Fermer X Les cookies sont necessaires au bon fonctionnement de 24hGold.com. En poursuivant votre navigation sur notre site, vous acceptez leur utilisation.
Pour en savoir plus sur les cookies...
AnglaisFrancais
Cours Or & Argent en
Jim C.
Membre depuis mai 2012
463 commentaires - suivi par 3 personnes
3 abonnées
A laissé un commentaire sur l'article :
>Protect the Environment by Respecting Property Rights  - Ron Paul - 
Ron Paul's positions are not as clear cut as they appear. I agree wholeheartedly with this article and could leave it at that. But there is more beneath the surface of Ron Paul, much more.

Ron Paul is for individual rights -- property rights included -- or is he?

There are hints, and more than hints that his position on rights is qualified. In this Aug 11th Republican debate, Ron Paul said this in the context of State imposed mandatory heath care: "The Federal Government can't go in and and prohibit States from doing bad things." Below is the video debate. Paul's words come at approx 51.30 min into it.

http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2011/08/video-full-fox-news-republican-debate-from-ames-iowa/

Ron Paul is a State Rightists first and foremost. If a State decides to "do bad things (violate rights)" the Fed Government has no authority to prevent it. So Paul, if President, would ring his hands like Pontius Pilate and do nothing, if a state violate you or my rights. In that same debate Santorum and Bachmann argued that a State MUST abide by the rights enumerate in the Bill of Rights and the Fed Government's job is to see that States do so.

This reflects Ron Paul's criticism of Abraham Lincoln who prevented the South from leaving the Union with its slave system intact. Ron Paul would have let the South go.

Therefore Ron Paul's committment to individuals is a very qualified one.


Commenté
il y a 4484 jours
-
envoyer
Début de l'article : Last week the Supreme Court heard arguments in Sackett v.EPA, a case of blatant federal agency overreach and abuse of private property rights.Without any proof or reason, and no chance for appeal, the Environmental Protection Agency determined that a small single home lot was a “protected wetland... Lire la suite
Répondre à ce commentaire
Vous devez être connecté pour commenter un article8000 caractères max.
connectez-vous ou inscrivez-vous
Top articles