Who is making those 973 Ron Paul signs I see on the way to work?

Ridiculous comment.

If he ever made such claims, which he didn't, it was likely he did so with the notion that the amendments are redundant and that individuals already had those protections.

 

How can anyone with even a passing knowledge of the Constitution believe that?

 

There seems to be a pretty fair amount of evidence that XIII and XIV were necessary.

 

Exhibit A for the plaintiff.

 

The real Ron Paul:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

 

Ruh-roh.

 

Does the Constitution grant rights or protect them?

A strong case can be made that the entire document is redundant. But necessary for those among us, which by all accounts is most of us, who don't have a notion of natural rights and rely on handy books or documents to prescribe their ethics for them.

 

I am, shall we say, curious about the "strong argument" which can be made that the constitution is "redundant."

 

Certainly love the part where it shows a Ron Paul quote from 1992 basically saying the L.A. riots ended only when blacks needed to pick up their welfare checks.

You stay classy, Ron Paul.