- He oppose environmental and conservation laws on the grounds that such issues should be dealt with by tort litigation based on property rights. However, he supports tort reform (particularly by states) that would limit exactly such litigation.
- As Wikipedia notes, "Paul also states that he has an opposition to virtually all federal interference with the market process, even though he has inserted Congressional earmarks that specifically direct spending into such projects, including the aforementioned projects which appropriated millions of dollars for the renovation of a defunct movie theater and millions in subsidies for the American wild shrimp industry as well as Federal spending to improve shipping in Texas."
- On a wide range of issues, Rep. Paul believes that states should not be limited by the Bill of Rights. On other issues, such as gun rights (2nd Amendment), internet regulation, eminent domain, etc., he believes that states are limited by the Bill of Rights. Similarly, although he argues for "states rights" to legislate on almost all issues, he has supported overriding federal laws on a wide range of issues including ballot access, health care, abortion, mental health care, welfare, immigration, and family law.
- Rep. Paul has argued vehemently against a border fence, but voted for voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, authorizing an additional 700 miles (1100 kilometers) of double-layered fencing between the U.S. and Mexico.
There are more (and I could be more specifc), but I honestly can't be bothered. Anyone who looks at Rep. Paul's various positions should recognize that many of his positions are simply convenient ways to impose a conservative, religious agenda couched in libertarian language. Letting the states run wild on issues does not maximize freedom -- it allows the states to be authoritarian. Rep. Paul conveniently insists, however, that states be curbed in their authority on specific areas where it is likely that states would do something he oppose.
But really, just look at the "We the People" Act, Ron Paul's legislative baby:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.539: wrote:SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.
The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--
(1) shall not adjudicate--
[blocktext](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; and[/blocktext]
(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).
SEC. 4. REGULATION OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
The Supreme Court of the United States and all other Federal courts--
(1) are not prevented from determining the constitutionality of any Federal statute or administrative rule or procedure in considering any case arising under the Constitution of the United States; and
(2) shall not issue any order, final judgment, or other ruling that appropriates or expends money, imposes taxes, or otherwise interferes with the legislative functions or administrative discretion of the several States and their subdivisions.
SEC. 6. MATERIAL BREACHES OF GOOD BEHAVIOR AND REMEDY.
A violation by a justice or a judge of any of the provisions of section 3 or 4 shall be an impeachable offense, and a material breach of good behavior subject to removal by the President of the United States according to rules and procedures established by the Congress.
SEC. 7. CASES DECIDED UNDER ISSUES REMOVED FROM FEDERAL JURISDICTION NO LONGER BINDING PRECEDENT.
Any decision of a Federal court, to the extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under section 3, is not binding precedent on any State court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Public_religious_expression wrote:He rejects the notion of "separation of Church and state",
He's a theocrat, make no mistake about it.
Now, you may agree with that and that's your prerogative, but at least be honest about it.
And for someone who claims to care about the constitution (I really can't take goldbugs at all seriously), he sure seems to hate the 1st, 14th, and 16th amendments, and openly wants to repeal the 17th.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_the_Peo ... People_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_le ... egislation
Both of those weaken the 1st and 14th.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislation_sponsored_by_Ron_Paul#Borders_and_immigration wrote:Birthright citizenship: H.J.Res. 46, 2007-06-13, originally H.J.Res. 46, 2005-04-28. Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States.
Also weakens the 14th.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ ... esentation
Public call for the repeal of the 17th.
Are we done here?