tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-349789217157278685.post7403681118959728104..comments2023-10-30T08:29:20.318-05:00Comments on The Idea of Progress: Who the Fuck is Ron Paul? (part 4)The Idea Of Progresshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03907054918517616440noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-349789217157278685.post-77998532189884495162007-07-05T23:39:00.000-05:002007-07-05T23:39:00.000-05:00Several things wrong here.#1: Since when is borde...Several things wrong here.<BR/><BR/>#1: Since when is border security and control a "dark side"? We haven't enforced those laws in many years. I ascribe to the stance that a law which is present but not enforced is just as bad as a law which is enforced but not present. Both of these things lead to arbitrary governance. Arbitrary governance is directly related to tyranny.<BR/><BR/>#2: Illegal aliens are not "subject to jurisdiction" and therefore not protected under the 14th amendment. This is an example of Supreme Court overreach. Why it needs a constitutional amendment isn't clear when the Supreme Court fabricated the justification in the first place. In its favor, the amendment would make things far more clear and specific.<BR/><BR/>#3: Roe vs. Wade made a federal issue out of what should've been a state issue. Murder is a crime handled by states, ergo, even pro-life people should be forced to admit that it should constitutionally be handled by states. That the Supreme Court doesn't respect the constitution is not news - see #2. Full disclosure: My personal stance is that abortion should be available on demand through the first trimester and then allowed if a child's birth would cause physical health problems thereafter. This is based on my analysis of the ethics of the situation for maximized protection of individual rights. I can offer you my rationale if you desire to hear it.<BR/><BR/>#4: He wants to keep the Supreme Court from ruling on things it doesn't have jurisdiction over. Why is that a dark side? Especially the marriage thing. Marriage is a private contract - it should be, like most contracts, up to invididuals to define. Get the government out of it.<BR/><BR/>In closing, I feel that you need to make sure in the future when you identify "dark sides" that they actually represent darkness in a candidate. Bush's history of alcoholism = dark side. Ron Paul's consistent advocacy of the constitution = not dark side.<BR/><BR/>Good business to you.Rakeelahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04378079520235373714noreply@blogger.com