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

[djahn]

Atheism isn't an issue....separation of church and state are.

 OK, legislation to join church and state was introduced where?  Are we talking about real legislation or just your fears?

And Ron Paul's policies would effectively set gay rights back by decades and civil rights by over a century.

We'll have to disagree on this one.  The greatest gains in gay and civil rights came about via cultural acceptance, not via big government.

There is a reason equal protection was established after slavery.

We'll disagree on this issue as well Tim.  Could it be the reason for equal protection was to repay the abolitionists for their support of the war of northern aggression.  It is unlikely Lincoln could have won the war without their support.   Or, do you have another reason for the sudden post war interests in equal protection?

Many states would and have enacted bans on gay marriage and the only thing that has prevented states like california from violating the rights of their citizens has been equal protection...or have you forgotten the recent case that struck down prop 8?

Once again, the problem for me is that the state is licensing marriage.  The state has no business in licensing marriage.  I prefer to see an end to the state regulating licensing marriage.  You prefer to call for increasing the reach of government.  I would prefer to minimize government.  It is unlikely that I will support efforts to expand government.

An overreaching federal government is one of the greatest threats to our nation.  If you support a big federal government in one area, be prepared to accept big federal government in others areas as well.

[djahn]

I admit that I am having a difficult time discerning whether you are being willfully deceitful or you are simply nieve.

Are you sure those are the only two options?  And where have you been deceived?

[t1m0thy]

When a government steps in to protect the rights of a minority, it is not overreaching; it's doing its job.

As far as legislation that would infringe upon church and state we have a bill in our own state that has been introduced to ban gay marriage thus legislating the religious beliefs of some onto others.  Under Ron Paul's view of America this would be acceptable.  

As far as other legislation goes, how about the recent resolution by the PA House declaring 2012 the year of the Bible in which was a declarative statement by a government body affirming the Bible as "the Word of God"...I could go on, but you should see now that this isn't just a fear I've concocted in my head; there are those out there with a religiously motivated political agenda that want to force their beliefs onto the rest of us using government.

These violations of basic constitutional liberty would go unchecked at the state level if your beloved theocrat has his way...and that's exactly what he is aiming for.

[djahn]

Tim

I don't consider a anti-gay bill that isn't going anywhere and a meaningless resolution as serious threats to our basic constitutional liberty.

The bill I would like to see is one that eliminates the governments licensing of marriage all together.

Just to be clear, Paul isn't my "beloved theocrat".  He is just someone who represents many of the views myself and many other libertarians find important.  And, while Paul has libertarian views on many issues, not all of his views are libertarian.

I appreciate your concerns, but they won't matter much if we are living under a police state, plagued by wars or enslaved by a national debt.

In a few months the LP will nominate a candidate.  Perhaps that will be someone more to your liking.

David Jahn

When a government steps in to protect the rights of a minority, it is not overreaching; it's doing its job.
As far as legislation that would infringe upon church and state we have a bill in our own state that has been introduced to ban gay marriage thus legislating the religious beliefs of some onto others.  Under Ron Paul's view of America this would be acceptable.  

As far as other legislation goes, how about the recent resolution by the PA House declaring 2012 the year of the Bible in which was a declarative statement by a government body affirming the Bible as "the Word of God"...I could go on, but you should see now that this isn't just a fear I've concocted in my head; there are those out there with a religiously motivated political agenda that want to force their beliefs onto the rest of us using government.

These violations of basic constitutional liberty would go unchecked at the state level if your beloved theocrat has his way...and that's exactly what he is aiming for.

[t1m0thy]

You have created a false dichotomy...just because the Federal government is overreaching in some areas doesn't mean we should do away with equal protection and cripple the judiciary from doing its appointed job in upholding the Constitution.

A large portion of the civil rights battles that have been fought in the last century were states imposing things on citizens that challenged the violations in Federal court under equal protection.

One example that is rather recent is the incorporation of the 2nd amendment under the 14th amendment by the Supreme court in McDonald v Chicago.  Of course, Ron Paul didn't include the 2nd amendment in his list of prohibited adjudications...curious, most curious.

[t1m0thy]

In a few months the LP will nominate a candidate.  Perhaps that will be someone more to your liking.

You mean the Libertarian Party has its own candidate?  Or are we supporting the Republican Party candidate Ron Paul?  This is quite confusing...why would we bother with our own candidate if we are spending money to support another party?

[vern]

It's difficult to see any "libertarian" argument for repealing the 14th Amendment.  I can think of a whole host of neo-confederate ones, some fascist ones, and conservative ones; but as a Libertarian I really have to draw the line here.

Seriously people.  No state should deny anyone equal protection under the law.  It's in our current platform, which passed with overwhelming support of the people IN the Libertarian Party who attended, ran for office, and tried to build the LPPA.

This "We the People" Act is something we might have seen in 1850, not 2012. 

[djahn]

It's difficult to see any "libertarian" argument for repealing the 14th Amendment.  I can think of a whole host of neo-confederate ones, some fascist ones, and conservative ones; but as a Libertarian I really have to draw the line here.

Seriously people.  No state should deny anyone equal protection under the law.  It's in our current platform, which passed with overwhelming support of the people IN the Libertarian Party who attended, ran for office, and tried to build the LPPA.

This "We the People" Act is something we might have seen in 1850, not 2012. 

Are you sure about the 14th amendment Vern?  You support birth right citizenship, so anyone who can stop by here long enough to drop a baby has a child with full voting rights anytime they chose to claim them. 

And while the fed strives to defend the rights of citizens which we know they hold so dear, they also claim jurisdiction over their citizens in other matters trampling states rights in the process.

The fourteenth amendment is a double edge sword and many call for its repeal.

[t1m0thy]

It's difficult to see any "libertarian" argument for repealing the 14th Amendment.  I can think of a whole host of neo-confederate ones, some fascist ones, and conservative ones; but as a Libertarian I really have to draw the line here.

Seriously people.  No state should deny anyone equal protection under the law.  It's in our current platform, which passed with overwhelming support of the people IN the Libertarian Party who attended, ran for office, and tried to build the LPPA.

This "We the People" Act is something we might have seen in 1850, not 2012. 

Are you sure about the 14th amendment Vern?  You support birth right citizenship, so anyone who can stop by here long enough to drop a baby has a child with full voting rights anytime they chose to claim them. 

And while the fed strives to defend the rights of citizens which we know they hold so dear, they also claim jurisdiction over their citizens in other matters trampling states rights in the process.

The fourteenth amendment is a double edge sword and many call for its repeal.

Since when is repealing the 14th amendment and birthright citizenship a Libertarian stance?  That is an incredibly xenophobic position to take.  What are you so afraid of from your fellow human beings?

[djahn]

Since when is repealing the 14th amendment and birthright citizenship a Libertarian stance?  That is an incredibly xenophobic position to take.  What are you so afraid of from your fellow human beings?

Tim, there is nothing xenophobic about it.  Should there be any limitations on who can participate in our elections?  Or, does the open border stance extend voting rights to anyone who happens by during an election?

[t1m0thy]

Since when is repealing the 14th amendment and birthright citizenship a Libertarian stance?  That is an incredibly xenophobic position to take.  What are you so afraid of from your fellow human beings?

Tim, there is nothing xenophobic about it.  Should there be any limitations on who can participate in our elections?  Or, does the open border stance extend voting rights to anyone who happens by during an election?

If they have legal status yes. You want to do away with a function of the law that would make it more difficult for people to become citizens.  To me that's xenophobic.  If you want to get technical about illegal immigration talk to a Native American.

[vern]

Are you sure about the 14th amendment Vern?  You support birth right citizenship, so anyone who can stop by here long enough to drop a baby has a child with full voting rights anytime they chose to claim them. 

And while the fed strives to defend the rights of citizens which we know they hold so dear, they also claim jurisdiction over their citizens in other matters trampling states rights in the process.

The fourteenth amendment is a double edge sword and many call for its repeal.

Incredible.  How is your position in ANY WAY "libertarian"?

[t1m0thy]

I'm beginning to realize that there are some in this party that want to make us the "South will rise again" Party rather than a party based on liberty and civil rights.

[Eviker]

Judging from my inbox, people see that.

Prove it, David.  Name the names, and quote the quotes.  Let's see all these people who think I was making your point when your point was about delegate vote percentages and my point was about a platform plank being in or out.  

Or quote the quotes that prove I am juvenile.  You will fail to prove it.  What I am is mocking you, David.  Ha ha ha, watch David jump to my every post.  

Mockery is not juvenile.  It's a time-honoured tradition built on the foundation of satirists going back to the Nordic bards of my ancestors, with equally venerated similar roles in many other cultures.  It is bigoted to dismiss such a venerable tradition as merely juvenile.  So take your mockery like a man and stop whining like a racist loser.  Boo ya.

[Eviker]

I then provided proof that the abortion plank is the least popular plank in the platform and has come close to being eliminated.  You've done nothing to dispute that.Your point is....oh that's right you don't have one.

Silly old grouch.  My point is clearly described in my previous posts, which is that despite your "least popular" red herring fallacy, the plank about abortion remains in the platform. There's no provision in the platform for listing the percent by which a plank was approved.  It’s in.  Your reference to relative popularity changes nothing about the LP platform.