Ron Paul quotation - Is it a hoax?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the implication of all of his positions is that he has a superior interpretation of the Constitution than the current federal judiciary.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll venture that I think the average American could read the Constitution and come up with better, more commonsense interpretations than some interpretations that have been devised by the current or recent federal judiciaries, especially as regards the Commerce Clause and the 2nd Amendment. Heck I'll go one step further and guess that my Irish Wolfhound could come up with more sensible interpretations too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the point was (and, frankly, your response just reinforces it) that what is a "good" interpretation or a "right" one isn't some objective standard. You will, of course, find them right if you agree with them.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
edit: I guess Ron Paul missed Jefferson's "wall of separation" between church and state when he was looking through the Founding Father's writings.

[/ QUOTE ]

a) churches are free to engage in politics/gov, it's just that gov itsn't allowed to engage in religion. it's a one way wall.

b) *references* to god in const.

[ QUOTE ]
secure the Blessings of Liberty

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted)

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: — "I do solemnly swear (or affirm)

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ade prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

[/ QUOTE ]

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
So, wow, amazing to see haters jump all over Paul for one minor misstatement. Yes, the Constitution isn't replete with references to God, but the writings of the Founders in general are. His point in that article is that the people who created this country were very much God-fearing types, and he's completely correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is misleading, if not flatly wrong. Many of the founding fathers, if not most, did not accept the idea of a "personal God" who intervened in events, in the way that is normally associated with Christianity today. They were spiritual in a much looser sense.

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
"Yeah, right. Because the 'elitist left' is far more powerful than the extremist elitist fundamentalist Christian lobby."


Uhhhh...yes, it is. Both poles have plenyt of money to throw at politicians, but between the ACLU and the liberal bent of most courts and their willingness to legislate from the bench, the extreme left is far more powerful than the extreme right.

[/ QUOTE ]

This assumption is so out-dated. Judges appointed in the last 25 years (at least on the federal level) have mostly come from Republicans The Supreme Court is far, far more conservative now than it was decades ago.

More to the point, the ACLU has about zero political power. Almost no politician is even willing to admit being a member of the ACLU.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the implication of all of his positions is that he has a superior interpretation of the Constitution than the current federal judiciary.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll venture that I think the average American could read the Constitution and come up with better, more commonsense interpretations than some interpretations that have been devised by the current or recent federal judiciaries, especially as regards the Commerce Clause and the 2nd Amendment. Heck I'll go one step further and guess that my Irish Wolfhound could come up with more sensible interpretations too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the point was (and, frankly, your response just reinforces it) that what is a "good" interpretation or a "right" one isn't some objective standard. You will, of course, find them right if you agree with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's some truth to what you say, but that isn't the same as saying every interpretation is entirely subjective or that there is "no" objective interpretation. IMO there are better (more likely to be correct) interpretations and worse (less likely to be correct) interpretations (of course this doesn't just apply to the U.S. Constitution, but to many documents, laws, and even any pieces of literature).

One can't logically and convincingly jump from "there exists some subjectivity" to "everything is entirely subjective". Just because there exist various opinions on a matter and because subjectivity plays some role in those opinion, doesn't mean that no objective analysis is possible, nor does it mean that no analysis can likely be better or likely be more correct than another analysis. '

If that were a true principle, then there would be little point in having SAT or LSAT test questions involving interpretation of written material, because all interpretations are subjective anyway so there can be no right or wrong answers. I doubt you would take that position, correct?

As for the Commerce Clause, IMO my dog would have a better chance of randomly picking the correct interpretation, than SCOTUS did by deriving (actually manipulating) it.

Thanks for reading.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, wow, amazing to see haters jump all over Paul for one minor misstatement. Yes, the Constitution isn't replete with references to God, but the writings of the Founders in general are. His point in that article is that the people who created this country were very much God-fearing types, and he's completely correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is misleading, if not flatly wrong. Many of the founding fathers, if not most, did not accept the idea of a "personal God" who intervened in events, in the way that is normally associated with Christianity today by non-Christians who have no idea what they're talking about. They were spiritual in a much looser sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

[lehighguy]

Who hear thinks Ron Paul is going to use his posistion as president to enact religously motivated legislation forcing his morality on others?

Any takers? What laws do you believe he would propose?

I don't know about you guys, but he says he's going to let me have my poker back, not censor media, not tell gay people they can't get married, not tell me what substances I can put in my body, etc.

I fail to see the Christian police state here. In fact, I think he is much more in favor of civil liberties then any politician in either political party.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know about you guys, but he says he's going to not tell gay people they can't get married,

[/ QUOTE ]

he wrote a bill to essentially overturn Lawrence v. Texas

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Who hear thinks Ron Paul is going to use his posistion as president to enact religously motivated legislation forcing his morality on others?

Any takers? What laws do you believe he would propose?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who believes he might appoint judges who are more willing to allow religion into the public square than what we have now --- judges that will move away from the standards we have in place now --- judges that might, for example, allow school prayer?

Any takers?

[lehighguy]

I'm not familiar with this, can you fill me in.

He voted against the gay marraige ban and believes that gays should be able to serve in the military. He has voted to make it so states don't have to recognize other states gay marraiges, but this is a matter of federalism, not a preference on the practice.

Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."[143]
^ a b c "Candidates@Google: Ron Paul", Google, 2007-07-13. Retrieved on 2007-10-23.