I stated that some of Ron Paul's ideas (specifically dealing with States' rights) are unconstitutional. He said to prove it. I did.
you haven't proved much. you mentioned stare decisis but fail to mention the SCOTUS was set up to be the weakest of the 3 judicial branches. Quite a few people disagree withe ruling since a ruling judge should have recused himself. Another example of power going to someones head.
I'm all for States' rights.
The problem is that the Constitution clearly specifies that the Feds trump States' laws.
no it doesn't, it states the Feds have specific (enumerated) duties The Federalist papers tell us this. General Welfare is a mission statementnothing more than "Go where no man has gone before" It doesn't mean carte blanche for Congress. Otherwise why have the listed specific and enumerated powers?
The other problem is this question, "Why States' rights and not municipal rights?"
why is that a problem?
I'd like to see the Federal Government relax quite a few things and spend less money. These two things can be done within the contructs of the Constitution. Ron Paul's ideas are outside of the framework established by the Constitution and interpreted by the SCOTUS.
incorrect you've mis spoken again
if you thing the interstate commerce clause was for the feds to regulate commerce you dont get the idea behind the foundation of the Constitution. The commerce clause has been interpreted more and more broadly which was against the founders wishes.
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes
Meaning the commerce which takes place between states. Regulating the Commerce between the States implies only the right to create standard procedures that will control the way the States deal with each other.
If we want to scrap the Constitution and start over, argue that point. Disassembling our entire system can not be done the way that Ron Paul is suggesting IMHO. That's why he's not taken seriously by his opposition.
He does have several good points.
It's not disassembling our system. Its putting things back in place to where our founders wanted them.
Go back to the Federalist and Non Federalist papers
"The commerce clause gave Congress power to regulate interstate commerce not any matters that have significant spillover effects across state lines. The Constitutional Convention rejected the wording of the Virginia Plan, which arguably would have let the Federal government regulate any activity with interstate spillover. In other words, the Founders made the deliberate decision to leave many activities with spillover effects to the states."
