"The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction. "
Which would remove protection of rights as now recognized in Constitution. Of course, if you want states to become completely autonomous - in fact, independent states - and able to pass laws that directly hamper basic rights - by removing USSC the ability to rule on these things - then I have nothing to say.
But let's give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. Let's say that, if elected, he would use the power of the federal government to completely ban all abortion. That's one issue he's wrong on, compared to other Republicans who are wrong on all issues, including that one. 95% of his policies are still awesome.
I don't need benefit of doubt - I can point to legislation he sponsors and votes for.
He's also wrong on gold standard - it would cause an economic disaster, and after that tie US economy to mining activities of, for example, Australia and South Africa.
And state-certified basic education is a good thing, because it makes grades comparable between different states and, for example, gives a student in state A a good idea whether or not he can try to get into a college in state B. Ron Paul, however, does not agree.
Subjectively stuff like government subsidizing companies that profit from Darfur crisis is also quite bad, and I don't know about legislation which would remove certain inbuilt protections against segregation (see:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:HR03863:@@@D&summ2=m&.
Again, I disagree with Ron Paul.
And, of course, I can always point to the fact that Ron Paul has written this gem:
Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.
Voted against http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.j.res.00004:
He SPONSORED that very same legislation in 1997. Of course, he might have had a change of heart.
I think this is a tiny part of the much bigger "against student loans from the federal gov't" deal. He's prohibited his own kids from getting federal student loans. So...he wants to treat those hated Iranians as badly as his own children. Terrible, I know.
The damn bill says: "A bill to make all Iranian Students in the United States ineligible for any form of federal aid."
It says nothing about other students. It says that about Iranian students. Point me to legislation where Ron Paul has proposed all students to become ineligible for ANY FORM federal aid. You are assuming he wanted something completely different. Prove this. I can only point to him saying "no let's cut all funding from Iranian students".
Not granting Rosa Parks a medal using government money. He suggested that if Congress wanted to give her a medal, which he believes she deserves, they would each put up $100 of their own money for it, just as he was prepared to do.
Strangely, Ron Paul has actually requested federal money for all kinds of stuff.
http://www.brokenlibrarian.org/ronpaul/misc.htmlHowever, a mere 30 000 dollars for an important civil rights figure - need I to remind people that Ron Paul is big on liberty, except when he wants to remove safeguards for them - is a huge deal.
edit: it was 30 000, not 300 000.
At what point will you realize that the main thing on this man's agenda, above any individual policy, is extreme, fundamental, far-reaching decentralization of power. Full stop. Anything that filters power downward is good, anything that does the opposite is bad. In a modern, civilized, peaceful country such as the US, this is a hell of a lot better than the opposite.
Fundamental, far-reaching decentralization of power is not an end in itself. It is a means to get something better. Arguably, Ron Paul's politics do not lead into better outcome - they lead into 50 separate states, each able to pass legislation as they see fit - shortly put, dividing the entirety people know as the United States of America. It would devastate the economy, both USA's and world's. It would require long and tedious process to reinstate the same basic rights as now recognized in the constitution in these states, unless you don't give a flying **** about them. It would remove all federal capability to protect enviroment, civil rights, equality and freedom of choice and religion. Ron Paul does not like FDA and would dissolve it.
I fully realize what Ron Paul's goals are. I do not agree with them at all.
Also, if you fault RP for not sticking to the Constitution (seperation of Church and State, individual rights) throughly enough, who, may I ask, is better? Not which candidate, but which US politician in general? It's equivalent to saying that Bush isn't Christian enough or that Al Sharpton isn't Black enough.
I have not endorsed anyone. Why should I? I can just tell people who'd vote for Ron Paul that "if you look at this, this, this, hell, this, then Ron Paul is not a good candidate." I am not arguing for someone's superiority, I am arguing against Ron Paul. I don't need bad equivalence arguments or ad hominen tu quoques.
Seriously, if Ron Paul tries to remove constitutional safeguards for liberty and minority rights, which are pretty clear in constitution and supreme court rulings, then how is he upkeeping constitution? "Ron Paul will end birthright citizenship", for example. What about that?
Honest question: Does Bill of Rights apply to states or just the federation?
edit:
Mother of God, I just found this and I don't know whether to laugh or cry:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:HR07955:@@@L&summ2=m&Included gems:
Abolishes the Department of Education and nullifies all regulations, contracts, licenses, or privileges issued by such Department prior to the effective date of this Act. Directs the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to provide for the orderly termination of the affairs of such Department.
Forbids any court of the United States from requiring the attendance at a particular school of any student because of race, color, creed, or sex.
Prohibits the Secretary of the Treasury from issuing in final form the "Proposed Revenue Procedure on Private Tax-Exempt Schools", which sets forth guidelines for determining whether a private school has forfeited its tax-exempt status by the adoption of racially discriminatory policies.
Prohibits the Federal Government from imposing any obligation or conditions upon any child care center, orphanage, foster home, emergency shelter for abused children or spouses, school, juvenile delinquency or drug abuse treatment center or home, or similar program which is operated by a church or religious institution.
Defines "child abuse" as physical maltreatment, and psychological or emotional neglect. Excludes from such definition discipline or corporal punishment applied by a responsible parent or an individual authorized to act in the place of such parent.
Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.
It's like a celebration of insanity. If these are Ron Paul's methods of reducing the scale of government and bringing authority closer to citizens, then jesus should I laugh or cry. Ok, it's old, but...
edit 2: Oh god, the pile keeps growing -
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll931.xml"LET'S NOT DEMAND BURMA TO RELEASE AUNG SAN SUU KYI"
