Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kaijyuu]

Fair enough

[ECrownofFire]

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.

[PhantomXD]

On this note please keep politics and religion separate .... end rant .....

[Heron TSG]

Well, I don't really care if he's Mormon so long as he's not a hardcore conservative Mormon, just like I would oppose a hardcore conservative Christian. Really, anyone who wants to apply their own morality structure to the government isn't fit to lead.

[kaijyuu]

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.

Eh. I wouldn't throw out everything under the banner of "morality." Bigotry and such is a moral issue. It's difficult to argue that a Caucasian white male decrying racism and sexism is doing so for practical reasons; they're not (likely) to be on the receiving end of it.

I'm all for keeping out the laws prohibiting stuff that doesn't actually harm anyone, though.

[ECrownofFire]

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.

Eh. I wouldn't throw out everything under the banner of "morality." Bigotry and such is a moral issue. It's difficult to argue that a Caucasian white male decrying racism and sexism is doing so for practical reasons; they're not (likely) to be on the receiving end of it.

I'm all for keeping out the laws prohibiting stuff that doesn't actually harm anyone, though.

The second idea is the basic idea of it, really. Does it actually harm anyone without their consent or not? If not, then who the fuck cares?

[Nadaka]

Ron Paul supporting "states rights" to discriminate against atheists is radically unconstitutional and hypocritical because the US constitution supersedes state law in ALL cases. The states are not allowed to break the 1st amendment.

[Heron TSG]

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.

[ECrownofFire]

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 have to follow the federal constitution as well, don't they? That would include the Congress of each state.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

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."

[Heron TSG]

Ah, I knew it was in there somewhere. Woo!

[G-Flex]

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.

[SalmonGod]

From what I've heard, Ron Paul wants the federal government to be concerned only with the constitution, and everything else to be handled by state governments.  So I'm pretty sure that if it's in the constitution, he won't be in favor of an individual state's ability to contradict that.  I could be wrong.  I haven't studied his stances very thoroughly myself... but that's because I know some very hardcore fans of his who have done it for me.

[palsch]

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).

Just to be more explicit about this, his primary target with that bill was abortion.

He had another bill, the Sanctity of Life Act, that simultaneously defined life as starting at conception and blocked any federal court from ruling on any issues related to that.

The states still have to follow these things, as per (I believe) the 14th amendment. The Bill of Rights applies to the states.

Essentially, yes. It's called incorporation. Largely it is only taken to apply to those rights that have been ruled on by the Supreme Court. For example, the right to bear arms was only integrated last year while some haven't been incorporated at all. The fifth amendment requires someone to be indicted by a grand jury before they can be brought to trial for a felony. That doesn't apply to states at all and there are no reasons to believe that is going to change. The same goes for jury trials in civil cases.

Freedom from quartering of soldiers in private homes has only been incorporated in the second circuit. But then, not many cases like this come up for that one to be tested.

Ron Paul explicitly opposes the incorporation of the constitution. He wrote here;

If anything, the Supreme Court should have refused to hear the Kelo case on the grounds that the 5th amendment does not apply to states. If constitutional purists hope to maintain credibility, we must reject the phony incorporation doctrine in all cases — not only when it serves our interests.

Now, a lot of people opposed Kelo (and rightly I think), but normally on the merits of the case, not on the idea that incorporation is invalid.

[Leafsnail]

The second idea is the basic idea of it, really. Does it actually harm anyone without their consent or not? If not, then who the fuck cares?

So uh... banning people from office based on their religion or lack of it doesn't harm anyone?  That would seem to be the implication here.