It's like youre intentionally blurring the line between philosophy and "case law".
I don't think anyone is sayign that Ron paul definitly wont win based on current law. What those of us who are on ronpaul.com's side are sayign is essentially:
"Ron Paul, the man, is in the wrong here. And just as a welfare mom can end up with my property were the case to go to a court, even if Ron Paul can win in a court (which he probably will) this doesn't mean he is in the right."
I have no problem having a discussion on whether or not RP is in the right on this issue (he is not). But to the extent that you're going to pretend that the discussion is about predicting future court outcomes based on case law, you're simply beating up straw men.
I concede all day long that RP might win the case. I still maintain he is morally wrong.
EDIT: unless you're actually making the ludricious claim that ethics and what is "right and wrong" derives from case law?!? I must admit it's an awfully strange (and easily refuted) case for a libertarian/constitutionalist/ron paul fan to make, but to the extent that you're making it, i'd be glad to hear your attempts.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: