Talk:We the People Act

message: #REDIRECT Talk:List of legislation sponsored by Ron Paul
uh this page has like five citations and it's only a stub so I'm taking down the "needs citations" tag  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.15.114.171 (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

message: This bill would have:
# Prohibited federal courts from hearing:
## "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction;" and
## "any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation."
# Allowed state courts to disobey standing federal precedent on the above issues; and
# Prohibited federal courts from making any ruling which expends funds or "imposes taxes."
This shows clearly that Paul cares more for states' rights than individual rights:  If this bill had become law, states would again be able to outlaw homosexuality, abortion, and any sex act. The bill explicitly references gay marriage (1.2) in a way that would do nothing to protect it; only to allow states to outlaw it.  It would also severely limit the ability of the federal judiciary in a way that would have prevented: 
* enforcement of the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment, to the extent that such enforcement would have required any money, or that freeing slaves constituted taxation of slave owners;
* suffrage, because all those extra ballots for women would have cost money;
* desegregation, to the extent that it required expenditure;
* legalization of abortion;
* discrimination laws protecting gays and lesbians;
* requiring government buildings to comply with accessibility laws;
* the abolition of sodomy laws;
* any order for the government to comply with a law that required any money;
* requiring translation services in for battered women seeking restraining orders in family court; and
* a whole lot more.
I find this very disturbing.  I fully realize that we must have a reliable source which states these problems, and I'm looking for one. ←BenB4 09:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a reason you can't find citations for these wild assertions, most of them are false.  I edited the article to reflect the actual text of the bill, which does not prevent courts from hearing cases determining the constitutionality of these laws.  Gigs (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read the bill?  It's not very long, you don't need to be a lawyer to comprehend this:
SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.
      The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--
            (1) shall not adjudicate--
                  (A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
                  (B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
                  (C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and
            (2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).
And bingo.  The bill repeals the bill of rights from applying to States unless their state courts [i]choose[/i] to apply it, (and their state legislatures don't choose to revoke the ability of the state courts to do so).
So how is the implications of the bill false?
--FNV (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implications 

message: I have stricken the unverifiable opinion regarding this bill allowing Texas to ban atheists from office.
The reason that a creator is involved with the laws of the United States and some individual states is because the whole concept of individual liberty REQUIRES the existence of a creator to be legally valid since without rights being derived from a creator, all people would be PROPERTY, and thus not free.  The concept of a creator in relation to law is therefore not a SPIRITUAL foundation, but rather a LEGAL FICTION required to enable the individual to own their own bodies.  
Hypothetically, without the legal fiction of a creator, you would not own your body. If your parents are the property of another, you are also owned by the person who owns your parents. Further, the owner of the food that you have eaten since birth would own you because you are made of their property.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.239.147.222 (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hogwash!  I don't know where to begin.  The concept of natural rights requires only nature, not a god.  If the Constitution says you got a right, then it doesn't matter whether God exists or whether the Constitution says the right comes from God.  You still got the right.  Period.  End of discussion. FarmBoi (talk) 06:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: no, sorry, you're just dumb Nick (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article has been edited for accuracy: 

message: secularists have criticized the bill as removing federal remedy for allegations of state violation of religious freedom.
This Sentence makes it appear that only secularists oppose the bill,but anyone who has respect for the 14th,LGBT rights,or individual rights may also oppose this bill.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoffmanjohn (talk • contribs) 17:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Sentence needs to be changed