Because Ron Paul supporting states' rights to, say, ban atheists from public office, is definitely not support of theocracy at all.
He's got his principles and sticks to them. He's a big believer in a vast number of things being outside federal jurisdiction, and honestly? How a state government sets up its governmental structure is probably high on the list of things it's not the feds job to mess with, as far as he's concerned.
Yeah, if there's one thing that Ron Paul supports, it's states' rights.
Also, so far as I'm concerned, the government can get the fuck out of any kind of morality. Let me decide my OWN morality and not be governed by the tyranny of the majority.
So let me get this straight: States being able to discriminate based on religion is "high on the list of things it's not the feds job to mess with"?
And yes, you
would be governed by the tyranny of the majority, once the majority in your state decides that your religion isn't okay.
Article 6, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution already invalidates barring atheists (or anyone else on the basis of a religious prerequisite) from office.
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Yes, but when I was speaking of Ron Paul not caring so much for that, I was referring to his "We The People Act". The crux of the act is that states would be able to
get away with violating the constitution, because it would disallow the US Supreme Court from hearing cases that concern state laws. Well, that's only partly true: It does that, but only for particular hot-button conservative issues, like sexuality and religion. I have to wonder why he'd pick those issues in particular (hint: the answer is obvious; it's because he's a social conservative, except instead of the tell-everybody-what-to-do type, he's the let-
my-state-tell-its-
own-citizens-what-to-do-and-don't-tell-us-we-can't type).
Yes, Ron Paul, supposedly a bastion of personal liberty, specifically wants the states to be able to legislate certain ways on key conservative issues, and get away with it without the supreme court being able to have a say one way or another. States have had provisions like "non-Christians can't hold public office" before, and Ron Paul's own drafted legislation would prevent this kind of thing from being challenged whatsoever... not to mention more currently topical issues such as LGBT rights. I should not have to say why this isn't good. It would be a serious backslide in terms of civil rights throughout the country.
Strictly speaking, the first amendment merely states that '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, or to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.', IIRC. Now, whether or not congress allowing the states to do that is constitutional, I have no idea. The first amendment doesn't appear to be the limiting factor, though.
The states still have to follow these things, as per (I believe) the 14th amendment. The Bill of Rights applies to the states.