An issue then may arise as to how "they" take guns that can't be seen or you don't voluntarily hand them-

To accomplish the disarming of a nation whose history can't be told without firearms, further restrictive legislation could simply make ammunition cost-prohibitive or unavailable. That's just what we need to fix a problem otherwise corrected through SANE preventative means -A new criminal class

This would be just what cunts need to energize the good-ole-boy arrangement between the private prison industry and a defective government increasingly motivated to subjugate constitutional rights while pillaging the fruits of our labor. New criminals mean more inmates.

I appreciate them using their constitutional rights and actually being informed about them. However, I think this campaign is a little misguided. The reason for these scans is for efficiency. Scans are useful so the TSA doesn't need spend more money/time/manpower patting down ALL riders. So if you want to be selfish because you're squeamish about someone seeing your junk you can opt out. However, I'll hate you for it because I think those resources would be better put to patting down people who can't go through the more efficient process (people with disabilities) and saving some money for other government services.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'because im gay, no way jose, constitutional rights, vietnam, romney' to 'gay, veteran, marriage, equality, no way jose, constitution, rights, vietnam, benefits' - edited by messenger

Clearly you have never taken a constitutional law class. And if you have to call it "enforcement" there's already a controversy.>> ^mxxcon:

This is hardly "Controversy". Enforcing one's constitutional rights is not controversial!

>> ^mxxcon:

This is hardly "Controversy". Enforcing one's constitutional rights is not controversial!


I agree, but judging by these comments, some officers don't:
http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Safety/articles/5813385-ACLU-releases-stealth-app-to-tape-NJ-police/

This is hardly "Controversy". Enforcing one's constitutional rights is not controversial!

>> ^mxxcon:

>> ^hpqp:
According to the link @MrFisk provides this woman probably suffers from schizophrenia, which would explain a lot. I don't see why she should be testifying in that case though.
mental illness does not take away people's constitutional rights. She exercised her freedom of speech.


Well played, good sir.

>> ^hpqp:

According to the link @MrFisk provides this woman probably suffers from schizophrenia, which would explain a lot. I don't see why she should be testifying in that case though.
mental illness does not take away people's constitutional rights. She exercised her freedom of speech.

Fantastic !

I watched something like this on CannabisCulture.com forums seven/eight years ago and because of that I refused a search while I had cannabis in my car and had smoked some an hour previous.

The cop said the same sort of thing " we have lots of drugs being transported on this highway do you mind if I search the car "

I said, " yes, I do mind officer, I do not consent to a search "

he asked me why and I literally said ( because of the forums ) " It is my constitutional right to refuse search officer. and that was that, he said " okay, we are done here "


You do not have to consent to a search if you are smell and glass eye free POWER TO THE PEOPLE.

I once got pulled over because I looked over at a cop on a double lane highway ( it would of looked suspicious to me as well had I been the cop ) I met eyes with him and continued on my way, he pulled me over a minute later and after usual stuff he asked to search my vehicle. Knowing full well because of Cannabisculture.com forums I refused his search request, I had been high 40 minutes previous, had it in my vehicle WOULD of been caught, but when asked why I refused search I stated " because it is my constitutional right " and he was fine with that.

PHEW ! still puckered from that one.

Where does the money to "purchase the slaves' freedom" come from? I assume Paul wouldn't suggest public funds. This is where most libertarians argue for the invisible hand of massive, spontaneous, coordinated private charity. Let's accept that this is what would happen, for the sake of argument. Artician, above, drew a (admittedly shaky) parallel to the oil industry fighting to preserve the value of its investments. Would Paul advocate the same private charity course to soften their landing, or allow an inefficient industry to collapse?

The key difference is the morality of an oil industry investment vs. slavery as an investment. According to the parallel above and an extrapolation of Paul's stated positions, Paul would allow a purely financial investment to collapse when it lost value. But if the investment was slavery, we should instead ignore the morality and constitutional right of liberty for all citizens in favor of the protection of the investment and hope for fair-minded private individuals to trade their own financial resources to protect those rights?

This is nonsense.

>> ^ghark:

The thing I didn't understand is why the lawyer didn't really answer why it wasn't a class action lawsuit. he mentioned that it would benefit everyone, but wouldn't the suit be more powerful if more people were involved? Or is that not possible for this type of lawsuit?


My understanding is that Chris, as a person potentially covered by the act is bringing a criminal charge against the administration for infringing on his constitutional rights. Class action cases are general ( always? ) civil court cases, and seek damages. Seeking a constitutional ruling and a stay, is more wide reaching than seeking damages or protections for a single class.

>> ^renatojj:

Abortion
Irrelevant. It doesn't matter his personal opinion on abortion, his political opinion is that it's not a Federal issue, it's a state's rights' issue because it's too controversial. So whether people like abortion or not, they have the choice of taking it up with their local governments.

Tell that to a woman who gets raped in a state that decides it doesn't like abortion. Or to a husband whose wife dies because the state they live has chosen not to allow a medical intervention that chooses the life of the mother over the child.

Allowing states to make their own decisions on fundamental human rights is tantamount to allowing tyranny of the majority.

>> ^renatojj:

Evolution
Irrelevant. It doesn't matter his personal opinion on evolution. If I were a Christian, I'd have trouble dealing with the theory of evolution too, because I'd believe in a book written by God that says the universe was created in 6 days. I don't see how would that negatively influence him as a president or his policies.

>> ^renatojj:

Denies Global Warming, "There is no convincing scientific evidence..."
He does believe that global warming claims are a FUD tactic for environmental regulations at the Federal level.

It displays a lack of critical thinking. It goes to the heart of his decision making process. Do you really want a president that suspends reason when it goes against his beliefs?


>> ^renatojj:

Was also the ONLY vote against a ban on Lead in childrens' toys
Correct, as the linked article points out, he "frequently votes against measures expanding the federal government's reach". It doesn't mean Ron Paul is in favor of lead in children's toys, only that there are other more effective ways to ensure that children's toys don't have lead in them. Leave the Federal government out of this.


I picked this one because it was the most obvious, but it applies to many of your other arguments too. Here is the central problem with libertarianism.
Libertarians want to protect the little guy (people and by extension, businesses) from the big guy (government). This is a noble proposition, but they have the business and government on the wrong sides of the equation. What they fail to understand is that most people want to be protected by government from the activities of profit-motivated systems.


>> ^renatojj:

Thinks Sexual Harassment shouldn't be illegal
Correct, not at the federal level, that is a states' issue. Whatever else he said on the subject is irrelevant.


So it's ok for, let's say, New York to legalise sexual harassment? See comment above re tyranny of the majority.

>> ^renatojj:

Believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States
Don't know what to say about that. If it was built with US taxpayer money, maybe it should? Idk.


It's not on your sovereign territory. Lots of stuff was built with the help of US tax payer money. Doesn't mean you still own it.

>> ^renatojj:

Has associated with the founder of Stormfront, a White Power/Nazi Website
This is bullshit. A picture of them together just implies they conspired to stand in front of a camera.
Keeps their donations
And does nothing to prevent their association with his campaign.
Also, bullshit. Taking their money means he accepts their support, it does not mean that Ron Paul supports them. Like Ron Paul explained many times, it would be impractical to do a background check on all the hundreds of thousands of people who support him and send him money.


The fact that he took the money in the first place is not the issue. I fully appreciate the impracticality of checking the origins of donation money.
However, once he was made aware of it, he still kept the money.
There are two explanations for this:
1. He agrees with their message and will use the money to further their goals.
2. He disagrees with their message but will use the money anyway.

1 is hateful and 2 is disingenuous.

>> ^renatojj:

Introduced legislation, twice, that would allow schools to re-segregate.
Endorsing the removal of federal regulations and the freedom that comes with that is not an endorsement of what people or states do with these freedoms.
Would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Very easy to misinterpret. He's partly against the Civil Rights Act regarding the regulations on private individuals and businesses that are open to the public because they reduce individual liberties. Makes sense for a libertarian to say such things.

Again, why is it ok for some states to allow segregation? Paul is demonstrating he does not regard these fundamental human rights as universal. He is saying that as president he is ok with allowing part of his citizenry to discriminate against other members of his citizenry.

If he feels that he is not in a position to make a call on that (and most people would see this as a solved problem), why the hell does he want to be president? The whole point of government is to make the lives of the people better through legislation (either enshrining or restricting freedoms).

Why doesn't he say that states can decide for themselves about free speech or gun control? And the answer trotted out will be "because they're constitutional rights". You know what? As great as the constitution of the USA is (and I believe it is a fantastic document that is an example to all nations), it's not perfect. Women, black people and homosexuals thankfully no longer occupy the position they did at the time of it's writing. The 4th amendment knows nothing of the internet. It should be a living document, updated with the times.

I'm aware. :-)

In reply to this comment by ChaosEngine:
No-one takes him seriously anyway.

In reply to this comment by heropsycho:
Nobody takes you seriously in a discussion if you say "federal mafia". Just a heads up.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The Constitution says nothing about a right to privacy. That doesn't mean a right to privacy couldn't be created (good luck enforcing it). AFAIK, legal flapdoodle during Roe v. Wade 'created' a right to privacy.
Am improved balance of power between the States and the federal mafia should exist.
>> ^NetRunner:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/quantumushroom" title="member since June 22nd, 2006" class="profilelink">quantumushroom so you're not a tenther? You believe people have a Constitutional right to privacy?

No-one takes him seriously anyway.

In reply to this comment by heropsycho:
Nobody takes you seriously in a discussion if you say "federal mafia". Just a heads up.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The Constitution says nothing about a right to privacy. That doesn't mean a right to privacy couldn't be created (good luck enforcing it). AFAIK, legal flapdoodle during Roe v. Wade 'created' a right to privacy.
Am improved balance of power between the States and the federal mafia should exist.
>> ^NetRunner:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/quantumushroom" title="member since June 22nd, 2006" class="profilelink">quantumushroom so you're not a tenther? You believe people have a Constitutional right to privacy?