Ron Paul and state powers

Originally Posted by Fenix

I don't really understand. I'm sorry. the first amendment is freedom of speech (and basically individuality), but what is the free association clause?

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Originally Posted by Section 3

The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--

(1) shall not adjudicate--

(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;

(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or

(C) 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; and


(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).

If I'm reading this correctly, this basically says that the Federal Court has no jurisdiction over cases where a state enacts a law that might infringe upon first amendment rights. If the West Virginia decides that bestiality is a capital offense, then aside from the fact that half the state would be on death row, the Federal Courts can't strike it down.

Frankly, I'm surprised by this. Protection of broad first amendment rights is, in a manner of speaking, a clearly enumerated power of the Federal Government and is in conflict with his declared Constitutionalist values.

I believe the justification of this is that rulings of Federal Courts often export liberal and personal interpretations of First Amendment issues, and this conflicts with regional beliefs and understandings on these rights. Basically Washington D.C. imposes their view of things on the entire country. In a way, the spirit of the bill seems to be granting more regional autonomy, and making politics surrounding such issues more regional, and thus more accessible to the general public in each of their states.

It may also be a nod to the anti-abortion groups, as it would effectively make Roe V Wade non-binding on all states.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

lol @ state courts interpreting the federal constitution with no recourse if they get it wrong

Playing devil's advocate here for a moment: whats the recourse if the federal courts interpreting the federal constitution get it wrong?
(or at the very least, whole states feel that the imposition of certain federal rulings have overstepped its bounds)

Or is it just assumed that they always get it right?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

As if any of your beloved socialist Democrats aren't every bit as racist as Ron Paul.

Don't be silly. Racism is only racism when its not mainstream.

Spoiler:

Say what now?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.