Ron Paul says slavery was banned in the Constitution?

[daniel1234567]

blacks are the cursed descendants of cain : http://johnkaminski.info/pages/the_next_chapter/pdf/mullins_curse_of_canaan.pdf Civil rights act of 1964 undermined the concept of liberty, and destroyed the principle of private property and private choices. If you try to improve relationships by forcing and telling people what they can’t do, and you ignore and undermine the principles of liberty, then the government can come into our bedrooms. And that’s exactly what has happened. Look at what’s happened with the PATRIOT Act. They can come into our houses, our bedrooms our businesses … And it was started back then. the civil rights act of 1964 repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws, which forced racial segregation, but it is the government, not the people, that causes racial tensions by passing overreaching laws that institutionalize slavery and segregation. Today’s race problems, result from the war on drugs, the flawed U.S. court system and the military. The real problem we face today is the discrimination in our court system, the war on drugs. Just think of how biased that is against the minorities. They go into prison much way out of proportion to their numbers. They get the death penalty out of proportion with their numbers. And if you look at what minorities suffer in ordinary wars, whether there’s a draft or no draft, they suffer much out of proposition. So those are the kind of discrimination that have to be dealt with, but you don’t ever want to undermine the principle of private property and private choices in order to solve some of these problems.

 

[daniel1234567]

Just before he was killed Martin Luther King said that Desegregation will impoverish the black community and it did and because of this he opposes the Civil Right act of 1964 and will try his hardest to get it repealed and had just realized this know that what he had been fighting for Desegregation would impoverish the black community. Ron Paul – Against Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Hardball Interview): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rK-CXGwI2Gk

 

[daniel1234567]

Ron Paul – Against Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Hardball Interview) transcript: property rights should be protected. your right to be on tv is protected by property rights. If someone wants to walk in your station I cant walk into your station. So right of freedom of speech is protected by property. The right of your church is protected by property. So people should honor and protect it. This gimmick it is just of the wall when you say I am for property rights, state rights therefore I am racist. I mean that is just outlandish. The jim crow laws enacted by the government were legal and we got rid of them under the civil rights act of 1964. But the only good thing about the civil rights act of 1964 is that it got rid of the Jim crow laws. Segregation was created by government laws. Slavery was created by government laws. Segregation in the military by government laws. So what we want to do as libertarians is to repeal all of those laws and honor and respect people with private property. But for you to imply that a property rights person is endorsing that stuff you do not understand that there would be zero size up today saying something like that and if they did they would be an idiot and they would be out of business. So I think you are just getting overboard and trying to turn it around and trying to accuse someone of being a racist. Segregation on buses was done by laws. That is a culture. Why do you want to go back to ancient days. It is past. the difference in being a libertarian is believing in liberty versus being a totalitarian. If you want the opposite just look around that is what we have. We have a totalitarian world. That is what most of history has been about totalitarianism, dictatorship. We have only had a small taste of freedom of choice, the principle of private property, and contract rights. We are blowing it. This whole thing that we are going to give up on that. What we are doing is trying to enthasize that something good and wonderful comes from freedom, and freedom of choice, and we should not say this that liberty is disgusting, as you imply and totalitarianism is the way we should run our country. We would be better if we had freedom, and not government controlling our lives, our personal lives and policing the world, and running the economy. We our facing a calamity because of that. We have a financial crisis. We have a crisis in foreign policy. We are losing thousands of people. Hundreds of thousands our coming back sick because of our foreign policy and we are at a point where we cannot sustain this and we are on the verge of runaway inflation because there is to much acceptance of big government. That is the problem. No matter how noble you try to make it, your good intentions will not compensate for the mistakes people make that want to run our life’s and run the economy and reject the principle of private property and making up our own decisions for ourselves

 

[acptulsa]

Just before he was killed Martin Luther King said that Desegregation will impoverish the black community and it did...

No doubt this statement will cause the progs buzzing around the forum looking for stuff to get apoplexic about to get apoplexy. But there's a lot of truth in it. When people of African descent were forced to do business with businesses owned by people of African descent, there was a lot more business for those businesses. When that law disappeared, people of African descent found that white-owned businesses could sell a wider variety at lower prices.

Now, there's no question that there was no good reason for business owners of African descent to be limited in the variety they could sell or to be forced to pay higher wholesale prices, but that was the case nevertheless.

Goes to show how much harm liberals do when they only fix half the problem.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

....which was trumped by the fourteenth amendment, which made us ALL slaves.

How did it do that?

 

[Brett85]

It seems to me like the 5th amendment should've banned slavery.

"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

 

[jmdrake]

Eustance Mullins blacks the cursed descendants of cain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U31W4A9drLU

First off, the video you linked to was about the "cursed descendants of Canaan" and not the "cursed descendants of Cain". Cain was Adam's son. Canaan was Noah's grandson.

Second, Ham, the progenitor of the black races, had 3 sons. So the Canaanites only represent 1/3rd of black people.

Third, as Rahab, the Canaanite is in the lineage of Jesus, Jesus is a descendant of Canaan.

Fourth, the only place in the Bible where someone was cursed and such that he and his descendants changed color was when Elijah cursed his greedy servant Gehazi and Gehazi became "white with leprosy". No, I'm not saying white people are cursed. But clearly you are clueless about what the Bible teaches about race. In fact, since you don't know the difference between Cain and Canaan, you are clueless about the Bible period.

 

[NewUser]

13th Amendment.

Oh, alright. So slavery was only made illegal in the 13th Amendment.

I thought Ron Paul only followed the original Constitution and not the amendments that were made afterward?

 

[angelatc]

Oh, alright. So slavery was only made illegal in the 13th Amendment.

I thought Ron Paul only followed the original Constitution and not the amendments that were made afterward?

I don't know where on Earth you got that idea. He has always championed amending the constitution as the correct way to pass legislation outside the narrow scope of powers already delegated to the federal government.

 

[erowe1]

I thought Ron Paul only followed the original Constitution and not the amendments that were made afterward?

First of all, that's ridiculous. I'd love to see your source for that.

Second of all, whether that was true or not, it would have nothing to do with the quote you gave. In that quote, RP speaks in the present tense about what is in the Constitution. There is no possible way to construe that as if he meant to ignore the 13th Amendment.

 

[NewUser]

I don't know where on Earth you got that idea. He has always championed amending the constitution as the correct way to pass legislation outside the narrow scope of powers already delegated to the federal government.

Alright, thanks.

Has he ever said which amendments he doesn't agree with?

First of all, that's ridiculous. I'd love to see your source for that.

Second of all, whether that was true or not, it would have nothing to do with the quote you gave. In that quote, RP speaks in the present tense about what is in the Constitution. There is no possible way to construe that as if he meant to ignore the 13th Amendment.

I was just asking a question. As a conservative, I just assumed Ron Paul only supported the original Constitution.

Thanks for the negative reputation. I don't know you're so hostile when I'm just wanting to learn. Not everyone grew up in a family knowledgeable about politics.

 

[CPUd]

 

[erowe1]

I was just asking a question. As a conservative, I just assumed Ron Paul only supported the original Constitution.

Thanks for the negative reputation. I don't know you're so hostile when I'm just wanting to learn. Not everyone grew up in a family knowledgeable about politics.

It didn't look to me like just asking a question, since you seemed to keep pushing it after getting what was obviously the right answer to your original question and the misperception it was based on.

That quote you gave from Ron Paul was simply stating a fact. And he stated it completely correctly. He said nothing about what he does or does not support in the Constitution.

I actually don't know what all he likes and dislikes in the Constitution. There are definitely things both in the original Constitution and in the later amendments that he disagrees with strongly. Personally, I think he probably thinks the Constitution was terribly flawed from the very beginning, though he's never said so publicly.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Alright, thanks.

Has he ever said which amendments he doesn't agree with?


I was just asking a question. As a conservative, I just assumed Ron Paul only supported the original Constitution.

Thanks for the negative reputation. I don't know you're so hostile when I'm just wanting to learn. Not everyone grew up in a family knowledgeable about politics.

Ron has spoken against the 14th, 16, 17th, and 18th amendments pretty extensively.

 

[osan]

Hi all, I was reading Ron Paul's book 'Liberty Defined' last night. In it he says that slavery was banned in the Constitution, but I thought slavery was banned and this was how the slave holding states were able to keep slavery. From the book:

"Of course, the Constitution says nothing about abortion, murder, manslaughter, or any other acts of violence. There are only four crimes listed in the Constitution: counterfeiting, piracy, treason, and slavery."

This is the one point on which I find myself in some disagreement with Ron Paul. He believes the Constitution embodies a correct framework for proper freedom. I do not. It is far too poorly written, especially for this era when the mean man is devoid of both the knowledge and personal integrity required to make proper sense and application of Constitutional specifications. The document greatly underestimates the evil of men who would be most naturally and strongly attracted to the types of positions whose inherent powers tend to run amok in time. The document is a monumental failure because it fatally mismeasures the average man, that man being far closer in character to the worst among us than the best. The framers of the Constitution traded away the virtues of clarity, completeness, and correctness for cheap elegance and compactness. It is a miserable failure and proof of this lies in the reality we share today. Nothing else need be demonstrated to prove the assertion.

That aside, it can be readily demonstrated from a philosophical standpoint that so-called "governments" are incapable of demonstrating moral authority of any form or degree over anyone. They simply assume it and employ the gun to make it fact. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, the only morally supportable provisions of the Constitution reside in the secondary document we know as the Bill of Rights. The rest of the document is a study in the same old grotesquery of abuse and lies wherein a subset of a population elevates itself above the rest, endowing itself with special powers and privilege that derive from the thin air of arbitrary caprice and bullshit.