Great User Question About Ron Paul Policy

November 9, 2007 by  
Filed under News

Late last week, I was posed a question concerning Ron Paul’s Policies. My immediate thought was to turn this to the people who support him and see the various opinions. Understand, none of the these are officials from the campaign.

I would like to understand Dr. Paul’s outlook on state control of individual liberties around abortion, prayer etc. It seems when states did have these rights, many things like Jim Crow laws etc. existed. How do we safeguard civil rights as such?


  • It is my understanding that Dr. Paul always abides by the Constitution. In so doing, he is in agreement with Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution, which reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”Although this would seem to allow civil rights abuses in individual states, it actually gives the voters back home much more control over what they want (“home rule,” if you will). For example, while many states have grappled over the issue of homosexual marriage, a majority of those voting in South Carolina’s 2006 General Election — who chose to vote on Amendment #1 (the “marriage amendment”) — voted to amend the state Constitution in favor of the following:

    “Must Article XVII of the Constitution of this State be amended by adding Section 15 so as to provide that in this State and its political subdivisions, a marriage between one man and one woman is the only lawful domestic union that shall be valid or recognized; that this State and its political subdivisions shall not create, recognize, or give effect to a legal status, right, or claim created by another jurisdiction respecting any other domestic union, however denominated; that this amendment shall not impair any right or benefit extended by the State or its political subdivisions other than a right or benefit arising from a domestic union that is not valid or recognized in this State; and that this amendment shall not prohibit or limit the ability of parties other than the State or its political subdivisions from entering into contracts or other legal instruments?”

    This amendment defines marriage in our state as between one man and one woman and prevents the state from recognizing marriage between any other two entities (such as two persons of the same gender or a person and any other entity). This is not just state law (which can be changed much more easily), but is a now part of the Constitution of our state. It was the right of the people of our state both to place such an issue on our ballot and to vote on it.

    The situation with amending the U.S. Constitution is much more complicated, giving rise to talk about a Constitutional Convention. I’m taking the liberty of pasting below the content of a letter to the editor on this subject, which I submitted to the Aiken Standard on October 16, 2007. Earlier that evening, I had addressed the Aiken County Council on the same subject.

    Every thinking South Carolinian needs to be gravely concerned about talk regarding a Constitutional Convention, which Wikipedia defines as “a gathering of delegates for the purpose of writing a new constitution or revising an existing constitution.” The problem in Washington, D.C. is not that we have a bad or inadequate Constitution but that our federal elected officials won’t follow it!

    A CONstitutional CONvention (nicknamed “Con-Con”) is dangerous because it can not be limited to a single issue. Once a Con-Con is convened, the entire Constitution of the United States can be gutted and rewritten. For some time, globalists and those who desire a one-world government have been working to merge Canada, the United States and Mexico into a “North American Union.” A Con-Con would most certainly give these people the opportunity to replace the United States Constitution with a Constitution of the North American Union. Do you really want to lose the protections that are afforded by our existing Constitution? Do you really want for our nation’s sovereignty to be destroyed?

    On October 11, 2004, South Carolina’s Governor signed H. 3400 into law to become Act 314. This bill repealed Joint Resolution 775 of 1976, which called on Congress to balance the federal budget by either amendment or Constitutional Convention, and disavowed any other calls for a Constitutional Convention by any means expressed. Would state lawmakers simply exchange one failure of federal elected officials (not balancing the federal budget) for another (not alleviating the illegal immigration epidemic)?

    When elected officials in Georgia and Oklahoma realized that the federal government would not protect their states from the invasion of illegal aliens, they passed state laws to take care of the problem. We don’t need a Constitutional Convention to take care of this problem. We need state elected officials who understand the power that is already in their hands, to finalize state-based immigration reform, versions of which have already passed the House and Senate. It’s time to get S. 392, “Illegal Immigration Reform Act; Registration of Immigration Services Act,” out of the House Committee on Judiciary and onto the floor for passage.

    Specifically with regard to Ron Paul, please refer to:

    1. Civil liberties, which includes Constitutional rights and States’ rights on the Political positions of Ron Paul;
    2. Dr. Paul’s archives (specifically search for the word “liberty” in the article title or description);
    3. Two specific columns on two different subjects that describe his views on liberty:
      1. What Really Divides Us?
      2. Gun Rights vs. Centralization
  • In our federal system, the courts exist to rule on the constitutionality of both state and federal laws. Certainly abuses
    exist, and have always existed. I remind those who expect that the federal government will be the source of rightousness and the states the source of abuse should remember that the Dred Scott decision was a federal ruling. Also, remember that the recent eminent domain ruling was a federal decision. On the national stage, remember the Japanese-american relocation camps in WWII were also a national action, not a state action.If we return power to the states, we will have at least 49 other areas to escape to if state abuse occurs. Hopefully, the courts or the executive of each state will not allow abuse of its citizens, and if that fails, the federal supreme court will have a say to expand the 5th and 14th amendments.Power always has a tendency to corrupt. Government closer to the people is easier to change than an all powerful behemoth in Washington. A less powerful, less intrusive government, will be less intrusive on both civil and economic freedoms. Our country has become more inclusive of many races and beliefs.
  • Need to get clearer on what “many things” are. Additionally, there are very many laws that would fall under Jim Crow. One is marriage; Paul wants the state to be able to have control here, ie ban same sex marriage if it so chooses; he does not think that marriage is a “right” provided for in the BOR. And the inquisitor is right, I would certainly assume Paul would be in favor of a state’s banning interracial marriage if it so chose, or marriage between Christians and Jews, etc. Another Jim Crow law that some states adopted was segregation in schools. Here, too, I think the inquisitor is right, such segregation would be permissable for a state to make law.On abortion, Paul thinks that the federal government doesn’t have the power to sanction or ban abortions; states, in his view, have sole prerogative over criminal acts.
  • It was largely the people’s refusal to enforce the Jim Crow Laws that got rid of them, not the Federal Govt. Back then, there was a thing called Juror’s rights. The jury didn’t have to find someone guilty if they disagreed with the law and prior to the Fed having anything to do with it, the people on the juries largely refused to find them guilty and enforce the law. People are now misinformed about their rights/responsibilities as the last of the checks and balances on our government when they sit on a jury. Judges deliberately misinform the jurors. Juror’s rights has always been a big Libertarian issue. Even if you have bad laws, if the people know their rights you could make change at the individual level. We have far more power than just a vote… we just don’t know it.

I think these individuals provided some good insight on this position. Tell us what you think.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Pingback: Ron Paul - Presidential Candidate » Blog Archive » Great User Question About Ron Paul Policy()

  • dls

    every state has a state constitution that follows the federal constitution, the states cannot write laws that violate the constitution. there is a big difference between the states administrative laws and statutes. if you are concerned about what the states can and cannot do, read the state constitution.

  • Brenda

    I found your site quite by accident but like it