TexasCHLforum.com

Texas Rep. Ron Paul signed the amicus brief filed in Heller and signed by numerous U.S. Senators and Congressmen. However, he did not sign the amicus brief in McDonald v. Chicago that seeks to extend the protections of the Second Amendment to the states. The brief is attached. Do a search for "Ron Paul" and you won't find anything.

Interesting.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Texas Rep. Ron Paul signed the amicus brief signed by numerous U.S. Senators and Congressmen. However, he did not sign the amicus brief in McDonald v. Chicago that seeks to extend the protections of the Second Amendment to the states. The brief is attached. Do a search for "Ron Paul" and you won't find anything.

Interesting.

Chas.

Looks like I have to write my representative for his reasons for not signing the brief.

FlynJay wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Texas Rep. Ron Paul signed the amicus brief signed by numerous U.S. Senators and Congressmen. However, he did not sign the amicus brief in McDonald v. Chicago that seeks to extend the protections of the Second Amendment to the states. The brief is attached. Do a search for "Ron Paul" and you won't find anything.

Interesting.

Chas.

Looks like I have to write my representative for his reasons for not signing the brief.

He's mine too and I suspect I know what he will say. To say I'm disappointed is an understatement!

Chas.

I guess Ron forgot to sign it. Or it wasn't in his best interest.

Why not wait to see what he says, before being disappointed in the response?

This is what I have read about Paul's stance-

"Congressman Paul’s DC office said he didn’t sign the brief because he believes that it interferes with state’s rights, whose policies shouldn’t be dictated by the federal government. However, avoiding this particular issue in the name of anti-federalism seems to create precedent for states to violate other enumerated rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, or protection from unlawful search and seizure."

I don't understand his position. It does not make sense to me to say that it is OK for the 1st amendment to be incorporated and enforced nationwide by the 14th, but the 2nd should not be.

mbw wrote:This is what I have read about Paul's stance-

"Congressman Paul’s DC office said he didn’t sign the brief because he believes that it interferes with state’s rights, whose policies shouldn’t be dictated by the federal government. However, avoiding this particular issue in the name of anti-federalism seems to create precedent for states to violate other enumerated rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, or protection from unlawful search and seizure."

I don't understand his position. It does not make sense to me to say that it is OK for the 1st amendment to be incorporated and enforced nationwide by the 14th, but the 2nd should not be.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Never been a big Ron Paul fan because I think sometimes he just doesn't recognize reality. His position might make sense if this were the first or second time one of the bill of rights were going to be made applicable to the states. But this is one of the few rights that hasn't been accorded that treatment yet. In this context, his position is nuts.

In writing Rep. Paul's office, I will also be letting him know how I feel on this issue. How he reacts to his constituents will tell me how much I should rely on his support and to some extent how I may vote on the future.

I will not vote for a representative/senator who does not respect my opinion, for theor sole job is to represent my interests in Washington. But, how can they know your interests/opinions if you don't contact them?

Ron Paul got my brother his Social Security after years of disability. I thank him for that! But...I have never understood the politics of Libertarianism. It's most chaotic. Some libertarians are anarchists who call for the elimination of the state. I don't think Ron Paul is in that group, but it may answer this question.
I like Ron Paul for some of his ideas. Others I do have a problem with.

I too like Ron Paul's position on some issues and disagree with him on others. However, I cannot imagine any American not wanting to extend the protections of the Bill of Rights to every citizen regardless of their state of residence. To argue some sort of states' rights position in this context is to say that it is acceptable for any individual state to deny its residents the freedom of speech and freedom of religion protected by the First Amendment, or for a state to deny the Fifth Amendment privilege to its residents. I could say the same for all of the first nine amendments. Where is the logic and principle in saying we will not allow tyranny at the federal level, but it's okay at the state level?

I certainly feel that the federal government has grossly overstepped its Constitutional authority and this should be changed, but the values represented in the Bill of Rights are the cornerstone on which this Nation was built. Reasonable minds can differ on many issues, but in my view, every American must be afforded the protection of the Bill of Rights.

Chas.

Ron Paul is trying to stand firmly atop a slope down which we have already slipped 80% of the way.

While I agree with the states' rights argument, it appears that states' rights was effectively abolished in 1865, and if we didn't get the point then, any illusion of functional states' rights having a hope of resurrection was extinguished in 1913, oddly enough by a majority vote of the states themselves.

So since we don't have states' rights on the whole, then allowing states to restrict only specific rights in what has become a functional individual democracy is pointless and misguided, much like a lot of the Libertarian (big L) party's platform in general.

So, Dr. Paul, I will acknowledge the sincerity of your states' rights stance when I see you kick off a Constitutional Convention to revoke the 17th Amendment. Of course Ron Paul would lose his job if such a thing were to occur. And maybe call for impeachment of any senator, representative, or other government official who has gone on record in a vote to violate the 10th Amendment of the Constitution (which would most certainly deny the senate of a quorum of members who would be able to conduct the trial of the impeached members).

I agree with original interpretation, but the original was significantly changed by the 14th Amendment.

And to be pedantic, states don't have rights, they have authority. People have rights.

chabouk wrote:And to be pedantic, states don't have rights, they have authority. People have rights.

It's a term of art that refers to the rights of the people.

Chas.

chabouk wrote:I agree with original interpretation, but the original was significantly changed by the 14th Amendment.

Also, the states weren't quite so restrictive in most things back then.