« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

The Press and Left Are Lying About Rand Paul

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  May 20th, 2010 at 11:38 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Have you read what Rand Paul actually said about the Civil Rights Act? Because the media and left are out saying Rand Paul would have opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

He never said he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act. In fact, he said he supported key provisions in the Civil Rights Act.

Here is the relevant portion of the transcript:

SIEGEL: You’ve said that business should have the right to refuse service to anyone, and that the Americans with Disabilities Act, the ADA, was an overreach by the federal government. Would you say the same by extension of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Dr. PAUL: What I’ve always said is that I’m opposed to institutional racism, and I would’ve, had I’ve been alive at the time, I think, had the courage to march with Martin Luther King to overturn institutional racism, and I see no place in our society for institutional racism.

SIEGEL: But are you saying that had you been around at the time, you would have – hoped that you would have marched with Martin Luther King but voted with Barry Goldwater against the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Dr. PAUL: Well, actually, I think it’s confusing on a lot of cases with what actually was in the civil rights case because, see, a lot of the things that actually were in the bill, I’m in favor of. I’m in favor of everything with regards to ending institutional racism. So I think there’s a lot to be desired in the civil rights [act]. And to tell you the truth, I haven’t really read all through it because it was passed 40 years ago and hadn’t been a real pressing issue in the campaign, on whether we’re going for the Civil Rights Act.

SIEGEL: But it’s been one of the major developments in American history in the course of your life. I mean, do you think the ’64 Civil Rights Act or the ADA for that matter were just overreaches and that business shouldn’t be bothered by people with the basis in law to sue them for redress?

Dr. PAUL: Right. I think a lot of things could be handled locally. For example, I think that we should try to do everything we can to allow for people with disabilities and handicaps. You know, we do it in our office with wheelchair ramps and things like that. I think if you have a two-story office and you hire someone who’s handicapped, it might be reasonable to let him have an office on the first floor rather than the government saying you have to have a $100,000 elevator. And I think when you get to the solutions like that, the more local the better, and the more common sense the decisions are, rather than having a federal government make those decisions.

The media, playing the useful idiot of the left, is now in a full tizzy that Rand Paul would have opposed the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Not once did he say that. In fact, in the entire transcript, the only thing Rand Paul said he was opposed to was institutional racism and he favored the Civil Rights Act’s eradication of institutional racism.

By the way, Rand Paul is kicking the Democrat’s butt.

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.neoavatara.com/blog neoavatara

    Look, anyone who watched the Rachel Maddow clip should know that he did NOT oppose the Civil Rights Act. And he is a clear believer in equal rights, saying he would have been proud to march with Dr. King.

    That said…Paul needs some better advisors. First, why go on MSNBC first? and Maddow, who is a hack? He should have known he would get ridiculous questions.

    But additionally, there are certain things you don’t touch. And some parts of his interview sound like he didn’t outright oppose segregating restaurants…which is ludicrous, because anyone who knows the Paul family knows they are true believers in civil rights. But as usual, the left wing media will take this out of context and use it for their own uses. A Democrat ad is sure to come soon.

    Paul needs to realize that he is in the big leagues now.

    http://neoavatara.com/blog/?p=10983

  • JadedByPolitics

    pushing this story….lets take them both down!

  • rrreaganite

    that he thought private businesses should have the right to deny services to individuals for whatever reason they choose, including race. He compared it to the right of a store owner to ban the carrying of guns into their store. Basically what happened is that he got caught up in the weeds trying to make a nuanced argument against government intrusion in private entities and lives. Maddow purposely baited him into the controversy. Earlier today on the radio Rand explained his position and said that the Civil Rights Act was settled law and that he opposed all forms of racism and discrimination. I must admit at first read I had qualms, but they are all gone now.

    The MSM’s attack on Rand might have something to do with a Rasmussen Poll showing him up by 25 points.

    ps. Let’s Fight Back – http://www.randpaul2010.com/

  • proudgop

    Paul 59%
    Conway 34%

    the only one loony is Conway who supports Obamacare and Cap and Trade

  • rrreaganite

    “One tough son of a bitch” -http://www.examiner.com/x-3747-Louisville-City-Hall-Examiner~y2009m8d5-Jack-Conway-is-one-tough-SOB

  • momma

    Same thing. It is Siegel’s words that the left-stream press is in a tizzy about, not Paul’s words: “Are you saying you would have voted against the CRA?”

    But Paul should have stopped him right there with a loud “NO, I’m not saying that, YOU are, and I won’t let you get away with putting words in my mouth that I clearly did not say.”

  • constitutionalconservative

    You know they are desperate because they fear Rand Paul. They fear a world in which the government doesn’t decide everything for you. They will smear Rand Paul as a racist– they will use every dirty trick in the playbook. But in the end, we are going to beat them. And it’s going to be sweet.

  • earlgrey

    They have been marchiing in lockstep spouting lies and half-truths for years, but it seems like there are diminishing returns on this strategy. How much do people believe them? I know this is a loaded question.

    I do think those in the media themselves will be the last to know when they have lost influence.

  • spepper

    The left is going to continue and intensify their attacks of folks like Dr. Paul– they are desparate to keep those out of position who would shine the light of truth on THEM for a change– when folks like Dr. Paul get them panicked and desparate, then it becomes apparent that he is on the right track!

  • momma

    Conservative candidates need to get that into their worldviews. When talking to them, think like a courtroom lawyer. Everything you say can and will be used against you. Listen closely to the wording of their questions. Think about what your answer will sound like in the headlines.

  • jwinston

    and I am fighting back in my own small way with a campaign contribution — thanks for the link to his site.

  • reddogreport

    Do you really think that you can use facts, the actual words that Rand Paul spoke to counter the Liberals pre-supposed and fact-less argument that ALL Tea Party members are blatant, bigoted, KKK promoting racists? Very naive.

    Siegel had his story sketched out long before he sat down with Dr. Paul.

    What is really unfortunate is the effects that “news” stories like these can have on the electorate. As we saw in PA-12 liberal lies are easier to understand than the actual truth. I hope this slander does not hurt Paul’s chances in the fall.

    Brian O’Connor
    www.RedDogReport.com

  • jeff_0175

    First off, let me say that on the surface I am liking the trend of kicking incumbents out of office and getting some new people representing us in Washington. I think the general ideas behind the Tea Party (less gov’t intervention in peoples lives, lower taxes) are valid and that politicians need to be kept on their toes by the people they represent.

    That said, I just watched this Rand Paul interview with Maddow. I was willing to give Paul a chance, and I still am open to hearing his other ideas. However, I was really disappointed in his answers to Maddow’s questions. As much as I was hoping to see a new kind of politician, what I saw was the same old danicng around the question and refusing to give a straight answer that is typical of most people in D.C. Can we agree that his rambling, indirect answers were the same kinds of answers that you (and I) am sick of getting from other politicians?

    Bottom line was that Maddow wanted to know if Paul felt that government should have the ability to write legislation that tells businesses that it is illegal to discriminate or refuse service based on race. As much as Paul tried to spin it so that it looked like Maddow was accusing him of being racist, or supporting violence, or anything about him personally – this was not the case.

    After watching the interview, it is clear to me that while Paul himself finds racism and segregation disgusting and does not support it, he is not willing to say that the federal government should be able to make it illegal for businesses to conduct these kinds of activities.

    Can we agree that this seems to be his position?

  • bobojake
  • deano64

    lesson that no one in the media is his friend he should be just fine from here on out.

  • cwb33

    the press and the RIGHT are lying about Blumenthal. Let’s use his FULL speech as well and also the full text of what he said about his Vietnam record. Then we can call it even. Agreed?

  • RINKER

    BUT Paul did not help himself, either. He opened himself up by getting in to a philosophical discussion about the CRA. He is going to have to be more careful in the future. If you can’t explain your positions in a soundbite, they will use it against you. It is unfortunate, but that is politics in modern America.

  • youngmonte

    C’mon, guys, get a grip. Any average person reading the transcript Erick posted could surmise that Rand Paul was somewhat hostile to the Civil Rights Act in its entirety. True, he didn’t say he would have opposed the Act…but he didn’t say he would have voted for it either – all of which leads people free to draw their own conclusions and we all know what kind of conclusions the left will draw.

    Given his libertarian bent and the context of the question asked (he was specifically asked whether he would have voted with Goldwater against it), I don’t think it’s much of a stretch at all to conclude he would have opposed it – especially when he had a chance to say otherwise and didn’t take it. If he would have voted for it why didn’t he just say so? In fact, after reading the transcript I think he would have voted “No.” I’m sorry, Erick, but saying you support “key provisions” of the Civil Rights Act isn’t the same as saying you would have voted for it. Rand Paul’s campaign needs to clarify, and quickly.

  • Kyle-MI

    Which of Blumenthal’s speeches are you talking about?
    What part of which speech clears him?

  • The_Rebel

    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGJjMGVjZDNkOGJlNTBiYjNiMjg5NTViMmZkY2JjNDc=

  • ref1

    Blumenthal got caught lying multiple times about his “service” in Vietnam. Not ambiguous, he said it in a number of speeches. The only thing he is sorry about is that he got caught.

    Paul, on the other hand, supports CRA and does not have a racist bone in his body. He had a bad interview, that’s it. I’m sure he learned his lesson, no more CNN, MSNBC – stick to Fox.

    And the people seem to understand the difference. Paul is crushing Conway in KY, and Blumenthal is heading into the toilet in CT.

  • smitch61

    The campaign commercials regarding this are more than likely being written as we speak.

  • spim
  • ref1

    I think most of us agree the Maddow interview was a mistake, and Paul did not come off well. But at least his team seems to have responded quickly, making clear he supports CRA and that the issue is closed.

    Thank God this happened at the beginning of the campaign. Minimize the damage and go out to pound Conway, who is completely out of step with mainstream KY.

  • Stan

    Isn’t that a bit redundant? On a couple of levels?

    I mean, I’m thinking “Press”, “Left”, and “Liars” are pretty much interchangeable these days… ;-)

  • pdawk

    Which is impossible to do with a bomb thrower like Maddow. His entire premise is predicated upon his beliefs that government should not be able to create legislations that essentially controls a private enterprise. He was simply trying to say that while the intentions are noble, it opens a precedent for intrusion into other areas of life. He used a gun reference, but it really could be extrapolated into just about anything that could affect your ability to operate your private life in a manner that is protected by the freedoms set forth in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    You can’t have this discussion with someone like Maddow who is pandering to an audience that is only looking to have Paul branded a racist. It would be a shame if this defined his campaign in any way as I think we need about 30 Rand Paul’s in the Senate.

  • cabanon

    ‘Rand Paul wouldn’t vote for Civil Rights’ to ‘Rand Paul wants to repeal Civil Rights’ if they sense any traction with this then they’ll go full force truth be damned and Conway will run with it.

  • conservativecrusade

    to not do interviews with “reporters” that squat on the left. They have to realize that these leftist have one intent and one intent only, and that is to ask deceiving question to trip the candidate, edit out the whole answer as to get what they want, and plain out lie to prove the “evil” of the conservative candidate.

    In years past there were some leftist reporters who left their politics at the door and just talked news. They may not have agreed with the person they were interviewing, may have even confronted them on the issues of disagreement, but had enough integrity to report what was said. These days are gone.

    Our conservative reps need to not accept interviews with anyone left of center, period. Who cares if the person says the candidate is dodging them. Better to be accused of dodging than to have what you said twisted to fit the leftist agenda. Twisted reporting has sunk many a conservative ship. Its time to stop giving these asswipes interviews and stick to open mics where the people can hear exactly what was said.

    We need to learn we owe the left nothing but disdain. We do not need to answer their questions, all while putting ourselves in a possible bad position due to editing and BS, to win elections. We can get our message to the ones who want to hear it a multitude of ways without talking to leftist monkeys.

  • JamesSmith130

    my concern is that the media will air out other libertarian views of Paul that are not in the “mainstream”, and use it together to paint a picture that Paul is not appropriate for Kentucky.

    And I think it would work… if this was 2006 or 2008.

  • conservativecrusade

    all your life there CWB. Unless in his speech he later says, “ha ha got you, I was only joking about my service record to make a point,” then the rest of the speech matters little. And since no explanation in any speech was given to retract his claims to have served in the Vietnam theater, he is a liar and a fraud.

    The press and the right are not the ones doing the lying. And since you must have missed his watered down apology retraction speech, you point in your post is ignorant and without merit!

    But since you asked for it, here goes.

    His lies about serving in Vietnam:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/nyregion/18blumenthal.html

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Video-Blumenthal-lies-about-serving-in-Vietnam-94106754.html

    Both contain video of his lying claims.

  • http://aposematic.wordpress.com aposematic

    When will conservatives/libertarians realize that the left is out to get them with liberal/progressive gotcha questions for the specific purpose of then lying about the answers given by the conservatives/libertarians.

    The question is why would any conservative/libertarian give credence to liberal/progressive ideological pundits by granting them interviews? These talking head pundits are only watched by like minded ideological buffoons and there is never a chance to get through to them anyway; so, wise up and stop wasting your time by opening yourself to the lies and ridicule of the radicals for no possibility of any gain.

    For short, stop being stupid!

  • bratcat

    What Dr Paul said was that he does not desscriminate and he does not condone those who do discriminate, BUT, he did not feel the Government had the right to deny a business’s right to discrimintate. This is adhering to an ideology without context.

    Yes, we want govt to stay out of private industry, but we have to have laws that prevent these industries from discriminating against Americans based on their race. We tried having an America where businesses could openly discriminate against customers based on their race for nearly 100 years from 1865 to 1964, and it didn’t work.

    Rand is speaking of a hypothetical that has already been dissproved in the actual. You don’t sacrifice your Libertarian views of small govt by standing up for civil liberties.Rand’s mistake is thinking that you would.

  • jeff_0175

    This is the first comment I’ve read that actually begins to address where Paul actually stands on this issue and explain why he holds that position.

    I don’t think that Paul or Tea Partiers are racists, nor do I think Maddow was trying to brand him a racist or as in favor of segregation. The issue that she was having trouble getting Paul to address was if he supports the idea of the federal government having the authority to control whether a *private* business has the legal right to segregate or discriminate based on race if they choose to do so.

    My understanding from Paul’s and your comments is that he doesn’t support repealing the Civil Rights Act and is not a racist or in favor of segregation or anything like that. BUT – his core belief that the federal government should have extremely limited authority to pass legislation that regulates businesses makes it impossible for him to support the idea of outlawing a business’s right to discriminate and segregate if they choose to.

    Personally, I think that while limiting government intervention into private business is a perfectly legitimate position, my opinion is that discrimination and segregation should be illegal whether it’s a public or private institution. Discriminating based on race is discriminating based on something completely unchangable and out of a person’s control – the color of their skin. That should be illegal – everywhere.

    Paul’s position doesn’t make him a racist, but it would legally condone potential racist behavior by private businesses. I think that’s unacceptable, and would like to think the people of Kentucky feel the same way.

  • 44concernedcitizen44

    Regardless if Rand Paul agrees with 90% of the Civil Rights Act or not, the real debate centers on his thoughts on government authority. Rand Paul believes that the federal government overstepped its authority when it mandated that private business owners serve patrons of color who they did not wish to serve. He believes that private property rights and free speech were being violated, even though he finds the racist actions abhorrent, he does not believe the federal government should force private citizens in complying. He supported efforts with public institutions and organizations receiving tax dollars, but not private business owners.

    While I disagree with his view, Rand Paul is free to make it, but he should stick by it if he does, and that interview was 15 minutes of him dancing around his own position because he knows it?s an unpopular libertarian position. He can blame Maddow if he wants, but he will keep being asked specific questions using specific scenarios on whether or not he thinks the government has the right to impose desegregation on private business owners.

    It seems his views on federal encroachment are similar for provisions in the Americans with Disabilities Act as well. Rand Paul does not believe the government has the right to impose such desegregation laws on private business owners. He?s also stated he does not want to revoke the Civil Rights Act. I believe him. But the question was asked repeatedly and not answered. If a private business wanted to stop serving people based on their race, should they be allowed to do that? The question was not does he find the action shameful or the people who do it disgraceful, but it was whether the act should be illegal. He would not answer.

  • blooch

    At least the MSM was smart enough not to go *there*.

    lol

  • http://aposematic.wordpress.com aposematic

    Paul and his “team” should have known Maddow would do everything she could to make Paul look bad–that is how she sees her job–destroy conservatives and libertarians.

    The real problem here is why Paul would go on Maddow’s show knowing she would try to destroy him and her viewers are all like minded haters that Paul would never ever have a chance of gaining support; so, why do it in the first place.

    All liberal/progressive talking head pundits’ mission is to get the conservatives/libertarians with pre scripted gotcha hate questions hoping for any opening to demonize the conservative/libertarian, if their is no gotcha moment then the liberals/progressives will just lie.

  • jeff_0175

    Couldn’t agree with you more.

  • http://aposematic.wordpress.com aposematic

    Right on all counts.

    The lefts’ viewers are only like minded ideological buffoons with no chance in %&@# of changing their indoctrinated insane minds so why put yourself up for the twisted lies from the left?

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    …has the right to force restaurant owners to allow open carry?

    Admittedly, I’m asking this mostly to see if you’re less of a coward than Rachel Maddow, who refused to answer the question.

    Next post.

    Moe Lane

    PS: Yeah, folks, I’m aware of the apparent irony in whom I’m defending, here. No corruption of blood in this country, remember?

    PPS: Next post, 44concernedcitizen44.

  • bratcat

    X2. Although I aadmit your sound logic calm reason is not as fun as the shrill cry of being a victim of the unfair liberal lamestream media.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    Although your two compatriots should be grateful; either one of them could have been the Horrible Example.

    Ciao.

  • jeff_0175

    I’d like to hear 44′s response –

    But for me, the difference is that open carry is an action that a citizen can choose to perform. Thus, like other actions that are perfectly legal (ex: not wearing a shirt, talking on a cell phone, being rude) that can get you kicked out of a place of business at the owner’s discretion, so can openly carrying a firearm.

    Race is obviously not a choice or something that can be turned on or off. This is why it is illegal for business owners to deny service based on race.

  • Aaron Gardner

    Which the right to bear arms is. Oh well.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    …has the right to force restaurant owners to allow open carry?

    Yes or no in your next post, please.

  • constitutionalconservative

    They have done an outstanding job so far. I have watched his campaign very closely on a daily basis. You do not go into Mitch McConnell’s house and spank his handpicked candidate by 24 points without an excellent candidate and a great team.

    That having been said, they made a mistake here, not so much in Rand’s answer (which I do not think is radioactive if it is presented well, with lots of examples of contemporary judicial abuse) but in going on Maddow in the first place.

    I think they’ve learned their lesson and were quick to correct it. The media will howl, but I don’t think it will actually hurt him at all with Kentucky voters. Rand will win this campaign and I am going to be overjoyed to see the incredulous looks in the New York Times newsroom when it happens.

  • jeff_0175

    No.
    See my above post for why I think there is a difference between open carry and race.

  • 44concernedcitizen44

    Even though both examples are centered on private property concerns, I believe they are separate issues with unique constitutional implications, but I?ll attempt to answer your question. Do I believe the government has the authority to mandate restaurant owners in adhering to open-carry laws? Yes, I do. I do not, however, believe it is smart policy. I believe it is unwise to force bar owners to accept patrons who they feel could be dangerous under the influence of alcohol, but I think such protections would ultimately be ruled constitutional by our Supreme Court.

    I certainly got the impression after the Parker vs. D.C. handgun case that individual gun owners are themselves a protected class, in the sense that they are exercising a constitutionally protected action. People may not like it, but if they want to change it then they will need to amend the Constitution. If a government body wants to codify that protection in statute, by mandating that restaurant owners must serve patrons who are legally carrying a handgun in a state that allows open-carry laws, I am of the opinion that the state indeed has that authority. If it?s constitutional for a state to add additional protections for gun owners by allowing them to walk outside with a loaded gun, I see little reason why it would suddenly become unconstitutional for that same state to expand those protections through statute.

  • pdawk

    and I appreciate your stance as it relates to the underlying issue. It is funny that I philosophically agree with Rand’s premise, but probably agree that in this individual issue the only way to create any uniformity of protection was through the federal government. The average American unfortunately sees everything through a black and white lens created by life experiences and media presentations. As I stated earlier, this is not a debate to be had with a newspaper editorial group or Rachel Maddow. The incendiary nature of race relations keeps this from ever being an honest and straightforward debate.

  • Aaron Gardner

    But I get the point you were trying to make.

  • Charles Cianfrocca

    …allow me to answer that question by posing another:

    Should the government have the right to force homeowners to allow their guests to open carry as guests in their homes?

    Remember, a restaurant is not government property. It’s not a publically owned place. It’s not the street, or a public park. If the owner doesn’t want guns in there, he can not allow it. Of course, people can also refuse to buy food from him.

    It cuts both ways.

  • rascott

    is the point and the center of the true debate about Paul. Its not at Erick stated that people think he opposed the entire CRA. The question is very, very simple.

    Does the federal government have the right to tell a private business how it can or cannot operate, to include denying service based upon race?

    It seems to me that Paul believes the Fed Gov’t should not have that power. How is that callling him a racist? Thats a real idological question.

  • rascott

    is the point and the center of the true debate about Paul. Its not at Erick stated that people think he opposed the entire CRA. The question is very, very simple.

    Does the federal government have the right to tell a private business how it can or cannot operate, to include denying service based upon race?

    It seems to me that Paul believes the Fed Gov’t should not have that power. How is that callling him a racist? Thats a real idological question.

  • rascott

    “bad interview”. Palin and Couric was a bad interview.

    This goes to the heart of Paul’s ideology, and there’s no reason to think it won’t continue to come up.

    Should the Feds be allowed to tell private business owners how to run their business, including if they can deny service based upon race?

    That’s not something that was misspoken, or didn’t come out right, or he was unprepared for. He either believes the Feds should have that power or he doesn’t.

  • rascott

    “bad interview”. Palin and Couric was a bad interview.

    This goes to the heart of Paul’s ideology, and there’s no reason to think it won’t continue to come up.

    Should the Feds be allowed to tell private business owners how to run their business, including if they can deny service based upon race?

    That’s not something that was misspoken, or didn’t come out right, or he was unprepared for. He either believes the Feds should have that power or he doesn’t.

  • jeff_0175

    …that I’m familiar with are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as stated in the Declaration of Independence.

    Rights like bearing arms and speech have been ruled to have some limitations. For example, we have freedom of speech, but slander is against the law. We have the right to bear arms, but we can’t own nuclear weapons.

    And I think you’d agree that private business owners be given a large amount of discretion as far as what happens in their workplace. I think allowing guns on their private property should be their call. As for what happens in public buildings, thats up to our representatives in gov’t to legislate with respect to what’s laid out in the constitution.

  • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

    Corollary to the Right to Life is the right to defend that life from harm. The right to one’s own property and person is a necessity of liberty — and once again, vital to THAT right is the right to defend it.

  • rascott

    is an unalienable right??? That’s quite an extrapolation.

  • rascott

    is an unalienable right??? That’s quite an extrapolation.

  • jeff_0175

    I think I’m with you guys on that point. Gov’t should not be able to tell homeowners or business owners that they must allow open carry on their property.

    Race is a different issue – see my comments above.

  • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

    Wow!

  • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

    Does race take priority over personal liberty or vice-versa?

  • rascott

    a bit of a stretch. I’m all for the 2nd ammendment, but to say that it is intrinsic is shaping the words of the Declaration of Independence to fit your own desire to carry everywhere you go.

  • rascott

    a bit of a stretch. I’m all for the 2nd ammendment, but to say that it is intrinsic is shaping the words of the Declaration of Independence to fit your own desire to carry everywhere you go.

  • Aaron Gardner
  • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

    It’s one thing to say it’s a bit of a stretch — but now you have to prove it.

    How are the words I said wrong? How is the ability to defend one’s self and one’s property NOT vital to the rights themselves?

  • rascott

    is just that…an AMMENDMENT. You are confusing natural rights and legal rights.

  • rascott

    is just that…an AMMENDMENT. You are confusing natural rights and legal rights.

  • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

    Originally, many of the framers didn’t WANT a bill of rights, because they feared such a move would present the wrong message. They felt the Constitution itself did the necessary job in limiting Government, and that enumerating rights would open it up for interpretation where there shouldn’t be any.

    Once they compromised and added them in, you’ll notice, they kept the language vague in some parts, and specific in others (such as, “CONGRESS shall make no law” or “Shall NOT be infringed”). The reason is, they didn’t want the Bill of Rights to be the final word on where the government was not allowed to go, nor on how those rights were to be guaranteed.

    In other words, you are suggesting the fact that it is an AMENDMENT means the framers didn’t consider it a natural right. You are wrong. It’s an amendment because they didn’t originally feel it was necessary to spell it out.

  • Aaron Gardner

    The Bill of Rights was not the State conferring legal rights upon man, they were acknowledgment of the existence of specific natural rights and a statement that Government shall make no law abridging those rights.

    To read it any other way is incorrect.

  • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

    nt

  • rascott

    you are confusing and mixing Natural rights with Legal Rights. Natural rights could be considered God given rights to any human, such as individual determination, self-governance, etc….

    The right to arm yourself is a LEGAL right, codified by the 2nd Ammendment, but obviously hotly debated by the LEGAL system for generations.

  • rascott

    you are confusing and mixing Natural rights with Legal Rights. Natural rights could be considered God given rights to any human, such as individual determination, self-governance, etc….

    The right to arm yourself is a LEGAL right, codified by the 2nd Ammendment, but obviously hotly debated by the LEGAL system for generations.

  • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

    Self-Defense is an unailiable natural right. Even rotifers have at least limited recourse to that.

  • whiskey_sierra

    What Paul should have asked her is:

    “So since you think it is the right of the federal government to tell a private citizen who they can and can’t SELL to, is it also the right of the federal government to tell someone who they can and can’t BUY FROM?”

    Because if its within the power of the fed to control one side of the financial transaction, then its within the power to control the other side.

    So if I setup a shop next door to a african american store, and more people who are african american seem to like going in there more, then I can file federal lawsuits against them for discrimination.

    /Dear nutjob Islamo Terrorists – please bomb our media organizations we love them, we will be terrified if you bomb them

  • rascott

    its all semantics, I guess. But I think there is a difference in natural rights and legal rights, and i feel the 2nd ammendment falls under the umbrella of legal rights.

  • rascott

    its all semantics, I guess. But I think there is a difference in natural rights and legal rights, and i feel the 2nd ammendment falls under the umbrella of legal rights.

  • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

    Allow me to spell this out:

    the right to defend one’s self is NOT a separate right. It is a part (hence, intrinsic) of the right to Life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness. Your suggestion is like saying we must have a separate, “legal” right to breathe.

    Breathing is necessary to life.

    Self defense is necessary to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

  • Aaron Gardner

    it protects those rights from being infringed upon by the government.

    I don’t know if you claim to be a conservative, but if so, that claim just got shot.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • cabanon

    Where doe Rand draw the line to government involvement in private business if he feels the issue of race is not sufficient how about federal safety regulations for mining companies? That would be very much of interest to the people of Kentucky.

  • Aaron Gardner
  • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

    it is that you are evidently misreading the purpose behind the entire Bill of Rights. And the rest of Constitution while you’re at it.

    Legal rights are those conferred by government. The whole point of the Constitution is to point out that the Government does NOT grant rights, but can merely protect or limit them.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    see here

    http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2010/05/20/rand-paul-and-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964/

    and especially the:

    “Think Lester Maddox and his Pickrick restaurant in Atlanta, waving his pick handle and handgun.”

    line

    Over the top and unfair to Paul and Galloway is one of the better Drive-by political reporters that I read.

  • rascott

    all the 2nd Ammendment does is disallow the federal govenment from restricting the right to bear arms, but that the state would be allowed to restrict. That’s been the interpretation since the 1800s – in different waves.

    States were allowed to regulate militias throughout the 1800s and the Supreme court had ruled as such as far back as 1875.

  • rascott

    all the 2nd Ammendment does is disallow the federal govenment from restricting the right to bear arms, but that the state would be allowed to restrict. That’s been the interpretation since the 1800s – in different waves.

    States were allowed to regulate militias throughout the 1800s and the Supreme court had ruled as such as far back as 1875.

  • JamesSmith130

    that unfortunately could cost him votes is his very laudable stance against waspork and earmarks. That will cost him a lot of votes in rural Kentucky.

  • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

    Restricting the RIGHT to bear arms is not.

  • Aaron Gardner

    As seen here…

    “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”

    Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.

  • rascott

    see what the SCOTUS says this summer. They’ve never in the past said that the states cannot enforce gun control laws, but I think its likely to change.

    It would be the first time in our history that the SCOTUS has actually implied that the right to bear arms is a “fundamental” right, that even the states cannot supercede. This would be a reversal of prior SC precedent.

  • rascott

    see what the SCOTUS says this summer. They’ve never in the past said that the states cannot enforce gun control laws, but I think its likely to change.

    It would be the first time in our history that the SCOTUS has actually implied that the right to bear arms is a “fundamental” right, that even the states cannot supercede. This would be a reversal of prior SC precedent.

  • rascott

    to bear arms HAS IN FACT been interepreted to be a valid application of state powers by the SC as far back as 1875.

    The SC has continually ruled that the 2nd ammendment only forbids the federal government from restricting the right to bear….not forbids the state government.

    That is why I have said I don’t believe its a ‘natural’ right….that would be implicit in the idea liberty.

  • rascott

    to bear arms HAS IN FACT been interepreted to be a valid application of state powers by the SC as far back as 1875.

    The SC has continually ruled that the 2nd ammendment only forbids the federal government from restricting the right to bear….not forbids the state government.

    That is why I have said I don’t believe its a ‘natural’ right….that would be implicit in the idea liberty.

  • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

    This goes back to what I mentioned up-thread about the founders’ reluctance to include the Bill of Rights.

    In my opinion, the Constitution has been the subject of too much interpretation, and too little reading.

  • mikerazar

    I can’t even begin to imagine a definitive answer as to whether the second argument is a just a legal right or is conferred by our Creator.

    What about the right to a jury trial on federal lawsuits exceeding twenty dollars? Who cares?

    It sounds like one of those medieval arguments about pinheads and angels. (Are angels patriots?)

    Here’s a question to chew on. If the entire Bill of Rights was replaced by just the 9th and 10th amendments, would it be better or worse?

  • flash

    MSNBC and the leftist media has been slandering Rand Paul all day today and it doesn’t look like they are letting up. Its time for the Conservative movement to unite behind Rand.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    She ran from the question like a scared little bunny.

  • rj1913

    I can appreciate his points on the issues but how he articulates them can be a serious issue. He still has to contend with farm subsidies in a state where farmers have a lot of political clout. Mitch very well knows this. Also, a lot of KY parents would prefer that he keep his hands off their Pell grants. He doesn’t need distractions like this when he has so much to sell.
    And no Erick, Rand stuck it out there and it got stepped on. His choice. Lesson learned. Move on.

  • leftylurker

    Is that Rand Paul, if he did in fact oppose the civil rights act, and the ADA, could avail himself of a rational legal argument. But, it is completely forbidden for him to make that argument in our censored society, so he has to do this crazy two step that makes him seem, in my opinion, a little off balance.

    This might have not gotten much traction outside of the legal academic community, but a young law student recently had her clerkship with Judge Kosinski (spelling?) put in jeopardy because she had the audacity to write in an email that she would be open to the possibility that research could show that there were genetic variations between races that led to achievement differences. She didn’t say she agreed with the idea, or even that she cared….just that she didn’t want to ban such research outright.

    That’s just scary, and it’s the same anti-debate attitude that Rand Paul is coming up against.

  • Aaron Gardner
  • Charles Cianfrocca

    …doesn’t want, say, blacks, in his private home or other private establishment, I say that also has to be his right, or else freedom of association means nothing.

    Again though, where business is concerned, it cuts both ways — word gets out on a policy like that, and the owner will probably find that nobody patronizes his establishment.

    Like it or not, people are free, and should be free, to be foolish businessmen. Personally, I would think that the point were to have more, not less, customers… but to each his own.

  • krsnadas

    That’s Gaelic, right? Just checking if I’m good at detecting what language is being used.

  • errol44

    This is about the tea party and by extension, the Republican party. It is interesting to note, reading this thread, that most posters are defending Rand and bashing the left.

    It was only two weeks ago, the Washington Post published an article about how the teaparty is fighting (presumably, unjust) charges of racism.

    Tuesday night, in his victory speech, Rand said, ?I have a message, a message from the tea party, a message that is loud and clear and does not mince words: We have come to take our government back.” With those words, Rand has become the face and poster-child for the tea party. Hours later, he went about painting himself and the tea party as, if not racists, at least racist sympathizers.

    Rand Paul has, on several occasions, including on the Maddow show, said that he disagrees withTitle II of the Civil Rights Act which prevents private businesses from discriminating based on race. He says he is not a racist, yet he is willing to fight for the right of others to discriminate based on race… that’s right, right here in America.

    Every American, red, blue or in between, should be appalled and alarmed. Yet here on the right, he obviously has staunch defenders. If those on the left argue that suspected terrorists should have rights, you brand them as “terrorist sympathizers.” So if you defend the right of businesses to be racist, does it make you a “racist sympathizer?” Rand is wrong and his ideology is dangerous. I’d like to see some of you righties have the courage to stand up and say so.

  • wolfster38

    Are all 44s trolls ? Oh 44 like Mr Obama the 44th

  • conservativecrusade

    N/T

  • finaljeopardy

    Jim Crow laws were local and told people who they could and couldn;t sell to. Whites were prohibited from serving blacks regardless their feelings on the matter one way or Another.

  • http://www.libertytreehugger.com reverelth

    nor did he defend racism.

    It was a fine point, lost on you and evidently lost on MSNBC.

    I think he rightly questioned the appropriateness of the Federal government to get involved in an increasing number of private property rights issues. He let himself get sucked into an argument about racism, IMHO.

    A business can do lots of things to you, as a customer, to offend you. Is it the place of the Federal government to decide on which of those things they will intercede? Who makes up that list of things?

    He has the benefit of 50 years of seasoning of the Civil Rights act to rightly observe that race and ethnicity are politically determined, yes, by the Federal government.

    Do Mexican looking persons in Arizona have a civil right never to have their citizenship questioned? Is that not a highly political application of “civil rights?”

  • Adjoran

    Paul has said many, many, many things which will now become huge controversies . . . because he is a nut case Libertine.

    Just the transcripts from his several appearances on the Alex Jones radio show should provide fodder for the rest of the campaign season.

    But it was just AWFUL of me to ask questions about his foreign policy and national security views and suggest they didn’t match conservative evaluations of our nation’s needs, and it would have been too much trouble to, say, CHECK THE GUY OUT BEFORE ENDORSING HIM.

    Naturally being associated so closely with a lunatic fringe jerk is going to be used against the Tea Party movement but, hey, that’s why we have the concept of “due diligence.”

  • http://www.libertytreehugger.com reverelth

    the Tea Party doesn’t always have the luxury of “vetting” people.

    So I’m a little queasy about candidates calling the Tea Party out by name, declaring themselves to be “one of them.” and pulling them toward him like Rand Paul did.

  • http://www.libertytreehugger.com reverelth

    you only need remember the night stick wielding New Black Panthers at the polling place in Pennsylvania (?) and the degree to which their politics determined what the Obama DOJ did (or did not do) to them.

  • bantamwait

    n/t

  • bantamwait

    were worried about creating a Bill of Rights–that it would look as if they were limited to enumerated rights. The ninth and tenth amendments were intended to prevent this danger–but it’s clear from rascott’s posts that it didn’t work.

    “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

  • bantamwait

    “…whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,”

    I don’t think the Continental Congress was talking about picket signs.

  • bantamwait

    and restaurant owners. That’s why the CRA refers to “public accommodations.” If you invite the public to patronize your establishment, you can’t pick and choose which members of the public to allow in.

    (Good thing not wearing a shirt or shoes isn’t considered a disability.)

  • bantamwait

    nt

  • bantamwait

    This is Rand’s fight, not ours. He has a legitimate opinion. It is probably one that won’t hurt him in Kentucky. We certainly should not attack him for it. But the last thing we need to do is give the impression that conservatives are for rolling back the Civil Rights Act. Can we agree on that?

  • bantamwait

    I think it was a great thing that Paul got elected. The arrogance of the old-boy go-along-to-get-along GOP leadership needed a kick in the pants, especially old Yertle the Turtle. But I think most Rand votes were protest votes against the status quo, not endorsements of every article of Paulist dogma. It’s Rand’s to lose; if he can hold his tongue he can win. Best not to make the general election campaign a referendum on Ronulanism.

  • Charles Cianfrocca

    Shouldn’t private property be private property? Just because I have a lot of guests to my home, does that mean I have to take all comers?

    As I said before, granted, in the case of a restaurant, for example, it is arguably foolish to deny paying customers just because you ‘don’t like their kind’, but should being foolish be against the law?

  • Charles Cianfrocca

    Shouldn’t private property be private property? Just because I have a lot of guests to my home, does that mean I have to take all comers?

    As I said before, granted, in the case of a restaurant, for example, it is arguably foolish to deny paying customers just because you ‘don’t like their kind’, but should being foolish be against the law?

  • leftylurker

    n/t

  • starboard

    Poor Rand Paul. When will libertarians like him and his dad learn that the only reason they are welcomed on liberal media is so they can be used to slam the Left?s real enemy, conservatives? It?s pure opportunism on the part of the Left and pure naivete on the part of the Right. Libertarians are considered by the Maddows of the world to be nothing more than useful idiots and are treated like ?tools.? (And I mean that term in its most pejorative sense.)

    Liberal elites don?t care about the Fed, or deficits, or poor people, or human rights, or war, or anything else. They only care about winning, so they can boss us around. If you can help them win, they like you; once you stand in the way of their winning, they blissfully destroy you.

  • dusty922

    Spin it however you want to but to refuse to serve someone based solely upon the color of their skin is absolutely a racist position.

    I don’t think Paul is a racist, I just think he is trying too hard to stick to his “no government” position. He should acknowledge that some government is necessary to maintain law and order. Indeed, if we were strictly Libertarian, we’d be Somalia.

  • joerg

    Rand Paul is a great politician I basicly trust him without investigating his arguments. In this case I did and as always I support his point of view. Unfortunately the media seems to hate his family. They permanently demonize Rand and his father Ron…

    J?rg
    http://www.youtube-mp3.org/