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.
For good reason, there isnt any. Hes a Constitutional charlatan.
No.
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.
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.
