Ron Paul: Questions That Won't Be Asked About Iraq

House Floor ^ | 10 Sept 02 | Dr. Ron Paul

[jjm2111]

But saddam is not an American citizen sitting in a court of law for mail fraud. He's an enemy tyrant with suspected ties to the single worst day since the civil war.

[jjm2111]

I don't think our airport security right now is the "right way" or even close. But if I security measure was effective and decreased the chance of plane being hijacked, what's an extra 30 minutes?

Freedom is isn't about inconvenience. This country CAN and does have freedom AND security.

[jjm2111]

Of course, so would almost all people. But I think the "police state" is a bogey man in this respect. Al Qaeda can be destroyed without forming a Gestapo.

[jjm2111]

That's New Hampshire and being the only state w/out an income OR a sales tax it's far from socialist.

[Reagan Man]

>>>Harry Browne should sue Paul for plagiarism.

Ain't it the truth!

[vooch]

Relax. I agree with you for the most part. I was getting Zviadist's attention

you sure did :) :), where in CA ? I grew up in LB right on OC border

[takenoprisoner]

1. Our US Constitution was adopted in 1787...done deal. Now, from this letter of 1816:
"And lastly, let us provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods"

Already provided for in the US Constitution. Keep in mind this was 1816 and the US Constitution was already adopted in 1787. Now other states are writing their own constitutions. So do you believe it possible that Jefferson is referring to the constitution for the state of Virginia or other states in the process of adopting their state constitutions?

Finally, what did Jefferson mean when he wrote to Madison in 1809:
"I am persuaded no Constitution was ever before so well calculated as ours for extensive empire and self-government." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1809. ME 12:277

[Isle of sanity in CA]

So do you believe it possible that Jefferson is referring to the constitution for the state of Virginia

It's not only possible, it's a fact. The letter was written regarding the Virginia Constitution.

The principle would apply, however to a federal constitution as well.

[Isle of sanity in CA]

Temecula - Small (but growing) town between Riverside and San Diego...

[Zviadist]

None of this really matters. The upcoming war with Iraq has nothing to do with fighting terrorists or punishing those who attacked us. We are going to attack them because they are a "easy" target,and because everybody already hates them. It's all about keeping the poll numbers up for the coming mid-term elections,and that's all it's about.

Agreed agreed agreed. Wait till stupid Americans find out that the 100 billion to attack won't come out of thin air, but rather out of our own shaky economy. What a bunch of saps! Then some real Islamic nutcases will be cheesed off enough by our attack on a country that has not agressed against us and will do another terror attack on us. Brilliant! Oh...but our glorious boy bureaucrats at "Homeland Security" (Ja!) will protect us!!!

[Zviadist]

On your 1st point I agree in principle, but since this hasn't been done in 60 years it doesn't change my opinion on what we should do. If congress abrogates its' responsibility, then I have no problem with the pres taking action.

You "have no problem" with violations of the Constitution? Then what the hell are you doing on an explicitly pro-Constitution website?

[Zviadist]

I'll say again about our Constitution...live by it and die for it. Without our Constitution of these United States of America, there is not now nor has there ever been an America. And folks who now wish to deny it are our enemy.

Agreed!!! And considering this is a pro-Constitution website, you'd think more would agree with us. Look at all the people on this thread who argue against the Constitution? Incredible!

[Zviadist]

The constitution is just a piece of paper expressing ideals.

I think you should be banned for this statement. It is egregious and is completely in violation of the principles of this website. This is a pro-constitution website. Don't peddle your "piece of paper" crap around here!!!!!!

[Mark Bahner]

"The constitution is just a piece of paper expressing ideals."

What nonsense! You must have taken history/civics in a public school! ;-)

The Constitution doesn't contain "ideals." The Declaration of Independence contains "ideals." The Constitution contains The Law. The Supreme Law of the Land, to be specific.

"Before I have been of the opinion of 'Don't fix it if it's not broken" but lately I'm of the opinion that it IS broken since it is not respected.'"

What is broken are The People. The People are too lazy, weak, and ignorant (see aforementioned public schools) to demand that their elected leaders follow the Constitution. Exhibit A is some of the nonsense posted on this board (and this website, for that matter).

"Now, how to get a constitutional convention off the ground......?"

A constitutional convention, attended by Republicans who are authoritarian/socialist (>90% of elected/appointed officials...e.g., G.W. Bush, T. Lott, D. Hastert, J. Helms, E. Dole) and Democrats would be an unmitigated disaster. Those men and women have not even 1/1000th of wisdom of the Founding Fathers.

Even a constitutional convention run entirely by Freepers would likely produce a document, on the whole, inferior to the present Constitution. (Because the places where freedom-loving Freepers would change the document for the better, would be more than counterbalanced by the places where authoritarian/socialist Freepers would change the document for the worse.)

[Zviadist]

Suddenly I feel as though I am in the twilight zone and I am looking for Rod Serling to show up any second to tell me not to adjust my monitor.

Amazing, isn't it? One more argument for ending the public school system.

[Mark Bahner]

"There was also a time when a person didn't make a statement that he couldn't prove."

Ok, Pappy: Are you, or are you not, a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer?

If your answer is "no"...please prove it.

[takenoprisoner]

The principle would apply, however to a federal constitution as well.

Well I again refer you to what Jefferson said to Madison concerning our Constitution.
"I am persuaded no Constitution was ever before so well calculated as ours for extensive empire and self-government." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1809. ME 12:277

Doesn't read like he would be willing to redo it every 19 years to me. Course even if he did, he could dream on...since the following would apply and Jefferson knew it.

To Propose Amendments

Two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to propose an amendment, OR
Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. This version has not yet been used.

To Ratify Amendments

Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, OR Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method was used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment (repealing Prohibition).

Needless to say, it is quiet the daunting task to amend our US Constitution.

[Zviadist]

His ratings are dropping like a stone. That 85% is based on his 11 years in office. He has gone from 76 to 70 in two years. If he is re-elected, and that is no lock, he will be at the same level as Kennedy by the end of his term.

It is clear that you know nothing about south Texas politics. You are totally incorrect on the numbers.

[Mark Bahner]

"He's an enemy tyrant..."

The U.S. government, at present, has no "enemies," under the Constitution. Under the Constitution, the CONGRESS of the United States determines who are enemies of the United States, and the Congress declares war on them "enemies" when they make that determination.

"...with suspected ties to the single worst day since the civil war."

"Suspected?" By whom? The President of the United States? Well, la-di-dah! Once again, the President of the United States does NOT have the Constitutional authority to kill "suspects"...in the United States, or any other country in the world.

In fact, even CONGRESS does not have the Constitutional authority to kill suspects...either in the United States, or any other country in the world. Congress authorizing the killing of a "suspect" would be a "Bill of Attainder"...which is prohibited by the Constitution:

"A bill of attainder may be defined to be an Act of Parliament for putting a man to death or for otherwise punishing him without trial in the usual form. Thus by a legislative act a man is put in the same position as if he had been convicted after a regular trial."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02059c.htm

What Congress CAN do, legitimately, is to declare "war" on the Saddam Hussein government of Iraq, and to authorize the President to wage that war according to the Constitution and appropriate treaties (e.g. the Geneva Convention).

Such a declaration of war would ALLOW the President to kill Saddam Hussein...but Saddam Hussein would have to be given the opportunity to surrender himself, to be tried in a U.S. court, as a "suspect" in 9/11/01. (Or for whatever other crime that occurred in U.S. jurisdiction, for which he is a suspect.) (Or he could be extradited, to stand trial in whatever other country had jurisdiction for any crime he committed.)

That's how things are done, according to The Law. It's an outrage that the overwhelming majority of elected and appointed Republicans (and Democrats, obviously) have no desire to follow The Law. And the people that vote for those law-breakers are pathetic.

[takenoprisoner]

Did this character Isle of CA say he was in the Navy?