Ron Paul, does he stand a chance?

[Havelock]

Originally Posted by Aulirophile

It does, but there are two conflicting laws, both still in place. It'd be an interesting problem for them.

Not so much. The segregationist text has been invalid for decades, and whether or not it's in the state constitution has no bearing on whether it creates any real conflict with other state or federal laws.

[Aulirophile]

Originally Posted by Havelock

Not so much. The segregationist text has been invalid for decades, and whether or not it's in the state constitution has no bearing on whether it creates any real conflict with other state or federal laws.

Invalid because it has been overridden by an unconstitutional exercise of Federal power, which the amendment in discussion would fix, thus nullifying the Federal influence and making the two conflicting state laws an issue, because then the state would have to decide which one to enforce.

[Al Capwn]

Originally Posted by Tristinn

If you build the only network that caters to racist, women-hating, redneck dumbasses, of course it is going to have more viewership. That audience is a bunch of close-minded morons who need people to sugarcoat their news with.. well, no news at all. Just stories about Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, and missing white girls. Dumbasses love that stuff.

I really don't want to attempt to derail this thread, but please enlighten me more about yourself... I'm really at a loss as to what enviornment is catering to your liberal mental disorder. You have me utterly confused, I mean, half the shit you say seems to really have no point except for "lolz fuck the free world".. Do you even have a backing for your stance, becaues I'd like to call you out on just talking out of your ass.

While you may not be, you come off as a 20 year old college kid who not many people really like IRL or on teh internets, who loves nothing more than to walk around trying to be as offensive and anti-establishment as possible..because you think it makes you more awsomesauce.

PS- I hate you...and your buttsecks bud Cad, too.

[Havelock]

Originally Posted by Aulirophile

Invalid because it has been overridden by an unconstitutional exercise of Federal power, which the amendment in discussion would fix, thus nullifying the Federal influence and making the two conflicting state laws an issue, because then the state would have to decide which one to enforce.

The desegregation cases would not be made retroactively nonbinding. The part of the Act that makes earlier cases nonbinding only applies to matters covered under Section 3, not the catchall of Section 4. Section 7 would only undo cases that dealt with the religion clauses, the right to privacy, and same-sex marriage.

Even if Section 7 also covered the catchall provision, which strips jurisdiction from the federal courts with respect to anything that "otherwise interferes with the legislative functions or administrative discretion of the states," I don't think the desegregation cases would be affected. The Fourteenth Amendment mandates that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Fourteenth Amendment imposes limits the legislative function of the states. Federal court decisions arising under the Fourteenth Amendment (other than those dealing with subject areas explicitly covered by the Act) would not run afoul of the Act because there's no interference with the legislative functions of the states; those functions are circumscribed and do not extend to segregating schools.

On top of that, the extremely broad catchall provision is not very prominent in the text, and courts will thus be even less inclined to read it as emasculating the Fourteenth Amendment, especially in light of the potential results.

[Aulirophile]

Originally Posted by Havelock

The desegregation cases would not be made retroactively nonbinding. The part of the Act that makes earlier cases nonbinding only applies to matters covered under Section 3, not the catchall of Section 4. Section 7 would only undo cases that dealt with the religion clauses, the right to privacy, and same-sex marriage.

Even if Section 7 also covered the catchall provision, which strips jurisdiction from the federal courts with respect to anything that "otherwise interferes with the legislative functions or administrative discretion of the states," I don't think the desegregation cases would be affected. The Fourteenth Amendment mandates that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Fourteenth Amendment imposes limits the legislative function of the states. Federal court decisions arising under the Fourteenth Amendment (other than those dealing with subject areas explicitly covered by the Act) would not run afoul of the Act because there's no interference with the legislative functions of the states; those functions are circumscribed and do not extend to segregating schools.

On top of that, the extremely broad catchall provision is not very prominent in the text, and courts will thus be even less inclined to read it as emasculating the Fourteenth Amendment, especially in light of the potential results.

You realize the 14th amendment inherently implies Federal authority over what states can do, and would thus also be nullified if the amendment was passed, yes? It also applies to any Federal court decision as influences state's rights, so anything that went to the U.S. Supreme Court is no longer applicable, because it is retroactive. Or predominantly active, I guess you could say.

Bizarre I know, but you're thinking in the current framework of how things are and not how the amendment would make things. Which is to say, it'd make them the way the original Constitution intended.

[Soriak]

A House Resolution (which is what this is) can't invalidate parts of the constitution. But I think Paul supports a strict literal reading/interpretation without extending the protections as they have been. ie a "Search" being only a search of your body or house, not wiretapping or reading your e-mails...

I just wonder how far the 14th amendment really would go with such reading, but I suppose it's all hypothetical - HR300 is never going to pass.

Good post btw, Havelock.

[Aulirophile]

Originally Posted by Soriak

A House Resolution (which is what this is) can't invalidate parts of the constitution. But I think Paul supports a strict literal reading/interpretation without extending the protections as they have been. ie a "Search" being only a search of your body or house, not wiretapping or reading your e-mails...

I just wonder how far the 14th amendment really would go with such reading, but I suppose it's all hypothetical - HR300 is never going to pass.

Good post btw, Havelock.

What gives you that idea? About the wiretapping I mean.

And yes a House resolution can't invalidate part of the Constitution, but if it brings to light one part of the Constitution (State's rights) that disagrees with other parts (14th Amendment), you're stuck in the same situation of "Which do we enforce?" Laws aren't really written in stone, Governments can and do pick which ones to enforce.

It was a good, informative post by Havelock, but it missed the point. Especially since the act is specifically slated by Ron Paul as the start of legislation to correct constitutional violations. Other things would certainly follow.

It won't pass though, so the whole thing really is moot for the moment.

[Havelock]

Originally Posted by Aulirophile

You realize the 14th amendment inherently implies Federal authority over what states can do, and would thus also be nullified if the amendment was passed, yes? It also applies to any Federal court decision as influences state's rights, so anything that went to the U.S. Supreme Court is no longer applicable, because it is retroactive. Or predominantly active, I guess you could say.

Read the Act. It's only retroactive with respect to the issues covered in Section 3, which enumerates three specific issues over which no federal courts can exercise jurisdiction. The appellate jurisdiction stripping is not retroactive, so the decisions covering integration, and the state court decisions incorporating those federal decisions, will be unaffected.

Your reductive understanding of the Act ignores its actual text. The Act does not apply to "any Federal court decision as influences state's rights," either. It just strips appellate jurisdiction preventing federal courts from issuing "any order, final judgment, or other ruling that appropriates or expends money, imposes taxes, or otherwise interferes with the legislative functions or administrative discretion of the several States and their subdivisions." The limits of the legislative functions and administrative discretion of the States are defined in part by the Fourteenth Amendment, and if a State is acting ultra vires and doing something that violates the Fourteenth Amendment the federal courts could still step in to an extent, and would retain at least the ability to enjoin state action. They couldn't step in and do something like take over a school system, but they could still tell a State it couldn't do a particular thing (like mandate segregated schools).

Bizarre I know, but you're thinking in the current framework of how things are and not how the amendment would make things. Which is to say, it'd make them the way the original Constitution intended.

I've got a pretty good idea how federal courts work and a pretty good idea of how federal judges think. They're not going to ignore the Fourteenth Amendment if there's a reasonable interpretation of the Act that will let them legitimately do it (and even if there wasn't, I suspect many judges would be more inclined to do violence to the Act than to the Amendment - that's when things get hairy). Such an interpretation is available, so you can be sure the equal protection clause will remain in effect to at least some extent.

It's a little simplistic to view the act as making things go back to "the way the original Constitution intended." It shifts the federal/state balance back toward the states, and it does so to a pretty significant extent, but the original Constitution has been amended several times. The structural changes wrought by those amendments ensure that so long as they remain in effect, the power balance will never be as strong to the state side as it was at the Founding.

There's a lot to be said for democratic action and judicial minimalism, and while I think Paul's proposal goes too far, I don't think it's inherently kooky to limit the power of the federal judiciary to undermine the democratically-accountable branches.

[Soriak]

Originally Posted by Aulirophile

What gives you that idea? About the wiretapping I mean.

From what I've read, Paul is a textualist who follows exactly what is written and not what has since been interpreted. Since at the time of the writing there was no wiretapping, the text can't be meant to provide protection against such. He manages to come out as opposing wiretapping because he just wants to get rid of the agencies that do it.

[Khorum]

There's a recent movement of pigeonholing everyone who places any value in the sanctity of the constitution as "strict constructionists" or "textualists". As if by exaggerating the rigidity of their convictions we're supposed to evoke images of other forms of literal fanaticism amongst religious and nationalistic orthodoxies. Whereas those who revel in flagrant violations of constitutional boundaries with extra-legal socialist intrusions like Social Security, welfare and non-apportioned taxation like the income tax are "progressive" and "open-minded".

Not ONLY is that total bullshit, it's also transparent to the American electorate and is reflected widespread dissatisfaction with the New Deal democrats and their socialist incrementalism across the nation.

[Gahid]

So let me get this straight: your main argument against me is that I incorrectly capitalized libertarian?

My point is that Ron has packaged the Libertarian Party's values and served them to the youth under the guise of the Republican Party. This, you cannot argue.

Whether Paul is officially an undercover Libertarian? I cannot say. I can, however, speculate that his campaign is a joke and the only explanation is his desire to proliferate the ideology of the political party he would belong to if it were not for media bias.

[Ancalagon]

Originally Posted by Gahid

So let me get this straight: your main argument against me is that I incorrectly capitalized libertarian?

What the fuck? The two words mean two VASTLY different things. Cato the Younger was a republican; he was NOT a Republican. Plato was an anti-democrat; he was NOT an anti-Democrat. Words have meanings, and in political discourse they often have very refined meanings. I hope you'll grasp this.

My point is that Ron has packaged the Libertarian Party's values and served them to the youth under the guise of the Republican Party. This, you cannot argue.

What does this mean? Libertarianism -- what used to be liberalism; now classical liberalism -- has been around since at least the 17th century. It is not from the Libertarian Party that libertarian ideals sprang. Ron Paul is advocating many of the same ideals the Libertarian Party espouses, but there is no causal relationship. Lew Rockwell also espouses many of the same ideas the Libertarian Party espouses, but there is no causal relationship. And he did nothing initially to serve his ideas to the youth. That the youth latched on is a testament to their presence on the internet and the attractiveness of the ideas of liberty to this certain subset of the population.

Whether Paul is officially an undercover Libertarian? I cannot say. I can, however, speculate that his campaign is a joke and the only explanation is his desire to proliferate the ideology of the political party he would belong to if it were not for media bias.

In what way is his campaign a joke? I am not claiming front-runner status for him, but by any objective measure his campaign is far removed from joke territory. And yes, he wants to get the message of liberty out there. But what the fuck does this have to do with the Libertarian Party, other than that they share the message. You would have no worse a case if you accused him of shilling for LewRockwell.com, the Mises Institute, AntiWar.com, or whatever other libertarian site you can think of.

To sum up, your point is asinine and I'm pretty sure if anyone else is reading our discourse, they've come to the same conclusion. Please just stop posting.

[Soriak]

Ron Paul was a member of and ran for President as part of the Libertarian Party - so he certainly had some ties to it.

[Ancalagon]

Originally Posted by Soriak

Ron Paul was a member of and ran for President as part of the Libertarian Party - so he certainly had some ties to it.

I have never claimed that this is not so. However, here is Gahid's original claim:

Originally Posted by Gahid

Ron Paul does not stand a chance. He is an extraordinarily niche [grammar nazi plz] candidate with the sole purpose of increasing media publicity for the Libertarian Party.

This unsubstantiated drivel is what I have been replying to. I am well aware of his past connection with the Libertarian Party. But to leap from pointing out ties to an organization to averring that the entire purpose of a candidacy is to shill for that organization, is idiotic, to say the least. I would hearken back to my last post: could it not be said with just as much fairness that he's shilling for LewRockwell, the Mises Institute, or AntiWar.com? These are websites/organizations with which he has been closely affiliated, and far more recently than with the LP.

[Khorum]

Just a few pages ago you were singing the praises of Paul's Libertarian inclinations. Why are you backing away from his Libertarian ties now? I think it's worthwhile that Ron Paul becomes the voice of the Libertarian agenda, if only to bring their platform into mainstream consciousness for this generation. Don't you?

Wait, do you think whether or not he's seen as a Libertarian will have a significant impact on his performance in the GOP primaries? Republicans are ideologically savvy, and they know what they want to see in their candidates: sincerity, consistency and experience and Paul has more of those three than any other candidate. I don't think he'll win the primary, far from it, but I don't think his libertarian convictions could bear any blame for his loss.