Quote :

"Which isn't enforced. In other words, it's an old "law" that no longer matters. Where are the atheists being denied the opportunity to run, again? ^ See, even with that, it was quickly laughed away. A law isn't really a law if it aint enforced. More importantly, that was put in place BEFORE THE CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN. Kind of an important thing to think about, dontchathink?"

Would you prefer examples written after the U.S. Constitution?

The Texas Constitution (1876) - Article 1, Section 4:

http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/constitutions/text/IART01.html

Quote :

"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

The U.S. Constitution mentions Jesus ('in the year of our Lord 1787'). All 50 state constitutions mention God (many of which include religious tests for office), including plenty who joined well after the creation of the Union.

Any conservative who believes in strict construction needs to consider that fact seriously. You can't love strict construction only when it suits you. And people who are easily offended by such language in our laws have a lot of work to do, including some erasing on the U.S. Constitution.

9/4/2011 12:15:24 AM

^ I'm pretty sure that's primarily a date description.
The FF would think people were idiots for reading into it that much, i bet.

9/4/2011 1:12:13 AM

Of course it's a date description.

But the point is that (at least cultural) Christianity was at such a saturation that nobody thought twice about it. If we put that in laws or government documents today, people would be howling that it's a violation of the establishment clause.

But, no strict constructionist would have grounds to object either to that, or to state laws or constitutions that establish religious tests for office or reference God. Both were clearly accepted for a very, very long time both by the writers of the constitution, and those that came more than 100 years later. Anybody who objects to either has already submitted to a 'living document' approach.

[Edited on September 4, 2011 at 1:45 AM. Reason : a]

9/4/2011 1:38:14 AM

I'm not sure that many people would claim that the Constitution is a perfect document, and I would recommend that it be amended in several ways.

The broader point is that the government should be limited to clearly stated roles. If it isn't, and we don't have some kind of constitution to stick to, then history shows that government will continue to grow at an unrestrained pace and become such a burden to the people that it's rendered unsustainable. Evidently, we're at that point now and the Constitution didn't do much to prevent it.

I would also argue that the Christianity of 1776 was substantially less offensive than the Christianity we often see today. The growth of evangelical Christianity and blind, radical faith mixed in with politics would likely disgust the founding fathers.

[Edited on September 4, 2011 at 11:15 AM. Reason : ]

9/4/2011 11:13:11 AM

Saying that the Constitution contains Jesus is like saying every date written as B.C. or A.D. is a admission of Jesus as well. It's a convention with Christian origins. That happens when you're the predominant religion in Western Civilization for 1500 years.

[Edited on September 4, 2011 at 11:26 AM. Reason : .]

9/4/2011 11:25:23 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUHlIPJTMIg&feature=player_embedded

HE STOOD WITH REAGAN, RICK PERRY LOVES AL GORE!!!!


lol

9/6/2011 12:53:37 PM

so butthurt

9/8/2011 7:09:13 AM

"Come at me, bro"

9/8/2011 10:06:01 AM

Wonder if Ron Paul agrees with the Lt. Gov on his asking the president for disaster assistance for the wild fires...

Funny how the Lt. Gov asked for it and not Rick Perry

9/9/2011 12:31:01 PM

gotta credit drudge they put "audience says ron paul wins debate" (im paraphrasing cant remember exact headline) at the top of the page the day after the debate

9/10/2011 9:32:30 AM

youre talking about the old debate? There wasn't a debate this week, was there? Or was that the reason obamas thing got moved? I thought that was for monday's debate. I've been too lost in work to pay attention.

9/10/2011 10:32:24 AM

Yeah there was one this week on msnbc

9/10/2011 12:26:24 PM

He's a crazy racist.



[Edited on September 10, 2011 at 2:37 PM. Reason : ...]

9/10/2011 2:24:07 PM

keep playing the race card, liberal. makes it obvious you can't argue against the man's actual positions

9/10/2011 11:10:35 PM

One of his actual positions is that the federal government shouldn't force businesses to allow black people into their establishments.

9/11/2011 4:28:46 AM

Should the government force people to allow black people into their homes?

If your answer is no, why are you racist?

[Edited on September 11, 2011 at 10:11 AM. Reason : ]

9/11/2011 10:10:53 AM

he thinks the states should be able to do that. hes against any federal mandate. That doesn't mean he is against all of the things the are in federal mandates.

9/11/2011 10:18:52 AM

Ron Paul talks about possible blowback from foreign wars in 1997-1999: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXYd5eHfRIE

9/11/2011 12:01:38 PM

Ron Paul talks about how he doesn't believe in evolution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw

9/11/2011 12:04:24 PM

Quote :

"he thinks the states should be able to do that"

Is that supposed to be a less awful position to have?

9/11/2011 12:04:49 PM

I'm personally opposed to slavery but I believe it's fundamentally a states rights issue.

9/11/2011 12:49:10 PM

i think owners of private property should be able to keep folks they don't want on their property off that property

if that means i'm racist, then so be it

9/11/2011 1:51:33 PM

I think that humans should be treated like humans. Cry me a river.

9/11/2011 2:04:34 PM

Quote :

"owners of private property"

No such thing. You're just renting from the government. Or you can sell your ability to rent it, like a timeshare. Don't believe me? Stop paying the rent and see what happens.

9/11/2011 2:12:04 PM

sure, but what constitutes being "treated like humans" is different from person to person

to you, it's going into any business you want to go into. to me, it's being able to decide who can come onto my property.

[Edited on September 11, 2011 at 2:18 PM. Reason : property taxes are bullshit, too]

9/11/2011 2:17:16 PM

Quote :

"my property"

You keep saying that. It's a delusion.

9/11/2011 2:18:52 PM

yes, i realize that

9/11/2011 2:21:19 PM

However, if you find a piece of land no one really cares about, declare publicly that you will die protecting it and otherwise mind your own business, the government will probably leave you alone. See John Joe Gray.

9/11/2011 2:25:33 PM

more like if you hide behind children law enforcement will leave you alone b/c they're scared of another Waco

9/11/2011 2:39:59 PM

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/180839-why-ron-paul-scares-rick-perry

9/12/2011 2:17:19 PM

http://www.huntingtonnews.net/9134
Ron Paul wins MSNBC reagan debate poll with 57% of the votes, yet CNN calls it a two man race between Romney and Perry

I don't care if you like Ron Paul or not, but it is simply disgusting how the media and the GOP are pushing "their boys" through the system despite who the American citizens support.

9/12/2011 7:36:43 PM

What are you going to do about it? Riot? Vote democrat? Hahaha.

9/12/2011 8:06:27 PM

CNN just called Bachmann a front-runner, while calling Paul a lower-tier candidate that needs to 'break out.'

CNN released a poll today that has Paul at 13% and Bachmann at 7%.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/09/11/rel15a.pdf

9/12/2011 8:21:04 PM

Paul is destroyed.

9/12/2011 9:45:50 PM

how so?

he never said America was to blame for 9/11

he said the military occupying space in other countries was a cause for it.

I dont get why everyone thinks that was such a shitty answer, its exactly what Bin Laden said.

9/12/2011 9:47:31 PM

lol note to self: never quote bin laden at a tea party event

9/12/2011 9:47:52 PM

When the crowd boos so hard you can't speak at your own party's debate, you probably won't win.

9/12/2011 9:49:27 PM

Paul: The entire Muslim world was not responsible for 9/11
Audience: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

9/12/2011 9:49:51 PM

I think the crowd was too stupid to actually consider the answer before they booed.

I mean really...there was nothing wrong with his response.

9/12/2011 9:50:01 PM

yes it was very wrong. dont you know? they hate us because we're FREEE AND RICH AND PROUUUUD RAWR RAWR RAWR RAWR!!!!!

9/12/2011 9:53:04 PM

Quote :

"crowd was too stupid"

You realize he's running for the republican nomination, right?

9/12/2011 9:53:05 PM

Yes lol.

Still think he should have pulled a Huckabee, but I will vote for him again anyways.

It was a good answer.

9/12/2011 10:05:33 PM

http://edition.cnn.com/US/

Link might not last long, but look at the poll at the bottom. Bachmann, at 7% in CNN poll today, is a contender, while Paul (at 13% in the same poll) is not.

And remember, Paul got booed out of the room when he answered Giuliani in May 2007. His polls only went up. This may be a little different, but he's never had a major drop in support. Once he get folks, he's usually got them.

9/12/2011 10:11:11 PM

ron paul 2016

9/12/2011 10:15:37 PM

^^ That poll is bullshit

9/12/2011 10:20:52 PM

http://www.businessinsider.com/party-of-death-gop-cheers-for-death-of-sick-people-2011-9

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/tea-party-debate-audience-cheers-idea-of-letting-sick-man-without-insurance-die-video.php

And they haven't even had time for the hit pieces on the 9/11 stuff from the debate. I think the establishment is really rattled by the fact that Paul, and his support, isn't going away.

This is not to be imply that he can win, but I'm loving it.

9/12/2011 10:39:43 PM

Quote :

"to you, it's going into any business you want to go into. to me, it's being able to decide who can come onto my property. "

This is a senseless position if you believe in tax-payer funded police forces.

9/12/2011 11:10:29 PM

^ please elaborate. how is the respect for private property rights in any way akin to the funding of a police force?

9/12/2011 11:35:58 PM

If I owned a store that sold cheap magic wands that created food from thin air, but i only sold them to black people, this would obviously piss off all the whiteys. They would eventually threaten violence against my store or people coming to my store, which would require police to step in. But, if the net effect of my store was that blacks got abundant cheap food while the whites starved, it would be unethical for public tax dollars to go towards defending this status quo.

9/12/2011 11:40:19 PM

so, when you invent a magical fairy tale, it almost matters. now, for real life? you assume that the police would be the only way to protect your magic wand establishment. Since you are going to make a shit ton of money selling your wares, you can also afford to hire your own security firm, because, as we all know, the police are under no obligation to defend any particular person or place. moreover, if people are actually threatening you in the lawful operation of your business, then there is a problem, and it is not with you. it is with the idiots threatening you. end of story.




moreover, you are suggesting that the mere act of someone else threatening you makes what you do unethical. either that, or you are guilty of circular logic, saying that it is immoral to use the police to defend you when you do something immoral without actually showing that what you were doing was immoral in the first place. and then you also assume that all whites will starve unless they obtain your magic, food-generating wand, another obvious fallacy. Now, if your shop were also specifically preventing whites from being able to eat, then we'd have a different situation.

and, just for shits, should the police not prevent the lynching of murder suspects who are caught in the act? after all, certainly said person did something immoral. is it unethical to spend police funds on protecting those people?

[Edited on September 12, 2011 at 11:59 PM. Reason : ]

9/12/2011 11:50:56 PM