KY: Public Policy Polling: Conway tied with Paul

[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.

[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?