Some Passing Thoughts on the Passing of Rand Paul

Rand Paul made mention the other day on one of the finest news programs on air, that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provided some (Constitutional) issues against private property.

The Liberal Media smells blood in the water and the Conservative Politicians are running to hide.

Now, this may come as a surprise to many, but the problem is, is that Constitutionally speaking, both Ron and Rand are correct. They are Constitutional Fundamentalists, looking at the letter of the law. Liberals generally look at the spirit of the law and the age, I reckon. The Constitution sees a difference between citizen participation and those who are prevented from participating. Further, the Constitution, formed in the wake of an attempted rebellion dealing with private property, deals a lot with the protection of private property. As a matter of fact, a segment of the population was, well, private property. I mean, the Constitution of the Republic (not a Democracy), legalized and protected slavery and the dehumanizing of a person. It enshrined private property.

I don’t think Rand or Ron is racist (well, maybe one of them is) and they are correct about the unconstitutionality of at least certain segments of the Civil Rights Acts. But, what to do about it? Segregation would not end without Federal Intervention. Amending the Constitution to give minorities civil rights would have failed, and upon failure, what would have happened?

Maybe both sides should step back and look at what Rand is saying. Granted, I wouldn’t vote for him as I find his views on several things beyond my toleration, but the fact is, is that there is a difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, and it has been recognized since nearly the very beginning.

Anyway, just my thoughts.

Post By Joel Watts (10,115 Posts)

Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. He is currently a Ph.D. student at the University of the Free State, analyzing Paul’s model of atonement in Galatians. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013), a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013), and Praying in God's Theater, Meditations on the Book of Revelation (Wipf and Stock, 2014).

Website: → Unsettled Christianity

Connect

6 thoughts on “Some Passing Thoughts on the Passing of Rand Paul

  1. You know, I've heard people accuse Maddow of ambushing Paul … it might help if he would ever give a yes/no answer to the yes/no questions he was being asked.

    No, you do not have the right to refuse to serve patrons on the basis of their skin color. I didn't find it that difficult.

    If he really thinks that the answer is “Yes, because otherwise you're limiting freedom” then he should say so and defend that position. I find his meandering and prevaricating to be tedious.

  2. Listen to what he says. He is simply stating that the only thing he didn’t like about the Civil Rights Act is the fact that the Federal Reserve Government wanted to take advantage of a crisis in that they enacted policies that to that which were forced upon the private sector.

    Meaning the government forced business to put in “elevators” and other unnecessary items in their buildings for the handicapped.

    Example: We are a corporate office with 2 stories full of employees. There are approximately 200 employees and 10 are handicapped. There are 4 entrances into the corporate building office. 1 of which is perfectly accessible for handicapped. The gov’t comes in and says you need have 3 more handicapped entrances (1+3 = 4) plus an elevator if they need to go the 2nd story. FYI you also need to make all of your bathrooms handicapped accessible as well as every entrance into the office.

    Your company spent $1,500 to make sure your handicapped employees could work with accessibility while in the corporate offices. Now you have to spend $35,000 after the gov’t came in and told you what you need to do ($1,500 – $35,000 = $33,500 YOU HAVE TO SPEND!)

    This goes for anything else you can think of.

    This is what Rand was pointing out. He believes the free market will take care of itself and the gov’t shouldn’t come in and dictate how they should run business…

    We are taking back our gov't. You either start educating yourselves or get the hell out of the way.

  3. Actually, that is not what he is saying at all, and for that matter, neither was his father. He doesn't believe that the Federal Government should limit freedom of speech, even enacted across the diner's counter.

    Yeah, because government NON-control of oil wells has really shown that it works, and the little bit of government control on coal mines really saves lives.

    You start educating yourself, or you will continue to look ignorant of the facts. You can't even get what Rand is really saying, and I suspect the constitution either, and you expect me to follow your lead on the Government? That's too sad to be funny.

Leave a Reply, Please!