KY: Public Policy Polling: Conway tied with Paul

[SPQR]

Undecideds will break heavily against Obama/Conway by November.

I guess undecides are undecided for a good reason. Going with Obama, who they probably don't like, or an extremist like Rand Paul.

Unfortunately, Rand Paul is a moderate, but that does mean he will win.

Are you real?
I mean,are most republicans this hackish and right-wingish?
If true,then I might have new thoughts about how stupid Italian PDL and Lega voters are...

Yes, I'm a real boy, Geppetto.

Too bad,it would have been better if you were just a troll,yankee boy.

[Badger]

Torie, to be fair, he just views one plank of it as extremely Unconstitutional.

Yes, except the Courts don't agree with him, nor do almost all legal scholars. And he didn't like it, because it trampled on private property rights in the context of public accommodations, so he also thought it bad policy to enact, per his little balancing test. So, "to be fair," it is reasonable for a voter to consider based on all of this, that Rand is unfit for office, if they think publically humiliating a racial group this way is way, way beyond the pale. JMO.

Thank you Torie, though in fact you're actually being generous to Paul's views. I went back and reread the Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of the 64 CRA. It was based on a definition of the Commerce Claus from a decision in 1821 penned by John Marshall himself! You don't get any more orignial intentisyt than that.

Uh, that's not "original intentisyt(sic?)" at all. John Marshall is responsible for concocting the ridiculous unconstitutional notion of 'judicial review'.  Marshall was an authoritarian and centralizer of power as well.

Wow. Opposition to judicial review, huh? Funny, but most of the origninal drafters of the Constitution were still around when Marbury v. Madison was decided, and yet there was no great hue and cry from them that this wasn't what they intended and the Courts should be stripped of such powers.

So long as we can both acknowledge that Paul's interpretation of the constitution isn't based on legal scholars of any ideology, conservative or otherwise, nor is it based on original intent--at least how anyone without a tin foil hat has defined it since 1803. Rather, his (and Daddy's) ideology is based on their own "unique" interpretation and scholarship that basically supports their overriding ideology that 90+% of the federal government is bad bad bad, so there.

As long as we both agree

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Torie, to be fair, he just views one plank of it as extremely Unconstitutional.

Yes, except the Courts don't agree with him, nor do almost all legal scholars. And he didn't like it, because it trampled on private property rights in the context of public accommodations, so he also thought it bad policy to enact, per his little balancing test. So, "to be fair," it is reasonable for a voter to consider based on all of this, that Rand is unfit for office, if they think publically humiliating a racial group this way is way, way beyond the pale. JMO.

Thank you Torie, though in fact you're actually being generous to Paul's views. I went back and reread the Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of the 64 CRA. It was based on a definition of the Commerce Claus from a decision in 1821 penned by John Marshall himself! You don't get any more orignial intentisyt than that.

Uh, that's not "original intentisyt(sic?)" at all. John Marshall is responsible for concocting the ridiculous unconstitutional notion of 'judicial review'.  Marshall was an authoritarian and centralizer of power as well.

Wow. Opposition to judicial review, huh? Funny, but most of the origninal drafters of the Constitution were still around when Marbury v. Madison was decided, and yet there was no great hue and cry from them that this wasn't what they intended and the Courts should be stripped of such powers.

The tyrant Marshall's "judicial review" was strongly opposed by Thomas Jefferson, and rightfully so considering the Constitution grants no such authority.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Paul's interpretation of the Constitution is based on original intent, and is supported by scholars who are not establishment parrots.

[Deldem]

Torie, to be fair, he just views one plank of it as extremely Unconstitutional.

Yes, except the Courts don't agree with him, nor do almost all legal scholars. And he didn't like it, because it trampled on private property rights in the context of public accommodations, so he also thought it bad policy to enact, per his little balancing test. So, "to be fair," it is reasonable for a voter to consider based on all of this, that Rand is unfit for office, if they think publically humiliating a racial group this way is way, way beyond the pale. JMO.

Thank you Torie, though in fact you're actually being generous to Paul's views. I went back and reread the Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of the 64 CRA. It was based on a definition of the Commerce Claus from a decision in 1821 penned by John Marshall himself! You don't get any more orignial intentisyt than that.

Uh, that's not "original intentisyt(sic?)" at all. John Marshall is responsible for concocting the ridiculous unconstitutional notion of 'judicial review'.  Marshall was an authoritarian and centralizer of power as well.

Wow. Opposition to judicial review, huh? Funny, but most of the origninal drafters of the Constitution were still around when Marbury v. Madison was decided, and yet there was no great hue and cry from them that this wasn't what they intended and the Courts should be stripped of such powers.

The tyrant Marshall's "judicial review" was strongly opposed by Thomas Jefferson, and rightfully so considering the Constitution grants no such authority.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Paul's interpretation of the Constitution is based on original intent, and is supported by scholars who are not establishment parrots.

Um, Thomas Jefferson wasn't at the Constitutional Convention. His opinion on the Constitution, while interesting, is not to be judged when looking at the original intent.

And in addition, as I've said to you before, just because people disagree with you doesn't mean we are wrong. Or that we are members of your favorite bogeyman, the "establishment." You like Ron Paul's views, that's great. That doesn't mean that they are right, or that we are wrong for disagreeing.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Torie, to be fair, he just views one plank of it as extremely Unconstitutional.

Yes, except the Courts don't agree with him, nor do almost all legal scholars. And he didn't like it, because it trampled on private property rights in the context of public accommodations, so he also thought it bad policy to enact, per his little balancing test. So, "to be fair," it is reasonable for a voter to consider based on all of this, that Rand is unfit for office, if they think publically humiliating a racial group this way is way, way beyond the pale. JMO.

Thank you Torie, though in fact you're actually being generous to Paul's views. I went back and reread the Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of the 64 CRA. It was based on a definition of the Commerce Claus from a decision in 1821 penned by John Marshall himself! You don't get any more orignial intentisyt than that.

Uh, that's not "original intentisyt(sic?)" at all. John Marshall is responsible for concocting the ridiculous unconstitutional notion of 'judicial review'.  Marshall was an authoritarian and centralizer of power as well.

Wow. Opposition to judicial review, huh? Funny, but most of the origninal drafters of the Constitution were still around when Marbury v. Madison was decided, and yet there was no great hue and cry from them that this wasn't what they intended and the Courts should be stripped of such powers.

The tyrant Marshall's "judicial review" was strongly opposed by Thomas Jefferson, and rightfully so considering the Constitution grants no such authority.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Paul's interpretation of the Constitution is based on original intent, and is supported by scholars who are not establishment parrots.

Um, Thomas Jefferson wasn't at the Constitutional Convention. His opinion on the Constitution, while interesting, is not to be judged when looking at the original intent.

That is to his credit considering the sort of lowlife schemers who were responsible for the Constitution.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But in this case, your views are wrong.

[Deldem]

Torie, to be fair, he just views one plank of it as extremely Unconstitutional.

Yes, except the Courts don't agree with him, nor do almost all legal scholars. And he didn't like it, because it trampled on private property rights in the context of public accommodations, so he also thought it bad policy to enact, per his little balancing test. So, "to be fair," it is reasonable for a voter to consider based on all of this, that Rand is unfit for office, if they think publically humiliating a racial group this way is way, way beyond the pale. JMO.

Thank you Torie, though in fact you're actually being generous to Paul's views. I went back and reread the Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of the 64 CRA. It was based on a definition of the Commerce Claus from a decision in 1821 penned by John Marshall himself! You don't get any more orignial intentisyt than that.

Uh, that's not "original intentisyt(sic?)" at all. John Marshall is responsible for concocting the ridiculous unconstitutional notion of 'judicial review'.  Marshall was an authoritarian and centralizer of power as well.

Wow. Opposition to judicial review, huh? Funny, but most of the origninal drafters of the Constitution were still around when Marbury v. Madison was decided, and yet there was no great hue and cry from them that this wasn't what they intended and the Courts should be stripped of such powers.

The tyrant Marshall's "judicial review" was strongly opposed by Thomas Jefferson, and rightfully so considering the Constitution grants no such authority.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Paul's interpretation of the Constitution is based on original intent, and is supported by scholars who are not establishment parrots.

Um, Thomas Jefferson wasn't at the Constitutional Convention. His opinion on the Constitution, while interesting, is not to be judged when looking at the original intent.

That is to his credit considering the sort of lowlife schemers who were responsible for the Constitution.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But in this case, your views are wrong.

It doesn't matter if they're "lowlifes" or not, their opinion on the Constitution is what is important here, since they are the ones whose intent we are looking at. Since they didn't seem to make a fuss about things, it would appear that judicial review is within the bounds of the Constitution.

And my views are in line with the framers in this case. If you've got a problem with their views, you've got a problem with the Constitution.

So explain, how are Ron Paul's views are in line with the Constitution if the only founding father you can find that agrees with his views wasn't even present, or even originally in support of the document?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Torie, to be fair, he just views one plank of it as extremely Unconstitutional.

Yes, except the Courts don't agree with him, nor do almost all legal scholars. And he didn't like it, because it trampled on private property rights in the context of public accommodations, so he also thought it bad policy to enact, per his little balancing test. So, "to be fair," it is reasonable for a voter to consider based on all of this, that Rand is unfit for office, if they think publically humiliating a racial group this way is way, way beyond the pale. JMO.

Thank you Torie, though in fact you're actually being generous to Paul's views. I went back and reread the Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of the 64 CRA. It was based on a definition of the Commerce Claus from a decision in 1821 penned by John Marshall himself! You don't get any more orignial intentisyt than that.

Uh, that's not "original intentisyt(sic?)" at all. John Marshall is responsible for concocting the ridiculous unconstitutional notion of 'judicial review'.  Marshall was an authoritarian and centralizer of power as well.

Wow. Opposition to judicial review, huh? Funny, but most of the origninal drafters of the Constitution were still around when Marbury v. Madison was decided, and yet there was no great hue and cry from them that this wasn't what they intended and the Courts should be stripped of such powers.

The tyrant Marshall's "judicial review" was strongly opposed by Thomas Jefferson, and rightfully so considering the Constitution grants no such authority.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Paul's interpretation of the Constitution is based on original intent, and is supported by scholars who are not establishment parrots.

Um, Thomas Jefferson wasn't at the Constitutional Convention. His opinion on the Constitution, while interesting, is not to be judged when looking at the original intent.

That is to his credit considering the sort of lowlife schemers who were responsible for the Constitution.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But in this case, your views are wrong.

It doesn't matter if they're "lowlifes" or not, their opinion on the Constitution is what is important here, since they are the ones whose intent we are looking at. Since they didn't seem to make a fuss about things, it would appear that judicial review is within the bounds of the Constitution.

No, the elites back then could just have easily done the same thing we do today, doing blatantly unconstitutional things.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I do have a problem with the Constitution, but that's not particularly relevant here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ron Paul's entire career has been about keeping government within the limits of the Constitution. You'll have to be more specific.

[Badger]

"The Constitution" as magically divined and interpreted through messiah-like wisdom from the mighty Pauls.

BTW, don't look now but Deldem's spot-on analysis just owned you and your claim Paul's self-serving interpretation of the Constitution has bollocks to do with original intent.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

"The Constitution" as magically divined and interpreted through messiah-like wisdom from the mighty Pauls.

BTW, don't look now but Deldem's spot-on analysis just owned you and your claim Paul's self-serving interpretation of the Constitution has bollocks to do with original intent.

I already looked and no, it didn't.

[Free Palestine]

Wow. Opposition to judicial review, huh? Funny, but most of the origninal drafters of the Constitution were still around when Marbury v. Madison was decided, and yet there was no great hue and cry from them that this wasn't what they intended and the Courts should be stripped of such powers.

Right, so the founders intended for the judiciary to pull constitutional law out of their asses, subverting the very document they had created.  Jefferson warned that judicial review would subject us to the despotism of an oligarchy, and he was right.

[Phony Moderate]

The US Constitution is, in many ways, a joke.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Jefferson warned that judicial review would subject us to the despotism of an oligarchy, and he was right.

Bullcrap.  Jefferson wasn't even around when they wrote the Constitution; he was Minister to France.  Other than Jefferson, there was no opposition to judicial review - in addition, it was included in the Virginia Constitution of 1776; Hamilton considered it valid - seems like Founding Fathers to me.

[Free Palestine]

Jefferson warned that judicial review would subject us to the despotism of an oligarchy, and he was right.

Bullcrap.  Jefferson wasn't even around when they wrote the Constitution; he was Minister to France.  Other than Jefferson, there was no opposition to judicial review - in addition, it was included in the Virginia Constitution of 1776; Hamilton considered it valid - seems like Founding Fathers to me.

Both James Madison and Robert Yates opposed the idea.

And, I think it counts as despotism of an oligarchy when the Supreme Court decides that the Constitution preserves the right to have an abortion, when there had been no amendment to legalize abortion, and the Constitution says nothing about it.