That's bullshit.Right to property is violated if you can not have grass at the length you want it on YOUR OWN property.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhf5TNgqwp4
That's me, and that's my mother who got arrested.
http://www.testimoniesforpaul.com
Just updated the site!
That's bullshit.
Local government imposes standards on the appearance of privately owned buildings and land all the time. You can't just call it a rights violation when it becomes irrational.
Ron Paul does not stand for federal oversight. Jesus Christ you people are dense.
That's bullshit.
Local government imposes standards on the appearance of privately owned buildings and land all the time. You can't just call it a rights violation when you disagree.
Ron Paul does not stand for federal oversight. Jesus Christ you people are dense.
We're not arguing over right or wrong.Its called collectivism. A theory that states that if its worth doing, its worth forcing people to do it. That is the motto of governments like the USSR.
We're not arguing over right or wrong.
It's about federal policy, and whether Ron Paul's philosophies would do anything to stop this from happening. Unless a constitutional right is being violated, Ron Paul will always side with local government.
You're spreading a message about a problem, and you're doing it in the name of a candidate who would side against your cause.
Burden of proof is on you.What you are saying is that because a Government has passed a law at the local level it is always constitutional.
This is not. This is ridiculous and invasive.
An example that he would leave alone. Which is why this is a negative issue to raise about his platform.Paul would (I think) agree that the federal government should not be active in this. But he would still find it an example of government inefficiency and ridiculous invasiveness.