Latest tea party target: Its own convention

[Kulindahr]

Your last sentence resonates with me on a philosophical level. If there's any valid role of the Federal government, it's promoting and protecting the civil liberties of Americans.

That was supposed to be THE role of the federal government -- period. But people hungry for power have come up with all sorts of ways of abusing the Constitution far worse than Ron Paul, to give us a god-state, where people think it can solve all our problems, provide us with abundance, etc. etc.

Anyway, I didn't mean to turn this into some debate on Ron Paul, but I just think it's misguided for anyone who isn't a social conservative to support him. He has a lot of fantastic ideas, but he has an agenda.

There are better libertarians out there.

Like me.

 

[Kulindahr]

Only those rights enumerated in the Constitution. RP feels the SC has overstepped their bounds (or may overstep them in the future) and legislated from the bench.

Then he needs to read the whole thing. The Bill of Rights makes plain that any rights which exist, belong to the people. It's the federal government that's limited, not rights.

In this article http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=444 he says:

"Article III Section 2 of the Constitution plainly grants Congress the authority to limit federal court jurisdiction in many kinds of cases. It is perfectly constitutional for Congress to pass court-stripping legislation to reflect public sentiment against an overreaching Supreme Court."

From RP's point of view, the cost is to the states in sovereignty and the ability of its citizens to govern themselves.

It isn't legitimate for Congress to make laws restricting rights -- that's why the all-inclusive note is in there to begin with, that all rights not listed belong to the people. Just because they aren't listed doesn't mean they aren't protected.

By Paul's reasoning, the argument of the Declaration of Independence is without meaning.

 

[jizzeater]

Then he needs to read the whole thing. The Bill of Rights makes plain that any rights which exist, belong to the people. It's the federal government that's limited, not rights.

It isn't legitimate for Congress to make laws restricting rights -- that's why the all-inclusive note is in there to begin with, that all rights not listed belong to the people. Just because they aren't listed doesn't mean they aren't protected

Do you seriously believe Ron Paul hasn't read the whole Constitution?

His bill restricts the jurisdiction of federal courts. It's not meant to restrict rights (which Congress does all the time), but keep federal courts from inventing rights such as gay marriage (to clarify again, this is not my view). During this health care reform process, people have repeatedly declared the "right" to free health care.

The 9th amendment is a catch-all, it's not license to create rights which do not exist. It's vast pool from which people at the state level can draw when needed.

 

[Kulindahr]

Do you seriously believe Ron Paul hasn't read the whole Constitution?

His bill restricts the jurisdiction of federal courts. It's not meant to restrict rights (which Congress does all the time), but keep federal courts from inventing rights such as gay marriage (to clarify again, this is not my view). During this health care reform process, people have repeatedly declared the "right" to free health care.

The 9th amendment is a catch-all, it's not license to create rights which do not exist. It's vast pool from which people at the state level can draw when needed.

Gay marriage is not an invented right -- or at least no more invented than monogamous heterosexual marriage. If he wants to be consistent, he shoud advocate the elimination of all government recognition of any form of marriage.

Gay marriage comes under the heading of freedom of association, which isn't an invented right at all. Freedom of association applies to all, not just to certain classes. Marriage as currently defined only applies to a certain class, and is thus a violation of freedom of association.

What Paul is saying, then, is that freedom of association is not a right that the federal government may enforce/uphold.

Push that, and there is suddenly no foundation for corporate law, either.

 

[Kulindahr]

The 9th amendment is a catch-all, it's not license to create rights which do not exist. It's vast pool from which people at the state level can draw when needed.

That's a very restrictive and warped reading of it.


Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


That "the people" is the same as in the Preamble, which automatically says that these rights are at the federal level, on par with the right to establish a constitution at all.

 

[jizzeater]

Gay marriage is not an invented right -- or at least no more invented than monogamous heterosexual marriage. If he wants to be consistent, he shoud advocate the elimination of all government recognition of any form of marriage.

I agree, and RP says we should keep the government out of marriage. This is the kind of mess that happens when they meddle in personal affairs.

That's a very restrictive and warped reading of it.

Different people have different interpretations.

 

[Kulindahr]

Different people have different interpretations.

I don't see how anyone can get anything different out of a statement that all rights not listed belong to the people. That's a blanket statement that forbids the federal government from restricting, infringing, or any of the other things the Bill of Rights has to say about the enumerated rights.

And that anyone who qualifies as a libertarian can use the Ninth to restrict rights is baffling.

 

[jizzeater]

The congressional power to strip federal courts of jurisdiction is plainly granted in Article III, and no constitutional amendments are required. On the contrary, any constitutional amendment addressing judicial activism would only grant legitimacy to the dangerous idea that social issues are federal matters. Giving more authority over social matters to any branch of the federal government is a mistake, because a centralized government is unlikely to reflect local sentiment for long. Both political parties are guilty of ignoring the 9th and 10th amendments, and federalizing whole areas of law that constitutionally should be left up to states. This abandonment of federalism and states’ rights paved the way for an activist federal judiciary.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=422

The definition of marriage- a union between a man and a woman- can be found in any dictionary. It’s sad that we need government to define an institution that has existed for centuries. The best approach to complex social problems, as always, is to follow the Constitution. This means Congress should restrict federal court jurisdiction when necessary, and social matters should be left up to states under the Ninth and Tenth amendments.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=367

 

[Kulindahr]

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=422

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=367

That second one is sheer sophistry. If he'd proposed getting rid of all the federal rules and regulations concerning marriage, that would be different. Instead what he's saying is that we should freeze society in a discriminatory condition.

 

[jizzeater]

How so? He wants the federal courts to butt out and let states work it out for themselves. We would have a patchwork quilt of marriage laws just like we do now.

 

[jizzeater]

If he'd proposed getting rid of all the federal rules and regulations concerning marriage, that would be different.

"In an ideal world, state governments enforce marriage contracts and settle divorces, but otherwise stay out of marriage. The federal government, granted only limited, enumerated powers in the Constitution, has no role whatsoever."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul160.html

 

[Kulindahr]

How so? He wants the federal courts to butt out and let states work it out for themselves. We would have a patchwork quilt of marriage laws just like we do now.

If there were any marriage laws, it would be the task of the federal government to step in and abolish them, because marriage laws by their very existence are discriminatory -- with one exception, and that is when marriage is defined as whatever people who want to enter into it say it is.

 

[Kulindahr]

"In an ideal world, state governments enforce marriage contracts and settle divorces, but otherwise stay out of marriage. The federal government, granted only limited, enumerated powers in the Constitution, has no role whatsoever."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul160.html

In an ideal world, state governments wouldn't even do that; people when they got married would designate a private arbitration firm to mediate disputes.

 

[White Eagle]

Just listening to Hard Ball. Link to follow if I can find it.
They are saying about the convention that Palin is getting the $100,000 and Michele Bachmann is supposed to be there too but for bupkiss. Now Bachmann is talking about not going.
They have spent more than the convention can take in. They are serving steak and lobster at the dinner.
These people are nuts if they think they can run the Country.

 

[White Eagle]

Well I found this about Bachmann. But they are saying it may break ethic rules. When has any conservative worried about ethic rules?

http://www.syracuse.com/newsflash/i...cs-16/1264632011120510.xml&storylist=politics

Bachmann may not give tea party speech after all
1/27/2010, 4:21 p.m. EST

ANN SANNER
The Associated Press

(AP) — WASHINGTON - The National Tea Party Convention scheduled for next month may be losing one of its star speakers.

Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann is scheduled to speak Feb. 5 to the group of grass-roots political activists meeting in Nashville.

The Republican House member says she is re-evaluating her decision to go because of conflicting information about whether she would be violating congressional ethics rules.

 

[White Eagle]

Here is the Convention web site for those wanting to go.

http://www.nationalteapartyconvention.com/home.aspx

Banquet Only tickets (featuring keynote speaker Sarah Palin) are still available for the first National Tea Party Convention!!!