Rep. Ron Paul did not sign the Congressional Amicus Brief

[Purplehood]

Ron Paul is trying to stand firmly atop a slope down which we have already slipped 80% of the way.

While I agree with the states' rights argument, it appears that states' rights was effectively abolished in 1865, and if we didn't get the point then, any illusion of functional states' rights having a hope of resurrection was extinguished in 1913, oddly enough by a majority vote of the states themselves.

So since we don't have states' rights on the whole, then allowing states to restrict only specific rights in what has become a functional individual democracy is pointless and misguided, much like a lot of the Libertarian (big L) party's platform in general.

So, Dr. Paul, I will acknowledge the sincerity of your states' rights stance when I see you kick off a Constitutional Convention to revoke the 17th Amendment. Of course Ron Paul would lose his job if such a thing were to occur. And maybe call for impeachment of any senator, representative, or other government official who has gone on record in a vote to violate the 10th Amendment of the Constitution (which would most certainly deny the senate of a quorum of members who would be able to conduct the trial of the impeached members).

I tend to agree, but if we effectively granted Federal sovereignty over States rights in the past, why are we now having to cope with Incorporation?

[mr.72]

I tend to agree, but if we effectively granted Federal sovereignty over States rights in the past, why are we now having to cope with Incorporation?

I don't know. That's a good question.

However it sure is convenient to have selective Federal sovereignty over the states, according to the difference in political climate over the past century or so after the industrial revolution wherein huge population centers have come to congregate in large cities. A functional democracy is favors population centers in large cities, and therefore the will of those people is tantamount to law. In this case, the large cities are primarily populated by people opposed to the 2nd Amendment so it is convenient that not all Amendments are "incorporated".

I think the short answer is that while states' rights were being abolished, the Constitution was also being shredded. They only kept the pieces that benefit the emergent Empire.

[GaryAdrian]

I too like Ron Paul's position on some issues and disagree with him on others. However, I cannot imagine any American not wanting to extend the protections of the Bill of Rights to every citizen regardless of their state of residence. To argue some sort of states' rights position in this context is to say that it is acceptable for any individual state to deny its residents the freedom of speech and freedom of religion protected by the First Amendment, or for a state to deny the Fifth Amendment privilege to its residents. I could say the same for all of the first nine amendments. Where is the logic and principle in saying we will not allow tyranny at the federal level, but it's okay at the state level?

I certainly feel that the federal government has grossly overstepped its Constitutional authority and this should be changed, but the values represented in the Bill of Rights are the cornerstone on which this Nation was built. Reasonable minds can differ on many issues, but in my view, every American must be afforded the protection of the Bill of Rights.

Chas.

I believe that the States will all agree by the time next year comes around. Just today; Maine Attorney General Janet T. Mills and three members of Maine’s congressional delegation have joined 37 other states in asking the U.S. Supreme Court to apply its decision issued last year in the Washington, D.C., gun ban case to every municipality and state in the nation. (Bangor Daily News)
As the stone rolls down hill, it picks up speed. By the time we get to the SCOTUS hearing, Dr Paul's non signature will be moot.
We will see.