Does Ron Paul know the Constitution?

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

The main overriding argument by YOU and the Gay community and liberals is that between consenting adults it is no one's business who they marry. And you argue that any interference is Unconstitutional and illegal. So why only 2 Consenting adults? How is it different between 3 or 4 consenting adults?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

You are either stupid or a liar. I suspect you are just lying here to gain sympathy with fellow liberals as you make shit up the man never said. He did not say States can reenact Slavery. He said States authorizing Polygamy is as LIKELY as a State doing so. States can not so he is saying it can't happen even if left to States to decide. A 5th grader can grasp this concept so I know you liberal dumb asses can also.

 

[Google]

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.

I watched the debate, and no disrespect at all, but I'm not seeing the ambiguity of Paul's statement. The question, a 'got-you' question of sorts, was baiting Paul into stating his unpopular, in the GOP, stance that gay marriage is a question that should be left to the states. Taking that stance then the argument could be made that states could possibly legalize polygamy.

This is a simplistic argument that, as a libertarian, I have heard all my life.

Paul was simply offering a poignant retort that yes that is a possibility if a state so chose, but that a general morality would prevent such a stupid circumstance from occurring.

The premise of the question itself could be insulting to some: that homosexual marriage and polygamy are comparable.

 

[Google]

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.

All of your posts are short and simplistic. With the except, of course, when you cut & paste articles to prove some point.

My favorite post was the "if you believe that you are wrong".

 

[kaz]

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)

I didn't see the debate so I'm just going by what you said. But I'm not sure I see a contradiction in your statement. Going by what you said, he said "modern US states wouldn't do grossly immoral things." That doesn't say Polygamy is Unconstitutional, that says States wouldn't do it which means presumably the Federal government doesn't need to interfere in Polygamy. I believe that's actually the basis of a lot of his arguments to keep the Federal government out of the States, not a rationalization for the Federal government to interfere with them.

I agree with you BTW that banning slavery is clearly a federal power and banning polygamy clearly isn't. Though by the full faith and credit clause the federal government can allow other states to not recognize polygamy from other States. The same clause that makes the defense of marriage act Constitutional.

 

[kaz]

Silly Wabbutt! All Tea Party/libertarian types of course know the constitution.
They just prefer to ignore certain parts of it.

Do we? Which part?

 

[Ravi]

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.

Wasn't it legal in Utah and isn't it true that if Mitten becomes president it will become the law of the land?

So yeah, he didn't say NO CHANCE.

 

[kaz]

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.

Wasn't it legal in Utah and isn't it true that if Mitten becomes president it will become the law of the land?

So yeah, he didn't say NO CHANCE.

Ignorance and bigotry, a liberal way of life. You should read more, my dear. Mormons and the Mormon church no longer believe in polygamy. And there is a reason they supported it when the Mormons went to Utah which was not religious. I realize you get your news from Entertainment tonight, but the 30 second TV spots on the Mormons who practice it today are not in any mainstream Mormon churches.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Wasn't it legal in Utah and isn't it true that if Mitten becomes president it will become the law of the land?

So yeah, he didn't say NO CHANCE.

Ignorance and bigotry, a liberal way of life. You should read more, my dear. Mormons and the Mormon church no longer believe in polygamy. And there is a reason they supported it when the Mormons went to Utah which was not religious. I realize you get your news from Entertainment tonight, but the 30 second TV spots on the Mormons who practice it today are not in any mainstream Mormon churches.

There is no question that if Romney becomes President he will force polygamy down our throats. All men will be required to take a second wife.

Be afraid......be very afraid

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

Nobody here is advocating polygamy. It's used as example to explain: if you can change definition of marriage to benefit one group, then you should be able to change definition to benefit any other group.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Nobody here is advocating polygamy. It's used as example that explain: if you can change definition of marriage to benefit one group, then you should be able to change definition to benefit any other group.

Bullshit

Republicans want to block gay marriages so they can enjoy their polygamous lifestyle. Look at Republican Arnold Schwarznegger keeping two wives under one roof. Republicans are running Mormons Mitt Romney and John Houseman who will make polygamy mandatory
Now, even Ron Paul supports it

Republicans and polygamy....perfect together

 

[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.

Wasn't it legal in Utah and isn't it true that if Mitten becomes president it will become the law of the land?

So yeah, he didn't say NO CHANCE.

When the Mormons originally migrated to UTAH it belonged to Mexico. When it became a territory Brigham Young was Governor until 1857 when the then President removed him from office, did not tell him he removed him from office and sent an army to quell a nonexistent rebellion with Young as its supposed leader. By 1890 the Mormon church repudiated plural marriages. No more were allowed, if a Mormon married multiple wives he was excommunicated from the Church. Those currently with multiple wives were allowed to remain in the Church.

The STATE of Utah NEVER legalized plural marriages and to my knowledge Brigham Young never put to print a law in the Territory that made it legal in the USA.

Paul said there is such a remote chance that a moral society would legalize polygamy as to be null and void, so leave it to the States to decide.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Nobody here is advocating polygamy. It's used as example that explain: if you can change definition of marriage to benefit one group, then you should be able to change definition to benefit any other group.

Bullshit

Republicans want to block gay marriages so they can enjoy their polygamous lifestyle. Look at Republican Arnold Schwarznegger keeping two wives under one roof. Republicans are running Mormons Mitt Romney and John Houseman who will make polygamy mandatory
Now, even Ron Paul supports it

Republicans and polygamy....perfect together

The Mormon Church has outlawed Polygamy since the early 1890's. It would require an act of the Prophet to change that. And the only way that happens is if somehow it becomes legal. Mitt Romney has never sided with polygamy. I DARE you to provide a single link to him doing so.

Arnold Schwarzenegger was not married to two women. he had an illicit affair and fathered a child by some woman not his wife.

I further dare you to provide a single link to a REAL Republican advocating for Polygamy. Or admit you are a liar of the first magnitude.

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

Nobody here is advocating polygamy. It's used as example that explain: if you can change definition of marriage to benefit one group, then you should be able to change definition to benefit any other group.

Bullshit

Republicans want to block gay marriages so they can enjoy their polygamous lifestyle. Look at Republican Arnold Schwarznegger keeping two wives under one roof. Republicans are running Mormons Mitt Romney and John Houseman who will make polygamy mandatory
Now, even Ron Paul supports it

Republicans and polygamy....perfect together

I know it's early and medicine didn't kicked in yet... take a deep breath and calm down.

 

[Ravi]

Wasn't it legal in Utah and isn't it true that if Mitten becomes president it will become the law of the land?

So yeah, he didn't say NO CHANCE.

Ignorance and bigotry, a liberal way of life. You should read more, my dear. Mormons and the Mormon church no longer believe in polygamy. And there is a reason they supported it when the Mormons went to Utah which was not religious. I realize you get your news from Entertainment tonight, but the 30 second TV spots on the Mormons who practice it today are not in any mainstream Mormon churches.

There is no question that if Romney becomes President he will force polygamy down our throats. All men will be required to take a second wife.

Be afraid......be very afraid

I see a big battle on the horizon. If men can have more than one wife then women should be able to have more than one husband.

I wonder where Mitt stands on the issue?

 

[Avorysuds]

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.

Nobody here is advocating polygamy. It's used as example that explain: if you can change definition of marriage to benefit one group, then you should be able to change definition to benefit any other group.

Bullshit

Republicans want to block gay marriages so they can enjoy their polygamous lifestyle. Look at Republican Arnold Schwarznegger keeping two wives under one roof. Republicans are running Mormons Mitt Romney and John Houseman who will make polygamy mandatory
Now, even Ron Paul supports it

Republicans and polygamy....perfect together

When Obama has the Senate/House and him as President he did nothing for gays... Obama believes marriage is between a man and a women... So really, this is just another issue where Obama is nothing more than a Neocon Republican and you’re gonna vote for him because so are you. You all hate gays by your policy, your talk is to try and win their votes. In fact, you hate gays so much you use them but never actually deliver.

Paul believes Government should get out of marriages and that the church should be able to marry anyone to anyone, he just believes marriage should be between a man and a women. So in reality, RP has by far the best and if anything correct solution because at least he understands the separation of church and state, unlike Obama and the rest of the Neocons like you.

 

[Avorysuds]

Nobody here is advocating polygamy. It's used as example that explain: if you can change definition of marriage to benefit one group, then you should be able to change definition to benefit any other group.

Bullshit

Republicans want to block gay marriages so they can enjoy their polygamous lifestyle. Look at Republican Arnold Schwarznegger keeping two wives under one roof. Republicans are running Mormons Mitt Romney and John Houseman who will make polygamy mandatory
Now, even Ron Paul supports it

Republicans and polygamy....perfect together

The Mormon Church has outlawed Polygamy since the early 1890's. It would require an act of the Prophet to change that. And the only way that happens is if somehow it becomes legal. Mitt Romney has never sided with polygamy. I DARE you to provide a single link to him doing so.

Arnold Schwarzenegger was not married to two women. he had an illicit affair and fathered a child by some woman not his wife.

I further dare you to provide a single link to a REAL Republican advocating for Polygamy. Or admit you are a liar of the first magnitude.

By RW's bigoted logic Clinton was doing polygamy lol.

 

[Ravi]

I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman … and a woman … and a woman. ~ Mitt Romney

 

[Ame®icano]

Ignorance and bigotry, a liberal way of life. You should read more, my dear. Mormons and the Mormon church no longer believe in polygamy. And there is a reason they supported it when the Mormons went to Utah which was not religious. I realize you get your news from Entertainment tonight, but the 30 second TV spots on the Mormons who practice it today are not in any mainstream Mormon churches.

There is no question that if Romney becomes President he will force polygamy down our throats. All men will be required to take a second wife.

Be afraid......be very afraid

I see a big battle on the horizon. If men can have more than one wife then women should be able to have more than one husband.

I wonder where Mitt stands on the issue?

That's also left to states to decide.

 

[rightwinger]

Ignorance and bigotry, a liberal way of life. You should read more, my dear. Mormons and the Mormon church no longer believe in polygamy. And there is a reason they supported it when the Mormons went to Utah which was not religious. I realize you get your news from Entertainment tonight, but the 30 second TV spots on the Mormons who practice it today are not in any mainstream Mormon churches.

There is no question that if Romney becomes President he will force polygamy down our throats. All men will be required to take a second wife.

Be afraid......be very afraid

I see a big battle on the horizon. If men can have more than one wife then women should be able to have more than one husband.

I wonder where Mitt stands on the issue?

Two guys, one girl.......that's disgusting.