Comments on: Thoughts On The South Carolina Thing From Yesterday

By: Pete Spiliakos

Pete Spiliakos — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 23:45:26 +0000

Angelo, if Paul has confined himself to the answer that the Framers of the 14th Amendment had not considered the unborn persons for the purpose of federal protection under that amendment, and that the 14 Amendment left abortion policy to the states (and presumably the Congress under some circumstances), that would have been a quite plausible originalist interpretation – and one a I basically agree with. But when Robert George pressed Paul about what Congress might do under the 14 Amendment if a state legislature removed the penalties for murdering members of some group based on race or ethnicity (in effect creating a license to kill – he could have mentioned bans against testifying in court I guess), Paul responded with the non sequitur that the states differ among themselves in the severity of how they punish murder (death penalty etc.).

Dennis, What was Paul’s interpretation of the 14 Amendment in cases of say a state removing the protections of the law (like prohibitions against murder) based on race or ethnicity? My read is that Paul argued that Congress should not intervene in such cases and that doing so was an encroachment on state power (true in a sense, but, in cases of race and ethnicity and others, pretty much what the Framers of the 14 Amendment intended – like the prevention of the enforcement of the post-Civil War Black Codes.)

By: Matthew

Matthew — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 21:55:38 +0000

@USS Constitution: The original bill of rights that was submitted did have 12 amendments and 2 of them were not ratified, but the 14th amendment was NOT one of them. Article The Second, which became the 27th amendment was one of them, and the other was Article The First, which was an unusual scheme of apportioning the House of Representatives that would result in as many as 6000 representatives today.

By: me

me — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 18:12:39 +0000

I always find it a cheap jab to throw a section of reference that one did not specifically refer to as “evidence” that they “forgot” about it. I’m sure you would not like this done to you. You cannot discuss the entire world in one sitting.

Having said that, I find it hard to believe that – given Paul’s rather straightforward answers to everything I have ever seen him questioned on, without occassion to pause – one would assume anyone else would listen to aforesaid “evidence.”

By: Denis

Denis — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:55:32 +0000

I’m not so sure that Ron Paul dodged the answer or was stumped by the question. This warrants a closer look.

Ron Paul gave a long version of what HIS interpretation of the 14th Amendment is, and he framed it in terms of the Federal Govt’s overreach into the jurisdiction of the States. I also think the Professor’s argument for using the 14th to protect a specific group of individuals not protected by a state certainly makes sense. However, Ron Paul responded solidly to that by pointing to the dangers of the provision in terms of allowing the Federal police too much power, and in his view, allowing the Feds to enforce an abortion ban opens the door to more power overreach by the Feds.

This is absolutely in line with what Ron Paul has professed over the year, and I believe it is a very solid answer to the Professor.

I, for one, thought Ron Paul’s exchange with the Professor was a highlight of his appearance rather than a weakness. His depth of Constitutional knowledge was on par with that of the law Professor, and no other candidate even came close.

By: Angelo P

Angelo P — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:08:39 +0000

Pete: I don’t think Dr. Paul was stumped or that he did not believe it could be used to protect people. Notice that the 14th Amendment states that no ‘person’ should be treated any differently under the laws of the land. That inherently, even if it doesn’t do so EXPLICITLY, protect ‘groups’, as any law that targets a group or class of people will necessarily cause them to be treated differently under the law compared to others. The main objection that Dr. Paul seemed to have was using this as a justification to ban abortion, classifying it as allowing murder of a class of people, namely those in the first few months of gestation. The problem here is that we have yet to clearly classify the unborn as ‘people’ in a legal sense. A person who murders a woman who is pregnant, at any point in the pregnancy, can be charged with a double homicide (implying the fetus IS a person), but that same woman is allowed to have an abortion within the first trimester (indicating that the fetus IS NOT a person, otherwise it would be murder). The 14th Amendment can only be applied in this way once fetuses are officially declared as ‘people’, which is probably not going to happen anytime soon. To ask Ron Paul if, as President, he would use the 14th this way is to ask if he would use it to enforce his personal belief without having a clear legal backing to do so. Obviously, this runs contrary to Ron Paul’s philosophy. I’ll admit it was a difficult question, but I think his answer was very consistent.

By: Pete Spiliakos

Pete Spiliakos — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 08:54:42 +0000

KJ, “Ron Paul wasn’t remotely ‘surprised’ by the terms of the 14th amendment, he disagreed with George’s interpretation,” Paul was surprised/seemed to deny that the the 14th Amendment could be used to protect groups by radical violations of their rights by state governments in general (like George’s example of the state withdrawing the protection of the murder laws from a certain group and not just the unborn.)

By: myrtisdavis

myrtisdavis — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 05:39:06 +0000

If you currently have pre-existing conditions like me that have prevented you from being able to qualify for health insurance for at least six months you will have coverage options under new health care. Check “Penny Health” to find how to get quality insurance for dollars.

By: Louis Nardozi

Louis Nardozi — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 04:43:57 +0000

Hearing Paul explain how we got into this mess is always enlightening, and not something for a thinking person to miss. I think it is also quite instructive to hear the also rans, by which I mean the Non-Paul candidates. I call them also rans because there is frankly no need to hear their ideas, since they are all the same idea. Let’s blame the big bad Democrats, Republicans would have brought heaven to earth.
Paul acknowledges the Republican Party has NOT done as it should have, and has not done as the Republican Platform specifies. Ron Paul’s contention is, if Republicans were really Republicans, a whole lot of the people who call themselves liberals would actually find out they prefer a Republican President.
Let’s just start with bringing the troops home. If you believe in keeping America safe, you should want the troops home. If, on the other hand, you are a bully and like the thought of us over there terrorizing countries that could no more defend against us than against the Almighty, then please at least just admit that that’s what you are, and move on.
Next, let’s do the next thing Paul always advocates – get rid of the FEDERAL layer of bureaucracy. See, people are always so busy asking Dr. Paul what he BELIEVES, no one ever asks what he’d actually DO, given the limitations of the presidency. When Dr. Paul advocates doing away with the War On Drugs, he BELIEVES there should be no laws regarding drugs use. What the Presidency can actually DO, is just get rid of the FEDERAL layer of bureaucracy. Drugs are still illegal (and still enforced) on the STATE level, it’s just that you’re not PAYING A WHOLE OTHER POLICE FORCE to track them down. One is enough.
Same thing applies to DOE, it doesn’t mean no education, just means no FEDERAL duplication of what already exists at the state level.
Same thing with Homeland Security – hey we already GOT police.
Same thing with a hundred other federal agencies whose work is duplicated at the state level. You’re not getting one thing less, you’re just paying only ONE bureaucracy instead of two.
That’s not so bad is it? Nothing is changed, all the same laws are still being enforced. Only thing is, there’s only one group of police instead of two. Only one investigation, instead of two. Only one battering ram, instead of two. Only one tank, instead of two.
Isn’t that enough, especially when you consider your brother, who gives his life for you, will be back home – safe until he’s really NEEDED?

By: Eric H

Eric H — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 03:43:14 +0000

I’m still trying to figure out if that might be the first-ever question dodge on the part of Ron Paul. I am a huge Ron Paul fan, but I think the criticism offered up here is justified. I can’t believe there was an exchange here that actually made me think, let alone change my mind on something. Upon further consideration, I now think the federalist position on abortion is inconsistent with the argument that abortion is murder. I do, however, think the solution offered by Paul is preferable to the current situation and is more politically viable than a federal abortion ban.

I was a little stunned to see Ron Paul bested (IMO), but there’s still no doubt in my mind that he’s the best man for the job.

By: USS Constitution

USS Constitution — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 02:18:03 +0000

14th amendment was not new. The original bill of rights that was submitted had 12 amendments. 2 of them were rejected/not ratified, the 14th amendment was one of them.

I do not know the reason why, but the house ratified it, but the senate did not.

However, I do not understand why the 14th amendment is needed. Not so much that it’s bad/wrong, but rather that it seems to me that the 10th amendment combined with the supremacy clause of the constitution establishes the same thing.

And the supreme court was striking down state laws before we even the 1800′s, much less after the 14th amendment.

The 10th amendment states that all things not delegated to the states, nor prohibited by it are transferred to the states or to the people(personal choice/freedom).

The supremacy clause establishes the constitution as the law of the land. It says directly that the judges of each state are bound to it.

So how could the states legally do those things to begin with? Even before the amendment the supreme court was ruling against states that would discriminate in such ways.

As such, is the amendment in itself not irrelevant? I mean it’s not unconstitutional because it doesn’t take away previous rights, and by listing it like that, it makes it more in the spotlight for the layman. However, as the powers existed already, is it not actually irrelevant?