Originally posted by DankNuggets
View Post
Paul's view is that if it's not mentioned in the Constitution, the Feds shouldn't have power - because that's what the Constitution specifically states. Roe vs. Wade deals with something the Federal Government shouldn't have power over - it belongs to the states. This does not mean Paul will "overturn" all laws. It means that the Fed will be kept in check, and things like, oh, I don't know - the past eight years? - will not be able to happen.
look at these two examples: 1)a couple of yrs ago, the great city of Denver, CO decided to decriminalize the possession of less than an ounce of marijuana by a majority vote in a general election. However, the state and federal gov't decided to ignore the voice of the people (who voted for them, mind you) and supercede the local law with state and federal. same thing w/medical marijuana in a lot of states. 2)the most famous example of fed v. states' rights -- the war of nothern aggression
but if ron paul wants to invalidate the past 200+ years of constitutional law then by all means, send us back to the 1700s
But anyways, Ron Paul wants to invalidate 200 years of constitutional rape. The Federal government has pretty much done away with the Constitution. For every basic right we have, there are "exceptions" to that right, and for "national security" reasons they can be revoked.
If you think that undoing all the damage that has been done to our body of law will "send us back to the 1700s", though, I can't help you - you gotta research this yourself and then form your own opinion.
It just sucks we can't bring people from the 1700's back, though. Because quite frankly, I think if Thomas Jefferson came to this time period, he'd probably be pretty pissed we're even questioning Paul's beliefs on the Constitution.
But if danknuggetz wants to invalidate the invalidating of 200+ years of constitutional rape than by all means, send us back to a horrible, divided, ignorant, war-mongering country. oh shi
Comment