ionlyknowy
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 998
I emailed my friends and family about Ron Paul and how he raised 4.3 million in one day. This is a response that I got from one of my friends. How would you respond to this? I will post my response later after people have given it a shot.
HIS RESPONSE
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
You know it's pretty funny that his entire website, especially the red bar indicating how much money he has raised thus far is almost exactly identical to Howard Dean's campaign website from the 2004 primaries. However, I think when national polls show that your own party would rather elect Stephen Colbert than you, it's time to give up.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...paul_and_dennis_kucinich_in_presidential_poll
Also...are you seriously trying to send me Republican propaganda? For example, if you had say worked on the Bush-Cheney campaign in the Summer/Fall of 04 for about 90 hours a week, I would probably have assumed that sending you links about how great I think Barrack Obama will be as President would be an ineffective communication.
What's even better is that one of the main issue platforms he lists on his website is "Home Schooling." Seriously? Wow. Also, he starts talking about "Eminent Domain" but the president can't do jack shit about that, since it's a taking clause issue and will go before the court. Then he claims proudly to be the sponsor of unconstitutional legislation, even though he also claims to want government to return to its proper constitutional levels. This guy is seriously a joke and is going to get crushed at the primaries by someone at the Republican Party's front lines.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Here is my response:
I'm sorry, I didn't know what party you leaned towards. I sent these past few emails to all of my friends. Not just you.
Yes it is funny how Stephen Colbert beat Paul in that poll. It may be that the particular poll that Stephen participated in appealed to persons who would probably not vote in the primaries. Stephen seems to attract the Pop culture youth in America, and these people probably will not be a factor at the polling station. Also, I think polls are totally worthless, and they can be manipulated so easily that they are not even worth looking at. With that said, here is a link to all of the straw polls that have been held and how Ron Paul has faired. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/
He has come in first place 21/42 times, with 12/19 coming in the past two months.
Right now the Republican base is so small that even if many persons in the base supported someone other than Paul he would still have a chance. People are changing their party affiliations from democrat to republican just to vote for him. A good majority of the independents support him, and a HUGE amount of people that would not have voted this year support him. I think he has a really good chance. The media hasn't really covered him much, but his grassroots support almost makes up for it.
New Hampshire is almost 50% independent. And this may be the first primary. If he wins NH then it will affect voters in other states.
Eminent Domain:
"Today, we face a new threat of widespread eminent domain actions as a result of powerful interests who want to build a NAFTA superhighway through the United States from Mexico to Canada."
Have you researched this? Paul is against the North American Union, and our new currency the Amero. Which includes the building of a superhighway stretching from Mexico to Canada, running in close parallel to I-35. You know the highway that goes through Dallas and Denton. The government will be exercising eminent domain to take land to build this highway as part of the NAU. Paul wants to do away with the entire concept. Not just the eminent domain taking of land for a highway. He wants to do away with the idea completely. This wouldn't involve messing with any of the courts authority. He would squash the plans for the NAU which include the NAFTA highway before eminent domain was even invoked.
What is so bad about homeschooling? He just wants regulation of homeschooling to stop. I dont see a problem with this.
Where does he claim to be in favor of unconstitutional legislation? Because I am pretty sure that it is a misunderstanding. He is known as Dr. No in congress because he never votes for anything that is not expressly stated in the constitution.
check out this video, it is great insight into the NAU and the plans that are being made without the knowledge of the American people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo5CZvD3-QM
If you don't like me sending you these past few emails, then I am sorry, I sent these to all of my friends and family who I have emails for...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He finally responded to my email.....here is what he said
-------------------------------------
Whoops! I mistakenly hit Reply to All and typed away!
No, I'm not upset or anything. I pretty much thought everyone in our little group knew that I worked for the Kerry Edwards campaign in 2004. So I was like...why would anyone think I would be responsive to this? For the record, I do like what Ron Paul has to say on a few issues, and his generally libertarian slant. I like that he's against the war. However, on the whole package, I'm far from sold.
I suppose only the future will tell whether or not Mr. Paul has what it takes to unseat more entrenched candidates in the Republican primaries, but even as someone who blatantly dislikes Republicans, I'm not sure he's a legitimate contender in the election just yet. However, I may be wrong, and maybe his unique approach to politics will be able to sway enough Republicans to vote for him so that more well known people like Giuliani, McCain and others will be knocked out of the way.
Again, didn't think that last thing would be taken as offensive and didn't mean to send it to the whole list!
Peace!
------------------------------------------
Then he wrote back again the next day with this....
-------------------------------------------
As for the Constitutionality issue:
"I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v. Wade..."
For decades, Roe has withstood constitutional scrutiny, even under a conservative court. Whether it stands or not is a question of time. It's possible that the Court will overturn Roe in the future, though I think that because of stare decisis it will probably stand intact, at least as far as its central holding goes. I don't believe that Article I gives Congress the power to overturn the Supreme Court except by Constitutional amendment. Whatever his belief and whatever his cause, I find nothing impressive about a Presidential candidate bragging about his disrespect for Constitutional precedent. It is reminiscent of the Civil Rights era where states all over the South passed Jim Crow laws, because they didn't want to follow the Civil Rights acts, and Congress had to keep passing act after act after act to make that generation treat people equally.
He's got his views, and I've got mine, but even with different views on the same thing, someone in our government should have respect for process. If he want to end what he considers to be an immoral practice by getting a Constitutional amendment on the subject of abortion, that is at least a respectable attempt to follow process. Instead, he seems to support the much dirtier approach - try to get passed general legislation that will circumvent individual rights granted under Roe.
For home school:
Nothing is wrong with home school. But for the infinitesimally small percentage of the American population that attends home school, it seems odd that a candidate for President takes an entirely separate tab in the "Issues" section on his website to discuss the issue of homeschooling.
"My commitment to ensuring home schooling remains a practical alternative for American families is unmatched by any Presidential candidate."
You know why it's unmatched? Because nobody cares. It's not a significant issue. Go to Giuliani's website. Do you think that he's going to waste valuable face-space discussing homeschooling? The Department of Education says that 1.7% of the children in America are home schooled. And 82% of those children still attend public schools. So...basically...that brings it down to less than half a percent of kids that are actually home schooled.
My interpretation is that he's not talking about anything else because he's got nothing to say. Instead, he's got some home schooling organization to sponsor him and just throws it out there. It's kind of silly. He's vying for major party candidacy, he should at least try to look like he wants that spot.
Then there's the "American Sovereignty"
He's perpetuating popular ignorance here to people who don't know anything about international legal structures. There's no transfer of our power to unelected foreign elites, like Mr.Paul claims. But if you tell that to uneducated conservatives who are ignorant of the extremely limited international order that we've got today, they'll get riled up and vote for him. Or maybe he's just ignorant himself and believes that. Here's a quote from his website:
"The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals." Ok, Ron. I'll buy that. So even if the soldiers who have "misbehaved" (rape of underaged civilians, killing unarmed female and male civilians) shouldn't be tried as war criminals but celebrated at home as heroes, the ICC would first have to have jurisdiction over us to try them, right? Do they? How about this:
The United States is not party to the International Criminal Court. We signed the Rome Statute (which established said entity) but never ratified it. So we're not party to it! But Ron Paul makes them out to be a big bad international bully that is two inches away from taking our soldiers and actually holding them liable for their crimes (which is obviously not cool).
Another thing: Guess who wrote the Rome Statute? Us. The United States of America. We wrote it, but we never enrolled.
So I'm left with two conclusions:
- Ron Paul knows these things, and is trying to lie and mislead the American people
- Ron Paul is ignorant, and talks about things that he doesn't know about.
So for both of those...I'm less than impressed.
We've already got Bush who lied to us, who mislead us, and is ignorant. Do we really need another one?
----------------------------------------
My response
---------------------------------------
Here is a description of the HR300 legislation.
HR300 (2007:110th Congress) - "We the People Act"
"To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes."
Summary: This bill would prevent the Supreme Court of the United States and all federal courts from ruling on (following text quoted vertatim):
(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;
(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
(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;
This would prevent laws passed by state legislatures on the subject of gay marriage, abortion, school prayer, and many other subjects from being declared unconstitutional by federal courts, including the Supreme Court.
In addition, this bill would prevent state courts from "rely[ing] on any judicial decision involving any issue" referred to in the previous section. This would immediately make all previous federal court decisions involving these subjects inapplicable to state laws, such as Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, Epperson v. Arkansas, or Engel v. Vitale.
Here is the speech Ron Paul gave, introducing the HR300 legislation. Reading this is a good way to find out the reasons behind a piece of legislation.
SPEECH OF_
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FRIDAY, JANUARY 5, 2007
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the We the People Act. The We the People Act forbids federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from adjudicating cases concerning state laws and polices relating to religious liberties or ``privacy,'' including cases involving sexual practices, sexual orientation or reproduction. The We the People Act also protects the traditional definition of marriage from judicial activism by ensuring the Supreme Court cannot abuse the equal protection clause to redefine marriage. In order to hold federal judges accountable for abusing their powers, the act also provides that a judge who violates the act's limitations on judicial power shall either be impeached by Congress or removed by the president, according to rules established by the Congress.
The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Founders intended Congress to use this authority to correct abuses of power by the federal judiciary.
Some may claim that an activist judiciary that strikes down state laws at will expands individual liberty. Proponents of this claim overlook the fact that the best guarantor of true liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to liberty is concentrated power. This is why the Constitution carefully limits the power of the federal government over the states.
In recent years, we have seen numerous abuses of power by Federal courts. Federal judges regularly strike down state and local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion. This government by Federal judiciary causes a virtual nullification of the Tenth Amendment's limitations on federal power. Furthermore, when federal judges impose their preferred polices on state and local governments, instead of respecting the polices adopted by those elected by, and thus accountable
[Page: E33] GPO's PDF
to, the people, republican government is threatened. Article IV, section 4 of the Untied States Constitution guarantees each state a republican form of government. Thus, Congress must act when the executive or judicial branch threatens the republican governments of the individual states. Therefore, Congress has a responsibility to stop Federal judges from running roughshod over state and local laws. The Founders would certainly have supported congressional action to reign in Federal judges who tell citizens where they can and can't place manger scenes at Christmas.
Madam Speaker, even some supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision, which overturned the abortion laws of all fifty states, is flawed. The Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisdiction has also drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. Perhaps more importantly, attempts to resolve, by judicial fiat, important issues like abortion and the expression of religious belief in the public square increase social strife and conflict. The only way to resolve controversial social issues like abortion and school prayer is to restore respect for the right of state and local governments to adopt policies that reflect the beliefs of the citizens of those jurisdictions. I would remind my colleagues and the federal judiciary that, under our Constitutional system, there is no reason why the people of New York and the people of Texas should have the same policies regarding issues such as marriage and school prayer.
Unless Congress acts, a state's authority to define and regulate marriage may be the next victim of activist judges. After all, such a decision would simply take the Supreme Court's decision in the Lawrence case, which overturned all state sodomy laws, to its logical conclusion. Congress must launch a preemptive strike against any further federal usurpation of the states' authority to regulate marriage by removing issues concerning the definition of marriage from the jurisdiction of federal courts.
Although marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil institutions, such as churches and synagogues. Having federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty.
It is long past time that Congress exercises its authority to protect the republican government of the states from out-of-control federal judges. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the We the People Act.
As for homeschooling:
That is what is so great about Ron Paul. He doesn’t cater only to issues, which garner a large percentage of votes. He actually feels strongly about it, that’s it. The media has constantly reported on how Ron cannot be “bought” meaning he is not and will not be persuaded to follow a companies interests when they give him money for his campaign. Ron’s funding has been from individuals giving online. In the latest fundraising news, he raised $4.3 million in one day, with 37,000 contributors. That is $116/person.
American Sovereignty:
Have you looked up the North American Union yet? Or the Amero? These are real things that are really happening, and it IS the global elites that are responsible. This is fact. But not well known fact.
As for the ICC.
The U.S. government publicly supported the establishment of an ICC and on procedural issues the U.S. delegation made important contributions. However, the Clinton Administration categorically opposed a court that could indict U.S. citizens without prior U.S. approval and its representatives insisted on ironclad guarantees to preclude that possibility regardless of the impact on the ICC’s effectiveness and credibility.
On June 15, 1998, diplomats from around the world will assemble in Rome to finalize a treaty that will establish an International Criminal Court (ICC). A key issue is the role of the U.S. government in these negotiations and its apparent effort to ensure that actions of U.S. citizens, particularly U.S. military personnel, will always remain beyond the conceivable reach of such a court.
So yes we did support the idea of an ICC. And I do agree with you on this. The soldiers that are responsible for raping and killing innocent civilians, with intent to do so, should be tried as a war criminal.
It seems to me, that Paul supports opposition to the ICC because he does not support global treaties or organizations. He feels that such global organizations like the UN are a threat to our sovereignty.
In your last sentence you say this “We've already got Bush who lied to us, who mislead us, and is ignorant. Do we really need another one?”
Everyone is touting Ron’s integrity and honesty. Actually, that is why many people that do not agree with every position he states are voting for him. Honest principled integrity. Don’t believe me? Even the Daily Show knows this… “you seem to have consistent principled integrity”
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/videos/2007-06-04-daily-show/
Definition of integrity: Adherence to a code of values; utter sincerity, honesty, candor; completeness
Here is a comment from one of my friends that is also a Democrat.
“I have been a libertarian-leaning Democrat all my adult life. What lured me into the Paul camp:
Number 1 - He is the only candidate who has the courage to state the war is unconstitutional and that he would immediately end it. The Democratic candidates are afraid of being called Doves. Hillary won't even commit to having our military home by the END of her first term.
Number 2 - I believe he will restore habeas corpus and revoke the Patriot Act and other administration power grabs that have gone on these past 6 years, and the pendulum will swing in the direction of liberty (it's swinging in a fascist direction right now).
Number 3 - I admire the man's integrity and statesmanship. He walks the walk, doesn't just talk the talk. I don't think we can go wrong by electing a man with such integrity, even if I don't agree with every little thing.”
I just think that many people just haven’t taken the time to understand Ron Paul.
HIS RESPONSE
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
You know it's pretty funny that his entire website, especially the red bar indicating how much money he has raised thus far is almost exactly identical to Howard Dean's campaign website from the 2004 primaries. However, I think when national polls show that your own party would rather elect Stephen Colbert than you, it's time to give up.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...paul_and_dennis_kucinich_in_presidential_poll
Also...are you seriously trying to send me Republican propaganda? For example, if you had say worked on the Bush-Cheney campaign in the Summer/Fall of 04 for about 90 hours a week, I would probably have assumed that sending you links about how great I think Barrack Obama will be as President would be an ineffective communication.
What's even better is that one of the main issue platforms he lists on his website is "Home Schooling." Seriously? Wow. Also, he starts talking about "Eminent Domain" but the president can't do jack shit about that, since it's a taking clause issue and will go before the court. Then he claims proudly to be the sponsor of unconstitutional legislation, even though he also claims to want government to return to its proper constitutional levels. This guy is seriously a joke and is going to get crushed at the primaries by someone at the Republican Party's front lines.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Here is my response:
I'm sorry, I didn't know what party you leaned towards. I sent these past few emails to all of my friends. Not just you.
Yes it is funny how Stephen Colbert beat Paul in that poll. It may be that the particular poll that Stephen participated in appealed to persons who would probably not vote in the primaries. Stephen seems to attract the Pop culture youth in America, and these people probably will not be a factor at the polling station. Also, I think polls are totally worthless, and they can be manipulated so easily that they are not even worth looking at. With that said, here is a link to all of the straw polls that have been held and how Ron Paul has faired. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/
He has come in first place 21/42 times, with 12/19 coming in the past two months.
Right now the Republican base is so small that even if many persons in the base supported someone other than Paul he would still have a chance. People are changing their party affiliations from democrat to republican just to vote for him. A good majority of the independents support him, and a HUGE amount of people that would not have voted this year support him. I think he has a really good chance. The media hasn't really covered him much, but his grassroots support almost makes up for it.
New Hampshire is almost 50% independent. And this may be the first primary. If he wins NH then it will affect voters in other states.
Eminent Domain:
"Today, we face a new threat of widespread eminent domain actions as a result of powerful interests who want to build a NAFTA superhighway through the United States from Mexico to Canada."
Have you researched this? Paul is against the North American Union, and our new currency the Amero. Which includes the building of a superhighway stretching from Mexico to Canada, running in close parallel to I-35. You know the highway that goes through Dallas and Denton. The government will be exercising eminent domain to take land to build this highway as part of the NAU. Paul wants to do away with the entire concept. Not just the eminent domain taking of land for a highway. He wants to do away with the idea completely. This wouldn't involve messing with any of the courts authority. He would squash the plans for the NAU which include the NAFTA highway before eminent domain was even invoked.
What is so bad about homeschooling? He just wants regulation of homeschooling to stop. I dont see a problem with this.
Where does he claim to be in favor of unconstitutional legislation? Because I am pretty sure that it is a misunderstanding. He is known as Dr. No in congress because he never votes for anything that is not expressly stated in the constitution.
check out this video, it is great insight into the NAU and the plans that are being made without the knowledge of the American people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo5CZvD3-QM
If you don't like me sending you these past few emails, then I am sorry, I sent these to all of my friends and family who I have emails for...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He finally responded to my email.....here is what he said
-------------------------------------
Whoops! I mistakenly hit Reply to All and typed away!
No, I'm not upset or anything. I pretty much thought everyone in our little group knew that I worked for the Kerry Edwards campaign in 2004. So I was like...why would anyone think I would be responsive to this? For the record, I do like what Ron Paul has to say on a few issues, and his generally libertarian slant. I like that he's against the war. However, on the whole package, I'm far from sold.
I suppose only the future will tell whether or not Mr. Paul has what it takes to unseat more entrenched candidates in the Republican primaries, but even as someone who blatantly dislikes Republicans, I'm not sure he's a legitimate contender in the election just yet. However, I may be wrong, and maybe his unique approach to politics will be able to sway enough Republicans to vote for him so that more well known people like Giuliani, McCain and others will be knocked out of the way.
Again, didn't think that last thing would be taken as offensive and didn't mean to send it to the whole list!
Peace!
------------------------------------------
Then he wrote back again the next day with this....
-------------------------------------------
As for the Constitutionality issue:
"I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v. Wade..."
For decades, Roe has withstood constitutional scrutiny, even under a conservative court. Whether it stands or not is a question of time. It's possible that the Court will overturn Roe in the future, though I think that because of stare decisis it will probably stand intact, at least as far as its central holding goes. I don't believe that Article I gives Congress the power to overturn the Supreme Court except by Constitutional amendment. Whatever his belief and whatever his cause, I find nothing impressive about a Presidential candidate bragging about his disrespect for Constitutional precedent. It is reminiscent of the Civil Rights era where states all over the South passed Jim Crow laws, because they didn't want to follow the Civil Rights acts, and Congress had to keep passing act after act after act to make that generation treat people equally.
He's got his views, and I've got mine, but even with different views on the same thing, someone in our government should have respect for process. If he want to end what he considers to be an immoral practice by getting a Constitutional amendment on the subject of abortion, that is at least a respectable attempt to follow process. Instead, he seems to support the much dirtier approach - try to get passed general legislation that will circumvent individual rights granted under Roe.
For home school:
Nothing is wrong with home school. But for the infinitesimally small percentage of the American population that attends home school, it seems odd that a candidate for President takes an entirely separate tab in the "Issues" section on his website to discuss the issue of homeschooling.
"My commitment to ensuring home schooling remains a practical alternative for American families is unmatched by any Presidential candidate."
You know why it's unmatched? Because nobody cares. It's not a significant issue. Go to Giuliani's website. Do you think that he's going to waste valuable face-space discussing homeschooling? The Department of Education says that 1.7% of the children in America are home schooled. And 82% of those children still attend public schools. So...basically...that brings it down to less than half a percent of kids that are actually home schooled.
My interpretation is that he's not talking about anything else because he's got nothing to say. Instead, he's got some home schooling organization to sponsor him and just throws it out there. It's kind of silly. He's vying for major party candidacy, he should at least try to look like he wants that spot.
Then there's the "American Sovereignty"
He's perpetuating popular ignorance here to people who don't know anything about international legal structures. There's no transfer of our power to unelected foreign elites, like Mr.Paul claims. But if you tell that to uneducated conservatives who are ignorant of the extremely limited international order that we've got today, they'll get riled up and vote for him. Or maybe he's just ignorant himself and believes that. Here's a quote from his website:
"The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals." Ok, Ron. I'll buy that. So even if the soldiers who have "misbehaved" (rape of underaged civilians, killing unarmed female and male civilians) shouldn't be tried as war criminals but celebrated at home as heroes, the ICC would first have to have jurisdiction over us to try them, right? Do they? How about this:
The United States is not party to the International Criminal Court. We signed the Rome Statute (which established said entity) but never ratified it. So we're not party to it! But Ron Paul makes them out to be a big bad international bully that is two inches away from taking our soldiers and actually holding them liable for their crimes (which is obviously not cool).
Another thing: Guess who wrote the Rome Statute? Us. The United States of America. We wrote it, but we never enrolled.
So I'm left with two conclusions:
- Ron Paul knows these things, and is trying to lie and mislead the American people
- Ron Paul is ignorant, and talks about things that he doesn't know about.
So for both of those...I'm less than impressed.
We've already got Bush who lied to us, who mislead us, and is ignorant. Do we really need another one?
----------------------------------------
My response
---------------------------------------
Here is a description of the HR300 legislation.
HR300 (2007:110th Congress) - "We the People Act"
"To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes."
Summary: This bill would prevent the Supreme Court of the United States and all federal courts from ruling on (following text quoted vertatim):
(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;
(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
(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;
This would prevent laws passed by state legislatures on the subject of gay marriage, abortion, school prayer, and many other subjects from being declared unconstitutional by federal courts, including the Supreme Court.
In addition, this bill would prevent state courts from "rely[ing] on any judicial decision involving any issue" referred to in the previous section. This would immediately make all previous federal court decisions involving these subjects inapplicable to state laws, such as Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, Epperson v. Arkansas, or Engel v. Vitale.
Here is the speech Ron Paul gave, introducing the HR300 legislation. Reading this is a good way to find out the reasons behind a piece of legislation.
SPEECH OF_
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FRIDAY, JANUARY 5, 2007
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the We the People Act. The We the People Act forbids federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from adjudicating cases concerning state laws and polices relating to religious liberties or ``privacy,'' including cases involving sexual practices, sexual orientation or reproduction. The We the People Act also protects the traditional definition of marriage from judicial activism by ensuring the Supreme Court cannot abuse the equal protection clause to redefine marriage. In order to hold federal judges accountable for abusing their powers, the act also provides that a judge who violates the act's limitations on judicial power shall either be impeached by Congress or removed by the president, according to rules established by the Congress.
The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Founders intended Congress to use this authority to correct abuses of power by the federal judiciary.
Some may claim that an activist judiciary that strikes down state laws at will expands individual liberty. Proponents of this claim overlook the fact that the best guarantor of true liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to liberty is concentrated power. This is why the Constitution carefully limits the power of the federal government over the states.
In recent years, we have seen numerous abuses of power by Federal courts. Federal judges regularly strike down state and local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion. This government by Federal judiciary causes a virtual nullification of the Tenth Amendment's limitations on federal power. Furthermore, when federal judges impose their preferred polices on state and local governments, instead of respecting the polices adopted by those elected by, and thus accountable
[Page: E33] GPO's PDF
to, the people, republican government is threatened. Article IV, section 4 of the Untied States Constitution guarantees each state a republican form of government. Thus, Congress must act when the executive or judicial branch threatens the republican governments of the individual states. Therefore, Congress has a responsibility to stop Federal judges from running roughshod over state and local laws. The Founders would certainly have supported congressional action to reign in Federal judges who tell citizens where they can and can't place manger scenes at Christmas.
Madam Speaker, even some supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision, which overturned the abortion laws of all fifty states, is flawed. The Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisdiction has also drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. Perhaps more importantly, attempts to resolve, by judicial fiat, important issues like abortion and the expression of religious belief in the public square increase social strife and conflict. The only way to resolve controversial social issues like abortion and school prayer is to restore respect for the right of state and local governments to adopt policies that reflect the beliefs of the citizens of those jurisdictions. I would remind my colleagues and the federal judiciary that, under our Constitutional system, there is no reason why the people of New York and the people of Texas should have the same policies regarding issues such as marriage and school prayer.
Unless Congress acts, a state's authority to define and regulate marriage may be the next victim of activist judges. After all, such a decision would simply take the Supreme Court's decision in the Lawrence case, which overturned all state sodomy laws, to its logical conclusion. Congress must launch a preemptive strike against any further federal usurpation of the states' authority to regulate marriage by removing issues concerning the definition of marriage from the jurisdiction of federal courts.
Although marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil institutions, such as churches and synagogues. Having federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty.
It is long past time that Congress exercises its authority to protect the republican government of the states from out-of-control federal judges. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the We the People Act.
As for homeschooling:
That is what is so great about Ron Paul. He doesn’t cater only to issues, which garner a large percentage of votes. He actually feels strongly about it, that’s it. The media has constantly reported on how Ron cannot be “bought” meaning he is not and will not be persuaded to follow a companies interests when they give him money for his campaign. Ron’s funding has been from individuals giving online. In the latest fundraising news, he raised $4.3 million in one day, with 37,000 contributors. That is $116/person.
American Sovereignty:
Have you looked up the North American Union yet? Or the Amero? These are real things that are really happening, and it IS the global elites that are responsible. This is fact. But not well known fact.
As for the ICC.
The U.S. government publicly supported the establishment of an ICC and on procedural issues the U.S. delegation made important contributions. However, the Clinton Administration categorically opposed a court that could indict U.S. citizens without prior U.S. approval and its representatives insisted on ironclad guarantees to preclude that possibility regardless of the impact on the ICC’s effectiveness and credibility.
On June 15, 1998, diplomats from around the world will assemble in Rome to finalize a treaty that will establish an International Criminal Court (ICC). A key issue is the role of the U.S. government in these negotiations and its apparent effort to ensure that actions of U.S. citizens, particularly U.S. military personnel, will always remain beyond the conceivable reach of such a court.
So yes we did support the idea of an ICC. And I do agree with you on this. The soldiers that are responsible for raping and killing innocent civilians, with intent to do so, should be tried as a war criminal.
It seems to me, that Paul supports opposition to the ICC because he does not support global treaties or organizations. He feels that such global organizations like the UN are a threat to our sovereignty.
In your last sentence you say this “We've already got Bush who lied to us, who mislead us, and is ignorant. Do we really need another one?”
Everyone is touting Ron’s integrity and honesty. Actually, that is why many people that do not agree with every position he states are voting for him. Honest principled integrity. Don’t believe me? Even the Daily Show knows this… “you seem to have consistent principled integrity”
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/videos/2007-06-04-daily-show/
Definition of integrity: Adherence to a code of values; utter sincerity, honesty, candor; completeness
Here is a comment from one of my friends that is also a Democrat.
“I have been a libertarian-leaning Democrat all my adult life. What lured me into the Paul camp:
Number 1 - He is the only candidate who has the courage to state the war is unconstitutional and that he would immediately end it. The Democratic candidates are afraid of being called Doves. Hillary won't even commit to having our military home by the END of her first term.
Number 2 - I believe he will restore habeas corpus and revoke the Patriot Act and other administration power grabs that have gone on these past 6 years, and the pendulum will swing in the direction of liberty (it's swinging in a fascist direction right now).
Number 3 - I admire the man's integrity and statesmanship. He walks the walk, doesn't just talk the talk. I don't think we can go wrong by electing a man with such integrity, even if I don't agree with every little thing.”
I just think that many people just haven’t taken the time to understand Ron Paul.
Last edited:
