Ron Paul and state powers

I've been doing a little research on Ron Paul, and he seems like a great candidate.

He's a strong libertarianist, who sticks by the constitution and thinks objectively.

The only thing I'm not sure if I agree with is his idea on state law. He wants to give a lot of power to the states. Couldn't that be bad? Could the states grow apart, or change so much that their needs and interests might be completely different? Maybe even in the future leading to a civil war, or a country of 50 very different states, making them incomparable.

I mean, if the states had the power, that means they can be so different. Like different countries even.

I don't know much about politics, and I'm not here to flame or anything, I just want some experienced advice.

Thank you

Jam it back in, in the dark.

It's good for some things, bad for most things. Specifically Paul has proposed the We The People Act, which would bar Federal courts from hearing cases regarding the free association clause of the First Amendment.

I hope you'll understand what's wrong with that.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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?

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

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 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?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

We the People Act:
"If made law, the Act would forbid federal courts (including the Supreme Court) from hearing cases on subjects such as the display of religious text and imagery on government property, abortion, sexual practices, and same-sex marriage, unless those cases were a challenge to the constitutionality of the laws in question. It would also make federal court decisions on those subjects non-binding as precedent in state courts."

What 14th Amendment?

Quote:

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.

Paul is more of a legal constitutionalist. He believes in the letter of the law, but does not mind changing it (legally), which would be a pretty cool thing for a Republican to do if he wasn't also a neo-confederate.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Fenix

Could the states grow apart, or change so much that their needs and interests might be completely different? Maybe even in the future leading to a civil war, or a country of 50 very different states, making them incomparable.

The political dissolution of the Soviet Union was relatively peaceful. Especially when you consider the stakes; breakaway republics with nuclear weapons.

Originally Posted by Fenix

I mean, if the states had the power, that means they can be so different. Like different countries even.

Scientifically speaking diversity helps to ensure survival in the face of extinction.

I think that's grossly overestimating the threats to the political survival of the United States. But if I had a time machine and went back to the 1980's and told everyone the Soviet Union was going to collapse I'd get laughed back into the future.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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

What is this, Iraq?

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Fenix

I've been doing a little research on Ron Paul, and he seems like a great candidate.

He's a strong libertarianist, who sticks by the constitution and thinks objectively.

I think that the case can be made that every serious candidate does, or at least attempts to, stick by the constitution and thinks objectively.

Therefore, you might as well argue that Ron Paul is a great candidate because he is mortal, and like the rest of us needs nutrients to survive. That, furthermore, we may be rest assured that he is as susceptible to radiation poisoning as the average law-abiding man and that he is not, in fact, a reptoid.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

It is assumed the federal courts are in the best position to interpret federal law, yes.

Further, federal law is a blanket upon all states, so why shouldn't the interpretation of that law be a blanketed also? If there is a federal law, and you move from Arizona to California, you should feel safe that not changing your behavior one iota means that you won't be now in violation of something you previously were not.

If not, what is the point of having federal law at all?

How ya doing, buddy?

Voting for Ron Paul would be a catch 22. On one hand, he'd abolish the CIA, stop the inane "war on drugs', and bring out troops home from Iraq. On the other hand, he's against Roe v Wade.

I may have to vote for him anyways considering that the rest of the politicians are just apart of the same bullshit we've had for the past several years.


As for giving the states more powers, I'm all for that. Having one federal law supercede state law is ridiculous IMO.

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

Quote:

As for giving the states more powers, I'm all for that. Having one federal law supercede state law is ridiculous IMO.

What, you mean like the Civil Rights Act?

Nobody (sane) would argue that it's cool for the DEA to raid medical marijuana facilities, but think about your blanket statements, please.

EDIT: FDA, DEA, same thing right? lol

Most amazing jew boots

Yeah lets amend away the Supremacy Clause. That's what this country needs.

I think Arizona should start taxing the USPS and the FBI.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Ron Paul will allow the progressive, educated, blue states to raise their state taxes and provide public healthcare.

He's my preferred Republican even if he is a senile racist.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Blue States can already do that if enough voters push for it.

FELIPE NO

But let's face it, federal taxes are too high for states to ever raise their taxes enough to afford it.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

States pay federal taxes?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by RABicle

But let's face it, federal taxes are too high for states to ever raise their taxes enough to afford it.

Well, considering sales tax alone can vary over 10% from state to state (and even varies from one county to the next!), I'm quite sure some states can find new ways to get money out of people if they wanted to.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Well, considering sales tax alone can vary over 10% from state to state (and even varies from one county to the next!), I'm quite sure some states can find new ways to get money out of people if they wanted to.

Not all states have the sales tax. Oregon does not. Tax revenue is "compensated" by having higher property taxes. Raising property taxes with the falling housing market would be a stupid idea to institute anywhere. People don't need another excuse to foreclose and walk away from their mortgages.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Watts

Not all states have the sales tax. Oregon does not. Tax revenue is "compensated" by having higher property taxes. Raising property taxes with the falling housing market would be a stupid idea to institute anywhere. People don't need another excuse to foreclose and walk away from their mortgages.

Varying by 10% includes 0% (I don't know of any states that actually have 10%, but I'm pretty sure some cities kick it a little over that with their local ones).

And, for the record, Delaware also has no sales tax, but I think they make it up on taxing all of the corporations that are based there since there is a disproportionate number located there.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Varying by 10% includes 0% (I don't know of any states that actually have 10%, but I'm pretty sure some cities kick it a little over that with their local ones).

And, for the record, Delaware also has no sales tax, but I think they make it up on taxing all of the corporations that are based there since there is a disproportionate number located there.

I'm not going to quibble over semantics. That wasn't the point.

The bottom line is that states will raise taxes (they'll have to anyway -- because of falling property tax revenue) or they will have to cut current spending. To just cover preexisting obligations.

I was speaking idiomatically.

My point was agreeing with NP that states can raise taxes to whatever the way.

I don't think there's anything we're actually disagreeing on here.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

My point was agreeing with NP that states can raise taxes to whatever the way.

I don't think there's anything we're actually disagreeing on here.

We're not really disagreeing, just hashing out a few details.

Property taxes are still the one (if not the most) important source of revenue for state (and local) governments. So a housing "slump" like the one the US is in is bound to have serious repercussions on tax revenue. I don't know how states are going to raise more revenue to pay for more obligations like public health-care when they'll be contending with shortfalls as it is.

If the blue (or red) states raise taxes too much too fast, they won't remain blue-controlled for very long. Not that I mind all that much.

Just pointing out what's at stake.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

States pay federal taxes?

Everyone else seemed to understand what I meant.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Jeffro

Voting for Ron Paul would be a catch 22. On one hand, he'd abolish the CIA, stop the inane "war on drugs', and bring out troops home from Iraq. On the other hand, he's against Roe v Wade.

Only a ridiculous, histronic high school faggot would think that one crazy old libertarian could accomplish any of that. Bush had all the right men and even he could only start two wars he can't finish, let alone all the other stuff people reckon he'd like to do (war with Iran, N. Korea, China (?!); abolishing Roe v Wade; greater tax cuts to the wealthy at the expense of such programs as S-CHIP; nuking Al Quada from space; Star Wars; etc). A crazy old man with a crazy old cabinet vowing to cut and run and also make tens of thousands of people jobless? Never gonna happen.

no, the reason why people are against Ron Paul as a candidate is because if you are not, you expose yourself as a ridiculous, histronic high school faggot. Also he's a huge racist and everyone knows it.

Jam it back in, in the dark.