City Arrests Music Teacher for Lawn Grass Being Too High

Ron Paul would allow this to be sorted out at the local level, by the people who set that standard.

Can someone point out a constitutional violation?
 
Right to property is violated if you can not have grass at the length you want it on YOUR OWN property.
 
Right to property is violated if you can not have grass at the length you want it on YOUR OWN property.
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.
 
Last edited:
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.

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.
 
Last edited:
Wow.

Ad Hominem right off the bat.

Your property is your own, when the Government (at any level) tries to tell you that your grass must be a certain length, or you can't have a shed in your own backyard, then they are violating your rights and overstepping their authority.

Home Owner's Associations do this all the time, especially when they make membership mandatory, and charge membership fees. Its nothing more than extortion; you pay us to live here, or we'll write you a bunch of letters.
 
wtf!!! ... this is absurd, i cant believe they arrested your mother for this BS

thank you for making the video... im sending it to everybody in my address book... this message is going to spread
 
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.

True, very true. The point isn't that ron paul will change the laws in this guy's town. What this is, is an example of invasive, ineffective government. All government; federal, state and local can be overly invasive, neglectful and ineffective. We do need to be active against every level of government. That has been said by supporters and Paul himself. The movement is bigger than the man. It's a movement to restore the proper role of government. The point is to restrain all governments.

Paul only talks about how he'd deal at a federal level. But, mind you, that's cause he's running for federal office.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
Burden of proof is on you.

The great thing about the Constitution is that people can't bend it to their purposes. It's an actual document, which should be cited to support any assertions.
 
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.
An example that he would leave alone. Which is why this is a negative issue to raise about his platform.
 
Back
Top