C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
Ron Paul was responding to a question then about whether the states could legalize polygamy under the Constitution (I believe the answer is yes). He compared polygamy to slavery and asserted that modern US states wouldn't do grossly immoral things.
This is indicative not only of Pauls ignorance of the Constitution, but his ignorance of the states role in civil rights violations historically, Alabamas anti-immigration law, for example.
He was referred to by the moderators as a Constitutional expert, but I've seen no evidence that he is.
For good reason, there isnt any. Hes a Constitutional charlatan.
But is this gynecologist turned politician really an expert in the sense of having a technical knowledge of the Constitution that surpasses, say, a pretty smart lawyer?
No.
I admit that I might be misunderstanding Paul's position. It's often hard for me to follow conservative/libertarian arguments, since they are built up from a different set of assumptions than my own. If someone has a different understanding of Paul's remarks, by all means post it.
Youre not alone. Conservative/libertarian arguments are predicated on an incorrect understanding of the Constitution and its case law. Indeed, all the evidence Ive seen is they reject the case law comprehensively, starting with and including Marbury. It is a radical and bizarre belief that only the Constitution proper is relevant, that its subsequent and defining case law, precedent, and interpretation by the courts is meaningless, simply because they disagree with it.
Theyll often cite Foundation Era documents such as the Federalist Papers as their justification for this bizarre position, seemingly ignorant of he fact that the courts have reviewed the Founding Documents as well, factoring them into Constitutional interpretation.
Correct me if I'm wrong. He believes that individual states should make the rules on marriage. Therefore, in his view, a state could deny someone the same rights that others have.
I have a big problem with that.
Youre not wrong and youre not alone in having a big problem with that: so does the Constitution.
The 14th Amendment requires the states to apply their laws equally to all citizens, and to allow citizens equal access to the law. That a given states majority may express through its state governments representatives or by referendum a desire to violate the rights of a minority class in the state such as banning abortion or same-sex marriage is Constitutionally irrelevant; the Constitutions founding principal of the rule of law protects citizens Constitutional rights from the tyranny of the majority.