Rand Paul

[Irishsara]

Rand Paul is the Republican candidate for US Senate from Kentucky. He is a libertarian and represents the latest sea change in the republican Party. He has some controversial views. He has also fumbled his handling of media attention (culminating pulling out of Meet the Press) and it makes me wonder if perhaps Rand is experienced enough to run for office. (If Martha Coakley's abortion of a senate run teaches anything its that an inexperienced politician can loose any race, no matter how assured victory can seem)

I worry that while his libertarian views work great in the classroom that he might fail in the sausage making that is modern politics.

So what does everyone else think about Rand Paul

Are republicans worry about his views on the National Defense (and saying things like Iran is no threat with a nuclear weapon?)?

[Villiano 187]

I think it's an orchestrated smear campaign from the libs. They think government should be large and control all aspects of our lives. Rand Paul believes in small government and abolishing the National Reserve. You can see where they don't agree......


The whole story is a fabrication, because 9/10ths of what is being attributed to him is completely false.


Cue Zuma with opposing liberal view and a clip by that ugly man Rachel Madcow.

[Phantom Lord]

If MSNBC spends any amount of time on one person who goes against the agenda they have with being in the tank for Obama, then you know it's a smear campaign.

The only ones who fear Rand Paul are establishment Republicans who know his win means they can easily be out.

[FearlessVampireKiller]

Well let's hope that soon Mr. Paul will be fighting the good fight to resegregate lunch counters in the near future.

[Villiano 187]

FVK with the first uneducated and politically slanted comment!

[xxOneHitWonderxx]

Yeah, I like how Rand doesn't want gov't to control all or any aspects of our lives, like forcing people to marry the opposite sex and telling people they can't have abortions... oh wait.

[trajik lastat]

Well let's hope that soon Mr. Paul will be fighting the good fight to resegregate lunch counters in the near future.

I did want to eat a Woolworths anyway.

[Son of Repoman]

FVK with the first uneducated and politically slanted comment!

YELLOW CARD

Cool it. If you feel that FVK's statement is slanted, then smack him with facts.

[Irishsara]

I honestly dont see Rand as the big evil racist I just see that the practical applications of his views seem impractical for the real world today. While he seems ok with iran getting a Nuke he has come out against President Obama taking nukes off the table in certain circumstances.


"Recently, President Obama took nuclear weapons off the table in certain circumstances, and I think that’s a mistake. I think it’s reckless to take them out of the equation.”

color me worried.

In 2009, in a conversation about Gitmo

"If you're not going to convict them and you can't convict them and you're unclear, drop them back off in Afghanistan; it'll take them a while to get back over here."

Is that something you republicans support?

Rand Paul is also an isolationist and an appeaser to foreign powers. I know my history and i know how that ends.

Rand feels that Iran wants nukes because it feels threatened. I think it feels threatened because they arm and finance instability in Pakistan and want to wipe Israel off the map so I think we should avoid giving them a weapon of mass destruction.

He wants to end Agricultural subsidies which would be bad for Kentucky.


"I support a declaration of war in Afghanistan. We have to now determine what our mission is. It’s become somewhat murky. "

- A stable Democratic state where people arent going to allow it to serve as a base for terrorists. We keep a nominal presense there after training up their forces to keep an eye on the terrorists. - That is the Obama plan, i dont see how thats murky.

I also think there is a problem with Rand being an intellectual with little experience in real politics.

In this i agree with Republican Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl there is a difference between collegiate theoretical debate and actual living breathing legislation from which I feel that Rand Paul falls short. Wanting to do stuff like eliminate the DEA and the Dept. of Education to return education to the states (Imagine if TX had free reign over all its education and content?) i just dont see as practical.

[Stinger]

Is that something you republicans support?

Not a Republican in the registered sense, but I do usually support candidates that run as Republicans (since third parties have no chance and guys like the two Pauls, Schiff, Lawson, Kokesh, etc have to run Republican), but I do support that.

Rand Paul is also an isolationist and an appeaser to foreign powers.

This is a lie, Rand Paul is not an isolationist nor an appeaser to foreign powers. I think you mean "non-interventionist", and no the two terms are not interchangeable.

I know my history and i know how that ends.

And how does non-interventionism, or what you wrongly call isolationism, end?

Rand feels that Iran wants nukes because it feels threatened. I think it feels threatened because they arm and finance instability in Pakistan and want to wipe Israel off the map so I think we should avoid giving them a weapon of mass destruction.

Or, they probably feel threatened because we have a history of meddling in their affairs, threaten them, and have them surrounded.

I don't think Paul said anything about giving them a nuclear weapon. Them having one is not the end of the world though. Sanctions don't work and we can't afford another war, especially a pre-emptive one.

- A stable Democratic state where people arent going to allow it to serve as a base for terrorists. We keep a nominal presense there after training up their forces to keep an eye on the terrorists. - That is the Obama plan, i dont see how thats murky.

Probably because its nation building and world policing that does not serve America's actual national security needs. We have no reason to still be Afghanistan, ditto for Iraq.

I also think there is a problem with Rand being an intellectual with little experience in real politics.

Because if there's anything the country needs more of right now, it's experienced politicians serving special interest?

[Irishsara]

Right, under traditional Isolationism there is protectionism and restrictive immigration while under Noninterventionism there is not. It is only one stepped removed from isolationism. Its an arbitrary and academic difference. Noninterventionism still would not have stopped Hitler from taking Czechoslovakia and France with American Neutrality. We tried that and because of it we had to save the world when earlier intervention could have saved millions of lives and perhaps even prevented the worst abuses of the Holocaust.

Rand Paul is an appeaser because he wants to allow Iran to gain Nuclear capabilities and wants us to withdraw from Korea. (Im actually inferring the Korea bit because it is one of the long standing points of Nonintervention politics.


Sanctions dont work? History says they have worked many times. They worked against Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, they worked against Allende in Chile. They worked in Libya and most famously they worked in South Africa against Apartheid. They also worked to end the re-education camps in Vietnam. Sure they arent always successful but often, like in the case of Libya, they bring the country to the negotiating table where they can be dealt with through diplomacy.

Who says you cant use history?

Are you kidding about Afganistan? that country would fold in weeks if we left. We need to train them up and give them the tools to fight their own battles, we cant just bail or it will end like Vietnam. We need to give them the pieces to defend themselves or we will be back there in 10 years.

Politics is a hard job. It is probably one of the hardest this country has. You have to balance what is best for your constituents with what you can viably accomplish. You have to do the best you can with what you have. A career politician like Ted Kennedy, Like Scott Brown even who is new to national politics but has extensive legislative experience.

Give me someone like Bob Bennett who did what he felt was best for the country at the time then someone like Rand Paul who will stck to his theoretical guns while rome burns.

[Stinger]

Right, under traditional Isolationism there is protectionism and restrictive immigration while under Noninterventionism there is not. It is only one stepped removed from isolationism. Its an arbitrary and academic difference.

No. "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliance with none" is non-interventionism; it is far more than arbitrary and academic in difference.

Noninterventionism still would not have stopped Hitler from taking Czechoslovakia and France with American Neutrality. We tried that and because of it we had to save the world when earlier intervention could have saved millions of lives and perhaps even prevented the worst abuses of the Holocaust.

Oh please. Had we not been interventionist going back to the first World War, Hitler would not have rose to power. Interventionism created the conditions that led to Hitler and World War 2. Interventionism always leads to future events because of blowback.

Overthrow Iranian government --> Hostages/Revolution --> Present day.

Non-interventionism works, history surely is not on the side of interventionism.

Rand Paul is an appeaser because he wants to allow Iran to gain Nuclear capabilities and wants us to withdraw from Korea. (Im actually inferring the Korea bit because it is one of the long standing points of Nonintervention politics.

This isn't appeasing.

Sanctions dont work? History says they have worked many times. They worked against Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, they worked against Allende in Chile. They worked in Libya and most famously they worked in South Africa against Apartheid. They also worked to end the re-education camps in Vietnam. Sure they arent always successful but often, like in the case of Libya, they bring the country to the negotiating table where they can be dealt with through diplomacy.

So you think sanctions will work in Iran then, and we need more of them?

Are you kidding about Afganistan? that country would fold in weeks if we left. We need to train them up and give them the tools to fight their own battles, we cant just bail or it will end like Vietnam. We need to give them the pieces to defend themselves or we will be back there in 10 years.

We need to mind our own business.

Politics is a hard job. It is probably one of the hardest this country has. You have to balance what is best for your constituents with what you can viably accomplish. You have to do the best you can with what you have. A career politician like Ted Kennedy, Like Scott Brown even who is new to national politics but has extensive legislative experience.

Following the Constitution shouldn't be that hard.

Give me someone like Bob Bennett who did what he felt was best for the country at the time then someone like Rand Paul who will stck to his theoretical guns while rome burns.

So you'd rather have career politicians who "started" the fire continue to throw gas on the fire?

[Irishsara]

You are kidding right ? What fucked Germany was American isolation and french vindictiveness. The Treaty of Versallies was mainly crafted by the British (who were protecting their own colonies) and the French (who were trying to decimate their greatest rival) Look at the history of Alsace and Lorraine. Look at the history of the Rhur Valley. You are wrong. Dead wrong. and its thinking like Beljum and Swiss that allows people like Hitler to not only take power (remember Until Chekosolvakia Hitler had many friends amongst conservatives like Henry Ford) but to be agressive in europe. If America had intervened then they could have perhaps even saved France.

The entire international community has to get on board with sanctions. This means China too (the weak link in most Sanction plans) and I think that it could force the Iranians to the negotiating table. If it fails then well ... we would have to back up israel when they attack Iran. What i mean is diplomatically we would have to threaten force against the other Islamic republics in the reigon where if they attack Israel while it is engaged with Iran that we will attack them. either way we have to get involved.

There is more to governing then following the Constitution. The objective of Governance is to steward the public good. One must make good laws and regulations to protect the people.

And yes. I would rather have an experienced truck driver who made some mistakes (and in theory learned from them) then someone who has never driven a car before.

Rand Paul says he values the Constitution but in reality he wants to rewrite the Constitution to fit his personal views.

"We're the only country I know that allows people to come in illegally, have a baby, and then that baby becomes a citizen, and I think that should stop ."

14th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees citizenship to everyone born in the U.S

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside"

Civil rights act of 1866 as well says anyone born in the United States is an American.

So how is Rand Paul a defender of the Constitution?

So he wants it harder to become a citizen. He wants to keep children who are born in this country but are not decended from Americans not to be made citizens. Can someone define Isolationist?

He seems to be an isolationist on everything but the economy.

[Stinger]

Wow. MSDNC and the far-left blogosphere are really going out of their way to try and create controversy with Rand. That he is opposed to birthright citizenship is not news; it's been known by his supporters for years. Quite a few people in Washington support that. Hell, it was part of Ron Paul's presidential campaign. Where was the "liberal" media at back then?

That they're desperate to keep Dr. Paul out of the Senate is not surprising (that includes the neo-cons like Dick Cheney and Bill Kristol), but they're doing it wrong. Perhaps they've forgotten what state Paul is running in. It's a state that is quite conservative and where the large majority are against illegal-immigration and would support this measure. Not that many in Kentucky who would even entertain the notion of voting for Rand are spending their time watching MSDNC or reading Huffington Post or Daily Kos.

Rand Paul says he values the Constitution but in reality he wants to rewrite the Constitution to fit his personal views.

EVERY single far-left website has used this exact same language. He doesn't support the Constitution, he wants to rewrite it. Nonsense.

By this logic, the 14th Amendment is itself unconstitutional and the work of people who hated the Constitution. They rewrote it didn't they?

It isn't unconstitutional to amend the Constitution... that is the constitutional approach to doing things.

Should prohibition not have ended as well?

So how is Rand Paul a defender of the Constitution?

Amending the Constitution is constitutional. Unlike half the programs and ideas the federal government actually passes, which are unconstitutional.

So he wants it harder to become a citizen.

No, I bet he's like his father and would like to see it easier to become a legal citizen. He's against illegal aliens coming across the border to pop out a child that automatically becomes a citizen. The act of coming here illegally is against federal law, it breaches your beloved "social contract". It's also a disastrous policy, economically.

He wants to keep children who are born in this country but are not decended from Americans not to be made citizens.

Yeah he, like many people, don't think women can cross the border illegally and a have a child that becomes a citizen. That was not the intent of the 14th Amendment, but even then that was a different time where we didn't have a welfare state that is economically unsound and is bankrupting the country.

Can someone define Isolationist?

He seems to be an isolationist on everything but the economy.

How, exactly, is it isolationist to want to prevent people who are here illegally from giving birth to a child that magically becomes a citizen? An isolationist would want to shut down the border completely and not allow any immigrants or visitors in, nor trade with other countries, and in extreme cases not even want to diplomatically talk with other governments.

Wanting to put an end to anchor babies is hardly isolationist, or controversial for that matter. A lot of people support that, probably because it makes sense in a welfare State.

[Irishsara]

Firstly, ive been drinking, Worked and when you serve alchohol for a living and you get something new on tap it means dayly sampling. Which leads to being drunk. I wasnt going to respond. but Im drunk, so im going to respond anyway.

Wow. MSDNC and the far-left blogosphere are really going out of their way to try and create controversy with Rand. That he is opposed to birthright citizenship is not news; it's been known by his supporters for years. Quite a few people in Washington support that. Hell, it was part of Ron Paul's presidential campaign. Where was the "liberal" media at back then?

.

Yeah lots of people support it. Im not disagreeing with that. Its just historically inaccurate, but to me it seems like, oh i dont know, another isolationist attempt to prevent people who were born here from becoming citizens.

The Media didnt care about Ron Paul because Ron Paul was as legitimate of a presidental candidate as Al Sharpton.

That they're desperate to keep Dr. Paul out of the Senate is not surprising (that includes the neo-cons like Dick Cheney and Bill Kristol), but they're doing it wrong. Perhaps they've forgotten what state Paul is running in. It's a state that is quite conservative and where the large majority are against illegal-immigration and would support this measure. Not that many in Kentucky who would even entertain the notion of voting for Rand are spending their time watching MSDNC or reading Huffington Post or Daily Kos.




EVERY single far-left website has used this exact same language. He doesn't support the Constitution, he wants to rewrite it. Nonsense.


No, I bet he's like his father and would like to see it easier to become a legal citizen. He's against illegal aliens coming across the border to pop out a child that automatically becomes a citizen. The act of coming here illegally is against federal law, it breaches your beloved "social contract". It's also a disastrous policy, economically.

Rand ACTUALLY SAID "I'm not opposed to letting people come in and work and labor in our country, but I think what we should do is we shouldn't provide an easy route to citizenship. A lot of this is about demographics. If you look at new immigrants from Mexico, they register three to one Democrat, so the Democratic Party is for easy citizenship and allowing them to vote. I think we need to address that."

Here is a little bit on my beloved Social contract. If a child is born on the land then he is born into the contract. He is bound by the laws and his obligations are established. America is based on soil not blood. Ill get to that later.

Yeah he, like many people, don't think women can cross the border illegally and a have a child that becomes a citizen. That was not the intent of the 14th Amendment, but even then that was a different time where we didn't have a welfare state that is economically unsound and is bankrupting the country.

The 14 Ammendment was just the constitutionalizing of The Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Look! Rand Paul hates another Civil rights act ... Hmmm lol im kidding) The act declared that all persons born in the United States were now citizens, without regard to race, color, or previous condition.

This allowed people who were the slaves to gain citizenship, and thus not citizens, and the children of the european immigrants which had been flooding the east coast for 50 years.

Mind you, this was just voicing a common law view that existed in both British and American Common law in 1608., “a person's status was vested at birth, and based upon place of birth--a person born within the king's dominion owed allegiance to the sovereign, and in turn, was entitled to the king's protection" (Calvins Case 1608)

The Supreme court before the Civil Rights Act ruled on this issue. "All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country…since as before the Revolution." United States v. Rhodes, 27 Fed. Cas. 785 (1866).


Historically, there is an example of Automatically grant American citizenship to children born in New York City between July 4, 1776 and September 15, 1776, Even when this child was born to French citizens.

In Fact, in the NY Supeme Court case of Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor

" "Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.."

How, exactly, is it isolationist to want to prevent people who are here illegally from giving birth to a child that magically becomes a citizen? An isolationist would want to shut down the border completely and not allow any immigrants or visitors in, nor trade with other countries, and in extreme cases not even want to diplomatically talk with other governments.

Wanting to put an end to anchor babies is hardly isolationist, or controversial for that matter. A lot of people support that, probably because it makes sense in a welfare State.

Actually, it is, because he is in favor of making it harder for people who arent American from becomming American citizens. Can you define Isolationism for me? you know like i asked. Just cuz i want to be SURE that we are working from the same definition.

"Ancor babies" ... code for stripping the citizenship of children based upon who their parents are flies directly in the face of established American policy for the entire history (including colonial history) of America.

Rand Paul may not be aware of other countries that give rights based on birth but here are a few who do it.

Brazil
Canada
Pakistan
France

India abolished theirs, Britain changed theirs 1983 Ireland Changed theirs in 2005. It was once the case that ALL ex British colonies had the concept of a child born on the soil was a subject of the King.

America has never been a country of objective nationality. It has never based citizenship on the based on blood, race or language (the traditional definition of nationhood ... i forgot by who but he was German) Instead, it is based on the British concept of nationality ( a country that was invaded and the nationalities intermixed totally four separete times in their history before the unification of Britain) and a concept of Common Wealth.

[CoLD_KiLL]

The Constitution should be re-written and changed every 100 years IMO ( At least ). People change with the times...If we keep living in the past then how will we ever advance as a society?

Every generation is different. The rules shouldn't be exactly the same for me as they were for my great great Grandfather. ( Similar to how Stinger feels regarding Peace Treaties and such )

I honestly wish more politicians would support amending parts of the Constitution more often.

[reedard]

Honestly, I prefer Ayn Rand.

[Stinger]

Its just historically inaccurate, but to me it seems like, oh i dont know, another isolationist attempt to prevent people who were born here from becoming citizens.

It's to prevent people who are here illegally from giving birth to an American citizen. This is the dumbest policy that ever existed, especially in such a heavy welfare State. It was not the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

The Media didnt care about Ron Paul because Ron Paul was as legitimate of a presidental candidate as Al Sharpton.

Right. Because we all know Al Sharpton broke fund-raising records, won the majority of straw polls, and practically every after debate poll. The MSM did everything it could to smear and discredit Ron Paul and his supporters. Lie, after lie, after lie. It was some of the worse reporting ever.

Rand ACTUALLY SAID "I'm not opposed to letting people come in and work and labor in our country, but I think what we should do is we shouldn't provide an easy route to citizenship. A lot of this is about demographics. If you look at new immigrants from Mexico, they register three to one Democrat, so the Democratic Party is for easy citizenship and allowing them to vote. I think we need to address that."

There's nothing wrong with that statement. Easy citizenship being amnesty, illegals giving birth to citizens and then getting to stay themselves (because who is going to separate a child from its mother?). I'm quite sure Rand is like his father and would like to see the actual process to become a legal citizen made a little easier.

If a child is born on the land then he is born into the contract. He is bound by the laws and his obligations are established. America is based on soil not blood.

This is nonsense.

The 14 Ammendment was just the constitutionalizing of The Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Look! Rand Paul hates another Civil rights act ... Hmmm lol im kidding) The act declared that all persons born in the United States were now citizens, without regard to race, color, or previous condition.

This allowed people who were the slaves to gain citizenship, and thus not citizens, and the children of the european immigrants which had been flooding the east coast for 50 years.

"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

As Senator Jacob Howard said: "[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

Of course we can't expect people involved in the actual writing process to know what they actually meant. So like when John Conyers says government healthcare is constitutional under the "good and welfare clause" we are to pay no attention to what "general welfare" actually was or what James Madison said about it.

" "Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.."

People who are here legally. You don't have to be a citizen to legally be in this country. This statement does not refer to running across the border illegally to pop out a child.

Actually, it is, because he is in favor of making it harder for people who arent American from becomming American citizens.

No, he's just against women hopping the border illegally and giving birth to a legal citizen of the US. That's what he's against; and it does make sense, especially economically in our welfare State.

Can you define Isolationism for me? you know like i asked. Just cuz i want to be SURE that we are working from the same definition.

As I said, isolationism involves being against all immigration (not just illegal), not trading with other nations, not talking with other nations. Rand Paul is none of these things.

"Ancor babies" ... code for stripping the citizenship of children based upon who their parents are flies directly in the face of established American policy for the entire history (including colonial history) of America.

No, it's "code" for the process of illegally crossing the border to give birth to a baby that becomes a US citizen and therefore allows the mother to stay in the country and suck on the welfare State tit. It's an economic disaster. It's not "stripping the citizenship" of anyone.

It was once the case that ALL ex British colonies had the concept of a child born on the soil was a subject of the King.

And then they transformed into a welfare State and realized it didn't make sense because it cannot be afforded.

America has never been a country of objective nationality. It has never based citizenship on the based on blood, race or language (the traditional definition of nationhood ... i forgot by who but he was German) Instead, it is based on the British concept of nationality ( a country that was invaded and the nationalities intermixed totally four separete times in their history before the unification of Britain) and a concept of Common Wealth.

Yeah, tell that to the slaves who were not citizens but where instead property. Dred Scott says hello and sends a big fuck you to the oracles in the black robes that make up the Supreme Court.

[Irishsara]

I have to go to work, I dont have time to go through the rest of this but I promise i will.

" "Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.."

People who are here legally..

Prove it, show me a case in common law where a child was refused citizenship. Show me something from the 1600s- the 1800s in common law that makes that distinction. … Oh wait you cant, Britian had to pass huge legislation in the 1980s to make that distinction.

You don't have to be a citizen to legally be in this country. This statement does not refer to running across the border illegally to pop out a child.

.

yes it does, it refers to ALL children, it doesn’t make the distinction, even if you disagree with it, the HISTORY of the issue does not. Ive shown you the history of the Issue, In order for England to do what you are talking about they had to change the rules of their Common Law, if it was in ancent British common law then they wouldn’t have to. YOU are making a distinction that was not made in British or American history.

As Senator Jacob Howard said: "[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

.

This is a legitimate distinction, Now let me bold the important parts and explain the contex.


Senator Jacob Howard said: "[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

That is the important part. It doesn’t say OR but it makes reference to diplomats. Do you know why this is? Its an important part of International Law and Jurisprudence. Diplomats are immune to the law of their territory thus not born under the law.

In Early British common law, an ‘alien’, or foreign born resident, was seen as unable to revoke their relationship with their place of birth.

before 1705 English common law foreign-born individuals could not become citizens through any procedure or ceremony BUT their children born here established that connection because they were born under British Law.

Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Common Law (Sir William Blackstone was the third most quoted source of the United States Founding Fathers. He was quoted more then John Locke)
“Allegiance, both express and implied, is however distinguished by the law into two sorts or species, the one natural, the other local; the former being also perpetual, the latter temporary. Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king's dominions immediately upon their birth. For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king's protection; at a time too, when (during their infancy) they are incapable of protecting themselves.”

The Children of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations are exempt from the laws of the country. Diplomatic immunity extends to their children. Therefore they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the country.

So you are wrong.

Here is the rest of my response.

It's to prevent people who are here illegally from giving birth to an American citizen. This is the dumbest policy that ever existed, especially in such a heavy welfare State. It was not the original intent of the 14th Amendment. .

Yeah it was. The original intent of the fourth amendment was to make it so there would be no political exceptions to the Jus Soil concept. From which all of our citizenship rights are based.

There's nothing wrong with that statement. Easy citizenship being amnesty, illegals giving birth to citizens and then getting to stay themselves (because who is going to separate a child from its mother?). I'm quite sure Rand is like his father and would like to see the actual process to become a legal citizen made a little easier. .

Rand Paul supports current Immigration laws. Rand Paul wants to militarize the southern boarder. Rand Paul wants to eliminate state sponsored bi-lingualness in schools, hospitals, and police stations. He supports making English the national language. That is what he actually supports on Immigration.

If a child is born on the land then he is born into the contract. He is bound by the laws and his obligations are established. America is based on soil not blood.
This is nonsense. .

Nonsense? Prove it? Show me legal examples, show me historical examples. I have shown you examples in this argument on what the founders of our country believed, what they based those beliefs on, and finally how they ruled on it in court. You just say its nonsense.

"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

As Senator Jacob Howard said: "[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

Of course we can't expect people involved in the actual writing process to know what they actually meant. So like when John Conyers says government healthcare is constitutional under the "good and welfare clause" we are to pay no attention to what "general welfare" actually was or what James Madison said about it. .

Wait … Illegal immigrants are not subject to US law? They have Diplomatic immunity and are above the territorial law? Then its illegal to deport them. They are not under the jurisdiction of the United States. I know I cover this above but before you quote something you should make sure you have the right context.

" "Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.."

People who are here legally. You don't have to be a citizen to legally be in this country. This statement does not refer to running across the border illegally to pop out a child. .

Prove it. How does this statement not cover illegal immigrants. The children of aliens … The children of Immigrants. I don’t see where it disallows the children of illegal immigrants. I don’t see where the distinction is made in that phrase or in any of the source documents.

Can you define Isolationism for me? you know like i asked. Just cuz i want to be SURE that we are working from the same definition.
As I said, isolationism involves being against all immigration (not just illegal), not trading with other nations, not talking with other nations. Rand Paul is none of these things. .

So Rand Paul is against international treaties and trade treaties. Rand Paul is against overseas involvement. Rand Paul is for a national language and agree with strict immigration policies and wants to make them stricter. Sounds like an isolationist to me. I mean sure you can call it something else to avoid the WWII taint. Like calling Communism Utopian Socialism. I know what you are talking about.

"Ancor babies" ... code for stripping the citizenship of children based upon who their parents are flies directly in the face of established American policy for the entire history (including colonial history) of America.
No, it's "code" for the process of illegally crossing the border to give birth to a baby that becomes a US citizen and therefore allows the mother to stay in the country and suck on the welfare State tit. It's an economic disaster. It's not "stripping the citizenship" of anyone. .

Illegal Immigrants are not eligible for welfare. Those children are though …because they are citizens. Illegal immigrants are not eligible for social security either but they pay more than $7 billion a year. In taxes for money they will never receive.

Yeah, tell that to the slaves who were not citizens but where instead property. Dred Scott says hello and sends a big fuck you to the oracles in the black robes that make up the Supreme Court. .

So you equate Slaves rights to the children of Illegal immigrants ? Slaves were not people in the eyes of the law. Are you suggesting that Illegal immigrants and their children are not people in the eyes of American Law. It seems to be what you are suggesting. That they are not equal for breaking the law. Are you saying that anyone who breaks the law could be deprived of their rights? Are you saying that if your parents break the law then you can be stripped of your rights? Because that is what you are saying. Rand Paul is arguing that the Constitution be changed to strip someone of their rights because of actions committed by their parents. The 14 Ammendment was created to give citizenship rights to those born in the Untied States regardless of who their parents were. Yeah that sounds right to me.

[Stinger]

You have an obsession with "common law" and "social contract" don't you?

I fail to see what common law has to do with Rand Paul's position. First you use another MSNBC contrived "controversy" to somehow try and portray Rand Paul as not being for the Constitution, or a defender of it, because he wants to "rewrite" it. And then somehow we jump to the 1600's, as if it is relevant at all to Dr. Paul's, and indeed many other American's, position on illegal birthright citizenship today.

How did we get on this? The answer of course is quite obvious to anyone else reading this thread.

To summarize how we got to this point:

Irishsara: Rand Paul says he values the Constitution but really wants to rewrite it... quote the 14th Amendment... How is Rand Paul a defender of the Constitution?

Stinger: A lot of people think that birthright citizenship to illegals should end. Paul wants to amend the Constitution to make that distinction. Amending the Constitution is constitutional.

Irishsara: It's historically inaccurate and seems like isolationism to me... common law in 1608 says this...

So you know, work with me here Sara because I'm still trying to process how Rand Paul thinking something should end, via Amendment obviously, is "historically inaccurate"... leads to this quasi history lesson on the common law that no one was arguing against from a historical perspective.

Do you wish to discuss the constitutionality of ending birthright citizenship to children born to illegal immigrants, or continue talking about what was going on in the 1600's in Britain, as if it is relevant to Paul's position in 2010?

Nevertheless, I'll continue on and address your previous post.

Prove it, show me a case in common law where a child was refused citizenship. Show me something from the 1600s- the 1800s in common law that makes that distinction. … Oh wait you cant, Britian had to pass huge legislation in the 1980s to make that distinction.

yes it does, it refers to ALL children, it doesn’t make the distinction, even if you disagree with it, the HISTORY of the issue does not. Ive shown you the history of the Issue, In order for England to do what you are talking about they had to change the rules of their Common Law, if it was in ancent British common law then they wouldn’t have to. YOU are making a distinction that was not made in British or American history.

No, I'm making the distinction that what you quoted...

"Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.."

... can easily be interpreted to not include children born to parents who are in the country illegally. The phrase "while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto" implies, to me, parents who are legally in a country. And as I have said, you can be in a country, a resident of a country, legally without being a citizen of that country.

We can look at US vs. Wong Kim Ark for this.

The ruling being: "a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth."

"Who are subjects of a foreign power..." - meaning the parents are non-US citizens.

"But who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States..." - meaning are in the country legally (a domicile being a legal residence).

Again though, all of this is completely irrelevant to today, particularly where it concerns supporting a Constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship to the children of people who are in the country illegally.

Yeah it was. The original intent of the fourth amendment was to make it so there would be no political exceptions to the Jus Soil concept. From which all of our citizenship rights are based.

The original intent of the 14th Amendment concerned blacks, the former slaves and their descendants.

As Senator Saulsbury said:

"I do not presume that anyone will pretend to disguise the fact that the object of this first section is simply to declare that negroes shall be citizens of the United States. There can be no other object in it, I presume, than a further extension of the legislative kindness and beneficence of Congress toward that class of people."

I find it quite laughable that anyone can assume their intent at the time was anything more than outlined in the above quote concerning the blacks. Which was essentially a commentary on the big argument regarding whether or not it made citizens out of the "wild Indians" as being a waste of time because it's intent is "simply to declare the negroes shall be citizens".

Rand Paul supports current Immigration laws. Rand Paul wants to militarize the southern boarder. Rand Paul wants to eliminate state sponsored bi-lingualness in schools, hospitals, and police stations. He supports making English the national language. That is what he actually supports on Immigration.

I'm familiar with his stance on the issues, yes. Again, none of this has anything to do with making the actual process of becoming a legal citizen easier (instead of taking years, which encourages illegal immigration, as Rand no doubt knows).

And I disagree, in theory, with some of his stances on immigration and the border. I'm more of an open-borders guy, again in theory. But I see nothing wrong with securing the border, or "militarizing" it as you call it. You seem to be all for securing and defending the borders of other countries, so why shouldn't America's be secured?

That's just a question to you, I'm personally opposed to fences and checkpoints.

Nonsense? Prove it? Show me legal examples, show me historical examples. I have shown you examples in this argument on what the founders of our country believed, what they based those beliefs on, and finally how they ruled on it in court. You just say its nonsense.

Nonsense, what contract are you referring too? Is it that "social contract" again? What, exactly, did our Founding Fathers believe? It's nonsense because you are completely hung up on what your government masters decree and the all powerful courts rule.

Again, this has nothing to do with Rand Paul and amending the Constitution somehow being unconstitutional.

I know I cover this above but before you quote something you should make sure you have the right context.

If my interpretation of what he said is wrong, then I will apologize for using it incorrectly. But I would then maybe suggest that you follow your own advice, since I seem to recall you quoting "provide for the general Welfare of the United States" on the previous board as the clause that makes entitlement programs and government healthcare constitutional.

So Rand Paul is against international treaties and trade treaties.

Where did Rand Paul say he was against international treaties? "Free trade agreements" sure, because he understands there's nothing "free trade" about things like NAFTA. He's for actual free trade.

Rand Paul is against overseas involvement.

Talk about using right context, geez. He's against overseas military interventionism... aka world policing and nation building. He's not against overseas involvement. That's a dishonest statement.

Rand Paul is for a national language and agree with strict immigration policies and wants to make them stricter.

Rand Paul favors English in government documents, hardly a national language. Paul could careless what language you speak. Prove how he wants to make legal immigration more strict.

Sounds like an isolationist to me.

I'm sure it does.

I know what you are talking about.

Of course you do.

Illegal Immigrants are not eligible for welfare. Those children are though …because they are citizens. Illegal immigrants are not eligible for social security either but they pay more than $7 billion a year. In taxes for money they will never receive.

Haha. Right, and the government only wants what is best for you.

So you equate Slaves rights to the children of Illegal immigrants?

No, just pointing out the absurdity in your love for all things Supreme Court rulings and the notion that American law has never cared about citizenship on the basis of race or who ones parents were. Native Americans weren't citizens until the 1920s, to say nothing of blacks who were born here who the Supreme Court ruled could not be citizens.

Slaves were not people in the eyes of the law.

I know. That was of course bullshit... government bullshit.

Are you suggesting that Illegal immigrants and their children are not people in the eyes of American Law.

That is exactly what I'm suggesting.

Oh wait, nope, I don't believe anything in my post suggested that.

It seems to be what you are suggesting. That they are not equal for breaking the law.

I don't know how you came to that conclusion from the quoted section.

Are you saying that anyone who breaks the law could be deprived of their rights?

No, I don't believe I said that. How do you arrive at that conclusion from a post that is mocking the Supreme Court (and American government or law) for ruling that a "free" black man couldn't be a citizen?

Are you saying that if your parents break the law then you can be stripped of your rights?

You're reading an awful lot into that little bit if you can see all of this.

Of course I don't think that, nor did I say it.

Because that is what you are saying.

No, what I said was:

"Yeah, tell that to the slaves who were not citizens but where instead property. Dred Scott says hello and sends a big fuck you to the oracles in the black robes that make up the Supreme Court."

The rest of that stuff you mentioned, you clearly imagined.

Rand Paul is arguing that the Constitution be changed to strip someone of their rights because of actions committed by their parents.

What "rights" does he want to strip someone of?

The 14 Ammendment was created to give citizenship rights to those born in the Untied States regardless of who their parents were.

"...is simply to declare that negroes shall be citizens of the United States."

What are these citizenship "rights" that you keep mentioning?

[FearlessVampireKiller]

You know, it's usually best to avoid the word "unconstitutional" (except in those cases where it's actually, ya know, true, but those are surprisingly few). It's a loaded word, it carries a lot of meanings you might not necessarily think about, and the Constitution is a surprisingly complex and ambiguous document at times, as evidenced by, ya know, the entire history of the Supreme Court.

So, rather than say "Rand Paul's policies are unconstitutional", let's just sub in the word "stupid", "Rand Paul's policies are stupid." Or "short-sighted", "naive", "ill-conceived", "extremist", "bewildering", or occasionally just plain "crazy". That works. No need to wrangle Supreme Court decisions over the matter, a dumb idea is a dumb idea, whether it works within the frame of the Constitution or not.

[Irishsara]

You mistake United States v. Wong Kim Ark because you dont understand the definition of Domicile as it stood for the court.

I hate to do this. I really do. Again, its all about context. Do you know what the 1866 definition of Domicile is? The legal definition?

In Associate Supreme Court Justice Story Justice Story said in 1841 that domicile is "where one has his true, fixed, permanent home ... to which, whenever he is absent, he has the intention of returning"; it is "that place ... in which one's habitation is fixed, without any present intention of moving therefrom.” This definition was used in cases by the same supreme court. Ennis v. Smith, 55 U.S. 400 (1852).

There is no legal immigration standard on creating a legal domicile. Just two things. : residence and the intention of making it the home of the individuals.

You are Wrong. The orthodox view of the Amendment is Constitutional, for if it was just to bestow citizenship on the children of ex negro slaves, then they would have done so. Instead they took a right already existing in American Jurisprudence and gave it undeniable voice.

Ill get to the rest later but I have to work.

According to the most recent poll holds a six-point lead, 51% to 45%, in the race to replace retiring Sen. Jim Bunning and there is still a good bit undecided. His lead is within the margin of error. Rand Paul is not "way ahead" by any means.


Rand Paul is not a libertarian on all issues

Libertarians are PRO CHOICE

"The government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration" - Official Platform of the National Libertarian Party.

I am sorry if i confused people. I did not do the research.

Rand Paul, on the other hand, Supports a Pro Life constitutional amendment and wants to restrict Court power on the issue.

I am not sure he can do this ... legally ... but this is what he said ...

"I would strongly support legislation restricting federal courts from hearing cases like Roe v. Wade. Such legislation would only require a majority vote, making it more likely to pass than a pro-life constitutional amendment."

See, i was under the assumption that a check on the power of the Congress was the courts. I mean the Congress cannot block cases from the federal and supreme courts ... right?


So I was checking out Rand Paul's website ... Paul wants to shred funding to public schools, and cutting taxes so that “parents can allocate more of their own funds to homeschooling.” Do you people really think Homeschooling is the answer to the education problem?

[Irishsara]

Rand Paul is not considered Board Certified by the AMA.

Rand Paul does not hold AMA certification to practice medicine, according to the American Medical Association.

Kentucky doesn’t require doctors to be board certified to practice but He refers to himself as a Board Certified Physician. He is not an AMA board Certified Physician.

Its a bit like saying that you served America during the Vietnam war when, in reality, you were in the Texas National guard. Technically its true but it is misleading.