Posted on 01/20/2013 2:01:28 PM PST by JohnPDuncan
Sen. Rand Paul said on Sunday that he will make a decision on a 2016 presidential run within two years and plans to be a force in the refashioning the Republican party regardless of whether he seeks the Oval Office.
“We will continue to pursue and, you know, try to make that decision over the next two years or so,” the Kentucky Republican told WABC Radio’s Aaron Klein when asked about a potential White House bid.
In the meantime, Paul said, he will “try to be part of the national debate” and added that he hopes to play a major role in directing the future of the Republican Party.
Paul added that there are major areas of concern for the party, noting “we are not popular and we have not been competitive out in California, on the West Coast, or in New England.”
And his particular brand of conservatism could play well in those regions and with other voters who may not currently identify with the Republican Party, Paul said.
“So we think a little more of a libertarian Republican, someone who is a strict Constitutionalist, but also believes in a strong, defensive military but not necessarily in an overly aggressive or bellicose lets get involved in everybody’s civil war military, I think that has more appeal to independents and some people who have given up in the Republican Party,” Paul said.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
The constitutional precedent is from the English Common Law, which predates the promulgation of the Constitution.
If your conclusion were correct, then Utah would have been admitted with polygamy. States do have many powers, but their powers do not include redefining marriage.
It didn’t define marriage. It banned polygamy. Big deal. It’s a state issue now, so you had better start fighting state to state.
Well, now I know for sure you're a troll, er, subject.
States do have many powers, but their powers do not include redefining marriage
Um, once again, where does marriage appear in the Constitution?
What is the definition of marriage in a dictionary?
Do you understand semantics?
Words do not require laws.
“In fact, according as monogamous or polygamous marriages are allowed, do we find the principles on which the government of [98 U.S. 145, 166] the people, to a greater or less extent, rests. Professor, Lieber says, polygamy leads to the patriarchal principle, and which, when applied to large communities, fetters the people in stationary despotism, while that principle cannot long exist in connection with monogamy. Chancellor Kent observes that this remark is equally striking and profound. 2 Kent, Com. 81, note (e). An exceptional colony of polygamists under an exceptional leadership may sometimes exist for a time without appearing to disturb the social condition of the people who surround it; but there cannot be a doubt that, unless restricted by some form of constitution,
“it is within the legitimate scope of the power of every civil government to determine whether polygamy or monogamy shall be the law of social life under its dominion”
Citing further from the decision:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=98&invol=145
“Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people.
At common law, the second marriage was always void (2 Kent, Com. 79), and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offence against society.
After the establishment of the ecclesiastical [98 U.S. 145, 165] courts, and until the time of James I., it was punished through the instrumentality of those tribunals, not merely because ecclesiastical rights had been violated, but because upon the separation of the ecclesiastical courts from the civil the ecclesiastical were supposed to be the most appropriate for the trial of matrimonial causes and offences against the rights of marriage, just as they were for testamentary causes and the settlement of the estates of deceased persons.”
Insofar as one resides within the domain of the United States- one is bound by the laws thereof - the definition of marriage as one man and one woman stemming from the English common law.
“It’s a state issue now.”
Then provide evidence substantiating your opinion. And no, “Google search” isn’t proof.
“Well, now I know for sure you’re a troll, er, subject.”
Insofar as you are ignorant of American law.
“Um, once again, where does marriage appear in the Constitution?”
The definition of Marriage in the United States, as explained earlier, predates the constitution by several centuries. It is in the English Common Law.
“What is the definition of marriage in a dictionary?”
What does this non-sequitor have anything to do with the legal definition of marriage under the English Common Law?
News flash, we don't live under a king any more.
Ever hear of 1776?
Do you claim that trial by Jury and Habeaus Corpus are no longer in effect in the United States?
Took your test, we seem to agree on 83% of the issues. As the old saying goes, if someone agrees with you 80% of the time, he is your friend and not too far apart in what you want. You’ll never have 100% agreement and there are times compromise is needed. It does not say you need to bend until you break but the need is there although I’d never compromise with the Democrats we have now.
Um, this is not England dipshit, THIS IS THE USA
Stuff your common law bs up your limey azz.
“Still unless we amend the Constitution, under our system, this issue should be kicked back to the States to decide. Roe V. Wade is bad law.”
The 14th amendment doesn’t permit this. Either one is a person in all 50, or one is not. You can’t be a person in New York City and not a person in Nebraska.
“As to government they should stay out of it altogether and let the people themselves decide with their religious bodies, if any”
Marriage is one of the enumerated powers of civil authority predating the Constitution of the United States. Ergo - the state does have the authority to solemnize and perform marriages. To change this to what you want would require a constitutional amendment. Marriage isn’t a private statement - marriage is public. You are required to have witnesses at your wedding, you are required to notify the state of your spouse, you aren’t allowed to get married to someone who is too close to you in blood, etc. This is the problem with the argument, “the state should butt out of marriage”, when the state has the authority and the powers to conduct them.
Bite me euroweenie.
“Took your test, we seem to agree on 83% of the issues. As the old saying goes, if someone agrees with you 80% of the time, he is your friend and not too far apart in what you want. You’ll never have 100% agreement and there are times compromise is needed. It does not say you need to bend until you break but the need is there although I’d never compromise with the Democrats we have now.”
Did I say this was the extent of my political philosophy? No. But I do believe it to be the core issues of conservativism. Your argument is that the core should mould around you and your beliefs. I am arguing something entirely different.
Someone who is willing to work with conservatives, has to be willing to uphold all of these conservative principles, even if they do not personally agree with them - that goes for you, for me, this is a non-negotiable.
“Um, this is not England dipshit, THIS IS THE USA”
And this is American Jurisprudence.
Again - trial by Jury, habeaus corpus and the definition of marriage as one man and one woman are all a part of American jurisprudence.
For someone who claims to be American, you have a poor understanding of American law. Most of American law comes from the English Common law originally, save Louisiana.
Try again.
I recommend Henry Hazlitt’s “Economics in one lesson” for a very good and easy to understand guide on free market economics.
Trial by jury is covered in Article 3, and habeus corpus in Article 1. Where is the definition of marriage?
You don't know your ass from a whole in the ground.
Trial by jury is a Constitutional Amendment, habeaus corpus is a privilege enjoyed among Free men, according to the Constitution, and there is no definition of marriage in the US Constitution.
Cite it troll.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.