Presidential Candidate Thread: Is Ron Paul good for the country?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
Trooper, I'm also glad to see that the effort to see that efforts to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage failed. I have often said that the most widely ignored part of the Constitution is the 10th amendment (For those who aren't familiar with the Constitution, you REALLY should read it. But to whet your appetite a little, it says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.")





As I mentioned earlier, my copy of the Constitution doesn't mention the word "marriage". I don't feel that it was an oversight, I feel that our founding forefathers wanted personal choice to be left up to individuals on some issues, and states on other issues. (The same belief system applies to US Supreme Court decisions that prevent states from enacting anti-abortion laws)





However, various other unconstitutional activities that our Federal government has engaged in make this issue more complicated than it should be. For example, one spouse can "inherit" the Social Security benefits of another. Married couples can avoid a gain in housing prices that is twice the size of single people. And there are a host of other examples.





The fact of the matter is that government has used tax code as a way to encourage or discourage certain behaviors based on their perceived benefits to society. Over time, we have created a system that only a lawyer could love.





The single best way to handle this problem and other problems is to make the Federal government respect the 10th amendment.
 
I wonder what the effect of the economic downturn is going to be on political fundraising, especially if things get signifigantly worse before the conventions. With MEW cut-off, rates resetting, credit cards maxed out, and retirement accounts being raided, will anyone have any money left to donate to campaigns?
 
<p>Winex: </p>

<p>Just because a word did not pop up in the Constitution does not mean that no rights can arise out of that word. Words like environment and education are no where in the Constitution but most American believe that the EPA is a good thing and that education is a fundamental right (as stated in Brown v. Board of Education). I completely disagree that just because something is not in the Constitution does not make it "wrong" or "unnecessary". I believe that the overriding goal of the "founding fathers" was to create a purposively vague but fluid document that would provide the country with some basic guidelines to live by but would not hinder everyday government. Do not forget that for about 100 years, the Constitution stated that a black slave was only 3/5 of a person. I for one am pretty glad that line was changed. </p>

<p>The issue of gay marriage is about equal protection. I think most people would agree that there is a fundamental right for people to get married just as there is a fundamental right to have kids (or conversely the right not to have a child). The question is whether marriage is between two people or between a man and a woman. </p>

<p>I would spend more time on this but I have to go back to sucking people's blood and ignoring the more noble aspects of the law.</p>

<p> </p>
 
<em>>>As I mentioned earlier, my copy of the Constitution doesn't mention the word "marriage". I don't feel that it was an oversight, I feel that our founding forefathers wanted personal choice to be left up to individuals on some issues, and states on other issues. </em>





I know you are focused on the 10th Amendment, but what about the 9th? Pretty much the same language, but discusses the individual instead. Why don't we hear so much about the 9th?
 
<p>Eva, it's most likely because the history of the SCOTUS decisions have prevented the abrogation of individual rights by the states or federal government, while the power and reach of the federal government has grown exponentially in seeming contradiction to the 10th Amendment. </p>
 
Marriage laws do not discriminate against people. ANYONE can get married. You can get married if you are gay/lesbian, you just have to marry someone of the opposite sex. Unfortunately that doesn't work for you if you're gay.





I believe that marriage first and foremost is a religiously indoctrinated union, not one commissioned by the state. There are opposite sex partners that choose not to take marriage vows If you aren't a religious person, you should not be required to marry just so your spouse can receive benefits, etc





People should be able to marry whom they choose as long as it is a human being. Second, the gov't should recognize "partners" the same as spouses, whether same-sex or opposite sex. Two years ago, I wanted to see if I could have my fiance covered on my benefits, but the option was not allowed. We qualified under every guideline except she is a woman. I actually called corporate HR and asked them...."so if I were gay and my fiance was a man, he would be covered." they said yes. When I asked how that wasn't considered sex discrimination, they had no answer.





That's wrong.
 
Eva, thanks for asking the question. Normally when I go on a "10th amendment rant", I'll also mention the 9th amendment. Obviously the two are closely related to each other. But there is a reason I concentrated on the 10th amendment here. Simply put, I didn't feel the 9th amendment was relevant to this topic.





Allow me to elaborate.





As LendingMaestro pointed out, anyone can get married. There is no law preventing a gay man from marrying a lesbian woman (or a straight woman). Laws related to issuance of marriage licenses are quite clear that sexuality doesn't matter but gender does.





Of course, gender isn't the only factor.





If I had a sister, I couldn't marry her.





Or my mother.





Or any woman who is currently married to another man.





Or a dead woman.





Or a (female) horse.





The fact is that there are a host of regulations that various states have and that must be met before you can be granted a marriage license. As an activity that is licensed, it should be clear to everyone that we are talking about privileges, not rights. Just like the Constitution doesn't guarantee me a right to drive, or the right to fish, or the right to hunt, I have no Constitutional right to marry a horse.
 
<p>Winex,</p>

<p>IC qualifed it with "I believe" rather than "It is". As such, his/her opinion can be given the same weight as that of used car salesmen, realtors, and astrologists.</p>
 
True, but those beliefs are very disturbing. How can take an oath to defend the Constitution when your beliefs run counter to everything it says?
 
<p>Winex and Nude. . .no need to get hostile. .. I am just expressing my opinions as to the my view of the Constitution. No one knows for sure what the Founding Father intended since no one alive was in Philly in 1789. </p>

<p>What exactly is so "disturbing" about my beliefs?</p>
 
<p>IC, </p>

<p>There is a plethora of infomation about what the Founding Fathers were thinking, both before and after the Constitution was ratified. Even the briefest websearch will link you to the writings of Franklin, Adams, Washington, Jefferson, Madison and the rest; they have all been recorded somewhere. Ignorance is no excuse and I'm not going to accept your view as valid just because you think it makes sense.</p>

<p>I reserve my right to snark, I'm pretty sure that right IS in the Constituion. I'm sorry if you confused it with hostlity.</p>
 
<p>Interesting. . .I never intended to "convince" you of my beliefs. . I was simply stating them. As I stated, I would elaborate if I had more time. </p>

<p>Nude, I did not see you quoting any founding fathers in your posts as to their original intent. Yes, there are plenty of writing and memoirs of the founding fathers but there is no way for us to really know what they intended to do in 1789. Not to mention the fact that the founding fathers were certainly not mob thinkers. The original intent debate is a hot and persistent topic in legal studies. People much more intelligent than me have raged such a debate and have came to different views (e.g. the Supreme Court.)</p>

<p>I would take it a step further and ask why we should care what a bunch of rich white guys intended 230 years ago in a completely different era and world. Yes, there should be a guideline for the country to follow but that should not completely dictated our decisions. </p>

<p>You are welcome to disagree with me but I do perceive your comment discounting my opinions as nothing more than the speak of car salemans and realtors as hostile (no offense to car salespeople and realtors). Winex's comments speak for themselves.</p>

<p>Still not have heard why my view is so "disturbing"</p>
 
<p><em>I believe that the overriding goal of the "founding fathers" was to create a <strong>purposively vague</strong> but <strong>fluid document</strong> that would provide the country with some basic guidelines to live by but <strong>would not hinder everyday government</strong>.</em></p>

<p>What is so disturbing (to me, WINEX may have his own reasons) is that you appear to purposely ignore specific language in both the Constitution and Amendments, words and phases like 'shall not' and the like, that clearly was intended to hinder the kind of government that you consider "everyday". They aren't guidelines, they were the laws used to create this country and still are the laws used to maintain this country. I don't need to prove original intent, I just read the document. I'm not arguing it says anything else,or means any thing else, you are. So either back it up with evidence that the framers actually intended it to be vague and fluid or admit that it is merely wishful thinking on your part, hence the reference to other wishful thinkers in society. And you can forget about linking to court decisions reached by other wishful thinkers; the evidence has to come from those same framers that you state were being intentionally vague.</p>
 
<em>No one knows for sure what the Founding Father intended since no one alive was in Philly in 1789.





</em>Actually we can, it's written in the Constitution.





Since nobody was there in 1789, we cannot assume that the founding fathers meant anything other than what was written. To do so would be foolish. If they wanted the Constitution to be interpreted liberally and used as a suggested guide to democracy they would have wrote in the preamble...."This said document is to be interpreted liberally and is only a mere suggestion as to how we should govern ourselves."





Their genius is indicated by the creation of the mighty amendment. The Constitution is both rigidly unforgiving, yet changeable. Whatever words are printed on the Constitution at any given moment is the law.
 
<p>Nude,</p>

<p>The Constitution was compromise between those who wanted a strong Federal government versus those who wanted strong state governments. That is why the 10th amendment was enacted, to alleviate the fears of the state power people. For a while, it was uncertain which side would prevail. It was John Marshall who actually gave the Constitution its teeth. He was the one who stated that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that it is up to the Supreme Court to interpret the document. </p>

<p>If the language was so specific, why have the Supreme Cout at all? We should just let the document speak for itself. </p>

<p>You can argue all day long about strict interpretation but the Constitution is a vastly different document than it was 50, 100, or 200 years ago. Even strict interpretation changes with time. What is "strict intent" of the Constitution before the Civil Rights Movements versus after is vastly different. That is what makes the Constitution unique and great. It is not a dead document but rather a fluid living one in which our country's core values were stated but allowed to be interpreted. </p>

<p> LM</p>

<p>I beg to disagree. Most of changes in our society has not come from the strict language of the Constitution but rather the Supreme Court's interpretation of it. For 80 years after the Civil War and the enactment of the 14th, 15th, and 16th Amendments, separate but equal was the law of the land. Jim Crow laws were "constitutional" and blantant racism was the norm. Then, Brown v. Board of Education changed everything. Same Constitution, same words, same Amendments but completely different societies. </p>

<p> </p>
 
A fluid, changeable document can still be interpreted strictly. This is not a novel, it is a manual. Do you understand the danger in what you are saying? You can't have different people following the parts of the constitution they see fit. If you don't believe something is right you take it to the Supreme Court. That is why it exists! Why do you think Amendments are created, changed, and ratified?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top