A very good case for all these "no" votes can be made by asking the question, "Is this within the Constitutionally permitted scope of the federal government"?
Conservatives know that there is a big difference between "I don't like X" and "X must be made illegal". It's one of the most important things that differentiates us from liberals.
Hunter and Thompson are the only two contenders who are both Republican AND conservative.
The fifth directly supports the first amendments prevention of the government preventing the free exercise of religious practice.
Most others involve the equal protection clause.. I can get into a lot more detail if you would like..
As I’ve said often, Paul seems to use his own interpretation of the Dummies Guide to the Constitution as his own little Munchhausen by Proxy for Conservatism, allowing it not to grow by small steps- opting for an all or nothing mentality.
Then where does that fit in under the Constitutionally permitted scope of the Federal government?
}:-)4