|
littlebier8 (September 9, 2008 at 9:19 pm)
No, he's a libertarian. He wants to maximize individual liberty, but because he's a national politician he is primarily concerned with restraining the federal government, using the law of land, the Constitution.
sunstorm007 (August 28, 2008 at 8:29 am)
It might make perfect since to you, but Ron Paul is adamantly opposed to Incorporation. How many times do I have to say it?
Ron Paul does not think that the Bill of Rights should protect people from State Government. He wants the construction to go back to what is was under Barron v. Baltimore
TCCTV (August 25, 2008 at 7:51 pm)
Howard Phillips will speak at the Ron Paul's "Rally for the Republic" in Minneapolis on Sept. 2. You are invited to attend and pass the word!
rallyfortherepublicDOTcom
soccom8341576 (August 7, 2008 at 12:17 pm)
So now, an individual is protected by the legal rights as said in the Constitution, and no government, state or federal can deprive you of it?
That makes more sense.
aswightman (August 6, 2008 at 12:07 am)
Fuck hes good looking
sunstorm007 (July 31, 2008 at 6:14 pm)
It's not my view soccom, it was Chief Justice John Marshall's view. John Marshall was appointed to the Supreme Court by president John Adams. See Baron v. Baltimore.
The issue changed though, with the passage of the 14th amendment, through the 'due process clause,' which was aimed directly at the States. Through the 14th amendment, the Supreme Court slowly but surely began to incorporate the Bill of Rights into the due process of clause of the 14th amendment.
sunstorm007 (July 31, 2008 at 6:05 pm)
LOL! That's a rhetorical question.
It would be irrelevant under Ron Paul's construction of the Constitution whether he would want these rights restricted or not, because the United States Congress could not pass laws protecting certain citizens civil liberties from the States, even if they wanted to.
Before recent years, in lieu of selective incorporation, the States restricted all kinds of civil liberties found in the Bill of Rights, that we today for granted.
soccom8341576 (July 30, 2008 at 8:49 am)
Does Ron Paul actually say that he wants local government to restrict these things?
soccom8341576 (July 30, 2008 at 8:43 am)
So your view is that the states can ban firearms, limit free speech and do whatever they please, because they aren't bound by the constitution?
OutlawTomFantastic (June 20, 2008 at 7:53 pm)
That's what a principled man sounds like. |
