If Ron’s so against government intrusion into people’s lives, why does he support the government forcing women who have been raped and impregnated, to grow those cells into babies and give birth against their wills? He’ll breath fire when talking about government and financial matters, but when it’s a woman’s body and life, he’s cool with government telling her what to do?

And what’s with his long history speaking at and getting support from “white power” groups?

Do you Ronald supporters just think these issues and contradictions are just minor points that can be overlooked?

the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof–

`(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or

`(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates–

`(A) the performance of abortions; or

`(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.’.

This law would allow States to regulate abortions without the Federal courts jurisdiction. Regulate in law means to have laws regarding the application of – which does not preclude States from ‘regulating’ abortion for cases of incest, rape, or choice. This law does not require States to ban abortion. It allows States who choose to, through their constituent voters, to opt out of Roe v. Wade without Federal intervention.

White power groups are particularly sensitive to Federal Laws like the RICO Act, and the Civil Rights Act (1964), which circumvents the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution in favor of the Interstate Commerce Clause. They are therefore in favor of increasing multi-culturalism and decreasing integration. A stronger Federalist Government would allow them to segregate themselves easier.

I don’t think they are minor points. They go to the crux of the issue. If the Federal government can override State Constitutions, then why have States at all. The point of Federalism is to have a weak Federal government that loosely binds, States which then compete for taxpayers through the implementation of freedom and liberty. If the Federal government is to strong, then we are all forced to subsidize things we find abhorrent, like the war on drugs, the department of education, the CIA, abortion, or oil and banking interests.

I would rather de-claw this Federal government. And none of the viable Democrats seem willing or able.

What?? Puhl-eeazze! Paul is a *very* bright guy with a lot of integrity, don’t lump him in with Ronnie-boy!

Anyway, as this thread is nearly dead, one more time- libs, do the unthinkable and vote for Paul in your state’s primary (you may have to temporarily register as a-shudder- Republican) in an attempt to manuever him into the slot of GOP candidate. He’ll both shatter the GOP and force our candidate to change her line and become antiwar and pro-Constitution! Good things, those.

And I agree with you that a President Ron Paul would be the end of the Republican Party as we know it.

rockyb @ 300

Ron Paul said he would cut the lucrative congressional retirement packages entirely and cut their pay in half from $140k to 70k.
FYI
They would all probably quit if that happened…
What a lovely day that would be.

One can’t argue that Congress will restrain him from some actons, while saying that they will give him carte blanche on others. Paul, as President, would have absolutely no power to cut Congressional Pensions and Pay Scales. He could veto, but such a Bil would be easily overridden.

Where he could impact things is by basically appointing people with his ideology to Departments that would simply allow them to “wither on the vine”. He things that many Departments…like Education…shouldn’t exist. He could simply fail to appoint people to that Department.

He could basically tell the States to deal with issues…and yet provide no substitute funding to compensate for theit increased burdens.

He could appoint people to the bench with his philosophy (is this the “Federalist Society” judges)

He could gum up the whole budgeting process by not submitting a budget for various Departments, requiring Congress to work independently in developing the Budget. Yet he could either direct his Departmental Head not to cooperate, or simply have no appointment to that area at all.

Something to keep in mind, since you are talking in terms of President Ron Paul, is that if he were elected then that would mean a significant shift in the way the people want government to run their lives. Congress is a direct representative of the people and would be forced to act on the new ideology of the people. I think he’d be able to get more done than people give him credit for. He gets people fired up and since we would not live in a police state under Ron Paul then people would hit the streets and Interwebs and force Congress to listen. We’d have a president that’d encourage peaceful protest, not try to squash it.

katymine @ 21

Ron Paul mania is ALL over Arizona….. home made signs, “Google Ron Paul”

Everyone needs to know…..
If elected President….Paul plans to abolish Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security…. ALL public schools, privatize police, fire, all services so…… If you want your granny living in a card board box begging for pennies…… go for it….. NOT ME…

AND Arizona is still in morning loosing you from AAR… :(

Mercifully at least some of those items are state responsibilities, right?

Well, Social Security and Medicare and completely Federal responsibilities. Medicaid is a joint Federal-State program. Schools, fire/police are state/local responsibilities. But if you don’t have social insurance at a federal level how the heck can states and local govts provide the level of education and public safety that they currently do? They can’t.

I remind my sister who always grumbles about her FICA payroll deductions that if we didn’t have Social Security and Medicare our parents would’ve had to take care of their parents in their old age which would have meant no college for us. And when I was growing up there weren’t things like paramedics. My mom reminds me that when she needed to go to the hospital she had to have a neighbor take her. And we lived in a solidly middle class suburban community.

I live in Columbia County, NY and can confirm that the Ron Paul movement is alive and well hereabouts. Signs are posted all over the place. I’m not sure the Paulites are fully informed about their hero and some of his loonier positions, but like you, I wish them well in their endeavor to fuck up the Republican party.

BTW, we are a formerly solid GOP district that is turning purple, and the demographics are turning in our favor. We’re gaining on the bastards.

Ron Paul said he would cut the lucrative congressional retirement packages entirely and cut their pay in half from $140k to 70k.
FYI
They would all probably quit if that happened…
What a lovely day that would be.

One can’t argue that Congress will restrain him from some actons, while saying that they will give him carte blanche on others. Paul, as President, would have absolutely no power to cut Congressional Pensions and Pay Scales. He could veto, but such a Bil would be easily overridden.

Where he could impact things is by basically appointing people with his ideology to Departments that would simply allow them to “wither on the vine”. He things that many Departments…like Education…shouldn’t exist. He could simply fail to appoint people to that Department.

He could basically tell the States to deal with issues…and yet provide no substitute funding to compensate for theit increased burdens.

He could appoint people to the bench with his philosophy (is this the “Federalist Society” judges)

He could gum up the whole budgeting process by not submitting a budget for various Departments, requiring Congress to work independently in developing the Budget. Yet he could either direct his Departmental Head not to cooperate, or simply have no appointment to that area at all.