Posted on 09/26/2007 11:45:25 AM PDT by traviskicks
Of course you’re right, he has no authority to do that as president.
However, he does have authority to veto everything coming across his desk until congress does it. If he wins the presidency (unlikely or not), congress often works to accomplish what he president ran and won on (as they value their jobs). Paul has talked about the fact that despite his seemingly ‘radical agenda’, he would move slowly and measured and not seek to abolish all these bloated and useless agencies, Dept of Edu, Dept of Enviro, HUD etc... all at once, but rather dismantle it piece by piece in the most feasible way.
That's not even a poll, it's gambling odds.
Ron Paul in the 5th at wherever.
No, he has the authority to veto everything coming across his desk till Congress overides, then he spends the money or gets impeached.
The headline assumes more than it can prove. I’m not afraid of Ron Paul, for I don’t believe that he politically significant. The attempt of the article’s writer is to create a sense that Ron Paul is a victim and that he is significant. He is important enough to be feared and hated. That is simply not based upon fact. Most people think that he is kooky. That is not the same thing has being hated or feared.
Well I can agree, there certainly is a childish aspect to it, certainly there are better ways to campaign for a candidate.
What I posted before wasn’t an online poll.
My follow up would then be, why is he making eliminating these things one of his platforms if he doesn’t have the Constitutional power to do so? Why doesn’t he say what you are saying, he will veto everything until he gets his way?
..and if he does go into veto mode, what will happen with funding of services such as military, border patrol, police, fire, all of those things that all Conservatives agree are vital?
This is one of the reasons I don’t criticize President Bush on not vetoing more. Because the USSC finding the line item veto Unconstitutional, the Congress (both sides) has used this to expand their earmarks so they attach both good and bad to bills. For example, to veto a spending bill that is full of pork you also will cut off funding troops in a war zone or border patrol agents keeping illegals out.
Yikes...isn’t online gambling illegal as well?
www.gambling911.com is one of his bigest supporters.
I’ll answer your question. Example, the CIA was established under the National Security Act of 1947. However the Central Intelligence Group was a prior entity established by Truman (by EO in 1946). The National Security Act of 1947 was just the next step. Wouldn’t the President have the capability to sign an Executive Order demoting certain departments? Or are you of the understanding the only use for Executive Orders is only more centralization of power?
My personal view of the easiest way to eliminate departments is to
A) not nominate Cabinet positions for those departments
B) veto budgets that have funding for those departments
I’m not sure the Constitution would require President Paul (nice ring to it don’t you think ;)) to put Secretaries in all the positions but Congress would probably claim otherwise. So put Secretaries in those positions that would work to put themselves out of work, laying out plans over a 5-10 year period to wind those departments down.
Hopefully in the meantime, Paul’s liberty message would catch on at the Congressional level, spawning more than a few challengers to Congressional seats and putting more people that believe in liberty and freedom in Congress than we currently have.
snicker
Maybe I'm frightened for my defenseless chickens and sheep which are outside and Ron Paul is rumored to be in the neighborhood.
Perhaps we should consider a balanced ticket...... Paul/Kochinich
The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (H.R. 4411, Leach-Goodlatte) was passed by the House, the Senate and signed by the President on October 13, 2006.
See #74, I looked it up and it is illegal as of Oct 2006.
What a joke! This guy will be lucky to break out of single digits in the primary.
But it's all about neocons and war you know.
The dopers, they're concerned about the war too, nothing to do with dope.
To an extent I think it's what sells. I watched Man of the Year the other day (not a Robin Williams fan and I didn't agree with his 'programs') but there was a point early on where he was advised he had to 'step out' and appear different. I'm the sort I've listened to politicians for years and face it they're boring. I still listen, but which is going to catch the ear of John Q Public more? That you'll veto everything across your desk (vague) or you'll eliminate whole departments (specific)? The message is the same, you're going to get rid of whole departments. But one is catchy, the other is political speak that doesn't separate you from the crowd.
.and if he does go into veto mode, what will happen with funding of services such as military, border patrol, police, fire, all of those things that all Conservatives agree are vital?
The problem with shutting the government down in '94 or '95 was Republicans didn't have the backbone to carry through with it. But in effect it would have done the same thing wouldn't it? BTW, police and fire are at best state issues and there are several private fire departments that have popped up of late. The 'people' are returning to the original intent under the Constitution without the help of Washington DC already
And what will it say to the public? The news can't hide 'The President vetoed another bill' for very long. Yes you'll get some up in arms but you explain it right and you'll get a public that's calling their Congressional representation telling them to work with the President to cut government.
Second, in many cases, he is for returning the power of these organizations back to the States, such as the DOE. If he doesn’t fill cabinet positions to run/oversee those, then what will happen in the void? Who in Congress will move to make laws to remove federal power if the voice for this is no longer in Congress?
You pose the ‘inspirational type approach’ to Congress changing based on the figurehead of Paul, but what or how exactly will he do this? You are looking at at least two years before the next major election after (if) he is elected (in theory), but the seats up for grabs there in the House wouldn’t be enough to swing, it would actually be at his four year point. What would happen between day one and year four?
I will disclose that my thinking on this. Paul is making a lot of promises that he cannot fulfill in the office of President. All of the main items he stands for that many of us (Conservatives) agree on- ie, fiscal issues, have the Constitutional authority in Congress, not the executive. The main point of disagreement with Paul is on his CIC role. This is the main Constitutional granted power of the Executive. So he is asking us to move us out of the position where he influences items we agree with him on, and into a position where he influences items we disagree with him on.
I fully believe that Paul knows that the promises he is making about taxes, spending, etc, really are Congressional powers, but he is serving a role. He is preaching to the anti-establishment. Be it ultra small government Conservatives, virtually no government libertarians, or no government anarchists. He is pulling the same thing every politician does, he is saying what people want to hear, not what he has the true power or intention to do anything about.
But that’s just my opinion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.