slantedview
Member
- Joined
- May 23, 2007
- Messages
- 3,114
What legislation is he talking about?
Response to Ron Paul email..How should I respond?
- Thread starter ionlyknowy
- Start date
What legislation is he talking about?
I know. My point is that it shouldn't be.
It should've.
It should be done differently, but leaving it completely up to the states isn't the answer. I don't see how that would help our education situation at all.
Because last time I checked, we still all live in one country, and I don't want there to be a whole new generation of morons. Parents have a right to teach their kids voodoo, but a kid should'be be allowed to get a high school diploma without having a proper education in math, english, science, etc.
Last edited:
Mark Rushmore
Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 1,105
Yeah, everyone can see how well our education system prevented the current generation of morons
.Yeah, everyone can see how well our education system prevented the current generation of morons
Like I said, I think there should be education reform, but leaving it to the states and forgetting about it isn't going to do any good.
Roxi
Member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 5,664
what is your basis for saying this? were you homeschooled? do you have siblings or friends that were?
Home schooling, if done for educational reasons and not laziness, is a GREAT thing to support, and those of us involved in homeschooling need people like Ron Paul to advocate it. Homeschooling has a horrible stigma that children don't get the socialization necessary to maintain quality social friendships into adult hood, but this is a fear based on ignorance. Most people fail to research and don't realize that A GREAT majority of homeschooled kids go everyday to socialize with other homeschooled kids. We had sports teams, cheerleading, debate, chess, drama, photo club, sign language, swimming, track.... i could keep going. The list of extra curricular activities we had the choices to participate in were WAY longer than those of public schools.
In a lot of areas the public school system is worse than horrible. schools are broke, and over ruled by the Fed. even if you want to donate money to them you can't donate it to the areas that you want. you have to donate it to a general fund not just to one project.
Im just curious as to what makes you think homeschooling is a horrible thing to support?
And you think that this one kid is representative of all homeschooled children? Wow.
Hello Alex,
I am not sure where you are but if you are anywhere near TX or FL let me know and we can visit
I am very proudly homeschooled. (also some private and public as well)
I will talk to you any day, or anyone else for that matter, I have no social problems at all except that maybe work too much, but that seems to be a trait of us as a country and not homeschoolers.
I am soon hoping to start public speaking, one thing that has long been a "fear" of mine, not because I can't speak, more just because I finally have the right motives to do so.
Our country is ripe for and NEEDS education reform. I was pulled from public school when my english teacher COULD NOT read. Maybe saying could not is a stretch, it was about a 2-3rd grade reading level that she had at the time, clearly not english teacher material.
In today's education they are more and more simply teaching a test. In the end most of these tests with the exception of the math are simply reading comprehension tests where you have a paragraph or an essay and answer questions on it. I am not against reading comprehension, I just feel this is the worst way to actually LEARN anything that will promote a life of continual learning which one requires to succeed in today's world. Some naturally learn this on their own, but many do not learn this in time to be an educated voter, worker, leader, or anything but a blind follower of those that learn.
One does not learn to learn and self educate by reading an essay and answering on it, instead one learns by self discovery to an end goal. I will be expanding on this in the coming years as our system of education now is so lost it can not find its way back through government mandate. It will take a strong grassroots effort to take back education as well as politics.
Proudly homeschooled.
ionlyknowy
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 998
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 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?
-------------------------------------
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 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?
Goldwater Conservative
Member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2007
- Messages
- 1,783
Honestly, your friend comes across as an uppity jerk. And his facts are wrong, most noticeably regarding HR 300 (We the People Act), which simply limits jurisdiction for federal courts, a power that is 100% constitutional (seriously, read Article 3 Section 2), unlike many of the social programs I'm sure your friend supports.
And if Ron Paul wants to address homeschooling, I don't see what the problem is. Even if it only affects 1.7% of Americans, they're still Americans. Better than Rudy Giuliani touting the national security "credentials" he "earned" on 9/11.
As for American sovereignty, well, it's no secret that there are many people in high-ranking government positions, various influential think tanks, etc., who are pushing for a greater integration of North America, among other "free trade" goals. Aside from one president and two-third of the senators that vote on it, the people will have no say, and then we'll all have quotas, trade restrictions, and even case law foisted upon us as a result (it's happening in the EU)... and then there's the common (single?) currency.
And if Ron Paul wants to address homeschooling, I don't see what the problem is. Even if it only affects 1.7% of Americans, they're still Americans. Better than Rudy Giuliani touting the national security "credentials" he "earned" on 9/11.
As for American sovereignty, well, it's no secret that there are many people in high-ranking government positions, various influential think tanks, etc., who are pushing for a greater integration of North America, among other "free trade" goals. Aside from one president and two-third of the senators that vote on it, the people will have no say, and then we'll all have quotas, trade restrictions, and even case law foisted upon us as a result (it's happening in the EU)... and then there's the common (single?) currency.
ionlyknowly, I have been a libertarian-leaning Democrat all my adult life. I supported Kerry/Edwards in 2004. Not because I loved Kerry (I just disliked Bush/Cheney and hated their war of aggression). I'll tell you what lured me into the Paul camp (for your emails to Democrats in the future lol).
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 could come up with more points, but those are the biggies.
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 could come up with more points, but those are the biggies.
Re: Roe v. Wade and all other traditional liberal issues (including home school) all Ron is saying is that these issues were traditionally meant to be state issues (you know where there is more political accountability). That is good for everyone! In very conservative states, abortion may have limitations (it would be up to state courts and legislature). If you don't like it you can remove your state politicians. In more liberal states like CA, we will never have limitations on abortion. All RP is saying is localize it! That was the premise of our early political structure: break things down to the local level, and democracy works better.
Also, how would he change the current structure? Obviously he isn't going to overturn Roe v. Wade, abolish the IRS, etc, BUT he can move in that direction by building support for issues with congress and appointing like minded federal judges -- the same things the other candidates would do. If liberals want to save abortion rights, RP is still a good choice because, unlike other conservatives, he doesn't want to enforce a single national agenda (pro choice or life) on the entire country.
Also, how would he change the current structure? Obviously he isn't going to overturn Roe v. Wade, abolish the IRS, etc, BUT he can move in that direction by building support for issues with congress and appointing like minded federal judges -- the same things the other candidates would do. If liberals want to save abortion rights, RP is still a good choice because, unlike other conservatives, he doesn't want to enforce a single national agenda (pro choice or life) on the entire country.
ionlyknowy
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 998
B]My response[/B]
---------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------
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:
ionlyknowy
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 998
bumpp
Similar threads
