Rand Paul - Potential 2016 Presidential Bid

True. I think Romney would have been okay....but McCain was chosen by the liberal media who talked him up continually throughout the Primary, and then blasted him when he ran against Obama. The liberal media/press knew that he was not popular with real Republicans because they consider him a RINO....so they did everything in their power to help him win our Primary, so we wouldn't turn out for the general election. And that's exactly what happened.

And yes, the Tea party is back. I never donated before.....until now. I never got active before.....until now. And I know of lots of other Republicans who are doing the same......

.

 

True. If there is a "dramatic" increase.....a person making that claim should be able to fill up a long post naming them along with the dates these so-called "racist" groups began because of obama.....along with proof. "Everyone else is racist" is the excuse for ALL of obama's failures, it seems.

 

A "little extra scrutiny?" They were the only ones scrutinized. And they were purposefully kept out of the election process. Wonder how the election might have turned out.....had this IRS who obviously favors Obama hadn't done what they did. What this IRS.....and the head guy who visited with Obama some 157 times in 4 years..... did was unconstitutional. We are going to place a lot of people under oath until we get the answers too.

 

Perhaps more troubling than the increase in identified hate groups is the increase in the number of extremist right-wing anti-government organizations.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/news/us-hate-groups-top-1000

We should note that calling an anti-government group a "patriot" group is a misnomer. A person cannot be for the nation and opposed to the government of the nation at the sametime as those are juxtaposed positions.

Rand Paul obviously isn't "anti-government" as he's a member of the US Government but he has, like his father, certainly demonstrated he opposes parts of the US Constitution and the Inalienable Rights of the Person whenever it contradicts his political agenda. His rant in a filibuster on the Senate floor over the authority of the US government to hypothetically order drone strikes in the US is an example because Article I Section 8 clearly authorized the use of military force to suppress an insurrection in the United States. As the Attorney General stated it was hypothetically possible and authorized by the US Constitution and the US government is clearly authorized to use military force to suppress an insurrection. It's even done that historically and the Civil War is an example. The Confederate States were in an illegal state of armed insurrection against the authority of the US Constitution and Lincoln had the Constitutional authority and responsibility to suppress that insurrection. Rand Paul (and his father) both oppose the Inalienable Right of Self of the Woman related to abortions. The "woman" is a "person" under the US Constitution and as a person has the protected Right of Self while the "preborn" are not "persons" under the US Constitution and have no protected Rights.

 

A charitable organization is not a political action organization. While a charitable organization can have limited political involvement it cannot be the primary goal of the organization so a claim that a "charitable organization" was excluded from the political process when a charitable organization is not supposed to be primarily involved in politics is pure BS. As a "charitable organization" they shouldn't have been involved in the political process!!! Being involved in the political process would have made these organizations a PAC and PAC's cannot seek 501(c) tax exempt status.

Of course there has never been any evidence that other 501(c) applicants weren't subjected to additional scrutiny by the IRS. This type of statement is a fabrication because we know that the IRS does scrutinize organizations other than "conservative" groups. If the IRS suspects an organization isn't qualified to seek 501(c) tax exempt status as a charitable organization then it subjects them to additional scrutiny and it should do that. When the IRS sees organizations that have traditionally be political action committees, that are not entitled to 501(c) tax exempt status, suddenly applying for non profit charitable organization status it should certainly raise a red flag that additional scrutiny is warranted.

This is a point that the "right wing" seems to ignore. The Tea Party Movement was a political movement and not a "charitable organization movement" and when they "changed their stripes" (if they actually did) and wanted to represent themselves as "charitable organizations" it was highly suspicious. They were basically trying to say that "We're no longer a political organization but instead we're now charitable organization" and I don't think many of us believe that. The IRS was justified in "targeting" these organizations to see if they'd dropped being a political action committee and had actually become a charitable organization. The questions I've read that were submitted were predominately to determine how much political activity the organization was involved in because if the primary purpose of the organization is political action then they are not a 501(c) non profit charitable organization.

 

In order to not be biased or hypocritical --one would need to be concerned about Obama's 501c4--but I don't see that here. One would also need to provide evidence from liberal organizations that they were targeted in the same manner that conservatives were. I don't see that happening here either. Had they been targeted there would be lawsuits from them too-- there would be some that came forward--but there are none.
Read Obama 's speeches from 2010 where he was promoting targeting conservatives if you doubt he supported it. His IRS buddies did exactly what he wanted them to do.

 

What Rand Paul is trying to say is that he wants to take you even farther in the losing direction. Best get ready for another thumpin'.

 

Where can I get a crystal ball like yours? Mine is a dud.

 

There is one problem with this line of reasoning.

Let's assume two political action groups where one is a conservative anti-tax group and the other is a liberal gun control group. Which of these two poitical action groups, or PAC's, is most likely to try and hide their political activities under a tax exempt status as a charitable organization?

I would suggest that an anti-tax political action group would be many times more likely to do this than any other political action group regardless of whether they're conservative or liberal.

When any organization self-identifies itself as what is traditionally a PAC then it should automatically come under additional scrutiny by the IRS if it's seeking tax exempt status as a 501(c) charitable organization. I can find no evidence of any "tea party" group ever being involved in any charitable activities although they might have been in limited situations.

When I read the quotations from President Obama as well as the letter from House Democrats they were addressing PAC's trying to hide under 501(c) protections and that is a concern all of us should have. When we have any organizations that are traditionally a PAC, such as "liberal" gun control groups or "conservative" tea party organizations, seeking 501(c) exemption the IRS should subject them to additional scrutiny by trying to find out how much political activity is going to be conducted. Some is allowed but it cannot be the primary purpose of a 501(c) entity.

It was the historical connection between the "tea party" and politial activism that warranted additional scrutiny but "Republicans" like to ignore this simple fact.

 

Rand Paul is only slightly less of a nutcase than Michele Bachmann and we see how quickly she was dumped in 2012 by Republicans.

 

Shiva, when did you become a member of the SPLC? I used to think you were somewhat a libertarian or something. Now, you just seem like a typical progressive.

The scandal is in the fact that they've already admitted that the specifically did target groups with patriot in their names, even going so far as to approve the exact same paperwork when submitted with a more liberal sounding name.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL, I posted too soon. Then I read the reference to the SPLC and that was all it took. Thank you for proving my point.

 

Have you ever actually read anything about or from Rand Paul? The only thing he and Bachmann have in common is party affiliation.

 

I'm a card carrying Libertarian and not a card carrying member of the SPLC. As a Libertarian I endorse the Inalienable Rights of the Person and a Constitutional government. Hate groups, through propaganda based upon half-turths, erroneous conclusions, and outright lies, violated the Inalienable Rights of the Person with their invidious hate propagada. So-called anti-government "Patriot" groups represent a threat, often an armed threat, against the Constitutional government of the United States.

The SPLC has stepped up in an effort to address and identify these groups based upon extensive investigations related to them. They are really the only nationally recognized organization doing this and there are no "conservative" groups making any effort in this regard. The SPLC may not be perfect but it's the only organization taking on this task. Their list seems to be "non-partisan" and not "religious" in nature as they've listed groups from every extremist position. So I don't totally support the SPLC but considering that no one else is addressing the problem they're the only organization we can refer to in addressing the problems of hate groups and anti-government "Patriot" organizations.

Here's the real problem as I see it. There are political action groups (PAC's) hiding behind 501(c) charitable organization status and predominately these are "conservative" organizations. There primary purpose is political and not charitable and by obtaining 501(c) status they don't have to reveal the names of their supporters.

As I Libertarian I fully support Freedom of Speech especially when it comes to politics but I want to know who's behind it. As a voter and American I believe I have a "right to know" who's saying what related to politics whether they're personally saying it or funding someone else to speak on their behalf. There is no doubt in my mind that the "Americans for Prosperity" (and "Americans for Prosperity Foundation") or that the National Organization for Marriage are "Political Organizations" (PACs) and not "Charitable Organizations" and they're both hiding the "supporters" by falsely claiming to be "charitable organizations" exempt from disclosure as 501(c) entities.

Personally I don't care if an organization is conservative, liberal, libertarian or whatever if their purpose is politics then we should be informed of who the donors are and the donor's contributions should not be tax deductable,.As noted it appears that the primary "political" ideology that is seeking to avoid disclosure and to allow tax deductions for "political" issues are "conservative" organizations. These organizations are seeking to hide both their purpose and the donors that are supporting them as well as giving a tax exemption for political donations and that is WRONG. I don't even care if it's "legal" because it shouldn't be legal to do this. If the IRS, for any reason including the name of the organization, suspects an organization seeking 501(c) tax exempt status is really a PAC then I support further investigation. If anything and I was on the IRS making these decisions I would have pulled the 501(c) status for both the Americans For Properity and the National Organization for Marriage because these are both PAC's IMO.

I'm not sure what point proved but the fact is that the "hate groups" and anti-government "patriot" groups are both threats to America and the ideals upon which America was founded and they need to be identified. The SPLC is the only nationally recognized organization taking the time to do the research necessary to identify these groups.

 

You should probably cancel your membership then.

You should probably carry one then.

Shiva...

Here is a wiki on libertarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

It is about nonaggression principles and voluntary association. You always seem to want to use force to make people want to be nice, to play well with others, etc. In the last 7 months I don't think you've written a libertarian thing. You have some classical liberal ideas, but I dunno...I think you should probably join the Democrats and try to move them towards the Greens. Libertarianism doesn't seem to be a good fit for you.

LOL...nope. They run their mouths. People can choose not to listen. You don't have a right not to be offended Shiva. Not at all. You have a right to speak freely, listen freely, etc. You don't have the right to shut down speech you don't like because it "feels" dangerous to you.

Besides, look at SPLC's list. They are so freakin' overly sensitive and the facts do not bear out against the enormity of our populace. Mountains, molehills, and whatnot.

They do? What have they done specifically? Also...you believe that Jefferson and the founders were wrong about us having the right to revolt?

Curious about your answer.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Even the ACLU and Rutherford think the SPLC is nuts. There are no attorneys who aren't so deeply liberal that agrees with them at all.

What's wrong with being anti-government? You're a libertarian, right? Explain why we should have to be pro-government.

- - - Updated - - -

No, and he/she also ignores his voting record.

 

Both oppose the Constitutionally Protected Rights of the Woman, a Person, under the 14th Amendment related to abortion. Rand Paul cites the 10th Amendment saying that this is an issue for the States to decide but ignores the requirement in the 10th Amendment that the powers reserved for the States and the People cannot violate the US Constitution. Michele Bachmann opposes abortion.

http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Senate/Kentucky/Rand_Paul/Views/Abortion/

While being vague on same-sex marriage he fundamentally opposes it but uses the excuse that the government should not be involved in defining marriage laws. Of course in taking this position he's actually opposed to the 10th Amendment which grants the States and the People of the State to decide if the want "marriage" laws and what those laws might be. At the sametime those laws must comply with the US Constitution which requires that a legal marriage in one state must be accepted under the Full Faith and Credit clause of Article IV, the laws cannot be based upon Religious opinion that would violate the 1st Amendment, the laws cannot discriminate and deny Equal Protection Under the Law as required by the 14th Amendment. Michele Bachmann opposes same-sex marriage.

http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Senate/Kentucky/Rand_Paul/Views/Gay_Marriage/

Rand Paul opposes Social Security. Michele Bachmann opposes Social Security.

http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Senate/Kentucky/Rand_Paul/Views/Social_Security/

Rand Paul supports immigration laws that target Hispanics and opposes natural born citizenship of children born in the United States to foreigners based upon "jus soli" as established in the 14th Amendment. Michele Bachmann also supports immigration laws that target Hispanics.

http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Senate/Kentucky/Rand_Paul/Views/Immigration/

An interesting Constitutional note is that the US Constitution doesn't enumerate any roles or responsibilities for the federal government to limit immigration. The word "immigration" is not found in the US Constitution and not all of those choosing to come to the United States to work seek naturalization so the Article I Section 8 delegated role of Congress to create uniform laws of naturalization does not delegate a role for controlling immigration. ..

Rand Paul gives lip-service to a "balanced budget" but refuses to endorse the collection of enough revenue in taxation to pay for the authorized expendatures of Congress. If authorized expendatures are not funded with tax revenues a balanced budget can never be achieved. Michele Bachmann also opposes collecting enough in taxes to pay for authorized expendatures of the US government.

http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Senate/Kentucky/Rand_Paul/Views/Taxes/

Of note neither Rand Paul or Michele Bachmann supports elimination of unfair tax loopholes so that the federal tax burden for all Americans relative to income would be the same. It makes no sense, for example, that a small business owner with $100K/yr in net income pays 37.3% in federal taxes when someone with $22 million in net income pays less than 20%.

We could go on and on but the fact is that Rand Paul and Michele Bachmann share many of the same political beliefs and agendas.

 

One issue at a time.

Please see my signature:

I can certainly be offended by what people say especially if it's promoting the violations of the Rights of the Person but I also support the ACLU's lawsuits that ensure that they have their Constitutional Right of Freedom of Speech.

This is unlike many "conservatives" that believe that the US government should indefinately incarcerate people because we disagree with their religious or political beliefs such as the detention of almost 80 individuals at GITMO where there has never been any evidence that they ever committed any criminal act. Virtually everything that these radical Muslims believe offends me but they also have a Right to Express their religious and political beliefs so long as they don't violate any criminal statutes. We can all be offended by their beliefs but so long as they don't violate criminal laws they have a Right to Express their beliefs but "conservatives" seem to believe we should lock them up because their "beliefs" offend us.

Why do so many "conservatives" oppose Freedom of Speech related to religious and political beliefs?

 

Then why would you shut down speech that you disagree with? Because it seems "dangerous"? Jefferson, Paine, Locke, Adams...they all probably sounded dangerous and yet they were some of the greatest thinkers in the last 500 years.

You can be offended, but when you start to track them, label them dangerous and report them to the DHS that feels...well...a bit like something off the History Channel (and not in a good way).

Libertarianism is about nonviolation of the rights and lives of other people. Stalking people, labeling them, and then sending their info to the government is wrong and immoral.

It is one thing for SPLC to say what they want, another to make "lists" and shoot them to the DHS.

McCarthy anyone?

...uh? Uhhhhh? Obama has been president for how long without releasing them?

What about his commitment to trying those who used torture and then forgot about it?

You are acting quite strangely for someone who is allegedly libertarian and nonpartisan.

Progressives, too. Odd that you don't notice this.

Why do so many "liberals"? Because people are sheep and would rather believe the lie that makes them feel happy and less afraid.

 

Do you believe that a SCOTUS decision is anything more than "law"? You realize that the SCOTUS can alter itself and reverse earlier decisions. If this were not true then why does Planned Parenthood squawk about getting the right people on the SCOTUS to save abortion rights?

There is no right to an abortion called out in the Constitution.. Let's be clear. There is also no specific right to do drugs. There is an interpretation of privacy within the 14th and 9th amendments that I happen to agree with, that this issue is not to be regulated by the government.

This is different than endorsing it or stating that we have the right to it and regulations must be x,y,z.

Rand Paul is consistent with libertarian principles. Allow communities to make these decisions and states. The federal government was not designed to create social laws. It is too big.

Marriage should not be regulated by anyone other than churches, people, and courts for property rights. No one's marriage should come with benefits or be state recognized.

What is social security but an involuntary payroll tax?

He does? I think you're 100% wrong, but I'd like you to explain how he targets them.

Nor does it enumerate any roles for it to create social laws that enforce abortion or drug prohibition...and yet it does.

You're misrepresenting him. He is for a reduction in budget as are most libertarians except you.

Wait a second...you're for a progressive income tax and you still think you're a libertarian? Is it because we're just that (*)(*)(*)(*)ing cool? I mean, we are, but...you can still be cool and join the Greens, Shiva.

A fair tax is a consumption tax. That way rich people who want yachts will pay a higher tax than the middle class family buying a canoe or the rich person buying lobster will pay more than the poor person buying peanut butter.

It is also a voluntary tax.

Go on...I don't think any of this is well-reasoned or thought out.

 

Wikipedia reflects a "world" opinion on "libertarianism" that is not specific to the United States. Libertarianism in the United States is based upon "classic liberalism" which was the principles upon which America was founded.

The United States was at the forefront in establishing government and defining "classic liberalism" starting in the 18th and continuing into the 19th Century, Classic Liberalism was fundamentally abandoned by the Democrats under FDR and was later abandoned by the Republicans under Nixon which lead to the creation of the Libertarian Party. We support the "natural" (inalienable) Rights of the People as was expressed as the reason for government in the Declaration of Independence. We oppose "crony capitalism" which is what we have in the United States today and which is advocated by both Republicans and Democrats. We oppose the violations of the Inalienable Rights of the Person being committed by other people and that is why we support government. Remember that government in the United States wasn't created to prevent the violations of the Inalienable Rights of the Person by government but instead to prevent the violations of the Inalienable Rights of the Person by other Persons.

Hate groups represent People that advocate and promote the violations of the Inalienable Rights of the Person based upon invidious propaganda. At the sametime, even though these groups advocate and promote the violations of the Inalienable Rights of the Person they also have Inalienable Rights as "persons" to express their invidious hatred. At best we can identify them which is what the SPLC does.

Yes, the Declaration of Independence also justifies the Right as well as the Duty of the People to revolt against tyrannical despotism but the fact is that this isn't happening. What we have are extremist groups that fundamentally oppose the Constitution and the Government of the United States based upon the Constitution. We have a process under the law and the Constitution to address violations of the US Constitution (which is what the ACLU follows) and that is the process we need to follow. I have advocated greater protections before where I called for a Constitutional Amendment where it would require unanimous consent by the US Supreme Court related to any law or action of government being Constitutional. Such a requirement would impose the maximum pragmatic limitations on our government possible but neither Democrats or Republicans support it because it would limit their power and ability to enact laws of dubious constitutionality.

Instead of threatening an armed revolt agianst the US government a "patriot" group would be seeking to limit the expansionism of the US government by a Constitutional Amendment that would pragmatically restrict the expansion of government power by ensuring that the entire Supreme Court had to agree that a law or action of government was Constitutional.

 

Right but I figured we would start slow since you seemed really off base.

Jeffersonian principles, you might say.

So...why do you want to use force on peaceful people? You're for using the government to protect some people's freedoms which consequently infringes upon the freedoms of others.

Here this is from Mises which explains us better:

The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, or the anti-coercion or zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance which asserts that "aggression" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression" is defined as the "initiation" of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. The principle is a deontological (or rule-based) ethical stance.

...

Libertarians typically claim that the non-aggression principle includes property and freedom of contract as a part of self-ownership. The basis for this extension of self-ownership to one's property is John Locke's argument (also called the homestead principle) that mixing of labor with an unowned resource makes that resource part of one's self. Subsequent exchange of such property (e.g. sale, rental) simply transfers this right. Hence, to aggress against someone's property is to aggress against the individual. As for freedom of contract, the right of self-ownership is held to imply freedom of action in the absence of aggression (e.g. in the absence of false or duress contracts, and the absence of contracts stipulating aggression against third-parties).

http://mises.org

Uh huh.

Uh huh...it was actually destroyed by Adams then later Lincoln, but...I'll read on.

Yes, I oppose crony capitalism. I also oppose involuntary collection of monies from the labor and bodies of individuals. That is theft.

Do you?

Yes, inalienable rights of individuals...I agree with this wording. Individuals should not be violated against in any way and should have the freedom to live their own lives however they choose without the interference of others or being kidnapped and abused by government if the individual does no harm to others.

Wrong. There is no such thing as a "hate group". That is a progressive term. One man's hate group is another man's ACORN or Tea Party. It is subjective and a flawed term.

So what if groups say mean things and attempt like others to have their legislation passed? If you don't like it speak out just as strongly in a counter argument.

They identified our combat vets as dangerous whackjobs, too, thus exposing their agenda. The SPLC has no interest in fairness. They are a progressive group that has crappy research and creates an anti-liberty, alarmist environment under the aegis of being impartial.

It is not? Why do you say this?

The government of the United States is in violation of the Constitution and therefore an immoral force. Am I an extremist now? Am I a "hate group" member? I am as big as pacifist as you can get, but the SPLC would label me dangerous.

And we can nullify, as well. There are a lot of "legal" processes and natural law processes available to free people.

I do not exist at the leisure of the government. My natural state should be free and I should not fear the government, nor its thug agents like the IRS. The government should exist at my leisure.

Why do you feel we need government?

The Supreme Court has always been partisan. Look at how much liberty it has stolen--STOLEN--in the last three years. Screw the court. I'd rather use the 10th amendment and allow states to nullify and government the important issues and the federal government do what it was supposed to do which is make treaties, protect us from foreign aggressors, regulate interstate commerce, and deliver the damn mail.

That's it.

Or...I'd rather just live in tribes.

 

Is the fetus not a person as well? Science seems to be divided on the issue.

Besides, I'm opposed to abortion, and I'm a semi-far leftist. Abortion is not a partisan issue (or shouldn't be).

Rand Paul's and Bachmann's positions on same-sex marriage are not comparable. Bachmann believes you can "pray away the gay" and that gay people are "icky," but still thinks the government (specifically the federal government) should dictate and legislate marriage. Rand just doesn't believe it's the responsibility of the government to dictate and legislate marriage. He happens to be right. Same-sex couples and individuals would end up having MORE freedom from Rand's approach, not less. Plus, Rand's approach would end the culture war against them, leading to near-universal acceptance (or at least tolerance).

Again, circumstantial. I oppose Social Security in its current form. I am not, however, a Bachmann shadow.

Uh, no? Rand is one of the only Republicans in Congress to support a pathway to citizenship for all illegal immigrants, Hispanic or not. Bachmann is anti-pathway.

Well, the federal government has taken on that power.

Increased taxes are not the way to go, not without first cutting spending. Rand's plan would be far less disastrous than Bachmann's.

Even the Rand-hating Economic Policy Journal acknowledges Rand wants to close loopholes. Faiiiiiillllll.

With drastically different end results.

 

Actually, that is an "opinion". It will however become fact. The bigger question is why a person such as Rand Paul would never get elected as POTUS.

Your posts within this thread are a clear example of the reason why. You speak eloquently of the definition of inalienable rights but then wish to suppress them. In order to really support the Constitution then you must also understand that your feelings cannot be considered with respect to free speech.

Example: a Christian is of the opinion that homosexuality is immoral and states that; he/she is labeled as hateful

Why is his/her opinion or belief hateful when he/she injures nobody by having it? Who anointed the people to take it upon themselves to label what is "hate speech"? What makes them the governing body (whoever "them" happens to be)

No, Rand Paul or any true conservative will never hold the office of POTUS again (my opinion). We have morphed into a country of pansies where we must worry about offending others. When we began to eliminate winners and losers and tried to create "fairness" is when we took a turn in the wrong direction.

 

I'm not a subscriber to the belief that Ludwig von Mises is the messiah of libertarianism. Many cite Mises but we need to remember that he died in the 1970's and expansion of libertarian knowledge and understanding has come a long ways since then. Anyone stuck in the 1970's hasn't kept up with current understandings of the Inalienable Rights of the Person and the role of government in protection of those rights from infringement by others. Mises was myopic in his statements on the non-aggression principle and I would suggest that people understand that "aggression" can be far more than simply a physical act. Invidious discrimination is an act of aggression against the person.

We should note that the Ludwig von Mises Institute is primarily an advocate of the Austrian School of Economic philosophy that, while superior to Keynes IMO, is still highly flawed from an Inalienable Rights of the Person standpoint. It makes false assumptions related to the Rights of Property for example.

Libertarianism in the United States does not promote anarchy and is dependent upon the social contract.

Unless we want to discuss why Rand Paul isn't a "libertarian" then this really takes us off the mark though. I will address the following though as it addresses the Supreme Court and some misrepresentations related to it..

The US Supreme Court is not "partisan" but it does have two schools of thought related to interpretation of the Constitution that are described as "conservative" (i.e. primarily what does the Constitution literally state and then when it is vague what is the foundation for what it states) and "progressive" (i.e. a broader interpretation beyond a literal interpretation) but this doesn't reflect "Republican" or "Democratic" political ideologies per se. Of course, as I mentioned, if we required unanimous consent from the Supreme Court to uphold any law or action of government it would highly reduce the number of laws and government actions of dubious Constitutionality. We can simply review every Supreme Court decision where a split decision exists where, in all cases, they laws or actions of government would be "unconstitutional" and extrapolate on that to see the implications. For example Social Security wouldn't exist as we know it nor would any laws prohibiting or restricting abortion. Both Democrats and Republicans would have much of their political agendas destroyed if they had to pass a "unanimous consent" requirement in the Supreme Court.

We see the same problem here that we see with Rand Paul's position on the 10th Amendment which misrepresents what it states.

We must also keep in mind the enumerated power of Congress related to the US Constitution as expressed in Article I Section 8.

Even when we stick with a "conservative" interpretation of the US Constitution this gives the US Congress extensive legislative authority based upon a literal interpretation of the US Constitution.

For example, to ensure "equal protection under the law" the Congress could, by statute, pass a law that recognizes same-gender marriage nationwide based upon the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. While this may only affect federal protections, privileges, and benefits related to "marriage" it would make prohibitions against same-gender marriage unconstitutional in any state because the state would be denying equal protection to individuals involved in same-gender relationships because they would be prohibted from marrying. The federal law, based upon enforcement of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment (and Article I Section 8 ), would take precedent over any State law or State Constitution.

Of course Congress isn't going to have to actually legislate that same-gender marriages are recognized under federal law because DOMA is going to be struck down by the Supreme Court. First DOMA Section 3 is going to be declared unconstitutional (because it denies federal benefits to legally married same-gender couples based upon the legal institution of marriage) and then DOMA Section 2 (that allows states to refuse to recognize the official record of marriage of a same-gender couple from another state) will fall as it violates the full faith and credit clause of Article IV.

Of course the States do have the "final option" for those that believe the States should be the highest level of government. 2/3rds of the States can call for a Constitutional Convention under Article V and with 3/4ths of the States agreeing the United States can be abolished completely. The United States was created by the States (not the People) and the States still have full authority to abolish it if they choose.

 

We allow a wide latitude related to freedom of speech, and that is as it should be, but the belief that "hate speech" doesn't cause injury to another person is false.

For example we have a small minority of racially motivated "hate groups" that through their racist propaganda increase racial prejudice in America. The most recent study I've read indicates that 56% of the American People express explicit anti-black racial prejudice and that negatively affects the "black" person seeking employment. They are denied employment regardless of their qualifications based solely upon the color of their skin and they suffer financial "injury" because of it.

Yes, we can note that we have anti-discrimination laws but only a small fraction of 1% of racial discrimination in America can even be addressed in court because actual evidence must be established and that is almost impossible to do when the discrimination is based solely upon individual prejudice.

We allow and protect "hate speech" even though we know it causes harm because to deny it causes a greater harm to society (i.e. the people) but even here we have pragmatic limitations. Conspiring to commit a criminal act, inciting a riot, libel/slander, and yelling fire in a crowded theater that would cause panic endangering the public safety are all against the law.

We cannot limit Freedom of Speech beyond certain pragmatic limits but we can use Freedom of Speech to expose those that would use this freedom for nefarious and invidious purposes. It is somewhat ironic because those that condemn the SPLC's list of hate groups that are, with their invidious propaganda, causing injury to individuals and anti-government "patriot" groups, that are often armed and opposed to the Constitutional government of the United States, are really opposed to the SPLC's Rights of Freedom of Speech.

 

Do you recall the childhood chant of sticks and stones? Speech does not hurt anyone.