RichardDawkinsNet: The Best Reason To Oppose Ron Paul
The Best Reason to Oppose Ron Paul
(http://richarddawkins.net/articles/644386-the-best-reason-to-oppose-ron-paul)
December 27, 2011 at 12:35 pm - by Ed Brayton
I am on record praising many of Ron Paul’s positions, but I’ve also said that while I think he is refreshing on many issues of executive power and bill of rights issues I cannot support him. And the most powerful reason why I can’t support him is because I think his ideas on other issues are extraordinarily dangerous. And nothing exemplifies that more than the We The People act that he has sponsored in the House.
This is a court-stripping bill, one that would reverse decades of case law that protects freedom and equality in a thousand different ways. Here is the core of the bill:
The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court– (1) shall not adjudicate– (A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion; (B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or (C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and (2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).
This would reverse not only Roe v Wade but Griswold v Connecticut and Lawrence v Texas and every other ruling related to a right to privacy as well. That means the states could once again outlaw homosexuality and the use of contraception (and if you don’t think there are powerful political interests that favor doing both of those things, you haven’t been paying attention). It erases virtually every single church/state ruling in the last century, allowing public schools to once again force students to read the Bible aloud and to recite state-composed and mandated prayers. That is every bit as crazy as Newt Gingrich’s absolutely insane anti-judiciary policy proposals. And it is an absolute deal-breaker for me.
(http://richarddawkins.net/articles/644386-the-best-reason-to-oppose-ron-paul)
December 27, 2011 at 12:35 pm - by Ed Brayton
I am on record praising many of Ron Paul’s positions, but I’ve also said that while I think he is refreshing on many issues of executive power and bill of rights issues I cannot support him. And the most powerful reason why I can’t support him is because I think his ideas on other issues are extraordinarily dangerous. And nothing exemplifies that more than the We The People act that he has sponsored in the House.
This is a court-stripping bill, one that would reverse decades of case law that protects freedom and equality in a thousand different ways. Here is the core of the bill:
The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court– (1) shall not adjudicate– (A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion; (B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or (C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and (2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).
This would reverse not only Roe v Wade but Griswold v Connecticut and Lawrence v Texas and every other ruling related to a right to privacy as well. That means the states could once again outlaw homosexuality and the use of contraception (and if you don’t think there are powerful political interests that favor doing both of those things, you haven’t been paying attention). It erases virtually every single church/state ruling in the last century, allowing public schools to once again force students to read the Bible aloud and to recite state-composed and mandated prayers. That is every bit as crazy as Newt Gingrich’s absolutely insane anti-judiciary policy proposals. And it is an absolute deal-breaker for me.
6 Comments
Boise_LibLiberty for the states!!
People? meh.
StormsingerPaul's scary in a lot of areas, and quite impressive in others. I'm quite in agreement with many of his foreign policy stances, but his domestic policies are little short of terrifying. However, almost none of his truly scary goals are within the powers of the office of President. And there's no way he's going to get enough congresscritters to go along with him to get these kinds of actions pushed through. And the worst of them are amendments that would never get enough states to ratify them.
In short, he'd probably do some good, and less damage than most of the other Republican candidates. I'm still somewhat on the fence when I compare him to Obama, who is quite likely the most Republican candidate in the race, albeit without the name.
dystopianfuturetodayMy fear is that his corporate friendly austerity, deregulatory and tax policies would easily glide through the legislation process, while his corporately opposed foreign policy would get stuck in a congressional traffic jam. And then he gets voted out in 4 years and we're left with an even more damaged democracy. A Ron Paul administration would not be good for the 99%.
gwiz665That bill is far more damning than any newsletters ever were.
Maybe John Huntsman is a good alternative.
Stormsinger>> ^gwiz665:
That bill is far more damning than any newsletters ever were.
Maybe John Huntsman is a good alternative.
I could actually see myself getting behind Huntsman, he seems to be quite reasonable. But there's no way he could win the nomination of the rabid rightwing, for precisely the same reason.
kceaton1For as long as Huntsman was here in Utah and then his actual time as governor, he was a very good middle of the road Republican. I'd be happy to take him back as governor. His Lt. governor that took over had tea party affiliations and with no one around to oppose him, he decided to act on his impulses. Of course, he has seen bad numbers in the polls so he has pulled back. I think he forgot that he replaced Jon Huntsman without a vote and he isn't a middle of the road candidate, like I said he has Tea Party ties (like our Senator Mike Lee, who's an idiot).
Just so you know Jon Huntsman is what is known by regular attending church goers as a "Jack Mormon", basically someone that doesn't go to church all the time. I can't blame him as the services are anywhere from FOUR to SIX HOURS long! Basically, your whole day is gone and used up by the time you're done. The last poll I saw showed that the majority of Mormons were in fact "Jack Mormons". So that might explain part of his appeal here in Utah (especially in Salt Lake which happens to be very democratic in its leanings), is that he isn't a holier-than-thou type of person, which Mitt Romney emanated sometimes.
------------
As for Ron Paul... Ron Paul lost any chance from me voting for him when I found out he had relations with the John Birch Society. It sure as hell makes sense why all of his policies are so radical.
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.