I didn't know this existed until a few minutes ago.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.958.IH:

This might be the most terrifying piece of legislation I've ever seen. The courts are the only branch of government whose role involves protection of the minority from the oppression of the majority. Ron Paul wants to infringe on that right. It shows a blatant disregard for how this government works and why it works that way.

This isn't a states' rights issue. This is a civil rights issue. If Paul wants to do something like this, what is to stop him from extending this idea to other matters in the future? Way back when, I used to be a Paul supporter. But over the past decade, he has slowly gone insane.

Never mind that it would be hilarious to see the courts slap down this law in about 15 minutes. Just the fact that Paul has this crazy notion in his head is frightening and is proof that he has no business being the most powerful man in the world. He might have some good ideas in other sectors (and I think he does) but this is downright scary. I can't believe that anyone could possibly think this is a good idea. It's a terrible idea by any measure.

Here's a horrifying bit of text from the bill:

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;

•  
  (B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or

•  
  (C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation;

Because federal overreach has led to people like Ron Paul fetishizing states' rights as much as leftists fetishize the federal government (if not moreso). The fact that states' rights are only as good as their contribution to freedom seems to be lost on them.

And yeah, Paul has been pushing this piece of legislation for almost a decade now.

Heh, yes. Apparently "states rights" is supposed to mean "let's allow states to oppress the minority population".

I'm totally digging the idea of Texas making homosexuality a felony and the Federal courts not being able to do a damned thing about it. I mean, that's fair, right? Right?!?!

It's all about stopping the federal government from trampling states' rights so that those states can feel free to trample the rights of their own citizenry unabated. Yee hah. America, fuck yeah.

Seems... pointless.

It passes, then is ruled unconstitutional.

Don't really get the specific things and why they're chosen...

and like I said back when Obama said gay marriage was a states rights issue...

Civil Rights are the one fucking thing that AREN'T state rights above all others.

I'd argue they aren't really federal issue either, Civil rights being something that should be free of legislation,but when shit gets in the way of civil rights, it just makes more sense for a top down approach. 

It's pretty egregious, but at least people could - and would - still vote with their feet. I'm sure Paul would allow them that much, at least, unlike that fascist fuckhead Schumer and his fucktastic EX-PATRIOT Act.

Paul is nowhere close to perfect, but sadly he is infinitely better than the vast, vast majority of politicians.

Ah the Ex-patriot act.  I can't even remember the last time there was such a vindictive stupid law proposed based on one guy leaving the country.

I said the exact same thing when Obama made that statement. Civil Rights are probably the most important issue in any nation. And those civil rights certainly cannot be regulated by state governments. It's one of the few situations in politics where the "one size fits all" concept of Federal government is not only important, but required for a nation to function.

This bill probably wouldn't even make it to the Supreme Court unless they wanted to write a really scathing memorandum on the subject. It would have an injunction placed on it and then a lower Federal court would shoot it down in about 15 minutes. Still, the mere fact that a man running for President advocates such a measure is more than enough proof that he has no business being the most powerful man in the world.

I love that act. It's hilarious and so bloody petty that you can't help but laugh at it. Without a doubt, it's a really stupid proposal. But at least it isn't really that dangerous. Unlike the We The People Act, which advocates a complete re-tooling of governmental power and how we enforce it.

I completely agree with ya rocketpig. I think it's time for progressives/libetarians or the ron paul types to talk and work out difference's. Move to get all the corporatist out. I think both have good and bad ideas but with the right amount of both, just perfect.  I don't care for his policies on The EPA, basically would allow states to make there own rules. So if your down stream from a state that says it's ok to dump oil, to bad, you got cancer.  Imagine what the oil companies would do for oil, all our drinking water would be destroyed but hey thats all good. Lets not forget the food wouldn't be properly inspected, sh-t it's already under inspected but hey lets keep giving all our money to the rich, then blame the poor. Do you know that almost all the homeless are veterans. This country is a disgrace! So are the people that love money so much(you know who you are!) that they would rather give mitt romney a tax break then give a vet that served us, a place to live.  A majority of them got all sort of disabilities from the wars but we just through them out like trash. What a disgrace.  Point and fact=

I don't really agree. I guess it's not that different from existing tax code, but the implication that the US government owns you and all your stuff anywhere on the planet is so fucking offensive.