Why Rand Paul is the second best thing to happen to the Democrats

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joe_Cool
  • Start date Start date
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.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
 
How exactly is he "splitting the republican party"? Splitting the strong support for who?

Or are you clowns just spouting rhetoric without actually having any clue what you're talking about?
 
you're the clown here bozo

gathering in droves behind some racist with a microphone. Typical form for the right wing.
 
So, let me get this right. According to the law, if I own a bar, and just "give" out bar food like peanuts, pickled eggs and pigs feet, I can charge different prices to different races for drinks?

Damn! I'm gonna start charging like 10 bucks for Coronas and $.50 for Bud lites! Next Wednesday is white ladies night!

Y'all come!
 
(a) Equal access
All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
 
And the Constitution specifically addresses Congress' right to legislate to ensure these Civil Rights. Congress acted and the Supreme Court agreed.

See: Jones v. Mayer Co. or Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States.
 
Answer the question, fucky. Who is the other major candidate whose support he is he splitting?
 
did it just take you until page 5 to figure out that "(a) Equal access" is what we're complaining about?


the issue around what Paul said is that he doesn't believe congress had the right, or that congress should have legislated, equal access for private business.
 
Back
Top