Ron Paul And States Rights [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul And States Rights


JBnTX
03-23-2012, 16:28
One more reason Ron Paul's strict constitutionalist policies would be disasterous for the unity of the United States.

What if the individual states could pick and choose which federal laws they wanted to comply with and which they wanted to ignore?

Remember, this was a primary cause of the Civil War.


‘Strict Constitutionalist’ Ron Paul Endorses Nullification As A ‘Very Good’ Idea
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/18/406357/strict-constitutionalist-ron-paul-endorses-nullification-as-a-very-good-idea/

... Texas Rep. Ron Paul (R) endorsed the idea that states should be able to nullify federal laws they don’t like at a press conference at the South Carolina state capitol on Tuesday.

...nullification played a significant role in the start of the Civil War when multiple states, South Carolina included, attempted to nullify federal laws about slavery.

Despite this checkered past, Paul said nullification “would be very good” to have in practice today because it would reduce the size of the federal government.

..

RCP
03-23-2012, 17:24
As in Federal laws that are unconstitutional, such as federal drug laws. For example if California wants to legalize marijuana than it should be up to them as a State to decide to do so being there is no Constitutional basis to deny them the ability to do so. You know were making a big hoopla over the Federal Govt getting involved in healthcare as unconstitutional? Lots of people use the argument "where does it say the govt has the right to do so in the Constitution?" yet they scoff when you point out that same argument as it pertains to drugs. Try again.

Syclone538
03-23-2012, 22:50
Is it in article 1 section 8? If not, ignore it.

...nullification played a significant role in the start of the Civil War when multiple states, South Carolina included, attempted to nullify federal laws about slavery.

What, the fugitive slave laws that said you have to return fugitive slaves?


Anyway, nullification can work.

Fed gov backed down on Real ID
Texas backed down on TSA
The Montana Firearms Freedom Act is in limbo as far as I can tell
I'm thinking fed gov will eventually back down on medical marijuana

Search Tom Woods nullification on youtube.



Are you a zombie?
Nullification: Interview with a Zombie - YouTube

Jeff S.
03-23-2012, 23:26
Federal authority is derived by the Constitution, which itself was created through a compact between the States, not the people. If State power is derived from people within the State, then the compact created by each State is a facsimile of power granted by citizens. The powers granted to the Federal government are vested in the same compact that united each State. Power not granted the Federal government resides in the States or to the people respectively, and this is verifiable as a canonized concept in the Constituion itself and through logic.

A State should not abide a power wielded by the Federal government which is not assigned it, nor should a citizen. But, then again, liberty begins between the ears, and so liberty can only be sustained through fruitful thought and harvested action.

TactiCool
03-23-2012, 23:45
Ron Paul just spoke at my university a few hours ago. I will be voting for him tomorrow. He might not be the perfect candidate with perfect ideas, but I'd take him over Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich any day.

certifiedfunds
03-24-2012, 06:54
Federal authority is derived by the Constitution, which itself was created through a compact between the States, not the people. If State power is derived from people within the State, then the compact created by each State is a facsimile of power granted by citizens. The powers granted to the Federal government are vested in the same compact that united each State. Power not granted the Federal government resides in the States or to the people respectively, and this is verifiable as a canonized concept in the Constituion itself and through logic.

A State should not abide a power wielded by the Federal government which is not assigned it, nor should a citizen. But, then again, liberty begins between the ears, and so liberty can only be sustained through fruitful thought and harvested action.

You're going to have to simplify that a bit more please.

certifiedfunds
03-24-2012, 06:56
One more reason Ron Paul's strict constitutionalist policies would be disasterous for the unity of the United States.

What if the individual states could pick and choose which federal laws they wanted to comply with and which they wanted to ignore?

Remember, this was a primary cause of the Civil War.


‘Strict Constitutionalist’ Ron Paul Endorses Nullification As A ‘Very Good’ Idea
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/18/406357/strict-constitutionalist-ron-paul-endorses-nullification-as-a-very-good-idea/

... Texas Rep. Ron Paul (R) endorsed the idea that states should be able to nullify federal laws they don’t like at a press conference at the South Carolina state capitol on Tuesday.

...nullification played a significant role in the start of the Civil War when multiple states, South Carolina included, attempted to nullify federal laws about slavery.

Despite this checkered past, Paul said nullification “would be very good” to have in practice today because it would reduce the size of the federal government.

..

JB - Perhaps if you answer one simple question it would help you to understand why your political views resemble the inside of a toilet bowl at a cheap buffet in Tijuana:

"From where does the federal government derive its legitimate power?"

Sam Spade
03-24-2012, 09:25
Federal authority is derived by the Constitution, which itself was created through a compact between the States, not the people.

That's why the Constitution starts off, "We the States"? And the DoI contains the immortal words, "deriving it's just powers from the consent of the political subdivisions...it is the right of the states to alter or abolish it..."?

Nope. Exhaustively debated in our founding and not decided as you say. Since that seems to be the foundation of the rest of your post, we need to fix that first.

Ruble Noon
03-24-2012, 10:19
One more reason Ron Paul's strict constitutionalist policies would be disasterous for the unity of the United States.

What if the individual states could pick and choose which federal laws they wanted to comply with and which they wanted to ignore?

Remember, this was a primary cause of the Civil War.


‘Strict Constitutionalist’ Ron Paul Endorses Nullification As A ‘Very Good’ Idea
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/18/406357/strict-constitutionalist-ron-paul-endorses-nullification-as-a-very-good-idea/

... Texas Rep. Ron Paul (R) endorsed the idea that states should be able to nullify federal laws they don’t like at a press conference at the South Carolina state capitol on Tuesday.

...nullification played a significant role in the start of the Civil War when multiple states, South Carolina included, attempted to nullify federal laws about slavery.

Despite this checkered past, Paul said nullification “would be very good” to have in practice today because it would reduce the size of the federal government.

..

Obamacare.

certifiedfunds
03-24-2012, 10:23
That's why the Constitution starts off, "We the States"? And the DoI contains the immortal words, "deriving it's just powers from the consent of the political subdivisions...it is the right of the states to alter or abolish it..."?

Nope. Exhaustively debated in our founding and not decided as you say. Since that seems to be the foundation of the rest of your post, we need to fix that first.

The 2 prescribed methods for Constitutional amendment are dependent on state legislatures, not popular vote. Ratification of the original COTUS was not done by direct vote either.

In addition, when originally drafted, Senators were appointed by state legislatures and not directly elected.

certifiedfunds
03-24-2012, 10:24
Obamacare.

Based on the body of JBnTX's posts, I would think he strongly supports Obamacare. No?

Ruble Noon
03-24-2012, 10:55
Based on the body of JBnTX's posts, I would think he strongly supports Obamacare. No?

Based on his posts you would think so. Strangely enough though, I seem to remember him being against obamacare.

certifiedfunds
03-24-2012, 11:19
Based on his posts you would think so. Strangely enough though, I seem to remember him being against obamacare.

I suspect traumatic brain injury or lead poisoning.

RC-RAMIE
03-24-2012, 12:18
You're going to have to simplify that a bit more please.

The states created the federal government, the federal government did not create the states.


"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it is realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. - Ron Paul

JBnTX
03-24-2012, 12:32
"From where does the federal government derive its legitimate power?"

You tell me, you're the constitutional expert.
I'd say from the people.

And I do oppose Obamacare.
The federal government has no business in people's healthcare, retirement or their bedroom.

BUT, mistakes have been made in the past in these areas that today commits the federal government to being responsible for those areas. You can't just quit cold turkey and leave people to fend for themselves.

It's not too late to prevent another mistake by repealing Obamacare now.

Ruble Noon
03-24-2012, 12:47
You tell me, you're the constitutional expert.
I'd say from the people.

And I do oppose Obamacare.
The federal government has no business in people's healthcare, retirement or their bedroom.



See? You agree with Ron Paul. Don't fight it JB, join us. :wavey:

RC-RAMIE
03-24-2012, 13:02
You tell me, you're the constitutional expert.
I'd say from the people.

And I do oppose Obamacare.
The federal government has no business in people's healthcare, retirement or their bedroom.

BUT, mistakes have been made in the past in these areas that today commits the federal government to being responsible for those areas. You can't just quit cold turkey and leave people to fend for themselves.

It's not too late to prevent another mistake by repealing Obamacare now.

Well only one GOP candidate wants the Federal government out of all three healthcare, retirement, and bedroom. Want to guess which one?




"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it is realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. - Ron Paul

Javelin
03-24-2012, 13:10
It's tough when you are forced to sift through the best of the unsatisfactory.

Kind of like digging through a box of gun part rejects finding the best one. It's really not a good situation all the way around. So don't try and over think it. In the end Paul is the best of the unsatisfactory in the purest form. Does he have a chance of being elected? Probably not. Neither does Santorum or Romney. Obama is projected to have $1B in his war chest.

This whole election has been a **** storm and we're caught outside without an umbrella.





Sent from my Fisher-Price phone
http://www.subaruforester.org/vbulletin/customavatars/avatar2503_1.gif

certifiedfunds
03-24-2012, 14:14
You tell me, you're the constitutional expert.
I'd say from the people.



I'm not a Constitutional expert. I'm just literate.

Theoretically, yes. Technically, from the states. The authority which it is GRANTED is spelled out in the Contract that all states have agreed to.

You don't like strict Constitutional government. At the same time you don't like the government sticking its nose into areas you don't agree with but agree with the government meddling where you do agree with.

If you don't like strict Constitutional government, what's the point in having a Constitution at all? Why not just have unfettered majority rule?

The disgusting irony in the whole matter is that you don't even see the contradiction in your own views.:upeyes:

What you fail to realize is that strict Constitutional government is necessary otherwise you get what we have now.

And I do oppose Obamacare.
The federal government has no business in people's healthcare, retirement or their bedroom.

Says who? You don't like strict Constitutional government, right? Why can't the federal government be the sole healthcare provider in the country if that's what the "majority" wants? Why?

As with all things socialism, it won't be long before the majority wants Obamacare because the minority will suffer for it and pay for it. Its very clear the majority wants Social Security and Medicare. Why shouldn't they have it and be able to demand that someone else pay for it?

BUT, mistakes have been made in the past in these areas that today commits the federal government to being responsible for those areas. You can't just quit cold turkey and leave people to fend for themselves.

Again, so why have a Constitution in the first place? You do realize the nonsense you put forth could very easily be used to take away your guns?

It's not too late to prevent another mistake by repealing Obamacare now. Why should we? What if the majority wants it JB? After all, to quote you:

mistakes have been made in the past in these areas that today commits the federal government to being responsible for those areas. :upeyes: The federal government has screwed up healthcare. Mistakes have been made. Don't these mistakes "commit the federal government to being responsible in (this) area" ??

syntaxerrorsix
03-24-2012, 16:55
That's why the Constitution starts off, "We the States"? And the DoI contains the immortal words, " political subdivisions...it is the right of the states to alter or abolish it..."?

Nope. Exhaustively debated in our founding and not decided as you say. Since that seems to be the foundation of the rest of your post, we need to fix that first.

We The People Of These United States. Not The United States

Deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. The States are governed not the people.

Sam Spade
03-24-2012, 17:02
We The People Of These United States. Not The United States

Deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. The States are governed not the people.

All I can say is that your view doesn't match either history or reality. You didn't even quote the preamble correctly. (Go to wiki if you need a quick image of the original document.)
ETA: nevermind. Here:
http://www.rockyriverfred.com/u.s.%20constitution%20preamble.jpg

syntaxerrorsix
03-24-2012, 17:16
All I can say is that your view doesn't match either history or reality. You didn't even quote the preamble correctly. (Go to wiki if you need a quick image of the original document.)
ETA: nevermind. Here:
http://www.rockyriverfred.com/u.s.%20constitution%20preamble.jpg

You are correct. I did not quote it correctly. I screwed up.

That doesn't change the fact that the States created the Fed not the other way around. The fed derives it's power from Art1 Sec8 in it's entirety.

Sam Spade
03-24-2012, 17:42
You are correct. I did not quote it correctly. I screwed up. I like your forthrightness. Props to you.

That doesn't change the fact that the States created the Fed not the other way around. The fed derives it's power from Art1 Sec8 in it's entirety.

The people are the sovereign power, not the states. I agree that the fedgov ought to limit itself to what's enumerated, mostly.

certifiedfunds
03-24-2012, 17:56
I like your forthrightness. Props to you.



The people are the sovereign power, not the states. I agree that the fedgov ought to limit itself to what's enumerated, mostly.

"mostly" Sam?

Sam Spade
03-24-2012, 18:10
"mostly" Sam?

It is an eye-catcher, isn't it? But, for one vital example, I notice that the courts nowhere have the enumerated power to judge the constitutionality of a law. Where do they get that power? Simple, they took it. Marbury talks about history and principle, but fails to cite any enumerated authority. There are some other examples coming from the vague "necessary an proper" clause, but nothing in overwhelming numbers. So "mostly".

certifiedfunds
03-24-2012, 18:43
It is an eye-catcher, isn't it? But, for one vital example, I notice that the courts nowhere have the enumerated power to judge the constitutionality of a law. Where do they get that power? Simple, they took it. Marbury talks about history and principle, but fails to cite any enumerated authority. There are some other examples coming from the vague "necessary an proper" clause, but nothing in overwhelming numbers. So "mostly".

Aw hell. That's gonna take too much research to discuss.

Carry on.:supergrin:

syntaxerrorsix
03-24-2012, 18:53
It is an eye-catcher, isn't it? But, for one vital example, I notice that the courts nowhere have the enumerated power to judge the constitutionality of a law. Where do they get that power? Simple, they took it. Marbury talks about history and principle, but fails to cite any enumerated authority. There are some other examples coming from the vague "necessary an proper" clause, but nothing in overwhelming numbers. So "mostly".

Agreed, another accepted misinterpretation.

Syclone538
03-24-2012, 23:38
It is an eye-catcher, isn't it? But, for one vital example, I notice that the courts nowhere have the enumerated power to judge the constitutionality of a law. Where do they get that power? Simple, they took it. Marbury talks about history and principle, but fails to cite any enumerated authority. There are some other examples coming from the vague "necessary an proper" clause, but nothing in overwhelming numbers. So "mostly".

Very thought provoking post. I don't have a response other then I need to look into that.

aspartz
03-25-2012, 11:54
It's not too late to prevent another mistake by repealing Obamacare now.
So we should also repeal the Controlled Substances Act
So we should also repeal the Gun Control Act
So we should also repeal the Civil Rights Act(s)

ARS

certifiedfunds
03-25-2012, 18:48
So we should also repeal the Controlled Substances Act
So we should also repeal the Gun Control Act
So we should also repeal the Civil Rights Act(s)

ARS

But Repulicans....never mind. :rofl: