Posted on 01/11/2007 4:32:27 PM PST by dogbyte12
Small loss for maintaining their political purity.
I don't think so. Unless I've forgotten my college history classes, he went from Illinois state legislator directly to the White House.
No, don't think so. I have much us for presidential candidates that desert their president in a time of war. Sounds like a finger in the wind candidate to me. I keep looking.
BS. An army, of some sort, quite different than today, is authorized, as well as a standing Navy.
Get back to me after you re-read it.
GOOd thought, but I don't see that happening.
Originally the Air Force was part of the Army... so even if a pure libertarian might argue that the Air Force as its own department is unconstitutional, its not like we would not have been able to field the Army Air corps.
You deliberately took a few words out of my sentence destroying the context. I said no such thing.
Me either, but I still hope. I have too.
Keeping the Constitution up to date with the things that became necessary in past 200 years would probably have required an average of one amendment every ten years or so. What is so outrageous about that? I'd rather amend the Constitution once every ten years, or even once every five, using the process outlined in Article V, then have the Constitution amended constantly, without state approval, by nine men in robes.
Well, HELL, let's call everything part of the Army!
It's all a semantics game!!
Glad to know how you Libertarians actually analyze things.
The Air Force as its own is not unconstitutional........
But it was part of the Army. That is fact.
It's all a semantics game!! Glad to know how you Libertarians actually analyze things.
We analyze things fine. You have argued that Libertarians would be against the air force. I pointed out that the founders had no problem with new muskets, cannons, etc being developed for the arm forces, therefore your notion that a pure reading of the constitution requiring that all new weapons get a constitutional amendment is bogus.
You're right about the men in robes, but that's only when they create new "rights" not found in the Constitution. It's not difficult to construe that the Founders would have wanted an Air Force, if they ever could have envisioned one, is not a large leap.
I doubt the Founders would have considering surrender either.
In the days when airplanes took weeks or months to design and build, there would have been no problem regarding the Air Corps as being a branch of the Army. The only time I see a Constitutional issue with the Air Force is when Congress grants appropriations for projects that will take more than two years to build. One could probably finagle things by declaring that the Air Force was part of the Navy, and thus not subject to the two-year restriction. That would raise some interesting issues; as I see it, there are two reasons the Founders singled out the Navy:
Sure, I agree. I was just pointing out that its not like we never would have developed the capability, as others have stated. When it was time to make it its own department, its not like anyone would have objected to the amendment.
Well, then why did the Founders address the Army and the Navy separately in the Constitution? Why not just say "Armed Forces Using Different Weapons Platforms"?
Do words mean things or not?
It's really hard arguing with two Libertarians on this thread when you're both saying opposite things.
And the weird thing is that I consider myself a "little L" libertarian Republican.
I cannot believe the vitriol on this thread for the only honest, decent and committed to individual liberty politician in America. I've read so much of his speeches and seen the kind of legislation he supports, and his efforts to prevent the large scale government intrusion going on. To come here, of all places, and read this sort of trash is astounding.
But then I note the quality of most comments, and realise, they are pretty moronic. Somehow I think intelligent decent people who can see the value Paul is just aren't bothering with this thread. I almost didn't.
Yes, imagine people actually being upset with a politician who wants to cut and run from our nation's enemies. Now un-American.
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.