Here’s hoping my liberal friends get off their “Ron Paul fixation.”
Rep. Paul voted against the “Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act.” What is it?
Senators Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Representatives John Lewis (D-GA) and Hulshof (R-MO) today reintroduced legislation which would give the Department of Justice and the FBI the ability to reopen Civil Rights-era criminal cases which have gone cold. The Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act was named after teenager Emmett Till who was murdered and mutilated while on a summer vacation in Money, Mississippi in 1955. Public outrage surrounding the case helped to propel the inception of the modern-day Civil Rights movement in America.
But he’s against the war! Right? Right?
I’m sure he’s got some phony-baloney reasoning for his vote (like his desire to privatize most of the federal gov’t, perhaps even the Justice Department), but I hope the “Ron Paul Infatuation Fest, 2007” can finally be brought to a close.
[Don’t know what “jump the shark” means? Find out here.]
http://www.thirdworldtraveler......n_DAA.html
H. L. Mencken
“The whole purpose of politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
Damn: I was looking for my Civil War Slavery Reparation payments too!
“The isolation associated with hours and hours in front of the tube leads to liberal values and viewpoints,” says Michael Medved.
Now we know why people vote Moonbat!tic.
Will,
This is like people who get all worked up when they hear that Ron Paul voted against a congressional medal of honor for Rosa Parks. What a racist, right?
…except that Ron Paul has voted against EVERY congressional medal of honor, including one for his friend Ronald Reagan. It’s called “principle.” Yes Paul voted against opening the Emmett Till case, but when you don’t present the context, you miss the point. Paul doesn’t feel opening these case is the role of congress *because the constitution doesn’t permit it!*. Instead, it’s the role of local prosecutors.
So Will: try to understand “rule of law, not of men” before you slander the only principled politician in Washington.
Zydeco: You missed Will’s point.
It’s Feeeeeeeel Gooooooood political libel. Write something bad and leave, like a drive by shooting!
Zydeco,
In light of that, I’m having difficulty grasping exactly what “principle” might be involved here.
There are two parts to the law:
1) Creating a section in the DoJ that would reopening unsolved cases involving violations of civil rights laws–i.e. Federal law. That doesn’t seem to be at all within the purview of local and state governments.
2) Funding a office in the FBI that would make investigative resources available not only to the afore-mentioned DoJ section but also to state and local governments that are unable to pursue unsolved cases due to resource constraints.
So, exactly what principle is involved, here, and how does enforcement of the law relate to your comment about the “rule of law, not of men”?
Don Joe,
The principle involved here is not using emotion to expand the power of government.
If there is a reasonable cause to re-open the Emmett Till case 52 years later (which I doubt) then local prosecutors already have the power to do it. Creating an extra agency in the federal government is superfluous.
Playing the people’s emotions to expand government’s power is the oldest trick in the book. Those who are against this are predictably met with cries of “What? Don’t you want to solve Emmett Till’s murder?”
It takes an uneducated public to fall for it. That’s what the Internet is here for!
I’m done with Ron Paul. Bloomberg is the man. I know he’ll repeal the “death tax.” expect an early endorsement from the Times.
Don Joe,
I think there should be a federal Department of Friends. It would have an annual budget of $50 billion and would find friends for people who don’t have any.
WHAT? YOU HAVE SOMETHING AGAINST LONELY PEOPLE FINDING FRIENDS? YOU COLD-HEARTED BASTARD!
Frank,
Some Republican — you’ll vote for Bloomberg over Paul!?
Will, I don’t know where you ran into any genuine liberal who was infatuated with Ron Paul. He’s certainly committed to “principle” if you consider the law of the jungle to be a “principle”.
Charlie,
Paul considers defending laws passed by Congress in line with the Constitution to be “principle.”
You seriously consider our founding document to be based on “the law of the jungle”?
Zydeco,
It seems to me that you’re objecting to the law based on it’s popular name and not with the substance of what it actually does.
Or, are you claiming that funding law enforcement is a gratuitous expansion of government power?
Don Joe,
Well, why do you think they gave the law such an emotion-packed name if its validity and necessity would have insured its passage without such a name? Res ipsa loquitur, as the lawyers say.
Law enforcement is a valid function of government. But that doesn’t mean that every proposed expansion of law enforcement is valid.
*There are already prosecutors with the power to re-open these cases if there is a need for it.* You’re still not addressing this point.
@ 4
Yeah, but when Ron says stuff like this:
“If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”
It makes me wonder why he’s gunshy on going after Emmett Till’s murderer.
Sorry Will, but I’m going to defend Ron Paul here. Paul’s history on certain issues related to race is not very good, but he opposed this because he thinks our government shouldn’t be spending time solving 40+ year old murders. And I agree. I’d much rather see our government dealing with the drug war, which is victimizing the African-American community right now. And in case you need reminding, Paul’s position on that is much better than any of the main Democratic candidates.
Zydeco,
Well, why do you think they gave the law such an emotion-packed name if its validity and necessity would have insured its passage without such a name?
Who’s “they”? Do you know who actually conferred the name?
*There are already prosecutors with the power to re-open these cases if there is a need for it.* You’re still not addressing this point.
Um… My first post addressed that on two levels. Did you bother to spend a couple of minutes thinking about the implications of what I quoted, or are the facts simply too inconvenient for your forgone conclusion?
Lee,
The drug war is ill-conceived and has been largely ineffective despite the copious amounts of money thrown at the problem. In particular, the seizure laws are egregious violations of some important principles–essentially depriving people of property without due process of law.
It seems to me like your advocating throwing good money after bad. I’d rather government funds and effort be put into enforcing laws that have near universal agreement than those whose efficacy is questionable at best.
opening up 40 year old cases is a waste of time and resources. I would have voted it down because of that and becasue I think government needs to shrink not expand.
there goes a couple more million of tax payer money.
Don Joe,
Maybe my reputation doesn’t precede me. :) By “dealing with the drug war”, I mean ending it and creating a strict regulatory system for their sales. Ron Paul arguably would not want a regulatory system either (I’m not even convinced he’s even thought that far ahead), but his position is much better than Obama’s, Edwards’, HRC’s, or even Richardson’s, who is the only one who’s even publicly supported medical marijuana.
Correction, Edwards recently said he supports medical marijuana.
Lee,
I’ll take that, though I think we’re going to have to settle for a difference of opinion on this. Forensic science has come a long way since even the 80’s, particularly with respect to DNA evidence. Taking another look at those older cases can well be worth it now, even it if wasn’t worth it back then.
Personally, I’d like to do both, and I don’t find any way to take a “principled” stance one way or another.
By the way, how’s that post on regulation coming along?
errr ahhh
and these are the important issues?
Most problmes go away if you scare them by fxin the easy parts.
E.g.
MJ is pretty harmless .. no worse than coffee. Legalize it and then sue the vendors for causing cancer AND obesity.
How about a bounty of civil rights murderers? Lets say 200k per? Alive only, of course.
Lets put the cocaine back into Coke .. they KNOW hjow to dilute a drug.
Just trying to make a little sense here.
“I think there should be a federal Department of Friends. It would have an annual budget of $50 billion and would find friends for people who don’t have any.
WHAT? YOU HAVE SOMETHING AGAINST LONELY PEOPLE FINDING FRIENDS? YOU COLD-HEARTED BASTARD!”
LOL! Like the ministry of love, in Orwell’s 1984.
Seriously, let’s open up the who shot Abe Lincoln case, why not?
I wish these whining liberals would stop trying to find things to pick on because there just AREN’T any!
REALLY SLOW news day. CNN is doing flying Asian fish, and Zydeco is, well……
Don Joe,
I don’t know who named the law, but it was obviously people who want it passed, right?
“1) Creating a section in the DoJ that would reopening unsolved cases involving violations of civil rights laws–i.e. Federal law. That doesn’t seem to be at all within the purview of local and state governments.”
So-called “civil rights” laws themselves are wrong and unnecessary. If an act is a crime it is a crime and should be prosecuted as such.
“Funding a office in the FBI that would make investigative resources available not only to the afore-mentioned DoJ section but also to state and local governments that are unable to pursue unsolved cases due to resource constraints.”
If the bar is set this low for building new levels of bureaucracy then there is theoretically no spending at the federal level that can be opposed. Simply state that “we have to spend this money federally because the states’ resources are stretched” and there is your justification.
With thinking like that, no wonder Washington will spend 1 out of every 4 dollars earned by an American next year ($2.9 trillion from a $13 trillion GNP).
Care to know just how much of that money is simply squandered uselessly? I live in DC and can assure you it’s the majority of it. And that’s why I’m voting for Ron Paul.
There’s a reason Americans at the moment give congress a 14% approval rating and the president a 26% approval. The American people know that DC is too corrupt to allow it to continue, and that Ron Paul is the only guy who clean it up.
Zydeco,
So-called “civil rights” laws themselves are wrong and unnecessary. If an act is a crime it is a crime and should be prosecuted as such.
I didn’t ask for your opinion about whether or not the law being enforced is a good law. I asked for an elucidation of the principle you claim is involved. Does your concept of “principle” include “begging the question”?
If the bar is set this low for building new levels of bureaucracy then there is theoretically no spending at the federal level that can be opposed.
Well, already, there’s no “theoretical” limit on government spending despite this law, so we can add non sequitur to your list of rhetorical offenses.
If government spending is your issue, then I suggest you figure out a way to get us out of Iraq, and quickly.
There’s a reason Americans at the moment give congress a 14% approval rating and the president a 26% approval. The American people know that DC is too corrupt to allow it to continue, and that Ron Paul is the only guy who clean it up.
In flies Superman to save the day!
Meanwhile, I’m still waiting for you to explain what this “principle” is that so governs Ron Paul’s voting record.
The fact Ron Paul has an “R” after his name is reason enough not to trust him or vote for him.
@ 16
Er, well, maybe he’s good on drug war stuff, but on “Finding Out Who The F*** Killed Emmett Till” stuff, he’s a big fat zero, and I will no longer stand silent when good, decent liberals actually consider him as a candidate in ’08. (you, of course, are allowed to still think highly of him, for reasons that are clear to anyone who reads your blog)
Don Joe:
The principle is: don’t add unnecessary layers of government.
The people who think that it is a waste of money and time (like Ron Paul apparently does) to catch the killers who brutally mutilated a little boy are sick. I know some of you don’t consider him human because he’s black but if he were your son or brother you would not rest until his killers were convicted.
Zydeco,
The principle is: don’t add unnecessary layers of government.
Except that there is no clear definition for “unnecessary” in this context. As a consequence, what you’ve stated isn’t a principle. It’s a platitude.
I wonder if Ron Paul would buy one of these? Do they have pollution controls? http://tinyurl.com/29dtqr
Yos Lib Idioto Sitting Bull – Don’t read it. May cause headaches and pain.
Will,
We already pretty much know what happened to Emmitt Till (you can see his Wikipedia page for the details). If there are specific unsolved cases out there that people want solved, I think they can specifically make that case towards the FBI and I might support it, but this bill is pure sideshow to me, and it means very little coming from the drug warriors who care so little about the damage they’re doing to the African-American community today.
First of all, Will: in post #15 you “quoted” Ron Paul for something that was published in a newsletter with his name on it, but that he had no direct oversight over, and it happened over 15 years ago.
He has since denounced those words and everything he has ever said goes against racism, so that is just libel that has been proven wrong 100 times.
As for this silly argument about this one vote; I’ll admit that I’m not familiar with it, but I do know that all the people who see Ron Paul getting famous for being the only politician with any principle on the war (including Democrats) should just be wary of people going out of their way to try to take him down.
Here are a few examples of false attempts to smear Paul:
1. The digging up of a semi-racist quote that was published under Paul’s name by a staff-writer over a decade ago, which Paul has since apologized for and denounced. People love to take the quote and not explain that Paul didn’t even write it and has never endorsed it, and was quite angry when he heard about it being published in his paper. Anyone who has followed Ron Paul knows that he is fighting for equal rights for all people and therefore abhors racism and has been on the record literally hundreds of times denouncing racism.
2. A recent report that deals with politicians who pay their friends and relatives out of campaign funds and federal budgets…Ron Paul was on the list for paying his daughter over 100 thousand dollars!!! Oh my gosh he’s corrupt just like the rest!!! Actually, he paid his daughter this amount over 9 years for being his office manager, a position which she is highly qualified for and which she was actually paid an extremely modest salary. Some of the examples in the report are suspicious, but this one (and several others unrelated to Paul) is just a joke. Anyone who has followed Paul knows that he accepts NO money from special interest groups (unlike almost every other politician), and he returns a portion of his congressional office budget to the treasury every year. He has NEVER voted for a congressional pay raise, etc. etc. etc. He’s the least self-interested politician of the whole lot, with Dennis Kucinich as a possible runner-up, even though I disagree with his politics a lot of the time.
3. Any of a series of out of context votes. When power brokers in congress write laws, they name them in a way that specifically makes it dangerous to oppose them. They want a name that they can point to for political reasons and say “My opponent opposed the ‘Make Everyone Happier’ act.” That’s why whatever a law’s name is, you can often find out it is the exact opposite; for instance the “Patriot” Act. What’s patriotic about letting the government strip us of our civil liberties?
3.a. Another similar example is pointing to the fact that Ron Paul didn’t vote to give Rosa Parks the metal of honor. This makes him a racist right? Well actually he has never voted to approve a metal of honor because nothing in the constitution authorizes congress to use your taxdollars to fund the minting and presentation of such a metal. So Ron Paul, and this type of stuff is why many people love him, not just on the war…Ron Paul gets up in front of congress and says essentially “So and So had an incredible impact on our world and should be honored. However the constitution doesn’t authorize that we use the taxpayers’ money for this. Therefore I will vote against this bill and instead offer 100 dollars of my own money to fund this metal. If everyone else in congress matches this hundred dollars, we will have more than the $30,000 dollars allocated in the bill for the metal.” So he offers his own money and urges others to do the same, instead of going against the constitution. Surprise, surprise not one congressman/woman ever takes him up on this challenge. They’re happier using our money in ways not authorized by the constitution.
4. In this particular case, we’re talking about a bill that was passed very recently, and that as far as I can tell (and again I admit I’m unfamiliar with it) it seems like it shouldn’t be a matter for the federal government, sort of like the Terry Schiavo case…
I’ll personally await Dr. Paul’s explanation. If I’m unsatisfied, I’ll join you in this outrage. I’ve been following Ron Paul for a while now though, and I’ve seen people do this before where a vote he makes looks nasty and evil on the surface, but as soon as you let him explain it, he has a totally logical and acceptable answer.
Like I said, if I’m wrong and his explanation is “I just don’t think it matters if black people get killed…” or anything that implies anything along those lines, then I’ll happily join in your outrage.
But like I said, he’s proved again and again that he votes on the constitution and nothing else. If you hate him for that, fine, but let’s make it clear that that’s your problem with him.
I’ll check in here after I’ve read more about this vote.
-Chad
Golly people. From 1986 through 1996, one hundred twenty-three murdered black women in Washington DC listed as unsolved homicides.
Where was the social engineering mandated from the Congressional Democrats then?
Oh it wasn’t a problem… they were just black girls
I love it when you libs bring up these things!
Didn’t using the phrase “jump the shark” uh… jump the shark?
—
Democrats for Ron Paul
I agree completly. I mean its not like that 100 million dollars they are spending on this could have been used on something better. It just make me feel good inside when I know that my tax dollars are going to solve 40+ year old murders. Anyways Im sure the goverment will get an awsome return on that money. They will probably catch a suspect before they all die of old age. Then I will know the money wasnt wasted.
The “principle” Ron Paul is standing on is the 10th Amendment.
Step1 – Read the tenth Amendment. It reads as fallowed: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.” Read it a couple of times and you will realize that anything not expressly delegated to the federal government is reserved for the states or the people.
Step 2 – Read the Constitution and find the place where it authorizes the creation of a department to solve past crimes of specific civil rights violations. Hint: The Constitution does NOT give this authorization to congress, feel free to look though.
Step 3 – Realize that most of the laws passed by congress do not meet the standard of the 10th Amendment. Then say to yourself “if congress does not fallow the 10th, what about the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th Amendments, all of them. You cannot just fallow the parts of the Bill of Rights you like and ignore the rest. Either you fallow the Bill of Right or you don’t, pick your side. Besides, if the USA hates the 10th Amendment so much lets get rid of it the correct way, a Constitutional Amendment to get rid of it, duh!
Step 4 – Say to yourself: “if THAT is not authorized by the Constitution, what IS authorized?” I’m glad you asked, Article 1 Section 8 says everything that congress is allowed to do. I will not post that whole section here (go read it for yourself) but the basics are create a navy, coin money (in gold or silver ONLY), declare war, levy taxes, etc.
As you can see, in black and white, there is no authorization to make the office you want (at the federal level). Cry all you want but my Bill of Right is none-negotiable, NOT ONE SINGLE PART. Ron Paul understands this, which is why he has my vote.
Correction: Bill of Rights, with an “s” at the end. I typed that post just a little too fast. Whoops.
@39
This is where I diverge from Ron Paul’s Constitutional absolutes. The nature of the modern world has rendered a lot of the constitution obsolete. When someone can sit in an apartment with Seattle, work for a company based in Seoul, fly to Tampa every other weekend, play poker with people on the internet from Brazil, Russia, and Bulgaria, and buy real estate in North Dakota, the notion that economic affairs can simply be managed at the state level is obsolete. Not that this gives government the excuse to be wasteful, but it does give us a reason to rethink the scope of what the federal government should be doing.
@41
This idea that we live in a brave new world and the Constitution and Bill of Rights no longer applies sickens me to my very core. If we, as US of A citizens, no longer think the 10th amendment applies in today’s world, we should fallow the rule of law by passing an Amendment revoking the 10th Amendment. Our government should never, just by fiat, rule the 10th Amendment no long applies. If you want to have the government to just decide that the law no longer applies, maybe you think it is ok for them to just say “the first Amendment no longer applies, so shut up or prepared to be gunned down” or “we know there is a law against murder, but we are not going to enforce it, have fun” then I don’t want to live in your vision of the USA. The rule of law must stand, if the government doesn’t enforce the law (The Constitution and Bill of Rights are the supreme law to which all other laws are subordinate, by the way) what are they there for?
@42
Well, I just explained why the 10th Amendment shouldn’t apply today in the way that it was intended. If someone wants to explain why the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, or any other Amendment doesn’t apply, I will listen, but I doubt I could be convinced. The difference between the 10th Amendment and the earlier ones is that the earlier Amendments are focused on rights that individuals have within a justice system, while the 10th Amendment is about the role that government plays within a society. Even as society changes, the rights that individuals have are still rooted in the same principles of human nature, which do not change.
The question of whether or not we should explicitly revoke the 10th Amendment is something I’ve never thought of, but the notion that the federal government should have been prevented from setting up things like the FAA or the FDA because of the 10th Amendment is absurd on its face.
@43
“the notion that the federal government should have been prevented from setting up things like the FAA or the FDA because of the 10th Amendment is absurd on its face”
How is it absurd? Please explain. The Constitution was made specifically to suppress the federal government for engaging in certain activates, namely everything it dose not have explicit authority do to. To me the notion that the Constitution gives the federal government the right to do anything it wants regardless of what the law says is absurd.
What makes this kid think that the FEDERAL AA or the FEDERAl DA do a better job than a private or state-level system? YUCK.
How is it absurd? Please explain. The Constitution was made specifically to suppress the federal government for engaging in certain activates, namely everything it dose not have explicit authority do to. To me the notion that the Constitution gives the federal government the right to do anything it wants regardless of what the law says is absurd.
It’s absurd because you can’t regulate the nation’s air travel at the state level. Are you going to have 50 separate entities that all have to coordinate with each other to maintain safe air travel? These are the kinds of things that the people who wrote the Constitution could not have envisioned and that’s why it’s not unconstitutional to have the federal government deal with it.
Hey Don Joe.
Could you please head over to your favorite on-line copy of the constitution and report back where the federal government is given the authority to prosecute crimes other than the three listed explicitly?
“It’s absurd because you can’t regulate the nation’s air travel at the state level. Are you going to have 50 separate entities that all have to coordinate with each other to maintain safe air travel? These are the kinds of things that the people who wrote the Constitution could not have envisioned and that’s why it’s not unconstitutional to have the federal government deal with it.”
Well, if it is impossible for 50 entities to cooperate with each other then how is international travel possible, there are well over 50 countries in the world all with their own laws and yet somehow we are able to fly internationally.
“that’s why it’s not unconstitutional to have the federal government deal with it.”
By what definition are you using the word unconstitutional? My understanding is if the Constitution says you cannot do a certain thing, and you do it, that is unconstitutional. It seems to me that your definition of unconstitutional is whether or not there is a supposedly good reason to go against what the law says. I beg to differ. Again, the founders knew there would be reason to change the Constitution in the future. That is why they put the process of amending the Constitution in the Constitution, just for that purpose. So until someone amends the Constitution to take that out it is still the law and should be treated as such.
“Puddybud Who Left The Reservation says:
Damn: I was looking for my Civil War Slavery Reparation payments too!”
You got them already. It’s called Affirmative Action. Some people took advantage of it, some didn’t.
You can forget getting 40 acres on some island off of South Carolina, and you might want to ask the Indians what kind of land deal they got.
Lee:
It’s absurd because you can’t regulate the nation’s air travel at the state level.
Why would you want to regulate it? Do you think that without the FAA airlines would be crashing their airplanes into things? Seems a bit expensive for them doesn’t it?
Lee
Your example is not only a bit absurd, but is covered by the Constitution.
“The Congress shall have Power… to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”
While this clause has been (my opinion) much abused, regulation of interstate air traffic certainly falls within its scope.
I’m one of those folks with a bit of admiration for Rep Paul, although I could never vote for him. He is apparently honest and seems consistent in his views, even where it would be popular to shift.
Even if I’m not going to vote for him, I can admire an honest, diligent and consistent advocate for his political views.
Seriously though, the chances of his being nominated are effectively nil. The Republicans hate the man, and he won’t run as a Democrat. Libertarians might nominate him, but have neither the resources nor the manpower to run a real campaign. The most he could be is a spoiler, and I doubt that he’d be willing to do that.
It may well be that we need a government agency to control the airline paths. Of course the founding fathers could not have known how sucessful airline traffic could be.
They were, however, bright enough to give us methods to change the darned thing. We should amend the Constitution in cirumstances like that. Not ignore, not interpret, amend.
Well, if it is impossible for 50 entities to cooperate with each other then how is international travel possible, there are well over 50 countries in the world all with their own laws and yet somehow we are able to fly internationally.
Europe has a single organization akin to the FAA that deals with air travel in the same way that the FAA does. The reason is because it’s inefficient for it not to be centralized. An even better example of this is cell phones. Cell phones were set up on a single standard for much of the world (something that required numerous countries collaborating). The U.S. didn’t like that for a rationale very similar to what you’re saying. Now we’re playing catch-up to the rest of the world in that industry.
By what definition are you using the word unconstitutional? My understanding is if the Constitution says you cannot do a certain thing, and you do it, that is unconstitutional. It seems to me that your definition of unconstitutional is whether or not there is a supposedly good reason to go against what the law says.
Please read John Barelli’s comment. I’ve been too lazy to just look it up.
Why would you want to regulate it? Do you think that without the FAA airlines would be crashing their airplanes into things? Seems a bit expensive for them doesn’t it?
As someone who used to test flight controls at Boeing, let me tell you that the FAA does, in fact, serve a purpose for ensuring that a baseline of safety is always maintained. Obviously, Boeing cares about safety a lot on their own, but the presence of the FAA in overseeing both their technical requirements and also managing air travel is a justifiable and responsible role of the federal government.
Ron Paul is a libertarian nut-case. End.of.story.
You are right. He does have a phney baloney excuse for voting against it. The federal government has no constitutional authority to investigate local crimes such as murder. But since when do we expect our congressman to their oath to protect the constitution?