Parts of the Problem

[solarbird]

It's part of the problem when "opposition" leadership backs retroactive immunity for blatant lawbreaking, shutting off the only functional avenue for investigation.

It's part of the problem when "opposition" leaders help you appoint judges who rule that your many of your constituents are unfit to have children.

It's part of the problem when "opposition" leaders cooperation moves the pro-torture party's leadership to tears of joy.

It's part of the problem when "opposition" leaders provide the key support to getting pro-torture appointees through the Senate they control. But I suppose they do get Beltway press support for it, and that's all that matters within the New Court at Versailles.

Comments

[wrog]

"Federalist Libertarianism" in the sense that the Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government and that state and local governments should be able to abuse people however they want, is a disingenuous abuse of language.

It may be a self-consistent position, but the people who hold it, to the extent they care about individual liberty at all, are the ones who are somehow worried about the federal government but simultaneously confident that the states&locals will never infringe on the liberties they care about. It's rather difficult to have this kind of confidence unless one has (or thinks one has) local majorities to enforce one's views. And really, the only reason to be opposed to having Federal-level protections is if it turns out the Feds are trying to protect stuff that you don't want protected.

... and gosh-whattaya-know 99.5% of the time it turns out to be people who are pissed off by the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the school-prayer rulings, Brown v. Board of Education, Lawrence v. Texas, you name it. I'm sure this is a huge coincidence. And it's sure nice to be able to call oneself "libertarian" because for some reason that sounds nicer than "bigotted, racist pricks who miss the days when they had the niggers and queers well in hand".

With respect to Ron Paul's flag-burning amendments, I would be very interested to know if

1. he's stated any kind of opposition to such legislation coming from state & local governments, or if
2. there've been any instances of his rushing to the defense of DFH anti-war protestors burning flags (hm, how often does this happen really?) similar to his defense of white supremacists burning crosses.

[wrog]

Hm. looks like Dave Niewert has done the followup on flag-burning that I was too lazy to do and answered the question for me.

Apparently, Ron Paul indeed has no problem whatsoever with prohibiting flagburning at the state/local level.