Ron Paul: Civil Rights Act of 1964 'Destroyed' Privacy

[Galraedia]

WASHINGTON -- Despite recent accusations of racism and homophobia, Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) stuck to his libertarian principles on Sunday, criticizing the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it "undermine[d] the concept of liberty" and "destroyed the principle of private property and private choices."

"If you try to improve relationships by forcing and telling people what they can't do, and you ignore and undermine the principles of liberty, then the government can come into our bedrooms," Paul told Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union." "And that's exactly what has happened. Look at what's happened with the PATRIOT Act. They can come into our houses, our bedrooms our businesses ... And it was started back then."

The Civil Rights Act repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws; forced schools, bathrooms and buses to desegregate; and banned employment discrimination. Although Paul was not around to weigh in on the landmark legislation at the time, he had the chance to cast a symbolic vote against it in 2004, when the House of Representatives took up a resolution "recognizing and honoring the 40th anniversary of congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." Paul was the only member who voted "no."

Paul explained that while he supports the fact that the legislation repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws, which forced racial segregation, he believes it is the government, not the people, that causes racial tensions by passing overreaching laws that institutionalize slavery and segregation. Today's race problems, he said, result from the war on drugs, the flawed U.S. court system and the military.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/01/ron-paul-civil-rights-act_n_1178688.html

[Whisp]

1. fuck'im, fuck Ron Paul.

what an ugly little man

[treestar]

2. This is common right wing mess

The government had to step in. The free market was obviously not working. Racists don't have the right to use their property as they see fit to total extent - they couldn't have a meth lab there - so they can't use it to be racist by excluding people based on race.

[Muskypundit]

10. And this is where Ron Paul is hillariously principled

Because he thinks you should be allowed to have a meth lab on your property.

[Spazito]

11. LOL, provided, of course, you bought the property from...

a corporation who can charge whatever price they wish for said property and providing you bought the ingredients from a corporation that can charge whatever they wish and, because there would be no regulations imposed upon said company regarding health and safety, if the product is tainted you would have neither healthcare, unless you bought it from a corporation that (you know the rest), nor any right to sue the said corporation.

It is hilarious but "principled", ummmmm, don't think so.

[MH1]

12. well yeah, because that's what Libertarianism is about.

let people be completely free to f*ck over other people; the government is not allowed to step in.

Particularly, the part the repubs like, is let people form whatever groups they want (aka corporations), to exploit other people however they'd like, without any regulation from the government at all.

The anti drug war stance is just part of the anti government package.

He probably would even reduce regulations on pharmaceuticals, or OTC drugs at least, so you wouldn't even know for sure what you were getting.

[AlbertCat]

21. He probably would even reduce regulations on pharmaceuticals, or OTC drugs at least...

But he still wants women to let the government tell them what to do with their wombs.


He's a fraud.

[MH1]

32. Yes, fraud is the word.

Amazing that so many people want to overlook that.

[Drunken Irishman]

38. In Ron Paul's America...

It would be perfectly acceptable for a privatized fire department to deny services to a black family.

And in Ron Paul's America, the fire department and other services would be privatized.

So, you do the math...

[TheMastersNemesis]

3. Outrageous Jerk

If I were really that religious I would say God curse his soul. Probably does not have one. And his son is more evil than he is. And he's a Senator?

[greatauntoftriplets]

4. Unbelievable.

Yet there it is in black and white.

[Spazito]

5. Yeah, he is all about private choices as long as it is white people, white men....

making those choices.

He's all for the civil rights of white men and corporations, and white men and corporations only.

When it comes to a woman's right to privacy, however, he not only wants to "come into our bedrooms" he wants to have full control of our womb.

Ron Paul is a racist, homophobic, antisemitic, misogynistic piece of scum.

[Jennicut]

14. He really makes no sense. Its okay for some of us to have rights but

not others. It is bad for government to get involved unless it is something he doesn't approve of (like abortions). The man isn't even a true libertarian, he is an abomination.

[Spazito]

16. "he is an abomination"

exactly! He IS an abomination, without exception. There is NOTHING redeeming about him or his views, both are loathsome, imo.

[MFrohike]

7. Privacy isn't enumerated in the Constitution

Thus, by his own logic, he should shut the fuck up.

[AtheistCrusader]

17. The Bill of Rights are Constitutional Amendments.

An extension, and part of the Constitution itself.

You might want to read amendment #4. He is correct on that score.

[MFrohike]

18. You might want to use a search function

You will not find the word privacy in the 4th amendment. It has been read in by reference to the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Privacy is an inferred right, not an explicit one. I did not say I disagree with that reasoning. I am simply stating how it was derived and its existence.

The above being said, I was making a joke at Ron's expense. Given that he is such a "constitutionalist" and is obsessed with only carrying out the enumerated functions and rights of government and the people, respectively, it was absurd for him to argue on the grounds of privacy when a typical "constitutionalist" argument is that the word privacy is never used in the constitution.

In summary, Ron Paul is not right and neither are you.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. Bullshit.

It is shorthand, just like the 'wall of separation' in the First Amendment, which is also, 'not there' but accurately describes its function.

Seriously, I've had this damn discussion with the 'This is a Christian Nation' nuts enough times on the same lines. No, it doesn't specifically SAY privacy, but it specifically and generally protects multiple aspects of privacy, and is referred to as such in umpteen supreme court decisions.

"'Privacy' is a broad, abstract and ambiguous concept." (Griswold vs. Connecticut, Hugo Black)

[MFrohike]

22. Get a sense of humor

Seriously. I made a bad joke at Ron Paul's expense and you're taking it way too seriously.

Read the 2d paragraph of my previous reply. Then take a deep breath and realize that I'm pointing out that Ron Paul is an idiot. Then laugh.

[AtheistCrusader]

23. Fair enough.

I did not read your first post as a joke. Same team. My bad.

[MFrohike]

26. It's cool

If what I'm saying isn't clear, that's my fault.

[Taitertots]

29. "Wall of separation" is not in the First Amendment

"Privacy" isn't in the Fourth Amendment. It specifically says that the government can search and seize your possessions as long as it is reasonable and supported by probable cause.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. Try and keep up.

[Galraedia]

8. Proof that Ron Paul is AGAINST privacy

Ron Paul seeks to shrink the federal government to minimal size not because it intrudes in the lives of individuals, but because it stands in the way of allowing the states and localities to enact laws as they see fit -- even laws that govern people's behavior in their bedrooms.

Here's what Paul published on the Web site of Lew Rockwell -- allegedly one of the authors of his racist, homophobic newsletters -- about the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas that struck down the state's anti-sodomy laws, which prohibited sex between men:
"Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment 'right to privacy.' Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights—rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas."~Ron Paul

[ashling]

28. If RP is so "principled" about no "government"

those principles should also extend to state government as well - it is "government" as much as the national "government"

[jenmito]

9. So what??? We should SUPPORT him because he's

not Obama!

[Democrats_win]

13. Why doesn't he insist that the land these businesses occupy be returned to Native Americans?

It was, after all, largely the government, that took this land in the first place. It was governments that subsidized the post-Columbus invasion of America.

The real problem with libertarianism is when should the government's authority begin and when should it end. It always seems to allow the crooked rich people to do whatever they like and the rest suffer unbelievable injustices. Libertarianism stands on the side of injustice and there can be no true freedom without justice and consequences for evil men like Ron Paul.

[MineralMan]

15. Paul: "Them what has get to make the rules. Them what ain't

get to follow the rules." This is the libertarian creed. According to it, you should be able to do anything you damn well wish to anyone. Let 'em sue you if they don't like it. He who has the best lawyers prevails.

[AlbertCat]

19. And Manifest Destiny, Ron?

What are your thoughts on that?










On second thought... never mind. Who cares what a nut like you thinks?

[demigoddess]

25. Is he crazy or just brain-dead?

Want to bet on how fast his Alzheimer's is diagnosed. He doesn't make any sense to me.

[SixthSense]

27. this part is hard to disagree with

"Today's race problems, he said, result from the war on drugs, the flawed U.S. court system and the military."

The war on drugs + disparate charging and sentencing practices are the main institution of racism in the US today. Not sure what the military part is about, unless he's referring to the fact that our default posture with respect to nonwhite nations is "do what we say or we will bomb you".

[CreekDog]

35. broken clock?

because i he's wrong on everything else and often his positions like this one that *seem right* aren't all that great upon further inspection.

[spanone]

30. another dangerous republican clown wanting to foist his bullshit on america

[bemildred]

31. See, this is why I'm not really worried about him getting elected.

He has a loose mouth and a loose connection to the real world.

[Botany]

33. Ron Paul's America

Nothing wrong w/ this picture because you wouldn't want "dark lips"
close to where "white lips" might be because that would spoil privacy
of bigots who think and teach that brain rotting hate.

[provis99]

34. access to abortion is founded on the right to privacy.

he complains our privacy is being violated, but the one right definitely founded on the right to privacy is something he's against.

Make up your mind Paul, you fucking douche.

[awoke_in_2003]

36. I saw this little interview...

this guy has some serious screws loose.

[JenniferJuniper]

37. "States Rights" trump civil rights and human rights in this little man's world view.

For example, he's on record saying that abortion is genocide. Yet he also thinks states should be allowed to make their own rules regarding abortion availability or restriction. Ergo, if individual states wish to engage in genocide, it should be fine with the Federal government.

He's also lied about the beginnings of the Civil War and views Lincoln as the aggressor who started the war over slavery, when of course it was the South who opted out of union over the result of the 1860 presidential election. The little toad no doubt thinks the Southern states should have been allowed to keep their slaves in peace.

[Zoeisright]

39. Wow, he really is an absolute pig.

Apologies to pigs.

Fuck you, Paul, and all your followers.

[krispos42]

40. "then the government can come into our bedrooms", complains the anti-abortion candidate