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 ...
Again, you haven’t shown, or demonstrated any evidence for your case. Nothing. I’m still waiting. You said it’s ‘up to the states now’. So show me.
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
Article IV section 1.
Too late Rand Paul. The GOP is dead because they have no principles and believe in nothing. Just like Dems.
And, I promise, you Mr. Paul won’t be any different.
“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.”
Article IV section 1 accords to the federal government the power to regulate marriage, (among other things) as a ‘public act’. Given Reynolds, and other decisions, which confirm this to be the case - the answer is pretty clear. Also, ‘uniform naturalization’ also applies here. Insofar as the US grants spousal visas, then it is up to the federal government, and not the states, to define who qualifies as a spouse.
Oh great. I'm so thrilled that we'll still be sending our young men and women overseas to prop up dictatorships and support more theocracies by the time I'm an old man. I'm sure the Founders envisioned perpetual foreign wars.
West faces ‘decades’ of conflict in N Africa
I'm sure there's an ideology to describe perpetual war on foreign shores, but it sure as sh*t ain't conservatism.
Still waiting for evidence to support your claim that ‘marriage is a state issue’. No, it’s not.
Moron, read some history.
I’m still not seeing marriage definition there. From a practical standpoint, if the FedGov were the sole authority in defining marriage, then it would also have to be the sole authority to define divorce. It does not, the states do; that’s because its a state issue. Visas and passports are issued by the federal government; marriage certificates are issued by the state.
Go back to DU moron.
Marriage is a public act. Why does it require witnesses?
It doesn't, Marriage is an act of union between a man and a woman, it is witnessed for purposes of human commitment, only.
Otherwise, it is a State issue, not your beloved Federal Governments.
“I’m still not seeing marriage definition there.”
Again, the Constitution runs on top of the Common Law. The Common Law definition of Marriage has been the law in the United States since well before the Constitution was even enacted. Arguing that “if the Constitution doesn’t mention it renders the existing marriage laws at the time invalid” doesn’t fly.
“From a practical standpoint, if the FedGov were the sole authority in defining marriage”
It’s not. The Federal government doesn’t even have the authority to *define* marriage. It has the power to enforce the definition as one man and one woman. Enforce!= Define.
“then it would also have to be the sole authority to define divorce.”
The need for a uniform standard of marriage doesn’t apply to the laws for dissolving one.
“Visas and passports are issued by the federal government; marriage certificates are issued by the state.”
Yes, and if the federal government issues spousal visas, then it has the authority to define whom constitutes a spouse. This is right in the first article. “Uniform standard of naturalization”, direcly precludes different standards for different states.
Having multiple marriage definitions, simple doesn’t work. The Full Faith and Credit clause renders the states that have passed gay marriage as a legal fiction. They own a document that purports to be something that is not. Now it is possible for a state to attempt to defy federal law, but this is no different from any other occurance.
“It doesn’t”
Legally, marriage requires witnesses in ordered to be considered a marriage. Without witnesses, there is no marriage. People may claim they are married to someone else but without witnesses their claims are false.
If you are a non-constructionist, you could argue that it has the power to define marriage without a Constitutional Amendment. But the enumerated powers do not mention defining the terms of marriage contracts. Even DOMA did not forbid states from setting their own terms, but only establishing the standard that states are required to acknowledge with respect to the FedGov and between the states.
The top down approach won't accomplish your goals. They will simply be circumvented at the federal level even if you can make strides; a swap in the party leadership will swap everything back and forth. Central planning at that level fails.
“No, the Constituion is the Supreme Law of the Land. It does not run on top of colonial law, the Articles of Confederation, or anything else.”
It runs on ‘plenty of other stuff’. Not all of American Jurisprudence is contained within the constitution. There are plenty of American laws which exist that have their origins in the colonial period, and others even earlier. Just looking at the constitution and reading through - this is readily apparent.
“If you are a non-constructionist”.
I am a constructionist. what is contrary to constructionist by obtaining information on the origin of the opinions of the founding fathers and similarities between the US constitutions and other legal systems at the time? In order to properly understand the constitution and the motivation behind it requires this background.
Your thesis that ‘gay marriage is not contrary to the constitution requires evidence that the founders rejected the Common Law definition of marriage. I have plenty of information that shows this is just not true.
“Even DOMA did not forbid states from setting their own terms, but only establishing the standard that states are required to acknowledge with respect to the FedGov and between the states.”
DOMA explicitly cites the FF+C clause as the requirement for a uniform standard across the US with respect to the definition of marriage. States are permitted to set things like age laws, etc, but they cannot change the definition.
“The top down approach won’t accomplish your goals.”
The law is the law. Ignorance of the law doesn’t change anything. I am arguing that, in accordance to the constitution - the power to enforce the definition of marriage across the US rests with the federal government at present. I have provided substantial evidence in favour of this argument whereas you’ve provided nothing.
“They will simply be circumvented”
Then no marriage exists in contravention to the federal laws in the United States.
“Central planning at that level fails.”
On the contrary - having a uniform requirement on marriage is the only system that works. If every state has different marriage laws, and each state fails to recognise marriage in every other state - then there really is no marriage whatsoever. There can be only one. States can try to defy this but again - it has no standing in court, nor force of law backing it up. People are free to call their relationships whatever they want, even ‘marriage’, but it doesn’t change the legal requirements.
This is a fascinating argument. I have to give you points for creativity. Can you give me another example of a law that I am legally required to abide by that predates the Constitution, but is not contained therein?
Your thesis that ‘gay marriage is not contrary to the constitution requires evidence that the founders rejected the Common Law definition of marriage. I have plenty of information that shows this is just not true.
It's likely they did accept the definition, however since they left it out of the Constitution entirely, it looks like it falls under many of the vast powers under the 9th and 10th Amendment.
DOMA explicitly cites the FF+C clause as the requirement for a uniform standard across the US with respect to the definition of marriage. States are permitted to set things like age laws, etc, but they cannot change the definition.
Bingo. It sets the standard by which the FedGov itself will recognize marriage, and what definition the various states will be required to recognize with respect to each other. It DOES NOT make requirements on the individual states on how they recognize a marital contract within. So yes, they can change the definition, it just may not be recognized by other states or the federal government itself (which really only applies to tax and immigration purposes, since, as I stated before, it is largely a state matter). But those can change with the power balance, so even if you get your standards in place, they will likely change election to election. Once again, federal control gets you next to nothing.
If every state has different marriage laws, and each state fails to recognise marriage in every other state - then there really is no marriage whatsoever.
Oh really? So we need state permission and endorsement for marriage? Wow, this is conservatism?
There's no marriage unless Daddy Government says so?
People are free to call their relationships whatever they want, even ‘marriage’, but it doesn't change the legal requirements.
There you go. Now you're onto something.
I couldn't give a rat's ass what the Federal Government says about marriage, or any other politician or bureaucrat. If we had a true Constitutional Republic, it wouldn't matter whether you were married or not as the laws, regulations, and statutes in this country would be limited; exemptions, tax credits, subsidies, and other marriage benefits wouldn't be needed since the laws that they exempt people from wouldn't exist.
The best idea is to keep the government as far away from marriage as possible. The ideal role would extend to honoring a contract and setting terms for dissolving it, and that's it.
I know most people in the United States simply can not grasp that simple fact. The ideology describing opposition to “foreign Wars” is Libertarianism and Liberalism. Conservatism puts the survival of the nation first recognizing if we lose the war after being attacked nothing else matters.
The Libertarians may be able to take over the GOP and call themselves conservatives but they will be Republicans not conservatives like much of the GOP today. I could care less as I'm not a Republican, I'm a Conservative.
But if this nation is to survive and eventually win this war it will be on the backs of clear eyed Conservatives who see the world as it is and not how they wish it to be...
OK, so can you explain to me why we’re still in Afghanistan?
I simply don't suffer fools..ask someone else to educate you if you really care to know the answer...
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.