<p>The Constitution has the 4th Amendment, protecting individuals from unreasonable search and seizure. Is there a section of the Constitution that handles marriage? Off the top of my head, I don’t think so. That would make it a state issue. Oh, but leaving it to the states is bad…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Respectfully, it is you who does not understand. If you were to listen to Ron Paul speak, you would quickly realize that he believes it is indeed the function of the federal govt. to protect liberty. It is one of the few functions the federal govt. SHOULD have.</p>
<p>And, actually, most of us do understand quite well. But here is an educational video that explains the concept:</p>
<p>[YouTube</a> - The Philosophy of Liberty](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I)</p>
<p>“Is there a section of the Constitution that handles marriage? Off the top of my head, I don’t think so. That would make it a state issue.”</p>
<p>I take it, then, that you disagree with Loving v. Virginia?</p>
<p>leal - you have made my point. Abortion and birth control and who someone can sleep with in the privacy of his or her own home are all in that ballpark. Understanding that is basic to understanding libertarianism and Constitutional law. How Ron Paul or you feel about those things won’t matter one bit.</p>
<p>Loving v. Virginia was based in the 14th Amendment. I don’t disagree with the ruling, I simply did not remember it. The case is a prime example of the responsibility of the federal government, to keep the states from violating federal the Constitution. If federal government were to leave the issue of marriage to the states, it would not prevent an un-Constitutional law from being overturned by the Supreme Court.</p>
<p>I guess I wonder why you think it’s you that understands what he is TRYING to say, and not us that understands what he ACTUALLY said on The View. </p>
<p>As I said before, I had heard many people say he was so great so I tuned in wanting to know more. He was VERY clear that he believes abortion should be banned. He never said that it should be banned only in certain cases, or in some situations. Yet he claims to want government out of our lives. I clearly heard a contradiction there. I don’t care how anybody tries to explain that away. I would never personally have an abortion, except in very rare circumstances which, luckily, I have never had to deal with. But I do believe that everyone should have the right to make that decision for themselves. He does not.</p>
<p>And after having listened to his views, and then reading up more on his opinions, he doesn’t stand a chance of getting my vote.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I have not made your point. I disagree with your point. Abortion is not in the same category as the other issues you mentioned, because abortion is an act of violence against another person.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The only reason you see a contradiction is that you evidently do not consider an unborn baby a person. If you did, you would see that ‘our’ includes everyone, including those babies. Why would the govt. protect the liberty of some, or most people but not all? The concept of liberty is meaningless unless applied to ALL.</p>
<p>Congressman Paul’s personal definition that life begins at conception (a definition he has pushed in the legislature). By this definition, an abortion would constitute a violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments, at the very least. The unborn child would be deprived of life and liberty without due process. Where is the contradiction in that logic?</p>
<p>The Libertarian quip is that your right to swing your arm ends where my face begins. The right to privacy is abridged by the more pressing violation of the unborn child’s rights. So if you subscribe to the idea that life begins before birth, this is logically consistent. If you do not believe a fetus is living prior to birth, there is a contradiction.</p>
<p>Okay, so how is Ron Paul going to take abortion out of the ballpark and deal with it separately - he intends for it to be handled under the states’ criminal statutes?</p>
<p>Ron Paul has been pushing the federalist-Constitutional approach on all these social issues for quite some time:</p>
<p>[We</a> the People Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_the_People_Act]We”>Political positions of Ron Paul - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Yes, just like the states currently deal with any other violent crime.</p>
<p>So he plans to tell the states to treat abortion as a crime? How does he plan to do that - procedurally I mean. I thought he was letting the states do what they want about abortion.</p>
<p>Not ‘tell the states to treat abortion as a crime’ but if Roe v Wade is neutralized, then the states would have to legislate it because it would no longer be a ‘right’ granted by the federal govt.</p>
<p>It’s not a perfect solution. But it would be in alignment of the purpose of the federal govt. - to protect the liberties of all citizens regardless of their circumstances.</p>
<p>“By this definition, an abortion would constitute a violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments”</p>
<p>The 5th and 14th amendments control state action, not private action. The beginning of life has nothing to do with this. One adult private citizen killing another adult private citizen is not a violation of due process. This is very, very basic constitutional law.</p>
<p>States have force sterilized women who they decided were imbiciles. Read Buck v. Bell to see that is constitutional. By the way *Buck v. Bell *has never been overruled. If you read the history of the events that gave rise to the case, the girl was sterilized probably because there was an influential male who was having sex with her (a cover-up).</p>
<p>Original intent covers a world where women were second class citizens and the 14th Amendment was about race, so Ron probably wants all federal legislation about sex discrimination dropped. Right?</p>
<p>According to Paul’s We the People Act, federal jurisdiction would be limited as follows - </p>
<p>The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court–</p>
<p>(1) shall not adjudicate–</p>
<p>(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;</p>
<p>(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or</p>
<p>(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</p>
<p>(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).</p>
<p>Ron Paul wants equal rights and liberties for EVERYONE. So obviously that would supercede any need for special amendments for minorities. The only reason there needed to be special amendments was because people were not being given equal rights to begin with. It was a given that blacks couldn’t vote, for example, so that had to be rectified. But if it is understood that EVERYONE (including blacks, women, etc.) has equal liberties, there should be no need for special amendments.</p>
<p>Sure, states have done atrocious things. So has the federal govt. There is no surefire way to prevent ANY abuse EVER at any level. Also keep in mind that society as a whole HAS progressed.</p>
<p>Thanks for clearing that up Hanna. I haven’t taken any Constitutional law courses (I’m in high school). Always good to learn something.</p>
<p>By the way, to get back to someone saying what goes on in a church is no business of the federal government, Paul agrees.
Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006), Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004), Protect all voluntary associations; don’t define marriage. (Oct 2007).</p>
<p>07Dad, please provide a quote or vote or something to suggest that what you said is Ron Paul’s stance on sexual discrimination. Abortion aside, I have not seen anything in Ron Paul’s speeches that show he wants all federal legislation about sexual discrimination dropped. I have not seen that he wants to repeal ENDA or eliminate the EEOC, which protects women from discrimination by employers. I could be wrong, I have been before. If he does want to eliminate the EEOC and make women second-class citizens, then I won’t vote for him and I’ll vote for the Libertarian nominee.</p>
<p>ninja, I believe I can answer your question. Ron Paul is very idealist. If we can succeed in honoring equal rights for everyone, all of those amendments would become obsolete (because they are trying to accomplish what should be a given: no discrimination). However, that is an eventual goal and we’re obviously not there yet. In the meantime, he would not eliminate legislation that helps ensure equal rights.</p>
<p>This is illustrated in 07Dad’s comment:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Those amendments were necessary because women and blacks were considered 2nd class citizens. In Ron Paul’s vision, NO ONE, not even an unborn child, would be considered a 2nd class citizen. So there would no longer be a need for such attempts to correct discrimination, because discrimination would be prohibited by the federal govt, whose purpose it is is to protect the liberties of ALL.</p>
<p>To give an analogy: Jesus’ Golden Rule “Love your neighbor as yourself” and “Do unto others as you would like them to do unto you” supercedes the 10 commandments, because if you treat others the way you want to be treated, then you automatically won’t kill them or steal from them…right?</p>
<p>Likewise, if everyone had equal liberties, which is Ron Paul’s goal, then that would take care of these issues.</p>
<p>Ron Paul - as would any Libertarian - does not support the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He was the only Senator who voted against commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act. Here is an article that explains his basis for that. Of course, the President doesn’t have the power to roll back legislation, but the article points out his views. </p>
<p>[The</a> Trouble With Forced Integration by Rep. Ron Paul](<a href=“http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html]The”>The Trouble With the '64 Civil Rights Act - LewRockwell)</p>
<p>The EEOC was created under the Civil Rights Act so if the Civil Rights Act were repealed, the EEOC would go with it. </p>
<p>Ninja - it is wise that you educate yourself on just what being a Libertarian means. There is a reason that racists and sexists and many other hateful “ists” find support in it.</p>