The Paul File

[quadraphonics]

Giving the President power to take a nation to war with whomever he wants, without the consent of people in my view is dangerous and is a power I believe belongs to Kings and dictators.

? The President is an elected official with term limits and who faces the possibility of impeachment. He is clearly subject to the consent of the people in a way that Kings and dictators are characteristically not. If you think the President of the USA can take the nation to war with whomever he wants, in defience of the consent of the people, then I think you're rather out-of-touch. A president who dared do something like that, would get impeached in no time.

The fact they are term-limited does not mean anything as they can use those powers in their term if they wanted to. Which is still dangerous.

May be dangerous, but that doesn't make it dictatorship or monarchy. Dictators and Kings are distinguished by a pointed lack of elections and term limits. That's exactly what differentiates them from other types of heads of state.

 

[786]

Yeah, we know. That's how you can convince yourself that your open advocacy of racism, isn't actually racist. Because racism is only a problem when the government does it, apparently.

Racism is a problem in all circumstances but the government absolutely can not engage in it so that is a problem in itself.

Except it took the CRA to remove all of the legal discrimination.

Which Ron Paul is not advocating to repeal.

It's real simple: you want to get rid of the law which prevents hotels, restaurants, businesses, etc. from being segregated. You have openly, energetically advocated this. You say it is of the utmost importance that the FREEDOM of business owners to racially discriminate be upheld, regardless of the resulting racial oppression and marginalization of minorities. This is a racist position, and amounts to resurrecting big chunks of the Jim Crow era. This is the law that prevents segregated lunch counters, bathrooms, and various other symbols of the Jim Crow era.

They would segregate by their own choice. Yes Freedom needs to be protected.

The definition of "racist" is someone who believes that people of one (or more) races are inherently inferior to people of one (or more) other races. I hope that is not controversial.

Yes I can agree with that, then I'm not a racist per this definition. Can you show me that I have ever said someone is inferior to someone else? When in fact I say everyone is equal and have equal rights without any form of discrimination.

If this truly is the definition you hold, then I can't be a racist. Then your usage of the word in all other instances is being framed by your disagreement with my protection of freedom, not because I fit this definition.

The reason that you are demonstrably racist, is that you value the (PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL) freedom to oppress minorities, over the right of everyone to be treated as an individual and not be discriminated against because of their race, gender, religion, etc. Your commitment to the individual apparently stops right where the state ends, and instead becomes perverted into a justification for allowing organized interests (like corporations) to discriminate, exactly by getting rid of the laws that currently mandate that they relate to individuals as such.

But your use of the word 'racist' doesn't stem from the definition that you just provided. Reconcile the two first.

 

[786]

? The President is an elected official with term limits and who faces the possibility of impeachment. He is clearly subject to the consent of the people in a way that Kings and dictators are characteristically not. If you think the President of the USA can take the nation to war with whomever he wants, in defience of the consent of the people, then I think you're rather out-of-touch. A president who dared do something like that, would get impeached in no time.

Then leave it to the Congress. Presidents usually are impeached if they broke a law, if they use their power according to law, they never are impeached or do you have an example of such a case?

May be dangerous, but that doesn't make it dictatorship or monarchy. Dictators and Kings are distinguished by a pointed lack of elections and term limits. That's exactly what differentiates them from other types of heads of state.

In my view Hitler was a dictator even though he came to power by the democratic laws of that country.

Anyhow, I just believe the President should not have such war powers because it is dangerous in my opinion. I don't want to argue every sentence as this is tiring.

 

[Trippy]

Could you provide some cases.

Regan's invasion of Grenada in 1989
Conyers v. Reagan, 578 F. Supp. 323 (D.D.C. 1984).

Conyers v. Reagan, 765 F.2d 1124 (D.C. Cir. 1985).

(actually, the appelate court held it was moot since the invasion had ended).

Wouldn't the President have to recognize that to be the case first, which then would be noted as part of the justification. If he never used it as a justification, how does the Congress, Court, or the People know that it was to protect Americans?

Hence the question in the first place.

what is IIRC?

If I Recall Correctly.

Secondly WPA still is the law of the land- it does not challenge the President's authority to protect US civilians, but it also creates regulatory legislation that guides and defines that power into some procedures the President must take. This regulation of the President needing approval within 60 days is backed by Article 1 Section 8 Clause 18:

"Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

So although President has the power to go to war and protect US citizens, which the WPA does not deny him as it allows the President to go to war under such conditions, the WPA simply requires him to obtain approval in due time- which the Congress can legally set according to the above clause as it has the power to regulate the 'carrying into execution the foregoing power'... of 'any Department or Officer thereof'. Such a law is thus a 'regulatory' law which Congress can write.

According to precedent, the timelimit is still only applicable if someone actually invokes 4(a)(1).

Note the text of 5(b)

5(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted...

If the President does not submit a report persuant to 4(a)(1), or congress does not require the president to submit a report, the deadline is not triggered, it's that simple.

 

[quadraphonics]

Which Ron Paul is not advocating to repeal.

Right. He just wants to somehow "amend" it to allow segregated restaurants, hotels, businesses, etc. Huge difference there.

They would segregate by their own choice.

Who's choice? Consider a small town with only a few hotels, restaurants and gas stations - if the owners of such decide they don't want to sell to black people, that entire town has just become de facto segregated.

Yes Freedom needs to be protected.

But not the freedom of minorities to live and work in dignity like equal citizens, without being oppressed on the basis of their race. No, the freedom of rich, white business owners to enforce segregation onto large sectors of society - that's the important freedom!

Yes I can agree with that, then I'm not a racist per this definition. Can you show me that I have ever said someone is inferior to someone else? When in fact I say everyone is equal and have equal rights without any form of discrimination.

See just above.

And, again, you're openly advocating for more racial discrimination. You only oppose racial discrimination if done explicitly by the government. Everything else you are openly in favor of - go so far as to portray laws which prevent it as unacceptable trespasses against basic rights.

If this truly is the definition you hold, then I can't be a racist. Then your usage of the word in all other instances is being framed by your disagreement with my protection of freedom, not because I fit this definition.

Keep telling yourself that. Maybe some day you'll live up to it.

But your use of the word 'racist' doesn't stem from the definition that you just provided. Reconcile the two first.

Yes it does. You put no value on the freedom of black people to live in dignity as equal citizens, and you put huge value on the freedom of rich white businessmen to oppress them. The hierarchy of value seems pretty clear-cut.

 

[quadraphonics]

Then leave it to the Congress.

? We do, ultimately.

Presidents usually are impeached if they broke a law, if they use their power according to law, they never are impeached or do you have an example of such a case?

In the first place, it's a simple enough thing to cook up a politicized impeachment if one desires - recent history provides an easy example.

Second of all, aren't you arguing that the President has broken a law wrt Libya? So why this hypothetical?

In my view Hitler was a dictator even though he came to power by the democratic laws of that country.

Hitler was a dictator because he subverted said democratic system and so removed the democratic checks on himself. He was not subject to term limits or elections, and that's exactly why he was a dictator. That he managed to get there through democratic means is instructive, but doesn't really go to the definition of "dictator. "

Anyhow, I just believe the President should not have such war powers because it is dangerous in my opinion.

Which powers? The only ones you specific are "the power to take the nation to war with anyone, at any time, without the consent of the people." And I think that everyone can agree that such a set of powers would be dangerous. We should also be able to agree that the President of the USA doesn't have any such powers. So, what is it that you're addressing, exactly?

 

[786]

Regan's invasion of Grenada in 1989
Conyers v. Reagan, 578 F. Supp. 323 (D.D.C. 1984).

Conyers v. Reagan, 765 F.2d 1124 (D.C. Cir. 1985).

(actually, the appelate court held it was moot since the invasion had ended).

Well if they held it 'moot' that isn't precedent. Thats simply the court saying its a waste of time to talk about it.

According to precedent, the timelimit is still only applicable if someone actually invokes 4(a)(1).

Again what precedent? That decision did not say that 4(a)(1) must be invoked
:

(a) Written report; time of submission; circumstances necessitating submission; information reported
In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;
the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

Source=http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001543----000-.html#a_1

So the President has to submit the report himself (no where does it say that the Congress must request this information). And again the case you mention did not provide any precedent that the Congress must invoke 4a1 it basically ended the case to as it thought it was waste of time given the fact the conflict had ended.

So from 4a we know a report is subject to be submitted within 60 days, which then is what 5a speaks of

5b is pursuant to 4a which doesn't require the Congress to ask for it, it simply says that the President shall submit it within that timeframe without any action from the part of Congress required or indicated

Now if we look at 5b again

Note the text of 5(b)

5(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted...

If the President does not submit a report persuant to 4(a)(1), or congress does not require the president to submit a report, the deadline is not triggered, it's that simple.

The report is required from 4a, requires no Congressional action, which is what 5b is pursuant to, and since the requirement is that 60 days if we look at 5b which say first the time from the report being submitted but more important 'or required to be submitted'- which means it doesn't matter if it was submitted or not by the President, as If it is not submitted by the required time (as stated in 4a), and 5b goes on to say 'whichever is earlier' (i.e the submittal or the deadline being reached (required to be submitted by), then the President must terminate action.

 

[Trippy]

Except it took the CRA to remove all of the legal discrimination.

This, among other things, is why I refrain from embracing libertarinism in the way it's being espoused in this thread, and why frankly, such espousal fills me with an urge to distance myself from it.

At the heart of libertarinism (at least, my interpretation of it ) is the ideal of universal freedom to do as you please, along with wonderful words like equality of opportunity and so on and so forth. However, such ideals need to be tempered with responsibility, and the recognition that others have the same rights as you do. It is this responsibility that some lack, and those that lack it exercise their rights in such a way that it infringes on other peoples ability to excercise those same rights. And so, authoritarian measures become neccessary to encourage people to do what they, by any reasonable expectation of morality, should do in the first place. And that's where the Civil Rights Act comes in, and as such it should be embraced, rather than shunned by Libertarians, because although, like the Constitution, it is an Authoritarian measure, and although it infringes on the rights of a few individuals, in enables the basic freedoms and rights of others.

Or something.

 

[786]

Right. He just wants to somehow "amend" it to allow segregated restaurants, hotels, businesses, etc. Huge difference there.

Yes don't forget that was a comment in response to JCL, which you said were removed by CRA. So keep it in context.

The huge difference is JCL enforced segregation by government that will be kept illegal since CRA would not be repealed. But the amended would allow freedom of choice so JCL would remain illegal as it does not use the force of government to segregate hotels...etc. by government provisions. So yes there is a difference.

Who's choice? Consider a small town with only a few hotels, restaurants and gas stations - if the owners of such decide they don't want to sell to black people, that entire town has just become de facto segregated.

It becomes segregated, but doesn't turn everyone into a de facto racist. Secondly anyone who does no like that environment can leave, the choice of that one individual did not force others to become racist or 'approve segregation'.

No one is saying 'choices' have to agree. And no one is saying that choices of individuals have equal impact on society. What I'm saying is that they each individual has a right to choose, the impact it has on society is something different. What if a beggar made the choice to be racist, the impact would be practically nothing. Impact is determined by the status of the people, which they earned. We don't have the right to control their choices.

But not the freedom of minorities to live and work in dignity like equal citizens, without being oppressed on the basis of their race. No, the freedom of rich, white business owners to enforce segregation onto large sectors of society - that's the important freedom!

'equal citizens' = is in relationship to the government so it doesn't matter what 'rich white men' are doing.

'dignity' = this is not a right. Someone can be a thief by choice.

'work' = they have the right to find work and to work, if someone gives them work. But I don't have the right to work at Microsoft. I only have the right to pursue work and to do it but I don't have a right to a specific location or business to work at. The act of working may be a right but the 'location', 'business', etc is not a right. Which everyone would still have.

And, again, you're openly advocating for more racial discrimination. You only oppose racial discrimination if done explicitly by the government. Everything else you are openly in favor of - go so far as to portray laws which prevent it as unacceptable trespasses against basic rights.

I'm not in 'favor' of racism. I'm in favor of individual rights and freedoms.

Keep telling yourself that. Maybe some day you'll live up to it.

Then tell me when I said anyone is inferior to another? I think you're the one keep telling yourself that I'm racist. Even though your definition is not applicable.

Yes it does. You put no value on the freedom of black people to live in dignity as equal citizens, and you put huge value on the freedom of rich white businessmen to oppress them. The hierarchy of value seems pretty clear-cut.

Clearly out of the blue. What if the whole town was black and it was all BLACK Rich people and they refused whites. Then what you just said turns on its head. Which means I give equal value to all of them. You just simply presenting one extreme where the White guy against the Black, but if you are being fair then there is also the case of a rich black man being against the white. I have not placed any more value on one over the other. So your cases are all just biased.

 

[786]

? We do, ultimately.

You just said what the big deal if President have it. Stick to one argument, you just go back and forth between hypothetical to whats now. That like totally annoying.

In the first place, it's a simple enough thing to cook up a politicized impeachment if one desires - recent history provides an easy example.

Politicized or not they use broken laws to impeach.

Second of all, aren't you arguing that the President has broken a law wrt Libya? So why this hypothetical?

I answered your hypothetical, now you revert back to 'reality'. What do you expect my response was for.

You were saying even if the President had those powers he would be impeachable, and held responsible by the people. This was your hypothetical to which I responded. I'm really not enjoying this nonsense.

Feel free to go back and make sense of it yourself.

Hitler was a dictator because he subverted said democratic system and so removed the democratic checks on himself. He was not subject to term limits or elections, and that's exactly why he was a dictator. That he managed to get there through democratic means is instructive, but doesn't really go to the definition of "dictator."

He did all of that through the legitimate democratic process that was part of their laws.

Which powers? The only ones you specific are "the power to take the nation to war with anyone, at any time, without the consent of the people." And I think that everyone can agree that such a set of powers would be dangerous. We should also be able to agree that the President of the USA doesn't have any such powers. So, what is it that you're addressing, exactly?

Well that is essentially what happened.

 

[Trippy]

Well if they held it 'moot' that isn't precedent. Thats simply the court saying its a waste of time to talk about it.

please, some honesty, only the appeal was held moot.

So the President has to submit the report himself (no where does it say that the Congress must request this information).

Right, and what has happened, 113 times in 30 years to 2004, is that the president has submitted a report that did not trigger the guideline, because the report that was submitted was not submitted in accordane with 4(a)(1) which specificaly triggers the deadline.

If the legislation said, for example "Submitted in accordance with this chapter" it would be a different story, because 5(b) only triggers the deadline if the report is submitted in accordance with 4(a)(1).

And again the case you mention did not provide any precedent that the Congress must invoke 4a1 it basically ended the case to as it thought it was waste of time given the fact the conflict had ended.

I don't recall ever implying that that case was the only precedent - remember the bit where I said that the WPA had been invoked 114 times, but 4(a)(1) had been invoked once, by President Ford?

That is the precedent, and that is the precedent that has thus far been unchalleneged.

All of this:

So from 4a we know a report is subject to be submitted within 60 days, which then is what 5a speaks of

5b is pursuant to 4a which doesn't require the Congress to ask for it, it simply says that the President shall submit it within that timeframe without any action from the part of Congress required or indicated

Now if we look at 5b again


The report is required from 4a, requires no Congressional action, which is what 5b is pursuant to, and since the requirement is that 60 days if we look at 5b which say first the time from the report being submitted but more important 'or required to be submitted'- which means it doesn't matter if it was submitted or not by the President, as If it is not submitted by the required time (as stated in 4a), and 5b goes on to say 'whichever is earlier' (i.e the submittal or the deadline being reached (required to be submitted by), then the President must terminate action.

Misses the point.

With one or two exceptions, every report submitted by every president has been submitted 'Consistent with the war powers resolution' rather than 'Consistent with Section 4(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution'. Congress has, historicaly accepted this, because they have been as unwilling to trigger the deadline as anyone else.

You may not recognize it (in fact I would almost be willing to bet that you won't, and I can probably guess what your reply to me is going to say), but those two statements are very different things, and carry very different weights.

 

[786]

please, some honesty, only the appeal was held moot.

Here's what I see:

The court granted the government’s motion to dismiss on the ground that the congressional plaintiffs had other remedies. The plaintiffs appealed and the federal appeals court ruled that the case was moot since most U.S. troops had been withdrawn from Grenada.

Source=http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/past-cases/conyers-v.-reagan

I don't see any precedent about the invoking of 4a or anything. In fact it says that Reagan specifically used American citizens as an excuse for the action. Something this administration first of all didn't use. Also I would like to know the duration of this mission as that is quite relevant to our discussion.

According to here:
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq95-1.htm

Operation was essentially one month. So the case was dismissed on the accounts that Congress has remedies, there was no judgement to begin with, also there this case makes no interpretation of WPA and neither was there a breach of 60 day limit to gain anything from this case. How you use this as 'precedent' is beyond me.

Right, and what has happened, 113 times in 30 years to 2004, is that the president has submitted a report that did not trigger the guideline, because the report that was submitted was not submitted in accordane with 4(a)(1) which specificaly triggers the deadline.

Where is that 113 times? I have yet to see reference for this, or that it was because of the lack of invoking of 4a1.

If the legislation said, for example "Submitted in accordance with this chapter" it would be a different story, because 5(b) only triggers the deadline if the report is submitted in accordance with 4(a)(1).

4a1 asks the President to submit it. So the laws ask him, there is no suggestion that Congress must ask for it.

I don't recall ever implying that that case was the only precedent - remember the bit where I said that the WPA had been invoked 114 times, but 4(a)(1) had been invoked once, by President Ford?

That is the precedent, and that is the precedent that has thus far been unchalleneged.

And I'm still waiting for the reference that all 114 times there was a breach of WPA of 60 day limit to begin with, and that there is any precedent that only the invoking of 4a1 triggered the timeline. I don't recall you giving any references.

All of this:

Misses the point.

With one or two exceptions, every report submitted by every president has been submitted 'Consistent with the war powers resolution' rather than 'Consistent with Section 4(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution'. Congress has, historicaly accepted this, because they have been as unwilling to trigger the deadline as anyone else.

That is playing a semantics game. Consistent with 'war powers resolution' can not be true unless it is consistent with the resolution itself, thus it must be 'pursuant' to 4a to begin with otherwise its a lie to call it 'consistent'.

4a doesn't give President the 'choice' to submit it, it simply outright asks him to submit it. Consistency requires that the report is fulfilling this condition.

You may not recognize it (in fact I would almost be willing to bet that you won't, and I can probably guess what your reply to me is going to say), but those two statements are very different things, and carry very different weights.

I think you're resorting to semantics.

 

[Trippy]

I don't see any precedent about the invoking of 4a or anything. In fact it says that Reagan specifically used American citizens as an excuse for the action. Something this administration first of all didn't use. Also I would like to know the duration of this mission as that is quite relevant to our discussion.

I think you're resorting to semantics.

Ugh, Yes, I imagine you do.

 

[Tiassa]

Window Dressing

Pretty strong support I would say, so your thesis look pretty shaky from the start, but lets go on to the reasons.

So let us consider, then:

• Ron Paul won 30% at CPAC 2011. The 1999 winner was Gary Bauer; the 2007 winner was Mitt Romney. Neither of those candidates went on to win the nomination. We should also note that in midcycle years 2005 and 2006, the CPAC Straw Poll winners were Rudy "the Cross-Dressing Adulterer" Giuliani and George "Macaca" Allen. Paul's CPAC victory over twenty months before the 2012 election is, as history suggests, meaningless. [1]

• Ron Paul won 49% of approximately 2,300 votes among Arizona Tea Party Patriot members in an online, pay-to-play vote. This is a small sample, and demographically nonrepresentative; this vote generally fails to support your point. When it came to the actual straw poll ballot at the TPP-AZ summit, Herman Cain won, beating Ron Paul by seven points. [2]

• Ron Paul won 41%, or 612 votes, at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference. Reflecting an episode at CPAC, while Paul's supporters celebrated, mainstream Republicans in the audience voiced their displeasure by booing. [3]

• According to the Clay County GOP, Rick Perry won the 2011 Clay County straw poll with 25.4% of the vote, all of fifteen votes out of the total fifty-nine cast. Ron Paul captured fourth place, with six votes, trailing Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum. [4]

• The Ames Straw Poll is a pay-to-play vote, costing $30 for a ballot; the best that can be said of Paul's second-place result is that he won more votes than he gave out tickets, while the winner, Michele Bachmann, received fewer votes than tickets given. [5] Additionally, of the five Ames Straw Polls before this year's contest, the result has only twice predicted the nominee; once in 1995, when Bob Dole tied with Phil Gramm, and again in 1999, when George W. Bush won the vote. [6]

• In New Hampshire, the Young Republicans gave Ron Paul about 45% of between 300-350 votes in a pay-to-play ballot. [7]

• Of 890 votes cast in the Georgia GOP Straw Poll, Ron Paul won 229. [8]​

What these results represent is activist enthusiasm, and nothing more.

It seems rather quite puerile to suggest that these statistically insignificant outcomes suggest that Paul's outlier positions and rhetoric will play well across a broader spectrum.

So you hold against Paul that someone agrees with him about taxes, closing the borders and NAFTA.

You and your fellow Paul supporter 786 continually demonstrate my point about the problem of Paul's supporters.

In this case, why did you misrepresent the information I presented four and a half years ago? That is, he also won the endorsement of White World News, a racist website that either cannot be found anymore, or has been reduced to a free blog like anyone can get through Google. If the latter, I would point out that the organization is South African. I doubt you can make the NAFTA and taxation argument on behalf of South African white supremacists.

This makes him a racist ? Dare to show some other evidence about it than this obscure incident ?

Ron Paul once admitted to writing the newsletters, and then in the same interview claimed he didn't. Apparently you missed that part of the 2007 thread:

In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground. He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." He denied any racist intent. What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.

When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady." Paul says that item ended up there because "we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."

His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: "They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they (campaign aides) said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'" It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time. [9]​

It's no wonder Rep. Paul wants to distance himself from the newsletters, though. Much of the content is simply stupid, but much of it is deplorable. At least one article called black people animals, and another grotesquely misrepresented a crime spree in New York. [10, 11]

Additionally, Ron Paul opposes the 1964 Civil Rights Act, complaining that:

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife. [12]​

You might note that Paul's rationale does not address either the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the laws, or the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process; the former applies to the states, while the latter binds the federal government. [13]

In other words, Paul objects that the CRA violates the rights of people to discriminate against one another on the basis of skin color or ethnic heritage. And while Paul laments that the CRA "encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife", the reality is that this is the result of racists being enraged that they were not allowed by law to keep minorities in a second-class status. Ron Paul supports the right of individuals to establish and enforce racial and ethnic discrimination.

That counts as racist to most, though we might note your fellow Paul supporter, 786, who asserts that equal protection under the law is "an ideal not a right".

Whatever statistically insignificant poll results you might cite in order to assert that Ron Paul has serious support in the political spectrum, the bottom line is that such positions are widely viewed as unelectable:

The problem for Paul is that he has a chance to make his brand of libertarianism more accessible to people in this Tea Party year in particular. This comment [opposing the CRA] means he won't have a chance of getting the Republican nomination and even if he did Barack Obama or any Democrat [would] decimate him at the polls.

There are certain "givens" in American politics—even in such a polarized environment—and the country's often shifting political center would not support a candidate that a)says he wouldn't have vote for the landmark Civil Rights Act and b)left himself so open to being easily destroyed by his opponents in political ads, which often distort a the rationale behind a candidate's assertions.

Even when his rationale is understood, many Americans would never vote for him. So Paul's run this year will be — as before — mostly an exercise in getting a bigger media audience. [14]​

Thus, we see an example of the problem with Ron Paul.

What a bunch of nonsensical hyperbole, thats all I have to say about that.

We should not wonder that you have so little to say about it.

• Misogyny: Paul opposes a woman's right to govern her own body, according to his aesthetics. However, he has yet to address the constitutional implications of his position. Ron Paul notwithstanding, I have often attempted to discuss the implications, which are mostly written off despite the fact that they are actually underway.

• Racism: Ron Paul supports the right to discriminate against ethnicity in such a fashion as to deny minorities equal protection under the law.

• Other bigotries: We have already discussed in this thread Ron Paul's declaration that he would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act; in doing so, he would be voting directly against Article IV of the United States Constitution in order to encourage the religious supremacism that motivates homophobic policies in the United States.​

Are you serious ? Because of this gay marriage issue & constitution, he is unfit for president ? Then tell me, is there candidate in this race who take constitution more seriously than him ? Everybody is crapping on the document, but when Paul does it in this gay marriage issue its something else. Mindboggling.
Lets see what Obama and others have to say about constitution...

Questions of constitutional conduct have plagued presidents at least since Jefferson. It is hard to suggest that dubious constitutionality in presidential conduct is new. However, in the case of Paul and his supporters, as with many conservatives hiding behind the useless label of libertarianism, it is a bit more offensive because of the direct conflict. When one makes so explicit an identification with the Constitution, it stands out even more obviously when one opposes it in practice and rhetoric.

It think that reflects your fears rather than your sincere thoughts, fear that Ron Paul might actually get the republican ticket and in the final stage he exposes Obamas vague politics.

786 encouraged me to vote third-party, not for his chosen Republican candidate. Ultimately, that is an anti-Obama argument. He can't win my vote his preferred Republican with his defense of racism, so he would rather simply erode Obama's vote tally.

And given his encouragement of racism, it's not hard to see why he's so desperate to unseat President Obama.

Both you and 786 have suffered severe contextual and comprehension difficulties, preferring that your opposition waste its time resisting your distorted accusations instead of supporting what they are actually asserting.

For instance:

You are accusing Paul supporters for the very same thing you are doing.

It is certainly easier to tilt windmills than deal with reality, isn't it?

In truth, though, I suppose that's unkind. I think it more likely that you simply do not understand the damage you are doing to Ron Paul's already-infinitesimal chances of winning the White House.

You are painting a picture that all if not large segment of Ron Paul supporters are as following; thruthers, white supremacist and what else.

The thing is that there is little to no evidence of Paul's supporters being rational. It's not like he's a new phenomenon; we've been hearing this tripe from Paul's supporters for years. After a while, the lack of a respectable argument from his supporters becomes difficult to ignore.

In this campaign, Paul is getting more donations from people who work for the military than either President Obama or any of the other Republican presidential candidates.

Again, you offer an effectually insignificant argument. Sure, Ron Paul has an impressive slice of that pie, but it's a small pie. You're talking about a majority of the donations as of July, to be certain; that is, more than half of the sixty-eight thousand dollars accounted for. The 2008 presidential campaign cost $2.4 billion. [15] You're talking about the equivalent of somewhere just under three one-thousandths of a percent of the cost of the 2008 election. Perhaps that number gives you some confidence, but I do not see it as indicative of anything.


Food for thought? Hardly. That's not even a crumb of a cheese puff.

Maybe its time to pull your head out of the sand and see what is really going on in the world. Or do you really think that they all are some tea party whackos, thruthers, KKK and what not.

It's not a safe presumption that all Ron Paul supporters are stupid or insane. It would do much for Ron Paul's reputation, however, if the sane and intelligent arguments could be heard over all the noise, bluster, paranoia, and distortion.

I'm not a political hack, I trust people enough that they can draw their own conclusions when objective information presented.
Coherent arguments, right...

And that's just another demonstration of the problem with Ron Paul's supporters. It would actually take some effort for you to be a political hack.

What are those fundamental issues and how is he dodging ?
Want to make coherent arguments about that ?

Consider just how much the libertarians will be screaming when police come around to investigate a woman's menstrual cycle to make certain no homicide has been committed; after all, Ron Paul believes that life begins at conception, and even believes Congress can pass simple legislation (i.e., public laws) that would contravene Article III of the Constitution by declaring certain laws derived on principle immune to judicial review. [16] Or review again considerations of Article IV, and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments pertaining to civil rights discussed earlier in this thread.

His libertarian rhetoric, like that of so many libertarians, is mere window dressing.
____________________

Notes:

1. Wikipedia. "Conservative Political Action Conference". September 5, 2011. En.Wikipedia.org. October 5, 2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Political_Action_Conference

2. Travis, Shannon. "Herman Cain wins Tea Party presidential live straw poll at Phoenix summit". Political Ticker. February 27, 2011. PoliticalTicker.Blogs.CNN.com. October 5, 2011. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...esidential-live-straw-poll-at-phoenix-summit/

3. Martin, Jonathan. "Ron Paul wins RLC straw poll". Politico. June 18, 2011. Politico.com. October 5, 2011. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...esidential-live-straw-poll-at-phoenix-summit/

4. Haberman, Maggie. "Ron Paul wins RLC straw poll". Politico. July 20, 2011. Politico.com. October 5, 2011. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59456.html

5. Pappas, Alex. "Ron Paul gave out fewer Iowa Straw Poll tickets than Michele Bachmann". The Daily Caller. August 13, 2011. DailyCaller.com. October 5, 2011. http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/13/r...owa-straw-poll-tickets-than-michele-bachmann/

6. Wikipedia. "Ames Straw Poll". September 19, 2011. En.Wikipedia.org. October 5, 2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ames_Straw_Poll

7. Rayno, Garry. "Young Republicans' rally gives straw poll win to Paul". New Hampshire Union Leader. August 20, 2011. UnionLeader.com. October 5, 2011. http://www.unionleader.com/article/20110820/NEWS0605/708219993/-1/NEWS06

8. Galloway, Jim. "Herman Cain edges out Ron Paul in Georgia GOP straw poll". Political Insider. August 27, 2011. Blogs.AJC.com. October 5, 2011. http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insi...edges-out-ron-paul-in-georgia-gop-straw-poll/

9. Wicks, Rob. "Ron Paul (person)". March 17, 2003. Everything2.com. October 5, 2011. http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1443176

10. Game-McCalla, Casey. "Ron Paul's Racist Newsletters Revealed". NewsOne. March 16, 2010. NewsOne.com. October 5, 2011. http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-pauls-racist-newsletters-revealed/

11. McKinley Jr., James C. "Needle Attacks Spreading Fear on West Side". The New York Times. November 1, 1989. NYTimes.com. October 5, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/1989/11/01/nyregion/needle-attacks-spreading-fear-on-west-side.html

12. Paul, Ron. "The Trouble With the '64 Civil Rights Act". July 3, 2004. LewRockwell.com. October 5, 2011. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

13. Legal Information Institute. "Equal Protection: An Overview". August 19, 2010. Law.Cornell.edu. October 5, 2011. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/Equal_protection

14. Gandelman, Joe. "Ron Paul Would Have Voted Against the Civil Rights Act". The Moderate Voice. May 14, 2011. TheModerateVoice.com. October 5, 2011. http://themoderatevoice.com/109988/ron-paul-would-have-voted-against-the-civil-rights-act/

15. Cummings, Jeanne. "2008 campaign costliest in U.S. history". Politico. November 5, 2008. Politico.com. October 5, 2011. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15283.html

16. White, Steven. "Ron Paul's Abortion Rhetoric". The American Prospect. August 20, 2007. Prospect.org. October 5, 2011. http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=ron_pauls_abortion_rhetoric

 

[quadraphonics]

The huge difference is JCL enforced segregation by government that will be kept illegal since CRA would not be repealed. But the amended would allow freedom of choice so JCL would remain illegal as it does not use the force of government to segregate hotels...etc. by government provisions. So yes there is a difference.

And that's the basic thing with libertarian ideology: the only form of freedom it recognizes is freedom from government. It has nothing to say about freedom from any of the other myriad powerful, systemized forms of oppression. And so its proponents don't even provide us with any argument about how to best balance government power against the power of, say, racism to maximize actual overall individual autonomy and freedom. You know, the stuff that the adults have been grappling with for generations, which got us to this point? Instead, they just repeat the one-size-fits-all prescription of less government, oblivious to history and so the obvious implications for the power of racism, and then pitch a fit if anyone notices that they're openly siding with slavering racists. Pathetic.

So the basic question is then, which groups are primarily concerned with freedom from government, to the exclusion of all else? I.e., who really benefits from the political implications of libertarian ideology? In descending order of interest, I'd say: pollution-heavy industries, racists, sweatshops, the avaricious in general, fringe religious nuts, conspiracy theorists, and recreational drug enthusiasts. That's your libertarian constituency, right there.

It becomes segregated, but doesn't turn everyone into a de facto racist.

Sure it does. It implicates everyone in that racism - the residents that are forced to either move away or collaborate in the oppression, the libertarian ideologues that insisted on changing the law despite knowing full well that such would result, the majority of reasonable people that failed to stop them, etc.

Secondly anyone who does no like that environment can leave, the choice of that one individual did not force others to become racist or 'approve segregation'.

Yeah, sure, just quit your job, sell your house, and move your family away. Meanwhile, anyone who wants a job at a hotel, restaurant, or gas station in town is going to have to participate in the segregation (and be white, of course). No compulsion to worry about there.

What if a beggar made the choice to be racist, the impact would be practically nothing.

And you'll find that the number of CRA cases prosecuted against beggars for discriminating is likewise "practically" nothing.

Impact is determined by the status of the people, which they earned. We don't have the right to control their choices.

We get the racist oppression we deserve?

Or, wait - minorities get the racist oppression we deserve. Got it. Sounds like a great recipe for progress and social justice, with ample individual freedom for all.

'equal citizens' = is in relationship to the government so it doesn't matter what 'rich white men' are doing.

Funny, I don't recall the Declaration of Independence including that qualifier in the truths it held to be self-evident.

'dignity' = this is not a right.

You should make this your campaign slogan. I think you'll get a long way with it.

"A vote for my opponent, is a vote for dignity for all!"

'work' = they have the right to find work and to work, if someone gives them work. But I don't have the right to work at Microsoft. I only have the right to pursue work and to do it but I don't have a right to a specific location or business to work at. The act of working may be a right but the 'location', 'business', etc is not a right. Which everyone would still have.

Does Microsoft have a right to decide not to hire you solely on the basis that they don't like your race? Don't you have a right to be treated on your merits as an individual? And not simply as a token of some group?

I'm not in 'favor' of racism. I'm in favor of individual rights and freedoms.

Specifically, the individual right of business owners to racially discriminate in hiring, and the freedom of corporations to racially discriminate in doing business with the public. Which is totally different from racism, somehow.

Then tell me when I said anyone is inferior to another?

Haven't I been doing that? How much clearer could I be? You openly advocate getting rid of laws that our society discovered (the hard way) were necessary to keep racism down to a semi-acceptable level. You understand and accept the obvious implications this will have, in terms of racial oppression (specifically against black people and other vulnerable minorities in the USA), and propose to proceed anyway. That all adds up to a clear statement that you don't value minorities equally to (specifically, rich) white people.

So, save us all of the hissy fits about how not-racist you are. It's embarassing.

Clearly out of the blue. What if the whole town was black and it was all BLACK Rich people and they refused whites. Then what you just said turns on its head. Which means I give equal value to all of them.

Except you know as well as anyone that such scenarios are vanishingly unlikely, given the distribution of population, power, money, etc. We didn't have those sorts of problems before the Civil Rights Act, why would they stand to arise after you repeal "amend" it?.

You just simply presenting one extreme where the White guy against the Black,

It's not an extreme - it's exactly what the situation was before the Civil Rights Act. This was the reality in big swaths of the country not 50 years ago. That's why the Civil Rights Act was necessary.

If you've got some argument that society has moved beyond race in the intervening time, and so maybe there's not much danger of such an outcome, then now would be the time to make it. Because otherwise, it's the obvious, baseline expected outcome of the policy you advocate.

but if you are being fair then there is also the case of a rich black man being against the white.

Except there are not so many rich black men, or even all that many poor black men, and there are a lot of rich white men, and a ton of not-so-rich white men. And a national history featuring the white men owning the black men for hundreds of years, and then oppressing them in other ways for another century, before the Civil Rights Act. And this is the reality that your policy prescriptions are answerable to, not some cheap hypothetical evasion about how you'd also be okay with a black businessman calling a would-be white patron a honky. The fact that you aren't threatened by the prospect of black people oppressing others, in no way excludes you from being a racist.

 

[Trippy]

• Racism: Ron Paul supports the right to discriminate against ethnicity in such a fashion as to deny minorities equal protection under the law.

Isn't that like... Against the 9th amendment, or at least the spirit of it, or something?

 

[786]

@quad you just reworded your previous statements, so there is no point in my repeating myself because what I say then would be the same,

Whether there are 'enough' rich black men to make the case is irrelevant. In principle I put no more 'value' on anyone. That was simply to point that out, that even if that was the condition, the same principle would apply.

And you don't have any rights to be hired on your merits. Thats what you would like a business to do if it wants to succeed but its not someones 'right'. What you and I consider 'rights' are not the same, for example you argued 'work' was a right, but I made a distinction to but 'to work at etc' is not. You keep mixing up what rights truly are and what you want them to be.

@Tiassa

• Misogyny: Paul opposes a woman's right to govern her own body, according to his aesthetics. However, he has yet to address the constitutional implications of his position. Ron Paul notwithstanding, I have often attempted to discuss the implications, which are mostly written off despite the fact that they are actually underway.

Except someone else's life is not her 'property' (which is what body is). I don't have the right to kill someone (right to live) If I simply invited them into my home (my property) and in fact you are the one not respecting a womens right to choose. She made choices (that have risks) prior to getting pregnant. Now instead of holding her accountable for those choice, you'd like her to go ahead with a 'bailout'. Unfortunately that 'bailout' can't take away another's life. Respect those choices. Now she doesn't have any 'choice' to kill someone. So the decision stems from the same principle, a principle which you clearly don't understand. Where's the 'equal protection' for that life? Life is a right unlike much of being 'packaged' into a right in this this thread. Our view is the only consistent one that stems from the same principle. While yours changes as you see fit.

Everyone is still protected equally under the law. Because their rights are equally protected. There is no abuse of rights in my view, and there was no breach of the Constitution with DOMA, if there was you should hold Obama equally responsible for being breach of Article 2, as per your understanding.

@Trippy

So I think we're done.
_______

@the racist debate

Anyhow I think we will keep repeating ourselves, which is what we have done. So I think I'm through with this..

 

[eyeswideshut]

Congrats Tiassa, you made it although you really did have to reach deep this time. I did anticipate something like that.
Have fun with these word games.

Couple of sidenotes.

We live in 21st century with half black man being the president of United States and still worrying about racism, I think we would have move ahead at this point but apparently not.

We live in the most liberal times ever, you can now be openly gay, satanist or whatever but apparently individual responsibility is something that we cant manage, we dont have enough faith in fellow humans I guess.

 

[Trippy]

@Trippy

So I think we're done.

Only if you're ceding the point.

 

[786]

Only if you're ceding the point.

I really can't respond to eye rolls... Well I can try. Here goes.

Response: :shrug:oke: