Ron Paul Explores Presidentian run in 2008

Florida Sportsman ^ | 1/13/2007

[rob777]

"POSTED TWICE LAST WEEK"



I saw both of those posts. Neither of them make any mention of the possible paring of Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo. Since both are likely to attract some of the same supporters, as evidenced by some past posts on the subject, I thought that this post was relevant.

[rob777]

"The "old definition" of the right which you are referring to is not old at all, but a recent construct."


It is only a recent construct in relation to European conservatism. American conservatism has always been a different animal. The non-intervention stand on foreign policy goes back to Jefferson and Washington. The Old Right conservatives saw Wilson and FDR as abandoning that tradition.






"No definition of the right has ever included stabbing American troops in the back during time of war."


Expressing opposition to a foreign policy does not equate with "stabbing American troops in the back". I do not recall the same argument being made on this site when we almost unanimously opposed Clinton's bombing of Kosovo, or the "aspirin factory" in Afghanistan.

Claiming that a lack of education will end one up in Iraq is stabbing them in the back, as is protesting at military hospitals, disagreeing with the policy that put them there is not.

[wideawake]

when we almost unanimously opposed Clinton's bombing of Kosovo

I assume you mean Serbia. I didn't oppose it.

or the "aspirin factory" in Afghanistan.

I think you are conflating the airstrike on the Taliban camp in Afghanistan and the separate airstrike on a pharmaceuticals warehouse complex in Sudan.

I think most of the criticism was of Clinton's dilettantism and political timing - he made no solid commitment to eradicating terrorists in either Afghanistan or the Sudan, but simply hit them once with little effect and no follow up.

I will point out that these were all airstrikes and involved no actual boots on the ground.

I believe most conservatives were enraged when Clinton pulled out of Somalia and did nothing to avenge the men who fought and died there.

To regain focus: when American fighting forces are on the ground fighting for an objective, it is stabbing on the back to say that their sacrifices are meaningless and that they cannot hope to accomplish their objective.

That's backstabbing.

That's morale-sniping.

Sure there are backstabbers who say nasty things about our troops.

But here's a hypothetical.

The boss puts employee A on a project and employee B tells other employees: "Employee A is the nicest, most generous, most industrious, most honest guy you could ever hope to meet. But there's no way he can ever do that project. He just can't hack it - and I love the guy - but all the hard work he's done is for nothing. He's just the boss's dupe, that's all."

I consider employee B a backstabber - no matter how much he sings employee A's praises and compliments him. He is denigrating A's ability to accomplish the project in front of everyone.

And it might be somewhat mitigating if he actually possessed the skills that are necessary for doing the project - but he doesn't even have that.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Stabbing in the back? You mean when most Republicans in the U.S. Senate voted to stop the Kosovo bombing. Is that what you mean?

[Austin Willard Wright]

I note that you evaded the point that most Republicans voted to end the Kosovo bombing (stabbed in the back according to your normal standard!) when our troops were in harm's way. Apparently, you have double standard for your own party.....thus your soap-box speeches about "stabbing in the back" can be safely ignored.

[wideawake]

Stabbing in the back? You mean when most Republicans in the U.S. Senate voted to stop the Kosovo bombing. Is that what you mean?

That's precisely what I mean.

[wideawake]

I note that you evaded the point that most Republicans voted to end the Kosovo bombing

I note that you presumed an answer to your question before I gave it.

You're the one who can be safely ignored, you clown.

Loyalty to the country comes before party any day of the week.

And that should be obvious - since I am not allowing Ron Paul's status as a member of the GOP to serve as a free pass for his rhetoric.

[Austin Willard Wright]

You're the one who can be safely ignored, you clown

Clown? Don Rickles, you are not.

Let me confuse you some more with the facts and give you another opportunity to turn red, pound your fist on the table, and start start name calling again. Here is the roll call vote from 1999 when a majority of Republicans (who you refuse to condemn for "stabbing in the back") voted to end the bombing.

[edpc]

Do I really want to back a guy being touted by kooks like Alex Jones and Jeff Rense?

[wideawake]

Let me confuse you some more with the facts

Here's a fact: the resolution you link to was voted on March 23, 1999.

Here's another fact: the NATO airstrikes began on March 24, 1999.

When that roll call vote you linked was taken, operations were not underway.

It's kind of tough to undermine someone while they're in combat before they are in combat, wouldn't you say?

Or is there a time travel aspect to all this I'm unaware of?

voted to end the bombing

I guess time travel must be involved, since you're telling me they voted to end the bombing before the bombing started.

Any other bright observations?

[Irontank]

If you are debating the constitutionality of the Patriot Act or No Child Left Behind, then you're not too familiar with the Constitution

Really? Can you cite the provision in Article I, Section 8 that provides the Congress the authority to enact either of those?

[rob777]

"Do I really want to back a guy being touted by kooks like Alex Jones and Jeff Rense?"




I have followed Ron Paul's political career for a number of years and do not need to base my support on who else supports him. I am fed up with the bureaucratic Welfare State and most forms of government directed social engineering. I expect such things to be supported from the left, but am ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTED at the degree to which the GOP and a large sector of the conservative movement has jumped on this bandwagon. For me, this is THE defining issue of American conservatism. Right now we do not have much of a conservative movement if ones defines conservatism primarily as opposition to government directed social engineering. While I do not agree with Ron Paul on every issue, he is more solid on this one issue than anyone else in national politics. Conservatism needs to rediscover its limited government core and to do so we may need another Goldwater figure to restart the movement. If that figure can get a few "kooks" to embrace the cause, all the more power to him.

As I have said numerous times, I doubt that he will win the GOP primary, but would love to see his candidacy start a grassroots movement that firmly opposes government directed social engineering.

[AFreeCountry74]

So are you saying true conservatism can't win?

[Irontank]

Right now we do not have much of a conservative movement if ones defines conservatism primarily as opposition to government directed social engineering. While I do not agree with Ron Paul on every issue, he is more solid on this one issue than anyone else in national politics

I agree completely...he is the only federal elected official who can get me interested in '08. The only one who takes his oath of office seriously. The rest are just very slight different shades of big government, anti-Constitution statists

[wideawake]

Can you cite the provision in Article I, Section 8 that provides the Congress the authority to enact either of those?

I.8 of the Constitution authorizes Congress to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

The Patriot Act obviously falls under the rubric of providing for the common defense and NCLB is an ill-considered but genuine and constitutional attempt to provide for the general welfare by improving the nation's educational systems.

[Irontank]

I.8 of the Constitution authorizes Congress to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States

I don't want to highjack the thread with a debate over the general welfare clause but, under even the most expansive reading, Congress' power to promote the general welfare is tied to the tax and spend power at the beginning of the clause. That is, the federal government can tax and spend to promote the general welfare...at least according to that "interpretation." Thus, the general welfare power could not be a source of any federal regulatory authority...for that, the Court and socialist activists now look to a gross misconstruction of the Commerce Clause...which is now the most commonly cited source of federal power.

But the PATRIOT Act goes far beyond taxing and spending...it is basically a regulatory/criminal statute.

But even assuming it was just a statute that provided for a federal tax and/or distribution of federal money (say to the states so that state authorities could fight terrorism)...is that right? Did the states delegate to the federal government the power to tax and spend in furtherance of anything they deemed to "promote the general welfare"?

Of course not...James Madison (the "Father of the Constitution"), among many other of the Framers, makes clear that the general welfare clause is not an independent source of federal power. Madison wrote:

Some who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,"amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing had not its origin with the latter.
---James Madison, Federalist 41

Granted, there is no reason to single out the PATRIOT Act or the Department of Education...they are only a small part of the federal government today...98% of which operates without any legitimate Constitutional authority. I really think that, not since Calvin Coolidge, have we had a President or a Congress, that cared a whit about their oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"

When was the last time you heard a congressman or a President say..."I support that but I simply don't have the Constitutional authority to do it"

Among the current crop of federal elected officials...I think only Ron Paul has ever cited the Constitution in voting on legislation. I think he really tries to vote yes only on federal legislation that he sees as authorized by the Constitution...that is why I will support him. If every congressmen and the President did that...98% of the federal government would disappear and we would all be so much better off

[wideawake]

Thus, the general welfare power could not be a source of any federal regulatory authority

And NCLB does not contain any federal regulatory authority.

It does not regulate - it provides funding.

[wideawake]

Also the Patriot Act is not regulatory - it coordinates the efforts of local and federal law enforcement and empowers enhanced federal enforcement of federal offenses.

Did the states delegate to the federal government the power to tax and spend in furtherance of anything they deemed to "promote the general welfare"?

The Constitution empowers the federal government to levy taxes. The Constitution authorizes Congress to spend that money.

No money is being taken from state coffers.

[Unmarked Package]

"So are you saying true conservatism can't win?"

Conservatism advances only through a combination of positive message and persuasive messenger. One will not do well without the other. The more radical the conservative message (i.e., different from status quo), the more engaging, articulate, intelligent, charming, and telegenic the messenger must be to sell the message. True conservatism can win if the message uplifts our spirit and is delivered by a truly exceptional messenger.

Ron Paul’s message in the WOT is one of isolationism. For the current situation in Iraq, his message comes across as defeatist. It’s a radical departure from mainstream conservative thought and traditional American can-do spirit during a time of war with troops on the field of battle. Ron Paul, as the messenger, is not exceptionally engaging, articulate, charming or telegenic regardless of the issue and position he is selling.

In message and delivery, Ron Paul shares attributes of Barry Goldwater who was thought by the majority of U.S. citizens in 1964 to hold extreme positions. Goldwater’s stern, expressionless delivery did not sell well. Goldwater could not persuade large numbers to be comfortable with his message in 1964 and neither can Ron Paul in 2008.

[Irontank]

And NCLB does not contain any federal regulatory authority.

It does not regulate - it provides funding

First, Madison's view that the general welfare clause is not an independent power was one shared by, as far as I know, every Framer and legislator that wrote on the topic. As you can see in Federalist 41, Madison wrote of those who opposed ratification of the Constitution on the grounds that someone would try to claims that the Constitution provides the feds the authority to tax and spend to promote the general welfare:

No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction

In other words, Madison was saying that those that opposed the Constitution were just trying to find absurd arguments for why the federal government would abuse its powers...no one really believed that the government could get away with making that argument.

In 2007, we assume when we read "promote the general welfare of the United States" that it means the welfare of the people of the U.S....that the United States is a single entity and when we refer to the "United States"...we mean the American people.

That is not how the Founders or the citizens of the 13 states thought. In the days before the American Empire...before the Civil War, before the federal income tax...the states were sovereign...people were members of their states first.

As the great Civil War historian Shelby Foote has said, where we today only say "the United States"...before the Civil War, Americans often referred to "these United States" (in the plural)

So, in trying to ascertain what was agreed to when the Constitution was ratified and the extent of power those who ratified believed they were delegating to the federal government, consider the definition of "welfare" from Webster's dictionary (1828 edition)

You see that, in 1828, welfare could be applied to either individuals or states. Clearly then, the extent of any power to "promote the general welfare" would depend on whether it applied to the welfare of the people or the states. There is no reason to believe that the general welfare clause wass intended to confer power on the new fedeeral government to tax and spend to promote the welfare of the individual American people. To anyone who undertands the political context and the republican form of government then existing in America, it is absolutely inconceivable that the states would give the federal government the power to legislate to promote the general welfare of the American people

Moreover, remember that the Constitutional Convention was convened to address some deficiencies in the US Articles of Confederation.

The Articles of Confederation, which provided for an extremely weak federal government was primarily a military alliance between the 13 states...and not much more than that.

The Articles of Confederation also included a general welfare clause.

Article III provided:

The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever

Article VIII provided:

All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury...

No one would ever argue that the federal government under the Articles of Confederation had any power to promote the general welfare of the individual citizens of the 13 states under that document

Rather, the Articles dealt with interstate matters and provisions for the general welfare of the states. Intrastate matters (including the welfare of the citizens of that states) were matters for the states...not the federal government

The US Constitution addressed the deficiencies in the Articles (by providing a taxing power, a power to regulate trade between the states, etc.) but the US Constitution did not alter the basic purpose of the Articles of Confederation...which was to promote the general welfare and common defense of the 13 states...and the writings of so many of the Founders unequivocally confirm this

So, as Madison wrote in Federalist 45:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State

Matters like education are very clearly outside the scope of federal authority...that is a purely state matter and any federal involvement is unconstitutional. Again, I don't solely or even primarily blame this Administration or Congress for the Department of Education...but I can guarantee that they never gave a second thought to the Constitution they swore to protect when they passed NCLB

Even assuming that this "misconstruction" (that Congress has the power to tax and spend to promote the general welfare of the American people) was valid...NCLB is mostly federal regulation. The feds compel the states to provide proficiency standards and prove compliance with those standards, there are curriculum standards, minimum qualifications for teachers, requirments that states provide report cards, etc. All tied to federal money...if states want the money, they have to do what the Department of Education says. None of this is even remotely in accord with what the Constitution says.

And here is a dirty little secret...very very little of what the feds do today is legal...the feds long ago realized that the vast majority of the American people neither understand nor care about the Constitution...so, the document designed to carefully restrict federal power to a few areas beyond the ability of states to regulate...is ignored

The PATRIOT Act is clearly closer to meeting Constitutional review than NCLB (assuming it was a measure undertaken pursuant to a Congressionally declared war)...but Congress never declared war on Al Qaeda or Islamist terrorists so I am uncomfortable with these expansive Executive powers enacted. You should be also. GWB will be gone in 2 years. Do you want President Rodham to have the power to detain or prosecute, as a "domestic terrorist" anyone the feds deem to be involved in "acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state that appear to be intended to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion"? That is laguage directly from the Act. What groups might conceivably fall within that very broad, vague definition? The NRA or other gun rights groups? Operation Rescue or other pro-life groups? Tax protesters? Under the PATRIOT Act, domestic terrorists can be detained, without notice or disclosure of their identity until criminal charges are brought...whenever that might be. And if I am blocking traffic in Trenton NJ, protesting another NJ state confiscation of my income by the state of NJ...I may be engaged in acts dangerous to human life...I am clearly violating municipal ordinances...under the PATRIOT Act, the feds can make me just disappear...after all, I might be a "domestic terrorist"

Why should you or I or any law-abiding patriotic American care? You say that would never happen? The government cannot be trusted. I don't trust President Bush, nor did I trust President Clinton (who was caught with secret FBI files on his political enemies)