Jump to content
Danny Tanner

Rand Paul's Civil Rights Debacle

Recommended Posts

Why isn't there a thread on this?

 

In brief, Rand has voiced opposition to the desegregation mandate of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as applied to private businesses.

 

Opinions?

Edited by Danny Tanner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its not exactly a free market if not everyone is free to participate in said market.

 

Mr. Paul is free to have whatever views he wants, but he should also take responsibility for the implications of putting those views into practice. he doesnt seem willing to do that, and yet wants to be one of 100 people out of 300 million in this country who get to be in the US Senate. awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, there are some interesting discussions here.

 

I am curious about the libertarian interest in Rand Paul. I mean, he's pro-life, anti-gay marriage, against drug legalization (I understand that includes being against marijuana drug legalization, well his views here seem murky and contradictory), he is opposed to closing gitmo. I know he is opposed to the patriot act, and said he would have voted against the war in iraq. I dunno, he just doesn't seem that much more libertarian that a standard conservative, populist candidate. Am I missing something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm generally dubious about folks who call themselves, "Libertarian," until I've actually heard some of their views. I think, in large part, the label of libertarian has become politically useful for a lot of conservatives trying to distance themselves from a party that they find middling. Even the Republicans hate the Republicans.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, he doesn't identify as a libertarian, but as a republican.

 

 

I know. My post was in your response to your query about his libertarian support... My suggestion was that they might not be actual libertarians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eapen, when you write this

 

I may be missing something here but it seems like Paul would concur with this line, since it would be a state/local law.

 

It should be noted that this position would only make Rand appear even less knowledgeable of the Constitution. If he thinks a desegregation mandate of businesses at the federal level is an unconstitutional violation of the 1st amendment, he cannot support it on a state or local level either. The 1st amendment is incorporated against state and local governments, meaning that they cannot pass any law that would violate the 1st amendment either. In short, "states' rights" is not applicable here. On another note, I have enjoyed reading your blogs on the matter.

Edited by Danny Tanner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How the hell is the 1st amendment applicable to desegregation?

In the Maddow interview he didn't really articulate how exactly private desegregation violates free speech, he just said something to the effect of "what about free speech?" and left it at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just in general, you have to be a pretty big asshole to talk constantly about how america is the greatest place in the world, everyone should love us, etc etc etc and at the same time be actively seeking out ways to make sure less people get to enjoy the benefits of living in this place. Shouldnt they be looking for ways to let more people come to the greatest country in the history of the world?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
on another note, his dads been saying this racist, xenophobic stuff for years and people just let it go.

 

yeah, ron has had his slipups. and his newsletter is straight from StormFront.

 

but, overall, ron seems less neo-racist than his son and more classical-hidden racist.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really know what you mean, Retired. I know Ron claimed he didn't know what was going on with his newsletter for many, many years. I've always found that as convincing as Heidegger's claim that he didn't know enough about the nazis because he was too busy studying the pre-socratics. Yeah, right, whatever.

 

But the thing is, I don't wish to visit the sins of the father on the son. Just because Rand's daddy is either a huge racist or at least perfectly willing to make money and power by appealing to racists (and really, isn't that just a difference without a distinction?), but that didn't mean his son was. And sure, Rand saying that the government shouldn't desegregate public businesses while being a doctor and thinking medicare repayments are great ideas and saying the former belief takes courage is messed up. But again, I kinda believed him when he said it wasn't a racist belief. I've known plenty of non-racist libertarians who believed the same thing. But thinking that people born in the US shouldn't be citizens, and calling it a demographic issue? Wtf? And further more, how can he call himself a constitutional conservative and believe something like that?

In a minor defense, demographic question could potentially mean simply that Hispanics vote democratic, but that has a lot more to do with comments like Rand Paul's than anything else. And it isn't clear that is what he meant with this comment, as opposed to some fairly racist understanding of a demographic issue.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And further more, how can he call himself a constitutional conservative and believe something like that?

 

Apparently, some people believe the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause of the 14th Amendment leaves room to argue that we can exclude people from citizenship even if they were born on American soil if their parents were here illegally. It seems a stretch to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apparently, some people believe the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause of the 14th Amendment leaves room to argue that we can exclude people from citizenship even if they were born on American soil if their parents were here illegally. It seems a stretch to me.

I've heard this too, and there is something of an argument there. The Citizenship Clause was designed to constitutionalize the portion of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 that gave citizenship to those born in the United States not subject to any foreign power. The illegal parents are obviously still meant to be under the power of their native country, so I guess it is arguable that the children of these foreign people should hold the same status. I can't recall the Supreme Court ever directly answering this question, either; They've said legal immigrants are under US jurisdiction United States v. Wong Kim Ark, but the question of illegal immigrants is a different question.

 

In an attempt to rationalize maybe why some people believe the children of illegal immigrants can be stripped of birthright citizenship, you could potentially cite Elk v. Wilkins and say that children of illegal immigrants are like members of Native American tribes and that simply being born in the United States is not enough given the status of the parents. There are a good number of problems with this argument, though, given the constitutional status of Native American tribes. That's the best I could come up with lol.

Edited by Monolith
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's funny, but the argument that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "infringes on the rights of businesses" was one of the initial reasons racist southern politicians opposed it in the first place, back in '64.

Edited by Marty McFly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dude, the 14th amendment was passed right after the civil war

 

my bad. I meant the Civil Rights act of 1964.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scu,

 

I think Rand is trying to appeal to racists/make money off them. Its the old wink and nod routine: "Of course I would never visit a restaurant that doesn't allow jews, but, bubba, wouldn't it be nice?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...