Ron Paul wants to violate the 14th amendment and violate religious freedom

[t1m0thy]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-glashausser/exceptions-clause_b_1290745.html

 "Ron Paul has introduced the "We the People Act," a bill that would bar the Supreme Court from hearing cases about privacy, same-sex marriage, or the free exercise or establishment of religion."

This is the last straw for me.  Ron Paul is not only not a libertarian, he is a threat to liberty.  This bill is one of the most egregious violation of civil liberty since the Patriot Act.  It would tear down equal protection and allow for states to violate civil liberties unchecked by a gagged Supreme Court.  It would also completely destroy the separation of church and state and allow for theocratic state governments to pass religious laws which would not be subject to challenge in Federal court.

%$&* Ron Paul and the horse he rode in on.  Anyone that would propose a piece of legislation that would undo over a century of progress in civil rights is undeserving of the title or even the mere association of word libertarian.

[vmays]

Down Timothy, Down.  I've been telling people for years that Ron Paul is not a Libertarian...nobody wanted to listen.

[Roy.Minet]

Paul has been a pretty consistently effective spokesman for cutting the Federal government down and limiting it to it's Constitutional powers.  Unfortunately, he has non-libertarian views on a couple of important issues.  Fortunately, he doesn't hammer on these much and maintains they are the province of state governments and not the federal government.  I lightheartedly hoped that this was his way of ducking these third-rail issues and that it was not really his intent to impose these beliefs upon everybody else.  However, the proposed restriction of Supreme Court jurisdiction cited in this thread says otherwise.  IMO, the unfortunate wording of the Constitution does leave the door open for Congress to do this, but it surely is a horrible idea.  I think it's one of the unfortunate shortcomings of the Constitution that it is not crystal clear and iron-clad enough that NO government, federal state or local, can infringe upon basic rights.

[Eviker]

Any decent politican shoud be "pretty consistently effective spokesman for cutting the Federal government down and limiting it to it's Constitutional powers."  It's the right thing to do, not some amazing revelation. We do not need to praise the guy for wiping his bottom after he poops- - its what you do.

He has non-Libertarian views on much more than just a couple of issues.  Ron Paul does not describe himself as a libertarian, even though anybody can call themselves a libertarian.  He is a fiscal conservative, which is the least any elected official can do when spending other people's money, but he is not a Libertarian Party candidate.  Ron Paul opposes several important Libertarian Party principles.  His version of state “rights” would allow state governments to decide to intrude on the family lives and medical lives of peaceful citizens, rather than support the Libertarian Party platform positions that don’t support government at any level to do that sort of intrusion. States do not have rights, people do.  And his immigration positions support government meddling in peaceful people’s private housing and employment arrangements, which isn’t Libertarian.  He signed the Personhood Pledge, a blatant promise to use government force to control women.  He endorsed for president a religious extremist of a political party that wants to cede government control to religious law.  


His mythology-based claim that basic individual liberty is the province of state government instead of federal government is grossly non-Libertarian.  I am utterly unsurprised at his We the People Act scheming.  As a so-called liberty advocate, he is a fraud.  

The extent to which some members of the LPPA will go to support this old Republican appalls me.  I have resigned from the Marketing Committee because the other committee members defend having that Republican anti-liberty operative Ron Paul flapping up on our home page slideshow as if he represents the Libertarian Party.

Building bridges looks like this: “Please consider the Libertarian Party if your candidate is not successful in the election this year. You’ll find the LP aligns with your favorite candidate in these ways.”

Promoting a Republican Party presidential candidate who holds many un-Libertarian positions on your Libertarian Party website is not “building bridges.” It’s blatantly undermining the purpose and goals of the Libertarian Party as described in the national party bylaws.  Other LPPA members can be duped into rubbing Ron Paul’s bunions as if snuggling up to him  will bring us new members.  I am not participating in that foolishness.  

[t1m0thy]

Especially, when said candidate is a theocrat who just happens to dislike the federal government but is perfectly fine with states trampling all over the Constitution where it suits his religious views.

[Eviker]

I resigned from the Marketing Committee because they want to use LPPA resources to market that old fraud Republican Ron Paul.

[t1m0thy]

I might have agreed a year ago until I looked more closely at wehat he truly represents.  It is  quite insidious the way he is presented by fellow libertarians, while he represents pre 1865 political ideology.

[djahn]

I might have agreed a year ago until I looked more closely at wehat he truly represents.  It is  quite insidious the way he is presented by fellow libertarians, while he represents pre 1865 political ideology.

If atheism and gay rights are your number one issues, Ron Paul is not your guy.  Some of the LP choices will not be to your liking either.

The LP is split on the issue of abortion as well. I don't know where people get this notion that Libs are pro choice.  Many of them are not.  I first became aware of the division of the party on that issue at the 2002 national convention where the vote to retain the abortion plank nearly failed.

Good luck in your search for the perfect candidate.  I know I've never found one.

David Jahn

[Eviker]

I first became aware of the division of the party on that issue at the 2002 national convention where the vote to retain the abortion plank nearly failed.

But it did not fail, nor was it removed in 2004 or 2008.  The 2012 Platform Committee does not recommend it's removal.  Today it states "Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."  This is an honorable and reasonable position that supports a LP member's right believe zygotes and embryos are people, provided he or she doesn't want government force to impose their beliefs onto any other citizens. 

[t1m0thy]

I might have agreed a year ago until I looked more closely at wehat he truly represents.  It is  quite insidious the way he is presented by fellow libertarians, while he represents pre 1865 political ideology.

If atheism and gay rights are your number one issues, Ron Paul is not your guy.  Some of the LP choices will not be to your liking either.

The LP is split on the issue of abortion as well. I don't know where people get this notion that Libs are pro choice.  Many of them are not.  I first became aware of the division of the party on that issue at the 2002 national convention where the vote to retain the abortion plank nearly failed.

Good luck in your search for the perfect candidate.  I know I've never found one.

David Jahn

Undermining equal protection under the law affects far more than atheism and gay rights...that is a very shallow assessment of the consequences of this policy.  It can effect far more...and besides, gay rights are basic human rights and anyone that feels the need to violate the rights of their fellow human being on any grounds is not someone I would support in any way.

What happens if a state institutes an official state religion under this policy?  There would be no ability to challenge it in federal court.  What if a state makes homosexuality a criminal offense(bills that would do this are introduced to this day in some states) and some states start imprisoning gay people? 

Your lack of concern for the very real possibility of such violation of civil liberty reveals a rather disturbing quality in your character and in your pal, Ron Paul.

[djahn]

Undermining equal protection under the law affects far more than atheism and gay rights...that is a very shallow assessment of the consequences of this policy.

My assessment was that "If atheism and gay rights are your number one issues, Ron Paul is not your guy." That isn't shallow.  That's actually pretty thorough.

It can effect far more...and besides, gay rights are basic human rights and anyone that feels the need to violate the rights of their fellow human being on any grounds is not someone I would support in any way.

My position and coincidentally Ron Paul's is that the government shouldn't be in the marriage business.  Depending upon your point of view, marriage is either a religious commitment or a contractual arrangement.  There is no valid reason for the government to be licensing marriage.

What happens if a state institutes an official state religion under this policy?  There would be no ability to challenge it in federal court.

And the danger of that is.....non existent.  And to protect us from this unlikely possibility you suggest we all become big government federalists?

What if a state makes homosexuality a criminal offense(bills that would do this are introduced to this day in some states) and some states start imprisoning gay people?

Instead of chasing ghosts, we may do better to cross that bridge if and when we ever come to it. 

Your lack of concern for the very real possibility of such violation of civil liberty reveals a rather disturbing quality in your character and in your pal, Ron Paul.

I confess, with ever growing federal government, numerous undeclared foreign wars, the impending financial collapse of our nation, the continued off shoring of jobs, the Patriot Act, the NDAA, etc., I don't invest a lot of time in fictitious threats.  Let me know when you have a real bill that needs to be opposed in force, and there's a good chance I'll join in opposing it.  Until then, I prefer to focus on real threats to our well being.

[djahn]

Erik,

You are actually making my point.  The vote to retain the pro-choice plank in 2002 passed by something like 52% to 48%.  Today's plank is no longer a straight forward pro-choice plank as it was in the past.  The old plank used to proclaim women had the right to choose.  We no longer say that.

David Jahn

 

I first became aware of the division of the party on that issue at the 2002 national convention where the vote to retain the abortion plank nearly failed.

But it did not fail, nor was it removed in 2004 or 2008.  The 2012 Platform Committee does not recommend it's removal.  Today it states "Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."  This is an honorable and reasonable position that supports a LP member's right believe zygotes and embryos are people, provided he or she doesn't want government force to impose their beliefs onto any other citizens. 

[t1m0thy]

Undermining equal protection under the law affects far more than atheism and gay rights...that is a very shallow assessment of the consequences of this policy.

My assessment was that "If atheism and gay rights are your number one issues, Ron Paul is not your guy." That isn't shallow.  That's actually pretty thorough.

It can effect far more...and besides, gay rights are basic human rights and anyone that feels the need to violate the rights of their fellow human being on any grounds is not someone I would support in any way.

My position and coincidentally Ron Paul's is that the government shouldn't be in the marriage business.  Depending upon your point of view, marriage is either a religious commitment or a contractual arrangement.  There is no valid reason for the government to be licensing marriage.

What happens if a state institutes an official state religion under this policy?  There would be no ability to challenge it in federal court.

And the danger of that is.....non existent.  And to protect us from this unlikely possibility you suggest we all become big government federalists?

What if a state makes homosexuality a criminal offense(bills that would do this are introduced to this day in some states) and some states start imprisoning gay people?

Instead of chasing ghosts, we may do better to cross that bridge if and when we ever come to it.  

Your lack of concern for the very real possibility of such violation of civil liberty reveals a rather disturbing quality in your character and in your pal, Ron Paul.

I confess, with ever growing federal government, numerous undeclared foreign wars, the impending financial collapse of our nation, the continued off shoring of jobs, the Patriot Act, the NDAA, etc., I don't invest a lot of time in fictitious threats.  Let me know when you have a real bill that needs to be opposed in force, and there's a good chance I'll join in opposing it.  Until then, I prefer to focus on real threats to our well being.

Fictitious threat?

Your pal Ron is deeply connected to people just like this who advocate theocracy.  He has had strong links to the Christian Reconstructionist movement for decades.  You are sorely mistaken if you think this is "chasing ghosts".  Ron Paul may not echo the rhetoric of the other theocrats so verbosely, but he certainly supports their ideas and their vision of America and has said so in the past.

Also, 8 states have constitutional provisions which allow people to be disqualified from public office based on their religious beliefs, including PA.  If it weren't for the 1st amendment being applied to the states we would certainly see many more violations of religious liberty by christian zealots.

You are ignoring plain fact and the history of your candidate and his affiliations as well as the very real threat these people pose to liberty.

[t1m0thy]

Djahn, I am glad to see that you are so cavalier about the rights of gays and atheists...I guess we don't matter.  Thanks, I'll remember that.

And your assessment is quite shallow...incorporation of rights under the 14th amendment covers far more than what you so casually suggested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

[t1m0thy]

Also, please dont even try to tell me that this isnt connected to reconstructionist theology, I used to be one of them, I know their game plan, and there is a strong reason they like Paul.