..and by God, he is going to get it even if he has to get some sheet wearing thugs to kill a bunch of third world people to do it.
Let's be real though, Paul isn't exactly a Libertarian purist on the idea of small, limited government. His views on the incorporation theory of the bill of rights fly in the face of Libertarian ideals. Paul believes that the Bill of Rights do not limit States from interfering with your liberty, only the federal government. Paul's ideas would result in not a limited government, but 50 unique state tyrannies, none of which, need to pay attention to the bill of rights when it comes to limiting your liberty.
He isn't a Libertarian nor Conservative hero. He is his own animal.
“Incorporation” is a jurisprudential invention from the Progressive Era and the New Deal. Paul Freund wrote the definitive book on the 14th and its history. Anyone truly interested in the 14th would do well to read it, as well as Phillip Hamburger’s more recent book, Separation of Church and State.
Ironically, the “50 state tyrannies” argument is one that has long been a favorite of the faculties at Harvard and other “elite” law schools for taking federalism out of our “living” Constitution.
“Incorporation” is a jurisprudential invention from the Progressive Era and the New Deal. Paul Freund wrote the definitive book on the 14th and its history. Anyone truly interested in the 14th would do well to read it, as well as Phillip Hamburger’s more recent book, Separation of Church and State.
Ironically, the “50 state tyrannies” argument is one that has long been a favorite of the faculties at Harvard and other “elite” law schools for taking federalism out of our “living” Constitution.
Believing in the states’ sovereignty to pass its own laws is free from a centralized government is not against libertarian ideals. And most libertarians would fight for similar restrictions on state governments in which they live. What you are suggesting is that libertarian ideals would be against states existing in the 1st place, which is not something I have heard anyone believe.
And if you read the Bill of Rights, each amendment specifies the scope. The 1st clearly states what entity it is aimed at in the first word. If you followed it literally, then the states should not have to pay attention to that one, because it is not for them.