Does Ron Paul know the Constitution?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Where did I scoff at it?

Polygamy is not equal to same sex marriage.

Is that the same stupid argument Ron Paul makes?

You called it a stupid argument when Infidel made it, but now you make the same argument when it comes to polygamy.

One could say that gay marriage is not equal to traditional marriage.

That was a stupid argument because he should be able to marry a man if he so chooses.

Well then your argument is stupid because I should be able to marry three women if I so choose.

 

[Ravi]

You called it a stupid argument when Infidel made it, but now you make the same argument when it comes to polygamy.

One could say that gay marriage is not equal to traditional marriage.

That was a stupid argument because he should be able to marry a man if he so chooses.

Well then your argument is stupid because I should be able to marry three women if I so choose.

No. A contract between two people is not the same as a contract between more than two people.

 

[manifold]

That was a stupid argument because he should be able to marry a man if he so chooses.

Well then your argument is stupid because I should be able to marry three women if I so choose.

No. A contract between two people is not the same as a contract between more than two people.

What differences, specifically, are the ones that justify banning polygamy?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That was a stupid argument because he should be able to marry a man if he so chooses.

Well then your argument is stupid because I should be able to marry three women if I so choose.

No. A contract between two people is not the same as a contract between more than two people.

A contract is a contract. I can enter into more than one contract at a time.

 

[rightwinger]

Ron Paul is a Gynechologist ...

That does not make him an expert in the Constitution

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Ron Paul is a Gynechologist ...

That does not make him an expert in the Constitution

Good thing it was written in plain language so anyone can read it then.

 

[Ravi]

Well then your argument is stupid because I should be able to marry three women if I so choose.

No. A contract between two people is not the same as a contract between more than two people.

What differences, specifically, are the ones that justify banning polygamy?

I have no idea. I'm just saying they are not the same thing.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No. A contract between two people is not the same as a contract between more than two people.

What differences, specifically, are the ones that justify banning polygamy?

I have no idea. I'm just saying they are not the same thing.

The principle is the same.

 

[rightwinger]

Ron Paul is a Gynechologist ...

That does not make him an expert in the Constitution

Good thing it was written in plain language so anyone can read it then.

And we have spent over two hundred years interpreting constitutional nuance

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Ron Paul is a Gynechologist ...

That does not make him an expert in the Constitution

Good thing it was written in plain language so anyone can read it then.

And we have spent over two hundred years interpreting constitutional nuance

More like spent two hundred years creating constitutional nonsense.

 

[rightwinger]

Good thing it was written in plain language so anyone can read it then.

And we have spent over two hundred years interpreting constitutional nuance

More like spent two hundred years creating constitutional nonsense.

Responses like that demonstrate why we can't take the tea party seriously. I knew it wouldn't take long

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And we have spent over two hundred years interpreting constitutional nuance

More like spent two hundred years creating constitutional nonsense.

Responses like that demonstrate why we can't take the tea party seriously. I knew it wouldn't take long

I have never been to a Tea Party, do not speak for the Tea Party, and have absolutely no affiliation with the Tea Party in any way shape or form.

 

[Mr.Nick]

I was watching the Republican debates in Ames, and one response caught my attention (I can't find a transcript, so excuse me if the details are a bit off). The moderators seemed to note that in light of New York's recognition of gay marriage there was a tension between federalism/10th Amendment/leaving things to the states.

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. It struck me as odd because the right to own slaves is the only individual right, under the 13th Amendment, denied to people (and denied rightly, of course). As such, Paul's answer made little sense, since he was comparing polygamy, unmentioned in the Constitution, to the single practice explicitly banned (other than the defunct ban on liquor in the 18th Amendment).

I've never claimed to be a Constitutional expert, but I do know the 13th Amendment, whereas Paul seems to have forgotten it in the heat of the debate. He was referred to by the moderators as a Constitutional expert, but I've seen no evidence that he is. Well, I suppose he is no Christine O'Donnell, the Senate candidate who was unfamiliar with the Jeffersonian interpretation of church-state relations under the Constitution. Perhaps he is expert compared to his colleagues in Congress. 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?

That was a moral response and he never claimed the states were forbidden from utilizing the Tenth Amendment.

I believe what he was trying to assert was that marriage is between one man and one woman and that an excess wife serves no purpose other than to slave, or compensate for for the other wife.

It was a philosophical response.

I suppose he is correct in his response. It's possible to love but it's impossible to love equally (you may love but everyone will favor) - therefore you cannot love two wives equally, hence one is the slave and the other is the slave (even if you do love her)..

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I was watching the Republican debates in Ames, and one response caught my attention (I can't find a transcript, so excuse me if the details are a bit off). The moderators seemed to note that in light of New York's recognition of gay marriage there was a tension between federalism/10th Amendment/leaving things to the states.

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. It struck me as odd because the right to own slaves is the only individual right, under the 13th Amendment, denied to people (and denied rightly, of course). As such, Paul's answer made little sense, since he was comparing polygamy, unmentioned in the Constitution, to the single practice explicitly banned (other than the defunct ban on liquor in the 18th Amendment).

I've never claimed to be a Constitutional expert, but I do know the 13th Amendment, whereas Paul seems to have forgotten it in the heat of the debate. He was referred to by the moderators as a Constitutional expert, but I've seen no evidence that he is. Well, I suppose he is no Christine O'Donnell, the Senate candidate who was unfamiliar with the Jeffersonian interpretation of church-state relations under the Constitution. Perhaps he is expert compared to his colleagues in Congress. 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?

That was a moral response and he never claimed the states were forbidden from utilizing the Tenth Amendment.

I believe what he was trying to assert was that marriage is between one man and one woman and that an excess wife serves no purpose other than to slave, or compensate for for the other wife.

It was a philosophical response.

I suppose he is correct in his response. Its possible to love but not love everyone equally - therefore you cannot love two wives equally, hence one is the slave and the other is the slave (even if you do love her)..

I don't know what it is you're trying to say exactly, but it doesn't sound like what Ron Paul was talking about at all.

 

[Mr.Nick]

More like spent two hundred years creating constitutional nonsense.

Responses like that demonstrate why we can't take the tea party seriously. I knew it wouldn't take long

I have never been to a Tea Party, do not speak for the Tea Party, and have absolutely no affiliation with the Tea Party in any way shape or form.

You should come to one because we ironically serve coffee and make sure we cross our legs when we speak while we pretend to be intellectuals that are opposed to intellectuals...

We also break out the barbies and play "revolution war."

 

[Paulie]

Nice try, Mo.

I haven't even brought love into the situation. I'm saying the government can't disallow any two people from entering into a contract that has the same benefits as heterosexual marriage without violating equal protection.

A polygamous relationship is not allowed for anyone, therefore the government is treating everyone the same in that instance. It is not favoring one couple over another couple as it is by disallowing gay marriage.

That's the exact same argument you scoffed at earlier in the thread. "Well nobody can have a polygamous union" is the exact same thing as saying "well nobody can marry the same sex."

Where did I scoff at it?

Polygamy is not equal to same sex marriage.

Why isn't it though? It's still the base issue of individual rights of people to marry who they please.

 

[ladyliberal]

Reading through everyone's thoughts, I think I have a somewhat better understanding of Paul's position now. It seems like the best explanation is that he was rejecting the Constitutional implications of the question and making a moral argument based on his libertarian philosophy. It's starting to seem to me that he is a libertarian first and a Constitutionalist second.

I don't share his opinion that governments have no or little responsibility for enforcing personal morality. I think that laws inevitably have a moral dimension and that the libertarian response is not always the best one.

Thanks to the commenters who linked to Paul's own words. Those were especially helpful.

To the commenters who questioned my own knowledge of the Constitution: I never claimed to be an expert. Where you see deficiencies in my understanding by all means correct them.

 

[Ravi]

That's the exact same argument you scoffed at earlier in the thread. "Well nobody can have a polygamous union" is the exact same thing as saying "well nobody can marry the same sex."

Where did I scoff at it?

Polygamy is not equal to same sex marriage.

Why isn't it though? It's still the base issue of individual rights of people to marry who they please.

You're talking about the difference between monogamous marriage and polygamous marriage. They are different contracts no matter how much people pretend otherwise. You are free to advocate for polygamy but it has nothing to do with gay marriage.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So let me get this straight. He's saying states could have slavery but they won't so we shouldn't worry about it?

Someone should ask him to clarify his position.

He DID NOT SAY THAT. He said it is as likely a State would approve polygamy as it was they would slavery. Meaning NO CHANCE, so leave it up to the States on MARRIAGE.

You liberals make shit up like mad.

 

[jillian]

I was watching the Republican debates in Ames, and one response caught my attention (I can't find a transcript, so excuse me if the details are a bit off). The moderators seemed to note that in light of New York's recognition of gay marriage there was a tension between federalism/10th Amendment/leaving things to the states.

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. It struck me as odd because the right to own slaves is the only individual right, under the 13th Amendment, denied to people (and denied rightly, of course). As such, Paul's answer made little sense, since he was comparing polygamy, unmentioned in the Constitution, to the single practice explicitly banned (other than the defunct ban on liquor in the 18th Amendment).

I've never claimed to be a Constitutional expert, but I do know the 13th Amendment, whereas Paul seems to have forgotten it in the heat of the debate. He was referred to by the moderators as a Constitutional expert, but I've seen no evidence that he is. Well, I suppose he is no Christine O'Donnell, the Senate candidate who was unfamiliar with the Jeffersonian interpretation of church-state relations under the Constitution. Perhaps he is expert compared to his colleagues in Congress. 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?

short answer to the question asked...

no. he doesn't have a clue about the constitution.