SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.
The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court-- (1) shall not adjudicate-- 1.(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion; 2.(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or 3.(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and (2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1)Oh yeah, one other thing. about pedos - I approve of the idea of putting them on an offender registry, but we should ALSO do the same with violent criminals and habitual burglars and perhaps even arsonists. There's a lot more to crime than sex, folks!
There is also marijuana. It's pretty much like a smokable form of booze. So why is it illegal and smoking and booze legal? idiots. Why not just make pot legal and put all smokers outdoors with the tobacco smokers? what? Camel lovers don't like hippies?
And sentencing people to 219 years behind bars for ANYTHING is plain ridiculous. As of yet, no human has been proven to live past 122 yrs of age, and besides, there are already such things as life sentences for the worst offenses. (The death penalty is also used, in places such as Japan and Texas, and while I have reservations about its use, I believe there is such a thing as a valid capital offense. People who have killed, and want to kill or murder again and again and again, deserve the death penalty, as it would actually save lives (potentially) in the long run.
Ron Paul wants the decline and fall of America - simply because he wants to decommission the government. Why? b/c America is supported by the work done by our government, with income redistribution and defense of freedom and the works.
Paul has at least one good idea in his noggin, though - punishments are currently too harsh (and unneccessary) for some crimes.
California has a three-strikes law - if you convicted for 3 felonies, you get to spend the rest of your life in a cage.
And then there's child pr0n. Yes, it's sick, yes, it should be illegal, yes, it IS illegal, but 5 YEARS for a photo? what's the point? Lawmakers and law enforcers are fond of slapping extra penalties onto crimes without really knowing if that's an actual deterrent or not. Given the nature of lolicon lovers, I'd probably say two months in the slammer would be enough to make people think twice - at least on a first or second offense.
It's an okay word. If I caught aspergers and were to arrange every word I knew in order of preference, I guess it would be slightly above the median.
> nebulous
This is your favourite word, isn't it?
>>28
No need for conspiracy theories about NAFTA.
http://shii.org/knows/NAFTA
>>28
I really don't get the sovereignty thing either. In the US Constitution itself, it states that treaties made are the supreme law of the land, equal to the laws of the Congress and the constitution.
I haven't read all the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers and the secret diaries of the founding fathers &c., but I don't see any reason to hold a stronger faith in the nebulous concept of "the United States of America" than in the ideas of limited government, freedom of expression and association and religion and possession, equality in the face of the law, and representation in governance. If a supra-national organization supports these ideas, I don't see any problem in the US being a member.
in b4 NAFTA conspiracy theories.
And what is the USA's fear of supra-national government? It has worked incredibly well in the EU. I can be treated equally, work, travel and move freely across an entire continent.
>>26
I like this website. Although its "VoteMatch" thing told me to vote for Al Sharpton. w
The only thing that seems inconsistent and irks me about his voting record is this: "Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)"
Anyone know the story behind H.R. 2587?
I agree with getting rid of the WTO, NAFTA, and CATFA, but going back to the industrial revolution is not worth it.
>Presidents from both parties have entered into trade agreements like NAFTA and the WTO promising that they would create new jobs. Instead, in recent years we've lost millions of manufacturing jobs, seen wages stagnate, and run up larger and larger trade deficits.
(http://johnedwards.com/news/headlines/20071027-peru-trade/index.html)
John Edwards also disagree with those trade agreements. The differences between John Edwards and Ron Paul is that John Edwards ideas would boost the standard of living and not fuck it up.
Hell, read John Edwards issues page if you want to be fair and look into both sides.
I supported Ron Paul for a short time, now I feel like a dumb ass for it.
Under libertarian rule big businesses own almost everything. I can't believe a lot of you would trust big businesses running your schools, paving your roads, ect. over the State. I agree that government is full of a bunch of corrupt fuckers but they are corrupt because of big business.
>>23
Here's what I got from it:
Part 1 - A racist article appeared in Paul's journal in 1992, and although he claimed in 2001 that it was an unauthorized contribution by a staffer and that he regrets its publication deeply, the author thinks he's lying
Part 2 - A lot of anti-semites, white supremacists and other such fringe groups love Ron Paul, and he doesn't take enough issue with it
Part 3 - Paul thinks there's a conspiracy to create a world government, supports the gold standard, and printed baseless smears about the Clintons in 1993
Part 4 - Ron Paul is not a liberal socialist and is therefore evil
I dunno, there may be points worth examining further in there, but it's just too much of a hate-mongering diatribe for me to accept at face value.
> After his 1979-85 service in Congress as a Republican and his 1988 campaign for the presidency as the nominee of the Libertarian Party, Ron Paul returned home to Surfside, Texas and devoted himself to a variety of pursuits, one of which was his self-published newsletter, The Ron Paul Political Report. Founded in 1985, the eight-page newsletter featured Paul's extreme libertarian perspective on a number of different issues, notably crackpot theories...
Two sentences in, and two unjustified shouting words. I don't especially feel like reading further, and I doubt that I'm missing much.
>>1 Ron Paul is a sane canidate.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740
Some of us beg to differ.
>>19
Though a weekend anarchist, I don't imagine that all actions of the state are inherently evil. While all candidates certainly would use this "federal-executive sledgehammer" with greater abandon than Ron Paul, several among them would use it more wisely. The ideas Ron Paul believes regarding the role of the states in freedom of individual expression and personal privacy are the worst excesses of tyranny. Some strange new tumors elsewhere in the aparatus of government can be let grow in order to stop this cancer.
And no one should ever have to uproot themselves from their home and all they know in order to secure their livelihood.
It's folly to think a man would just give up absolute power, when he could instead use it to further cement his status and push his ideology.
>>18
So, pray tell, what presidential candidate proposes to curtail the unwarranted and irrational expansion of power of the state? Probably the Libertarian one, but whoever that is must be even more unelectable than people complain Paul is. Yeah, our voting system is a travesty.
From what I've observed, most candidates for both the Democrat and the Republican Party both want to wield the federal-executive sledgehammer that's been forged in the last few decades, merely towards different aims. Paul is the only one espousing a view remotely related to limiting the power of government. While it's not ideal from an anarcho-libertarian perspective, the odds are high that at least one state government (for you, I'm thinking New Hampshire) given as much sovereignty as possible will be more to your liking than our current heavy-handed federal government. At the very least, it's a little more accountable to you as a citizen and voter.
you shouldn't have to choose either, that's a false dichotomy. Every part of government can be limited. What Ron Paul has proposed in the past and likely will continue to propose into the future is the unwarranted and irrational expansion of power of the state.
>>16
i agree with this man.
at currently, i think leaving power to the state is a good middle ground. we can work our way up from there.
>>15
Definitely true. However, I find the prospect of states oppressing individuals less disconcerting than the reality of the federal government oppressing individuals. This may be because I live in California.
the shortest way of stating why i dislike ron paul is that he cares more strongly about states' rights than individual rights. i don't see how anyone can come to any different conclusion after reading the speech regarding flag burning he gave a couple years back (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul99.html).
I hadn't been reading /politics/, so I just found out about this guy. Awesome. I agree with almost everything he says, he has a long record of showing he means it, and there's a chance he might even win. I never thought I'd register as a Republican, but now I just might (to vote in the primary).
I dont trust a foxnews post....
RON PAUL FUCK YEAH!