I'm confused about Ron Paul

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Perhaps some of his supporters on here can answer this question that has been on my mind for a few days now.

This is not meant to attack him in any way, in fact I agree with his foreign policy 100% we need to stay out of other country's business. But if he considers himself a "Libertarian" then why does he want to leave almost every social issue up to the states? I'm talking about abortion, gay marriage etc.

Don't do Libertarians believe that everyone should have the maximum civil liberty and to do with their body whatever they want to? Ron Paul knows that conservative leaning states would place a ban on abortion and would not allow gay marriage. This would infringe on the freedom of many women and groups of people.

So am I wrong in thinking this way? Perhaps there's something I've missed and maybe Ron Paul supporters can clear up this issue for me




posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


I was off topic, I see Paul and go to Paul Ryan. Sorry!
edit on 9/1/2012 by Djayed because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


The original constitution was written in a time when states did hold all the power, but because of the short comings of the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution was supposed to create a central government to supplement the state gov't and create more unity. The constitution isn't specific about what powers are delegated to the states because at the time the states were running functionally and independently, which is why so much interpretation has happened and the power has shifted to a national government. The Libertarians would want the power to once again be held in the states because this is what the original constitution intended to do, regardless of what the states would do afterward. Think about the political climate at the time, many colonists still had the bitter taste of the strong central government that owned them before independence from Britian in their mouths, most were suspicious of a central government being established because of the Constitution and were against that happening, much of the reason the Bill of Rights was implemented, because the anti-federalists wanted their freedoms outlined. It's seen now that by defining those rights they may also have been limiting them by opening them up to interpretation.
I hope this sheds some light on your questions.



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   
That is as simple an answer as it is easy to overlook, IMO. It seems just too simple in this day and age, but Paul is a simple kind of guy and it's why so many have loved him for his approach.

The social issues are not and were never meant to be the area of the Federal Government. The Constitution lays it out clearly and specifically where it states that anything not clearly outlined and covered as assigned to the 3 branches of Federal Government is the sole area of the states.

The reasoning is also simple and, in my opinion, as true now as it was then. Perhaps more so. The life someone in Brooklyn, New York considers perfect and the very picture of happiness is absolutely not what someone in Southwest Missouri considers happiness. Neither are what someone in Los Angeles or Portland considers happiness and the ideal way to live.

So...50 ways of doing things outside those areas where universal agreement and willing cooperation is necessary and required. That is how I have come to understand Paul's position as a Constitutionalist on so many of his positions. It's definitely the position the Constitution was written from as all the supporting/related papers indicate from the Founders themselves. Just my two cents.
edit on 1-9-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: typo



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Djayed
reply to post by muse7
 


I think the responses you will get will be vague, misleading, and complete right BS. Ryan has nothing to bring to the table but to help Romney hold this country back.

Bush and his views about science really hurt our country, we need to stop allowing religion to dictate the republican party's platform.


His question was about Ron Paul's position on states' rights. It had nothing to do with Ryan. It had nothing to do with Bush and science. It had nothing to do with the Republican Party. It had nothing to do with Romney. If there's anything misleading it's your post, which isn't even on topic.



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I don't think States can be trusted with civil issues, we saw it in the 60's when the federal government had to step in and extinguish the racism and violence towards blacks in the South.

I'm not saying that the federal government should be trusted, but I believe that abortion and gay marriage should be allowed. Even if some people don't agree with that. Morality is subjective but placing a ban on abortion and on gay marriage would infringe on the rights of people just because of some consider those things "immoral".

We also have the separation of church and state, the basic arguments against abortion and gay marriage stem from the bible.



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   
I believe the government should stay out of the life of people, that includes both federal and state governments.

If people want to have abortions, let them.

If two men want to marry, let them.

Some people might consider those things "immoral" but immorality does not infringe on the rights of people.



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   
I could care less about what happens with issues like Abortion or Gay Marriage, I still have an opinion on the two though. Abortion should not be allowed, whatsoever. You're taking the life of a human, in this country that baby should have the same rights as the rest of us. Now on the note of Gay Marriage, I feel like all marital benefits should be abolished so that Gay people wouldn't really have much of a reason to marry in the first place and we can get to fixing real issues in our country.



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by Djayed
reply to post by muse7
 


I think the responses you will get will be vague, misleading, and complete right BS. Ryan has nothing to bring to the table but to help Romney hold this country back.

Bush and his views about science really hurt our country, we need to stop allowing religion to dictate the republican party's platform.


His question was about Ron Paul's position on states' rights. It had nothing to do with Ryan. It had nothing to do with Bush and science. It had nothing to do with the Republican Party. It had nothing to do with Romney. If there's anything misleading it's your post, which isn't even on topic.


I apologize you are correct I have Paul Ryan on the brain
edit on 9/1/2012 by Djayed because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 

I take your point, but rather than look at the 1950's and 60's as an example for how the system didn't work, I'd say quite the opposite. It shows how it works quite well. The states refused to follow and respect the basic guidelines for rights as, frankly, the Courts had determined the Constitution to mean. That is actually how the system is supposed to fix itself when broken....The courts take the complaints, and if they're loud enough, bad enough or by enough people they work up to the Federal courts and things like Federal Intervention becomes necessary.

The fact it took so long was tragic, given the sheer suffering that institutional racism created since it should have ended in 1865...(never SHOULD have happened..but talk about another thread.
) but there is the difference between meaning on paper and real world eh? In the end it took things like Federal Troops to enforce an order in spots like Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957...because the state wouldn't follow the Constitutional guideline. All well inside how it was supposed to work.

Unlike the way it's gone to state literally just being servants to the Federal. That is the absolute last thing the Founders intended...and what they'd just fought a war to end. Centralized control outside realistic accountability to their local level...................just as we find we have now.

edit on 1-9-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: added link



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 

Mr. Confusion reporting again.


I don't think States can be trusted with civil issues, we saw it in the 60's when the federal government had to step in and extinguish the racism and violence towards blacks in the South. I'm not saying that the federal government should be trusted, . . .
Do you mean that nobody should be allowed to make decisions about any civil issues? I don't think you do. I must be misunderstanding.

but I believe that abortion and gay marriage should be allowed. Even if some people don't agree with that. Morality is subjective but placing a ban on abortion and on gay marriage would infringe on the rights of people just because of some consider those things "immoral".
The "reason" why people want to ban something doesn't matter at all, the question is do they have enough votes to get it through? So unless there is a Constitutional question, 51% ought to do it.


We also have the separation of church and state, the basic arguments against abortion and gay marriage stem from the bible.
The only reason we have the Church and State position we do now is because that's what the Supreme Court interpreted it to mean. There's nothing in the Constitution that says the arrangement has to be the way we have it. As for the idea that Biblical reasons can't be used in reaching government decisions, I'm confused again. The whole Civil Rights movement from the Civil War on is full of Reverends, Priests, Preachers, and Ministers. They used Biblical arguments. Heck Obama has used "Brother's keeper" several times now. (Even though he's got the context wrong.)

But there's a broader problem with rejecting the State's ability to control their laws. Try to imagine this. Sarah Palin gets the Presidency and manages to get enough Supreme Court Justices appointed so that the Court will do whatever she wants. Assume also that the Court allows Roe v. Wade to stand. Roe said that Abortion was a Constitutional issue and the States had no say. So, what happens now? The court says it's illegal and because it's a Constitutional question, there's nothing the States can do about it.

The solution to a Sarah Palin Supreme Court is to reduce the number of issues that are Constitutional questions and return those decisions to the States. In the case of abortion, or anything else, there will always be states that allow it and those that don't. You can choose where to live. You can live where the rights that are important to you are protected. Otherwise, you risk the possibilty that those rights aren't available anywhere for anyone. Your choice.



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 




The solution to a Sarah Palin Supreme Court is to reduce the number of issues that are Constitutional questions and return those decisions to the States. In the case of abortion, or anything else, there will always be states that allow it and those that don't. You can choose where to live. You can live where the rights that are important to you are protected. Otherwise, you risk the possibilty that those rights aren't available anywhere for anyone. Your choice.


Why bother calling ourselves a country then?

Could individual counties within a state have their own separate laws - like dry counties? We could have Pro-life and Pro-choice counties...Why is a State's right to determine what's right for everyone more important and more valuable and more right than a country doing the same thing?

If you don't like the laws of your country - why can't you just move to another country?

This is fun

:-)



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 

Dear Spiramirabilis,

As usual, you see and speak clearly.
(Wish I was as good.)


Why bother calling ourselves a country then?
Well, (and watch this for weasel words) in a sense we are, and in a sense we're not. As you know, we started out with a lot of feisty and independent states that wouldn't let anyone tell them what to do. They sort of grudgingly agreed to set up a federation and surrender some of their powers to it, in order to make things run more efficiently. (Forgive me for going over this easy stuff. I know you know it, it's helping me think.) Ever since, there's been pushing and shoving on each side to get more power for themselves. But however the battle went, there were really only two players, the central government and the states.

Counties were never seen as sovereign or independent, they were always dependent on the state for authority.

If you don't like the laws of your country - why can't you just move to another country?
You can. It's usually more of a hassle than moving to, say, Kansas, but it's an option.


Why is a State's right to determine what's right for everyone more important and more valuable and more right than a country doing the same thing?
Excellent question. You're right, that's the question. (I'm about to get wordy, come back in five minutes.) A State can only make rules for it's own citizens. D.C. makes rules for every citizen in every state. It's taking away the power of the state to make rules on that subject. Do that often enough and the states become just rubber stamps for the President. That's not how it was supposed to be.

Further, the citizens of the states tend to be wildly different. If D.C. hands down a law, it may suit the citizens of New York to a "T," and drive the citizens of Mississippi to grab their shotguns and pitchforks. If each state makes their own rules, the citizens will be more in agreement with those laws, and more likely to obey them.

And, finally, I have a preference for getting the power to the people closest to the action. There are some things that have to be declared by a President, but get as much stuff as you can down to the state level, even lower if you can manage it.

Thank you for your response, it is lots of fun.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Dear Charles,

thank you for your well thought out and nicely written reply


You can. It's usually more of a hassle than moving to, say, Kansas, but it's an option.


But Charles - what if I don't want to move to Kansas?

but of course - now I'm just being smart

I always forget about how all you States Guys think the Feds are just supposed to aimlessly wander around the perimeter looking for trouble like a bored bouncer while the party rages inside...

:-)

(Sometimes all the trouble is on the inside)

thank you Charles - and goodnight



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
You know what? At this point...I think Ron Paul is confused himself...about hims---- Ron Paul.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 02:41 AM
link   
in answer to your question, op - ron paul is following a constitutionalist perspective that limits federal power.

yes, states could become very backward in such a system, yet others could become very free. people would migrate to the place that suits them. if u wanna blow a joint - colorado. if you want to speak tongues in church - alabama.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Ron Paul is a hypocrite shill.

He says states should handle issues and not the federal government, yet he sponsored a bill that would BAN abortion on the FEDERAL level.


Paul calls himself "strongly pro-life"[150] and "an unshakable foe of abortion".[151] In 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2011, Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which would have defined life as beginning at conception at the Federal level.

en.wikipedia.org...


He claims he is for freedom yet is against gay marriage because it goes against his religious beliefs.

He is all for big government as long as long as it goes with his agenda.

No clue why this guy calls himself a libertarian. He has the weirdest cult surrounding him that thinks he can do no wrong and is a demigod politician, He is nothing but a tea party republican.
edit on 25-3-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by sirbadazz
 






in answer to your question, op - ron paul is following a constitutionalist perspective that limits federal power.


If Ron Paul is a constitutionalist why is he for privatizing the post office?



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 





Unlike the way it's gone to state literally just being servants to the Federal. That is the absolute last thing the Founders intended


That's why the first president. George Washington, signed the bill to start the first "federal reserve" quasi-private central bank?


en.wikipedia.org...



edit on 25-3-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)



  exclusive video


top topics
 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join