Uh no, check his voting record, he's just like his dad, Ron, who didn't care about leadership or Party at all. He votes in accordance with the Constitution.
You should get to know the family. Ron and Rand Paul are the two most principled people in the United States government! Don't take my word for it, start with YouTube.
"For the past several months, Sen. Rand Paul has opposed and led the charge against both the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). Yesterday, Sen. Paul issued the following statement.
"The Internet, as we know it, has had a profound impact on job creation, the global economy and prosperity. It has accelerated wealth creation and facilitated a more connected world. But the Internet's development is based on the free flow of information, innovation, and ideas, not central government control," Senator Paul said.
"Both PIPA and SOPA give the federal government unprecedented and unconstitutional power to censor the Internet. These bills enable the government to shut down websites that it deems guilty of violating copyright laws. While we support copyright protections, we are also concerned about websites being shut down without their day in court, and making innocent third parties bear the costs of solving someone else's problems."
Sen. Paul concluded, "I will not sit idly by while PIPA and SOPA eliminate the constitutionally protected rights to due process and free speech. For these reasons, I have pledged to oppose, filibuster and do everything in my power to stop government censorship of the Internet.""
Elected officials are Pavlovian dogs. They respond to pleasure and pain. If enough people embarrass the politician, get them bad press, turn their major donors away from them, etc then the politicians WILL eventually change their behavior, ESPECIALLY if they think it could hurt their reelection chances.
You do realize that State governments are (at least under the US Constitution) allowed to have their own established religion, right? I don't like it, but the Feds have no legal power to prevent that sort of thing. The concept that they have the power to stop it is a legal fiction that someone just made up called the Incorporation Doctrine.
Uhh.... no I don't think he supports vouchers. I don't think he wants government money to be entangled with education. In fact he believes that education is an issue best left to the State and local governments. Again, the Constitution grants the Feds no authority over the issue of education.
And of course RP supporters look at his record, that's WHY they support him. Most of what the federal government does is unconstitutional and Ron doesn't vote for anything that is unconstitutional. It's just that simple.
Either you are ignorant, or you are a troll. If it's the former, please take time to educate yourself. http://www.mises.org/ is a good place to start.
Well the US Constitution prohibits the federal government from that sort of regulation.
And the honest truth is that the over stringent regulations / subsidies / privileges the government handed out to the banks and other big business actually caused the financial crisis... along with the US Federal Reserve inflating the currency. But don't take my word for it, do your own research.
The 5th Amendment says that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Due process means that one must be found guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers.
And since when did the mission of DHS become copyright enforcement? And where did they get the unilateral authority to act as judge, jury, and executioner?
Last time I checked, "copyprivilege" infringement required a civil suit by the person who held the privilege to begin with? Were these domain holders sued? Were they found guilty (liable) by a court of law?
Is the US government out of control and operating outside the bounds of the Constitution?
Now you could perhaps argue that Casilly and the police department violated Maryland law unknowingly. But given their positions, that their responsibility as public officials is to enforce Maryland law, and that there isn't a single court case that interpreted the Maryland statute in the way they did to justify their pursuit of Graber, I find it far more persuasive that they either knew they were breaking the law, that they were willfully ignorant of the law, or that they were pretty severely negligent in their duties.
Now consider the consequences under each scenario:
Had Graber unknowingly violated state law in a manner that caused very little actual harm to anyone else, he at the very least would have had felony record. He could have gone to prison for several years.
Instead, we have public officials who violated the law, who should have known they were violating the law, and who caused significant harm to someone else in the process.
No, rights and powers are NOT interchangeable. Rights are natural, inherent, and part of each individual's humanity. Rights cannot be delegated or taken or infringed justly (without due process in a court of law). Powers are delegated, specific, arbitrary, and often fluid. Those with rights delegate power to others.
And rights do not originate with the government, the community, or even the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence. Rights exist because each individual exists. Government doesn't give us rights. Our rights are simply there.
The Constitution does indeed have a fixed meaning. It means the same thing now that it did at the time it was written down. It's called original meaning (as opposed to original intent which is fairly impossible to know in many cases and a bit more subjective). The Constitution sets up basic rules of the federal government and some limited action between the states. It's a very narrow and constraining document. Would you get into a poker game where the rules are in flux and constantly subject to fickle "interpretation"? I would hope not.
The SCOTUS has said that some specific items are "Constitutional" and also then later said those same items are also "unconstitutional". Without the document being amended both cannot be true. Therefore the SCOTUS is (often) wrong about what qualifies as Constitutional action and what doesn't.
You're right, MOST of what the federal government does is indeed unconstitutional because it's not a power delegated to the federal government by the states in that document. Even members of Congress have admitted this very openly and publicly. Rep James Clyburn is a recent example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiThqLLPp1c
However forced vaccinations infringe upon the individual's right to decide for their own body and does not infringe upon the rights of others. Refusing a vaccine does not infringe on anyone's rights. If others don't want to run the risk of getting infected then they can choose to accept the vaccine. Freedom means the freedom to make one's own choices, even if they are poor choices.
I would suggest you search for and read some of the following scholars: Dr. Kevin Gutzman, Dr. Tom Woods, Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo, Lew Rockwell, Andrew Napolitano, Mises, Badnarik, Lysander Spooner, Hayek, Rothbard, and Thomas Jefferson.
First off states / governments don't have rights, they have powers. Only individuals have rights.
Secondly whether the SCOTUS declares something Constitutional or not doesn't necessarily make it so. The document has a fixed meaning and any power not specifically delegated to the federal government by way of the Constitution is reserved to either the People or the State governments. Since I don't see anything about healthcare or vaccination or control of plagues etc in the Constitution then those powers must be reserved to the States (or to the People).
On a more fundamental level which would be applied to the States, the government cannot force you to be vaccinated if you should choose not to. In a free society the individual is free to make their own decisions, even if they are poor decisions, so long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others. If one owns one's body, then no else can tell them what they can and cannot put into their own body. If the community or government can make decisions about your body, then you don't own your body, and thus are not only not free, but have no rights at all. It's just that simple.
Seriously, do some research on the abiogenic origin of oil.
Petroleum is NOT dead dino carcasses rotting into liquid, it's instead a natural geological function much like natural gas. This was known decades ago by the Russian scientists but was never accepted into other western lexicons.
A good book on the subject is "Black Gold Stranglehold", everyone should read it.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't sign any social contract.
Uh no, check his voting record, he's just like his dad, Ron, who didn't care about leadership or Party at all. He votes in accordance with the Constitution.
A libertarian would say that "all taxation is theft".
Ron Paul's organization, the Campaign for Liberty, is trying to kill this thing and prevent the national sales tax from being implemented:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/15/the-national-internet-tax-mandate-must-be-stopped/
And if you believe that, then Michael Chertoff has some prono-scanners to sell you!
You should get to know the family. Ron and Rand Paul are the two most principled people in the United States government! Don't take my word for it, start with YouTube.
This just came out yesterday......
"For the past several months, Sen. Rand Paul has opposed and led the charge against both the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). Yesterday, Sen. Paul issued the following statement.
"The Internet, as we know it, has had a profound impact on job creation, the global economy and prosperity. It has accelerated wealth creation and facilitated a more connected world. But the Internet's development is based on the free flow of information, innovation, and ideas, not central government control," Senator Paul said.
"Both PIPA and SOPA give the federal government unprecedented and unconstitutional power to censor the Internet. These bills enable the government to shut down websites that it deems guilty of violating copyright laws. While we support copyright protections, we are also concerned about websites being shut down without their day in court, and making innocent third parties bear the costs of solving someone else's problems."
Sen. Paul concluded, "I will not sit idly by while PIPA and SOPA eliminate the constitutionally protected rights to due process and free speech. For these reasons, I have pledged to oppose, filibuster and do everything in my power to stop government censorship of the Internet.""
Elected officials are Pavlovian dogs. They respond to pleasure and pain. If enough people embarrass the politician, get them bad press, turn their major donors away from them, etc then the politicians WILL eventually change their behavior, ESPECIALLY if they think it could hurt their reelection chances.
Absolutely untrue. He just wants the federal government to obey the Constitution.
You must be a product of law school.
I suggest you take a look at this:
http://fija.org/
You do realize that State governments are (at least under the US Constitution) allowed to have their own established religion, right? I don't like it, but the Feds have no legal power to prevent that sort of thing. The concept that they have the power to stop it is a legal fiction that someone just made up called the Incorporation Doctrine.
Uhh.... no I don't think he supports vouchers. I don't think he wants government money to be entangled with education. In fact he believes that education is an issue best left to the State and local governments. Again, the Constitution grants the Feds no authority over the issue of education.
And of course RP supporters look at his record, that's WHY they support him. Most of what the federal government does is unconstitutional and Ron doesn't vote for anything that is unconstitutional. It's just that simple.
Either you are ignorant, or you are a troll. If it's the former, please take time to educate yourself. http://www.mises.org/ is a good place to start.
Weren't there multiple reports from credible sources that OBL was dead years ago?
I don't trust the media, but I trust the government even less.
Looks like Ron Paul will be vindicated in the 2012 election as his message of "bring the troops home" will resonate loud and clear.
Well the US Constitution prohibits the federal government from that sort of regulation.
And the honest truth is that the over stringent regulations / subsidies / privileges the government handed out to the banks and other big business actually caused the financial crisis... along with the US Federal Reserve inflating the currency. But don't take my word for it, do your own research.
How's that working out for those people, in say, China?
Seriously, who wants the Internet to be regulated?
Yeah, that's a relief.
And if you believe that, Hillary Clinton has some land in Arkansas to sell you.
So there was a jury trial?
Didn't you hear?
Every time someone downloads an illegal song, Osama Bin Laden is sent a nickel.
The 5th Amendment says that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Due process means that one must be found guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers.
And since when did the mission of DHS become copyright enforcement? And where did they get the unilateral authority to act as judge, jury, and executioner?
Last time I checked, "copyprivilege" infringement required a civil suit by the person who held the privilege to begin with? Were these domain holders sued? Were they found guilty (liable) by a court of law?
Is the US government out of control and operating outside the bounds of the Constitution?
That was the most depressing thing I've ever read. Thanks for being a buzzkill.
Now you could perhaps argue that Casilly and the police department violated Maryland law unknowingly. But given their positions, that their responsibility as public officials is to enforce Maryland law, and that there isn't a single court case that interpreted the Maryland statute in the way they did to justify their pursuit of Graber, I find it far more persuasive that they either knew they were breaking the law, that they were willfully ignorant of the law, or that they were pretty severely negligent in their duties.
Now consider the consequences under each scenario:
Had Graber unknowingly violated state law in a manner that caused very little actual harm to anyone else, he at the very least would have had felony record. He could have gone to prison for several years.
Instead, we have public officials who violated the law, who should have known they were violating the law, and who caused significant harm to someone else in the process.
So what will be their punishment?
SOURCE:
http://reason.com/blog/2010/09/27/maryland-judge-tosses-the-felo
No, rights and powers are NOT interchangeable. Rights are natural, inherent, and part of each individual's humanity. Rights cannot be delegated or taken or infringed justly (without due process in a court of law). Powers are delegated, specific, arbitrary, and often fluid. Those with rights delegate power to others.
And rights do not originate with the government, the community, or even the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence. Rights exist because each individual exists. Government doesn't give us rights. Our rights are simply there.
The Constitution does indeed have a fixed meaning. It means the same thing now that it did at the time it was written down. It's called original meaning (as opposed to original intent which is fairly impossible to know in many cases and a bit more subjective). The Constitution sets up basic rules of the federal government and some limited action between the states. It's a very narrow and constraining document. Would you get into a poker game where the rules are in flux and constantly subject to fickle "interpretation"? I would hope not.
The SCOTUS has said that some specific items are "Constitutional" and also then later said those same items are also "unconstitutional". Without the document being amended both cannot be true. Therefore the SCOTUS is (often) wrong about what qualifies as Constitutional action and what doesn't.
You're right, MOST of what the federal government does is indeed unconstitutional because it's not a power delegated to the federal government by the states in that document. Even members of Congress have admitted this very openly and publicly. Rep James Clyburn is a recent example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiThqLLPp1c
However forced vaccinations infringe upon the individual's right to decide for their own body and does not infringe upon the rights of others. Refusing a vaccine does not infringe on anyone's rights. If others don't want to run the risk of getting infected then they can choose to accept the vaccine. Freedom means the freedom to make one's own choices, even if they are poor choices.
I would suggest you search for and read some of the following scholars: Dr. Kevin Gutzman, Dr. Tom Woods, Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo, Lew Rockwell, Andrew Napolitano, Mises, Badnarik, Lysander Spooner, Hayek, Rothbard, and Thomas Jefferson.
First off states / governments don't have rights, they have powers. Only individuals have rights.
Secondly whether the SCOTUS declares something Constitutional or not doesn't necessarily make it so. The document has a fixed meaning and any power not specifically delegated to the federal government by way of the Constitution is reserved to either the People or the State governments. Since I don't see anything about healthcare or vaccination or control of plagues etc in the Constitution then those powers must be reserved to the States (or to the People).
On a more fundamental level which would be applied to the States, the government cannot force you to be vaccinated if you should choose not to. In a free society the individual is free to make their own decisions, even if they are poor decisions, so long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others. If one owns one's body, then no else can tell them what they can and cannot put into their own body. If the community or government can make decisions about your body, then you don't own your body, and thus are not only not free, but have no rights at all. It's just that simple.
Well it isn't Constitutional for the federal government to force vaccination.
Seriously, do some research on the abiogenic origin of oil.
Petroleum is NOT dead dino carcasses rotting into liquid, it's instead a natural geological function much like natural gas. This was known decades ago by the Russian scientists but was never accepted into other western lexicons.
A good book on the subject is "Black Gold Stranglehold", everyone should read it.