Genetic Discrimination: Unfair or Natural?

Irrational fear about future rulings for a court makeup that doesn't even exist yet is not a valid reason for a Nay vote.

It's not a question of "fear", rational or not. It is a question of the interpretation of the words of the Constitution, an interpretation that is different by individual and by era. Why do you think that one of the main issues in any presidential election is who the president might nominate for the Supreme and lower courts?

No one who was on the Supreme Court in 1964 is alive today. In fact, the Civil Rights Act was never even challenged in court. There is no reason to just carte blanche assume that this bill would automatically fail if it were challenged in a court today, and therefore, no reason not to simply vote on one's conscience (ie, do their job) and let the Supreme Court strike it down if they are wrong (ie, do their job).

Of course, what should be noted here is that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was never actualyl challenged in court. But... guess what was? So, by your argument, the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 should have never been passed, since it seemingly contradicted a previous court ruling. Is that consistent with your point?

Fortunately, that's not how it works.

His job is to vote on the bill based on LEGISLATIVE reasons, unless there is a VALID reason to believe SCOTUS would find it unconstitutional.

No, actually, this is his job:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

As you can see, there is nothing in this pledge that says that the person taking the oath must blindly follow another one of the branches in doing so, even so far as to assuming what might happen if it were to be judged by it. Defending the Constitution is a "legislative reason".

I can and will take his vote as an indication of objection for legislative reasons, because that's his job, regardless of what he spews.

I see. So you will ignore the reality of the actual reasons he does what he does and replace it with your fantasies (sorry, "spews") of what his reasons should be. I think I'm starting to see where this thread is going.

Too bad, so sad, but this is what the constitution clearly states.

Too bad, so sad, what the Constitution says verbatim and what that translates to as policy is a matter of opinion. And too bad, so sad, his opinion of what it says and of what his job is in relation to it is not yours. And too bad, so sad, he has been doing this now for 10 terms, and is about to be elected to an 11th, so clearly, the voters in his district don't have the problem with it that you have.

In other words, you don't get your way here. You can pound this all you want, but the bottom line is that the only person who can say what is a "valid" reason to vote yes and no are Paul and the voters of this district. And clearly, they are happy with it.

If you want to think that this is still the wrong modus operandi for a representative, that is fine, but I don't share your view one bit. Nor do I share your interpretation of the Constitution.

That's still fine. That's just simple disagreement. What's not fine is outright admitting that you are going to impose your view of what you think his motives for this actions should be in your ideal world on top of the actual motives that are clearly discernible. That kind of brazen dishonesty makes me wonder if there is really any point to this discussion.

Unfortunately I have to end this either way, because I have now been spending far too much time on this and other threads here, and need to get back to the world. Last word is yours. I hope it's something that makes me hopeful about discussions in the future.

"Why do you think that one of the main issues in any presidential election is who the president might nominate for the Supreme and lower courts?"

That's the president's job. Note that it is not the president's job to come up with his or her own "creative" interpretations of the constitution.

"Of course, what should be noted here is that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was never actualyl challenged in court."

LMFAO! That doesn't make it any less constitutional. There are plenty of laws that have never come before the supreme court, does that make them unconstitutional a priori? No.

"As you can see, there is nothing in this pledge that says that the person taking the oath must blindly follow another one of the branches in doing so, even so far as to assuming what might happen if it were to be judged by it. Defending the Constitution is a "legislative reason"."

Creatively reinterpreting the constitution in direct contradiction to how the supreme court currently interprets it is NOT "defending the constitution." Much as I hate their interpretations at times, the congress is not there to pass laws that fly in direct contradction to current interpretation (such as if they were to pass an all-out abortion ban, much as I would love it, it would be a waste of time and taxpayer money, not what I elected them to do). Using current interpretation and precedent as a guide is not the same as "blindly following." It is, however, prudent and should be expected of our elected officials. I'm sorry, but voting against a law just because you're blind to the interstate commerce clause is not "defending" anything but biggotry.

"I see. So you will ignore the reality of the actual reasons he does what he does and replace it with your fantasies (sorry, "spews") of what his reasons should be."

If he wants to be a nutjob and vote on things for reasons that are outside the scope of his job, then I will take his vote however I damn well please.

"Too bad, so sad, what the Constitution says verbatim and what that translates to as policy is a matter of opinion."

Too bad, so sad, the interpretation of the constitution was not left up to little idiot congressmen with inflated self-importance, backed by racist biggots and conspiracy theorists, for a reason. That's all this amounts to, that's all this will EVER amount to. You obviously have a serious problem with what the constitution actually says and seem to think it should be up to every congressman and woman to come up with their own creative "interpretation" of what it means.

"Last word is yours. I hope it's something that makes me hopeful about discussions in the future."

I think the translation here goes something like "I hope you capitulate to my activist congressmen point of view, because I can't stand the heat of debate." Whatever, you want to ignore me, fine, but I hardly think the short debate we've had here so far constitutes a logical endpoint for a "last word" on the subject. I leave the "last word" open for someone else to grab at some point in the future. Lord knows I stirred up a hornet's nest of paulogists who always manage to get in the last word from their parent's basement. Whether it's on this thread or not, I'm sure mine won't be the last word about this subject.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.