-hand big business they have revolving-door policies with. And these are just a few cases of related issues.

And it's all because we're too afraid to try trusting and governing ourselves. A good many people like to criticize the policies of those who founded our nations on the claim that since times have changed, so have circumstances - but can't correlate this misapplied fact to much more applicable issues like racism being publicly accepted by anything approaching a majority, and the like. And so we end up with a powerful government that limits where and when we can speak out against war, allows its agents to break into our homes and spy on our calls with no suspicion required, presently protects some lifestyle choices while criminalizing others at will...and we all have to accept it on a national level.

How much harder is it to change something that's horribly, horribly wrong on a national level, as recognized by quite a few people, as compared to changing it on a state level?

Apologies for the rant, but how much are we willing to accept and let a few wizards in Washington get away with just because we're afraid of what MIGHT happen if some less-removed wizards were given a chance?



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Ron Paul continually says that he thinks business should have the "right" to refuse service to someone based on the color of the skin.

He goes on to say that he doesn't personally agree with it and that he is positive the market would regulate it



Just by seeing the racism here on ATS, even with the T&C, I think anyone who thinks there would not be "white only" clubs that pop up around the nation over night is delusional. And if you don't think those clubs would be packed...then you are also delusional.


This one issue alone is enough for me to not support Ron Paul...and yet there are so many more issues just like this one where his extremism forces him into illogical positions.


Great post. I like some of Paul's views but this is one area where I think the dude is a flat out lunatic, or at best, naive and delusional.

I have no faith in humanity where I'd feel comfortable living in a world where civil rights are not protected by law, nor would I respect a president that has no desire to protect the civil rights of Americans.

Going back to the days where people aren't allowed to eat in the same diner because of their skin color is regressive.

And with the sudden surge in outward racism in this country, I would also bet that "whites only" clubs and establishments would pop up within days. Hell, you have places where black people aren't welcome NOW, just imagine when the racist pigs in this country are given free reign to be ignorant?

No thank you.

Methinks I'll be sitting this next national election out.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Since Ron Paul is for state's rights, it would not make sense to his philosophy if when elected president he forced states to comply with certain laws, unless the state did something unconstitutional, than the federal government could be used to sue the state. That would be fair, because the state could not resist the federal government if it is doing something unconstitutional, whereas as the system is now, no one is allowed to sue the government and so the people are placed as the underdog and almost always loses.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Just by seeing the racism here on ATS, even with the T&C, I think anyone who thinks there would not be "white only" clubs that pop up around the nation over night is delusional. And if you don't think those clubs would be packed...then you are also delusional.
And there would be "blacks only" stores, just like there was under segregation. One thing that such practices PREVENTED was total monopolies--can't have total monopolies when you won't offer EVERYONE the same goods. Yes, it's a moral shame to throw someone out of your store for something as minor as the color their skin was. But we get this really idealized set of blinders on when we think that NO GOOD can come of evil, you're living the Christian's game.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 



The direction of our country veers left and right from center, but by virture of our Constitution and our Democratic process, it never goes too far in either direction. Right now, we are almost split. We are extremely left leaning in social programs and overall spending, and over-legislating, but we are extremely right leaning in the Patriot Act and war-spending and over-taxing of the middle class.


Are "we" extremely right leaning? I don't recall the citizens asking for their rights to be stripped away via the Patriot Act, I don't remember the middle class signing off on being over taxed, and right now everyone is sick of war.

The corporations that run the government are right leaning, and they are quickly making sure that workers rights and those left leaning social programs will be a memory.
edit on 25-8-2011 by illuminatislave because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Just by seeing the racism here on ATS, even with the T&C, I think anyone who thinks there would not be "white only" clubs that pop up around the nation over night is delusional. And if you don't think those clubs would be packed...then you are also delusional.
And there would be "blacks only" stores, just like there was under segregation. One thing that such practices PREVENTED was total monopolies--can't have total monopolies when you won't offer EVERYONE the same goods. Yes, it's a moral shame to throw someone out of your store for something as minor as the color their skin was. But we get this really idealized set of blinders on when we think that NO GOOD can come of evil, you're living the Christian's game.


'Blacks only" stores. Jesus christ.

I can't believe that some people would be perfectly fine living in a regressed society where you can't stop for a beer at a bar because your skin color is a shade too dark. That's not only madness, but it's childish ignorance.

But after seeing some of the garbage that gets written on this forum, I'm not shocked. Lots of people probably want Paul to become president just so that something like that would happen.

I for one would not want to be anywhere where I can't hang out with my friends of different ethnicities. Or I wouldn't want to be told I have to leave because the woman I'm taking out to dinner is a different skin color than what is allowed inside of the restaurant.

Total idiocy.
edit on 25-8-2011 by illuminatislave because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Maslo, its pretty obvious that you have been sold lock-stock-and barrel on the government taking away your freedoms to insure your safety, right


With that mindset I quote from Benjamin Franklin,"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by illuminatislave
 


Your right, "we" meant "our government."

But, I disagree about the left-lean and social programs. I think the government his headed down a road where only the two extremes will exist. The Extreme Left attempting to get everyone dependent on some type of government assistance. They are already 60% of the way there!!! And the Extreme Right attempting to erode all of our Liberties and Privacies and have some legislation make all of our decisions on our behalf.

I don't think anything is "going away" unless we elect Ron Paul. Any of the other candidates on the table are going to enact even more legislation, and erode the Middle Class even further, and restrict even more liberties, but replace them with even more government assistance.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


That would be quite frightening because although our government might be known for some corruption many of the States Legislative bodies have mastered it, and there is no recourse for a small batch of corrupt politicians running your town except move. Right now they can pretty much charge whatever they want for property tax. Some of these municipalities are raking in bundles but the money is not going to improvements, bridges or roads. It is going in somebody in State government's pocket. Somebody promising he or she will get them those contracts and meanwhile we all know by the time it comes to hold them accountable, the work won't be done, someone else will have taken their job and they will have gotten out of politics.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
What's stopping the federal government from having total freedom(tyranny?) The only difference is that we could at least have the option of 50 different totalitarian states as opposed to just one.
I think this goes even further: we have territories. Puerto Rico basically has far more of the rights a state is supposed to have, and they keep voting down statehood because they want their freedoms. If we want to look at how that is working for them, all we have to do is read about what's been going on there.
Larger list:
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Here is an example of how State's with the ability to be self-regulating would work. Say a powerful industrial corporation in Minnesota throws out enough money to buy enough influence in the State political areana that allows them to get legislation to dump toxins into the Mississippi River.

It's fine for Minnesota but every State down the river will be affected by this. The Federal Government has no power to regulate this because Ron Pauls Presidency doesn't see any mention of environmental laws in the Constitution therefore per the 10th amendment this is perfectly fine and he will leave it up to the States to work it out.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by illuminatislave
 


Care to name one right of yours that has been stripped away with the Patriot Act?

People often throw this statement out and they haven't even read the legislation.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by illuminatislave
 


Your right, "we" meant "our government."

But, I disagree about the left-lean and social programs. I think the government his headed down a road where only the two extremes will exist. The Extreme Left attempting to get everyone dependent on some type of government assistance. They are already 60% of the way there!!! And the Extreme Right attempting to erode all of our Liberties and Privacies and have some legislation make all of our decisions on our behalf.

I don't think anything is "going away" unless we elect Ron Paul. Any of the other candidates on the table are going to enact even more legislation, and erode the Middle Class even further, and restrict even more liberties, but replace them with even more government assistance.


Well, I think to get people off of government assistance we need to sit down and consciously try to correct the reasons as to why people have to turn to the government for help.

Almost a 100 years worth of inequality and outrageous healthcare costs are two things that come to mind.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by illuminatislave

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Just by seeing the racism here on ATS, even with the T&C, I think anyone who thinks there would not be "white only" clubs that pop up around the nation over night is delusional. And if you don't think those clubs would be packed...then you are also delusional.
And there would be "blacks only" stores, just like there was under segregation. One thing that such practices PREVENTED was total monopolies--can't have total monopolies when you won't offer EVERYONE the same goods. Yes, it's a moral shame to throw someone out of your store for something as minor as the color their skin was. But we get this really idealized set of blinders on when we think that NO GOOD can come of evil, you're living the Christian's game.


'Blacks only" stores. Jesus christ.

I can't believe that some people would be perfectly fine living in a regressed society where you can't stop for a beer at a bar because your skin color is a shade too dark. That's not only madness, but it's childish ignorance.

But after seeing some of the garbage that gets written on this forum, I'm not shocked. Lots of people probably want Paul to become president just so that something like that would happen.

I for one would not want to be anywhere where I can't hang out with my friends of different ethnicities. Or I wouldn't want to be told I have to leave because the woman I'm taking out to dinner is a different skin color than what is allowed inside of the restaurant.

Total idiocy.
edit on 25-8-2011 by illuminatislave because: (no reason given)
I iddn't disagree with that one bit. My statement still stands.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by Maslo
 


That would be quite frightening because although our government might be known for some corruption many of the States Legislative bodies have mastered it, and there is no recourse for a small batch of corrupt politicians running your town except move. Right now they can pretty much charge whatever they want for property tax. Some of these municipalities are raking in bundles but the money is not going to improvements, bridges or roads. It is going in somebody in State government's pocket. Somebody promising he or she will get them those contracts and meanwhile we all know by the time it comes to hold them accountable, the work won't be done, someone else will have taken their job and they will have gotten out of politics.
For all that people still talk about poor backwards Cajun country, we're one of the few states (if any) that has no property tax for propery under certain values, being the one you live on. It was 70,000 at one time, but I think we sent in some legislature to move it to 100,000 or 150,000. When you owe taxes on the land that you own, you're renting from the government. (Can they seize your land if you dont' pay?
)



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by illuminatislave
 


Care to name one right of yours that has been stripped away with the Patriot Act?

People often throw this statement out and they haven't even read the legislation.




You need to educate yourself just a bit,for starters: anyone can be labeled a terrorist by this government-current Patriot Act, and lose their writ of Habeas corpus.

I do not have the time, but you can find out more by googling the Patriot Act



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by illuminatislave
 


Care to name one right of yours that has been stripped away with the Patriot Act?

People often throw this statement out and they haven't even read the legislation.


I happen to have some friends that work in anti-terrorism. There are a couple of giant data processors in the country that intercept every electronic communication that goes through the major providers such as AT&T. The Patriot Act and supporting contracts have given the government permission to intercept any and all communications originating in the US and terminating outside the US. In addition, it has given them a wide berth to listen to domestic calls and determine any legal sufficiency to intercept, monitor, and record those calls as well. Basically, they have carte blanche for fishing expeditions into our private communications, and any type of suspicion will give them further right to record and monitor our communications. Even worse yet, they have no legal authority to intercept calls originating overseas and terminating here, so if someone wants to talk terrorism, they just have to make sure their counterpart calls into the US instead of vice versa.


This is not some rumor, this is from the guys that do this for a living.

The Patriot Act has also been instrumental in seizing funds of private citizens, and in propagating the "sealed warrant" raids. Not only do those sealed warrants impact our privacy, safety, and security as citizens, but they also hamper the ability of state and local law enforcement to do our own jobs. The sealed warrant, and sealed Grand Jury testimony makes it impossible for a state or local authority to collect evidence, and puts all of the cards in the hands of the Fed. It not only violates individual rights, but it also violates State's rights.

The Patriot Act was a decent piece of legislation for an extremely limited time after 9/11, but it should have been allowed to expire on the very first go around, but instead, it has been repeatedly renewed and expanded. It needs to be repealed immediately!



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by illuminatislave
 


Care to name one right of yours that has been stripped away with the Patriot Act?

People often throw this statement out and they haven't even read the legislation.


I have read the legislation. Every law that is passed rarely gives rights, it takes them away. It PROHIBITS YOU for doing something, and/or gives the government power to DO SOMETHING to YOU.

I am not going to do your homework for you *wink* , as clearly you have made up your own mind, but can you name one part of the Patriot Act that did not allow government to DO SOMETHING to YOU it previously could not do? How about the well famed Section 210 of the Patriot Act that had to be revised and took several years to do so. It allowed third party seizures and demand not to tell anyone. What about the extensions of FISA with relation to the Patriot Act and how it allows American's phone conversations to be monitored? That was a right to privacy lost, by the signing of the Patriot Act.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by allprowolfy
 



Only the Federal Government and not the States, it has been held obliquely, is limited by the clause. 1688 The issue that has always excited critical attention is the authority in which the clause places the power to determine whether the circumstances warrant suspension of the privilege of the Writ. 1689 The clause itself does not specify, and while most of the clauses of 9 are directed at Congress not all of them are. 1690 At the Convention, the first proposal of a suspending authority expressly vested ''in the legislature'' the suspending power, 1691 but the author of this proposal did not retain this language when the matter was taken up, 1692 the present language then being adopted. 1693 Nevertheless, Congress' power to suspend was assumed in early commentary 1694 and stated in dictum by the Court. 1695 President Lincoln suspended the privilege on his own motion in the early Civil War period, 1696 but this met with such opposition 1697 that he sought and received congressional authorization. 1698 Three other suspensions were subsequently ordered on the basis of more or less express authorizations from Congress. 1699


caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

The Supreme Court has ruled that it is within the bounds of the Constitution for Habeas Corpus to be suspended when needed by the Government. Therefore you cannot claim it is Unconstitutional.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join