Who do you feel Pittsburghers would prefer more? (Republic: school districts, living)

[MeinGlanzendMotorrad]

I should run for president when I hit 35.


I can't be worse as Commander in Chief than Bush and Obama, surely.

[Caladium]

Originally Posted by MeinGlanzendMotorrad

I should run for president when I hit 35.


I can't be worse as Commander in Chief than Bush and Obama, surely.

Go for it--and I see you have your campaign slogan ready. I can almost hear the tv ads: "MGM: Awesome with a side of Awesome"

[hornet67]

Originally Posted by Aqua Teen Carl

FDR is considered to be one of the best presidents we've ever had even in his declining health stage. I don't think it's fair to write off Paul because something could happen to him.

While FDR has a high reputation, his declining health in his final term was a factor, especially during the meeting of the Allied heads of state at Yalta in Feb,. 1945. Roosevelt was an obviously sick man, and allowed Stalin to pretty much get his own way regarding Eastern Europe, despite the protestations of Churchill.
I don't know about Paul's health, but he is already older than FDR when he died, which was at only age 63.

[mike02]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

More from Paul:



See also this essay by Paul:

The War on Religion by Rep. Ron Paul

Paul has also proposed a bill limiting the jurisdiction of federal courts to "adjudicate--(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion":

Bill Text - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Paul wants the federal government and federal courts to have no role in this area so that local governments will be free to promote religion, including in public schools.

Generally, he believes that the 14th Amendment does not extend the protections of the First Amendment religion clauses to state and local governments. This is an erroneous interpretation of the 14th Amendment, with broad implications for other important constitutional rights as well, and as I noted previously, presumably Paul would seek out like-minded appointees for federal courts, in addition to promoting bills like the one above.

Therefore, this remains one of my (many) sufficient reasons for concluding that Paul would be a terrible President.

Again, he is not advocating for school sanctioned prayer that was ruled unconstitutional decades ago. If his view on religion and local affairs is unpopular, it is on the bottom of his agenda or not even on it at all. I guess it's scary to vote for someone that supposedly has a muddied view on the separation of church as opposed to re-electing a president that has signed laws to detain american citizens indefinitely and to assassinate american citizens via drones. But God forbid there's prayer in school

[MeinGlanzendMotorrad]

Both are equally bad.

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by mike02

Again, he is not advocating for school sanctioned prayer that was ruled unconstitutional decades ago.

Why do you think he embracings an unconstitutional ruling decades ago? He flat out says that the courts have no business interfering with these issues.

Originally Posted by mike02

I guess it's scary to vote for someone that supposedly has a muddied view on the separation of church...

That's not the only issue for this Pittsburgh. Quit a few of his positions are unsettling to me.

Originally Posted by mike02

...as opposed to re-electing a president that has signed laws to detain american citizens indefinitely and to assassinate american citizens via drones. But God forbid there's prayer in school

Huh? We can't re-elect Bush. He already did two terms of that stuff.

[MeinGlanzendMotorrad]

And now Obama is adding to it. Or haven't you been paying attention?

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by mike02

Again, he is not advocating for school sanctioned prayer that was ruled unconstitutional decades ago.

You seem to be ignoring that he is a critic of those court decisions, and that he wants to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction on those issues.

In fact, this is some more from the bill he has proposed:

Supreme Court and lower Federal court decisions striking down local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion have wrested from State and local governments issues reserved to the States and the People by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. . . . Several members of the Supreme Court have admitted that the Court's Establishment Clause jurisdiction is indefensible.

. . .

The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--

(1) shall not adjudicate--

(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;

. . .

(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).

That last clause is as clear an announcement as you could want that Paul has no intention of leaving the decisions you are referencing undisturbed.

If his view on religion and local affairs is unpopular, it is on the bottom of his agenda or not even on it at all.

Again, I'm quoting from a bill he has proposed. And it isn't ancient history--he proposed this in 2009. I don't know how you can claim that isn't part of his agenda.

As I also pointed out previously, all this goes to his broader vision of the Constitution, one that I believe is erroneous, and would be a disaster if followed. Paul has specifically announced he intends to veto legislation that he deems to violate his constitutional vision, and I think it is quite likely he would continue to propose his own legislation and constitutional amendments for the purpose of achieving that vision. And as President he would also control who was nominated for the federal courts, one of the most important discrete powers of the President.

So, no, I don't think you can simply ignore the fact that a Presidential candidate has a sweeping and erroneous view of the Constitution that he fully intends to pursue by every available means.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Hopes

That's not the only issue for this Pittsburgh. Quit a few of his positions are unsettling to me.

Exactly. I do think his views on the role of the U.S. Constitution and the federal courts in protecting basic liberties from infringement by state and local governments should be disqualifying.

But that was third on my (non-exhaustive) list. His general views on the constitutional limits of the federal government AND his general views on how modern economies should function are both independently disqualifying in my view.

Again, I understand that certain people actually like Paul's radical views on these issues (although not very many people as a percentage of the electorate). But for those of us who disagree with Paul on these matters, it isn't somehow citing trivia to raise these concerns--collectively, these are the core issues the next president will be facing, so OF COURSE if we disagree with Paul's radical vision we would not want him to be the next President.

[mike02]

I believe he does not want federal courts banning religion in schools. I still don't believe he's advocating for state or local mandatory prayer in public schools. OTOH, he doesn't want a fed. court interfering with one's right to pray in school..... but lets assume he disregards the separation of church in state. Lets go back to what I stated before in bold:

I guess it's scary to vote for someone that supposedly has a muddied view on the separation of church as opposed to re-electing a president that has signed laws to detain american citizens indefinitely and to assassinate american citizens via drones. But God forbid there's prayer in school

Paul has been an outspoken opponent to the Patriot Act and any law that infringes on our civil liberties. You can't beat him on that. But assuming he has a blurry view on separation of church and state, there are some posters on here that are so offended by that to the point they would vote for a ruthless man like Obama who has signed laws to detain American citizens INDEFINITELY and assassinate American citizens. I'm still trying to understand that logic. Obama is the biggest threat to our constitution, not Ron Paul. But again, I guess there's people that have a far left pro statist viewpoint.