TX-14 : Rep. Paul doesn't like the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and specifically Section 1, guarantees that those people born in the U.S. will be considered U.S. citizens.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Rep. Ron Paul thinks we need to change that...

from his "Texas Straight Talk" newsletter, we get this:

[B]irthright citizenship, originating in the 14th amendment, has become a serious cultural and economic dilemma for our nation.
...
I've introduced legislation that would amend the Constitution and end automatic birthright citizenship.
...
It's time to rethink birthright citizenship by amending the 14th amendment.

Thankfully, his legislation will NEVER come up for a vote, because he is NOT taken seriously by anyone in the House.  He has NO influence and his views are out-dated.  How can anyone think that he's able to truly represent the 14th District?

The ONLY reason he has a chance to win in November is his name recognition.  Shane Sklar is the perfect candidate against him, but he just doesn't have the national support or money.

•  if paul wants to revoke birthright citizenship

  he should make it retroactive to 1492, or at bare minimum 1776.

  what kind of libertarian aims to strip americans of the fundamental rights as citizens?

  i hope sklar takes him out.

  by wu ming on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 11:56:02 AM PDT

•  What did he propose

  that only European Americans born on American soil are citizens of the United States, or that citizenship is conferred in annual elections by persons in the congressional district of one's birth.  Maybe appointment the President.  Ah, now that's the ticket.

  by DCDemocrat on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 11:57:14 AM PDT

  •  appointment BY the President

    by DCDemocrat on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 11:57:40 AM PDT

•  He's very special, Ron Paul

  He's also one of only 11 Congressvarmints who voted against aid to Katrina victims.

  Of those eleven, one (Otter, ID-01) is retiring at the end of this term.

  Let's try to shave away at least one of the remainder, every cycle, until they are all gone, ok?

  Joe Barton (TX-06)
  Jeff Flake (AZ-06)
  Virginia Foxx (NC-05)
  Scott Garrett (NJ-05)
  John Hostettler (IN-08)
  Steven King (IA-05)
  Butch Otter (ID-01, retiring)
  Ron Paul (TX-14)
  Sensenbrenner (Wisc-05)
  Tom Tancredo (Colo-06)
  Lynn Westmoreland (Ga-03)

  by Christopher Walker on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 11:59:35 AM PDT

  •  Now he's campaigning on having signed!

    He's a lying sack of crap.

    Also a racist.

    by rocketito on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 12:03:51 PM PDT

    •  Other "accomplishments" from Paul.

      Astonishing:

      ...providing tax incentives for investment in oil refineries, as well as terminating restrictions on oil and natural gas development on federal lands.

      shorter: give them billionaires MORE money.

      Congressman Paul has played an instrumental role in securing the full and promised level of reimbursement from FEMA for the expenses incurred by local governments for Texas communities affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005.

      shorter: I was against it before I was for it.

      by MaxKelly on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 12:11:41 PM PDT

•  Ron Paul

  It is always astounding to me that someone that otherwise comes down on the right side of history can be so completely deluded by racism.  Paul has been adamantly against antagonizing Iran.

  Interestingly, Pat Buchanan has essentially the same views as Paul.  Iran is pointless, but immigration is destroying our nation.  Crazy fuckers.

  by smokeymonkey on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 12:01:08 PM PDT

•  in his partial defense

  He bucked his party, on the torture bill.

  However, at the back of my mind (call me cynical), I wondered if he did that because he was afraid it would cost money, somehow.

  by Christopher Walker on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 12:03:26 PM PDT

  •  He will tell you right out

    that he's voting against something because of the money!

    No, Afghan women (or men) should not be able to have sanctuary here because it costs us money!  And that's bad!  

    We should not fight Osama bin Laden (in pre-911 times) because that would cost money!  

    Pets should not be able to be taken with people into safe shelter from hurricanes because it might cost money!

    ad nauseam.

    I admit he says it with more finesse than that, but not much.  

    His self-generated nickname is "the taxpayers' best friend".  Enough to make ya wanna puke.

    by rocketito on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 12:22:03 PM PDT

    •  And then when election season began

      I got a really nice touchy-feely sweety letter from him about how much he loves pets and is glad that the government will allow them in shelters now...almost as if he hadn't been against it in the first place.

      If you collect and save his letters, you can make a flip book.  Dance, Ron Paul, DANCE!

      by rocketito on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 12:33:57 PM PDT

    •  Hey

      it also costs money to propose 80 bills every session that will never pass.

      You forgot to mention how he opposes Congressional Gold Medals because he feels they are unconstitutional. Which means he gets to vote against Congressional Gold Medals for Reagan, The Pope, Mother Teresa, and all sorts of people.

      And he also voted for Congressional Gold Medals for Gerald Ford and the Tuskegee Airmen. Which technically means that he violated the constitution. ;)

      by RBH on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 01:29:02 PM PDT

      •  gold medals for official scum

        he gets to vote against Congressional Gold Medals for Reagan,

        the hatchet-faced old fraud who nailed the coffin shut on the Equal Rights Amendment? Ron Paul wouldn't vote to give him a medal? Good for Ron!  

        The Pope,

        which pope? B-15, the reviver of crusades?
        or do you mean the last one, that old bulldog who hated gay people even more than he hated Roman Catholic priests in Latin America who were trying to help the poor? Ron Paul wouldn't vote to give him a medal? Good for Ron!

        Mother Teresa,

        The original forced-birther, the one who thought poverty was good for women? Ron Paul wouldn't vote to give her a medal? Good for Ron!

        and all sorts of people.
        And he also voted for Congressional Gold Medals for Gerald Ford

        oh, now that I don't approve of. Ron Paul voted to give a medal to the Nixon Pardoner ? Shame on Ron!

        and the Tuskegee Airmen.

        ok, now I'm mad.

        by Christopher Walker on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 07:50:07 PM PDT

  •  Ron Paul

    It seems like he's always on the losing end of 432-3 votes in the House.  He is so bound by his anti-government views that he votes against just about everything that requires a budget.

    by Skaje on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 12:22:34 PM PDT

•  Section 1 ... strikes last weeks Torture Bill?

  Just a question on my part, but doesn't
  "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ...." Negate Dear Leader from lifting the habeas corpus upon a citizen?  Wouldn't this have also applied to Jose Pedia (alleged dirty bomber)?

  I am assuming that the word STATE applies to the nation state of the USA.  Right?

  by ddrich on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 12:05:56 PM PDT

•  The problem I have

  with Shane Sklar is that he feels it is appropriate to legislate his personal religious views vis a vis abortion.  I had an e-mail exchange with his campaign manager about this issue.  It really troubles me that anyone feels their relgious beliefs ought to be law.

  Having said that, I'll probably vote for him.  His biggest problem here is that no one knows anything about him.

  by TravnTexas on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 12:05:57 PM PDT

  •  He's a conservative Democrat...

    ... and he's pretty up-front about it.  I'm sort of in the "take 'em as they come" camp.  I may not agree with all of his politics, but he IS a Dem... and that  means one more Dem in Congress.

    by MaxKelly on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 12:17:55 PM PDT

    •  I much prefer

      your pragmatism  to the "hold yer nose and vote for him" credo.  :-)

      by TravnTexas on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 12:53:18 PM PDT

  •  Would you rather have Ron Paul and

    Ron's idea of a law that says that life begins at conception, and then bars the courts from ruling on that law?

    Look up HR 776 if you want to see it for yourself.

    Shane Sklar isn't perfect, but he'd actually get a bill or two passed. Ron Paul is only around because it's too much of a pain for Republicans to try and face him down in a primary.

    by RBH on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 01:25:46 PM PDT

    •  Umm

      You've plucked the one example from the pile in which Shane Sklar might actually agree with Ron Paul.  Don't you find that troubling?

      How about this:  I'll regard my vote for Sklar as a way to oust Ron Paul and a stepping stone for a more progressive candidate down the road.

      by TravnTexas on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 02:08:19 PM PDT

•  Ron Paul Pandering to Racists

  Again.

  I can't imagine the kind of bureaucratic nightmare we'd have if such a proposal passed. But Paul knows this doesn't have a chance. Just election year pandering.

  by Ex Con on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 12:08:10 PM PDT

•  True Quotes

  "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

  "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e., support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."

  "Politically sensible blacks are outnumbered as decent people...I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city (Washington) are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

  These were all published by the Victoria Advocate and have been discussed in many places, including here.

  This man called Barbara Jordan a "half-educated victimologist"!

  We need your help to get rid of him.  Shane Sklar has a good chance--he's got strong support around TX-14.  But it's not a wealthy district and he could really use some donations.  

  TX-14 kinda straddles TX-22; having that much Democratic leadership in one part of Texas could make people's heads explode. People like Tom DeLay, frinstance, which would be all to the good.  And imagine their shock when they learn that more than one Congressional seat in coastal Texas has gone blue!

  If you can give $10, $25, $50, $100, whatever you can give, it will make a big, big difference.

  by rocketito on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 12:16:29 PM PDT

  •  He fired the guy

    who put those quotes in his newsletter.

    by ben masel on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 12:30:30 PM PDT

    •  Come on Ben

      Don't embarass yourself.  Are you really going with Paul's bullshit story about what was in his own newsletter?

      by Mia Dolan on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 12:34:10 PM PDT

•  What a strange man

  Ron Paul is bizarre.  I have to believe that most self-respecting libertarians don't hold him in high regard.

  by Skaje on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 12:16:52 PM PDT

  •  His Repub. colleagues in the House don't

    and gawd knows we Dems in his district don't.  Which means our district is basically isolated and unrepresented.  Who the hell needs that!?  Just save the guy's salary and put a blow-up doll in his seat.  

    by rocketito on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 12:31:19 PM PDT

    •  Don't forget the voting card

      and the default vote of "No"

      by RBH on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 01:26:37 PM PDT

•  At least he's asking for an amendment

  IIRC, a bunch of these others are just trying to pass unconstitutional legislation abolishing citizenship as a universal birthright.

  by ripzaw on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 12:43:49 PM PDT

  •  Don't Mess With The Constitution

    So it's better to permanently butcher the Constitution than to pass a law that can be overturned by the Supreme Court?

    Immigration is a complicated, nuanced issue that needs to be dealt with by grownups -- not crackpot racists trying to get re-elected.

    by Jeff Crosby on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 01:03:02 PM PDT

•  Trying to tie Paul to Foley...

  Not much luck.  The only thing I've found was a mututal support for terminating the US's involvement in the U.N., which has been one of Paul's main issues forever.

  by MaxKelly on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 01:58:04 PM PDT

  •  Paul Opposed Going After Child Predators

    Paul Opposed Going After Child Predators Like Foley

     VICTORIA -- As more sordid details continue to emerge about Mark Foley and the failure of the House leadership to stop him from preying on pages, it is important to remember that our own congressman, Ron Paul, has repeatedly voted against legislation designed to catch online child predators like Foley, said Shane Sklar, Democrat for U.S. Congress.

    “You know it’s time for change in Washington when the leadership of the U.S. House is so greedy for political power that it would allow one of its own members to continue preying on children,” Sklar said. “And you know it’s time for a change in District 14 when your own congressman is actually voting against legislation designed to catch online child predators like Foley.”

     

    Paul voted against three bills that either reduced the chance that children would encounter child porn on the Internet or strengthened law enforcement’s ability to catch online child predators:

    • Prosecutorial Remedies & Tools Against the Exploitation of Children Today Act (PROTECT)
    • Child Obscenity Act and Pornography Prevention Act (COPPA)
    • Children’s Internet Protection Act

    “It is impossible to know right now whether any of the laws that Paul opposed will be used to prosecute Mark Foley,” Sklar said.  “However, it is very accurate to say that laws like these are being used every single day to protect children from online predators like Mark Foley.”

    ###

    by Joel Coon on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 04:30:56 PM PDT