Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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?
At best then, it is a non-answer. He should be asked to clarify himself.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.
No. He is simply saying that the chances of polygamy being argued for as a state right is about as likely as slavery being argued for in this nation.
And he's wrong.
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?
You missed the point of what he was saying. His point wasn't that slavery was constitutional, his point was that if left to their own devices the states won't resort to doing horrible things like making slavery legal so they don't need the federal government lording over them telling them what to do.
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.
At best then, it is a non-answer. He should be asked to clarify himself.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.
No. He is simply saying that the chances of polygamy being argued for as a state right is about as likely as slavery being argued for in this nation.
And he's wrong.
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?
You missed the point of what he was saying. His point wasn't that slavery was constitutional, his point was that if left to their own devices the states won't resort to doing horrible things like making slavery legal so they don't need the federal government lording over them telling them what to do.
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?
You missed the point of what he was saying. His point wasn't that slavery was constitutional, his point was that if left to their own devices the states won't resort to doing horrible things like making slavery legal so they don't need the federal government lording over them telling them what to do.
But they would do horrible things like denying gays the same benefits of marriage as the rest of us.
I'm sorry, I like Ron Paul more than most republicans but he is no libertarian.
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's not saying they COULD have it, he's saying if it wasn't federally outlawed, states would not go ahead and make it legal. We've come far enough socially that there wouldn't be a state that would try and institute the practice.
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's not saying they COULD have it, he's saying if it wasn't federally outlawed, states would not go ahead and make it legal. We've come far enough socially that there wouldn't be a state that would try and institute the practice.
Not exactly sure how that's a sign of progress socially.
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.
You missed the point of what he was saying. His point wasn't that slavery was constitutional, his point was that if left to their own devices the states won't resort to doing horrible things like making slavery legal so they don't need the federal government lording over them telling them what to do.
But they would do horrible things like denying gays the same benefits of marriage as the rest of us.
I'm sorry, I like Ron Paul more than most republicans but he is no libertarian.
My guess is that you know less about libertarianism than you think you do.
Ron Paul doesn't want the states involved in deciding what the definition of marriage is anymore than he does the federal government. He says we can all have whatever definition of marriage that we want so long as we don't try to force our views on others. Sounds rather libertarian-ish to me.
Silly Wabbutt! All Tea Party/libertarian types of course know the constitution.
They just prefer to ignore certain parts of it.
Good luck finding a group or single politician that sticks to the Constitution, let alone find one that's a close as Paul.
You mean they have all violated their oath of office?
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.
Is he not against allowing gays to have the same benefits as the rest of us?
But they would do horrible things like denying gays the same benefits of marriage as the rest of us.
I'm sorry, I like Ron Paul more than most republicans but he is no libertarian.
My guess is that you know less about libertarianism than you think you do.
Ron Paul doesn't want the states involved in deciding what the definition of marriage is anymore than he does the federal government. He says we can all have whatever definition of marriage that we want so long as we don't try to force our views on others. Sounds rather libertarian-ish to me.
Is he not against allowing gays to have the same benefits as the rest of us?
Is that the same stupid argument Ron Paul makes?Is he not against allowing gays to have the same benefits as the rest of us?
Im not able to marry a man either, and Im not gay.
Why are my rights being trampled?
Exactly..... no ones rights are being trampled.
NONE of us can marry the same sex. NOBODY , I think that means all of us
Is he not against allowing gays to have the same benefits as the rest of us?
Im not able to marry a man either, and Im not gay.
Why are my rights being trampled?
Exactly..... no ones rights are being trampled.
NONE of us can marry the same sex. NOBODY , I think that means all of us
Is that the same stupid argument Ron Paul makes?Is he not against allowing gays to have the same benefits as the rest of us?
Im not able to marry a man either, and Im not gay.
Why are my rights being trampled?
Exactly..... no ones rights are being trampled.
NONE of us can marry the same sex. NOBODY , I think that means all of us
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.My guess is that you know less about libertarianism than you think you do.
Ron Paul doesn't want the states involved in deciding what the definition of marriage is anymore than he does the federal government. He says we can all have whatever definition of marriage that we want so long as we don't try to force our views on others. Sounds rather libertarian-ish to me.
Is he not against allowing gays to have the same benefits as the rest of us?
Why would he not want them to have the same benefits as anybody else? He says they can define marriage however they want, and voted to repeal DADT.
Not sure she understood ...
Just watch this and it will help you lady... about the 11:45 mark. Pretty straighforward.
All Of Ron Paul's Questions & Answers at Iowa GOP Debate 8/11/11 | Ron Paul 2012 | Sound Money, Peace and Liberty
Thanks. That was indeed the remark I was referring to. The exchange went:
Moderator: Representative Paul, you've often said that you believe defining marriage is a job that should be left to the states. Recently Senator Santorum asked, "If a state wanted to allow polygamy, would that be okay too?" What's your answer to that?
Ron Paul: Well, that's sort of like asking the question, "If the states wanted to legalize slavery" or something like that that is so past reality that no state is going to do that. But on the issue of marriage, I think that marriage should be between a single man and a single woman and that the federal government shouldn't be involved.
My understanding of Paul's remarks was that he was saying that polygamy, like slavery, was something that should be left to the states to decide but that the states would never allow either so it was irrelevant. My understanding was also that he was describing a vision of government that was at least consistent with the current Constitution.
After looking at the relevant video, it still seems to me that Paul was suggesting a Constitutional or legal parallel between polygamy and slavery. And to me that still seems wrong. My understanding is that the Supreme Court upheld in Reynolds v US the right of Congress to ban bigamy even when there were religious motivations. In contrast, under the 13th Amendment neither Congress or the states could permit any form of slavery.
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.
Weird Coincidence: As I was writing this, I got a robocall asking me to text back the name of the "Champion of the Constitution" for a chance to win a trip to the Ames Straw Poll. I wonder who they meant?
