A Cheerful Anachronism

He believes, with more stubbornness than evidence, that the federal government is a government of strictly enumerated powers, and nowhere in the Constitution's enumeration (Article I, Section 8) can he find any reference to rice.

"More stubborness than evidence"? Does Will have any evidence that the Congress has any constitutional authority beyond that strictly enumerated in Article I, Section 8?

Yes...the federal government has been exceeding its authority since the Louisiana Purchase (and Jefferson agonized over that) but past violations of the Constitution by the federal government do not mean that the feds are no longer bound by it.

So long as every congressman takes an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and to "bear true faith and allegiance to the same"...and whenever any congressman supports another piece of federal legislation that has no authority under the US Constitution...those congressman (and, so far as I know, the only member of the House that actually votes based on Constitutional limits on federal power is Ron Paul) must be exposed as the "domestic enemies" of the Constitution that they are

The liberal answer is of course...the Constitution is "growing".

Another generation of this kind of growth and we won't have any freedoms left.

When I was a kid, this was a free country. Glad I won't live to see 2030.

Where can we get 434 more congressmen and senators just like him?

I wish we had more like Paul. There are even some on FR who argue that we should nationalize health care b/c of the " general welfare" Clause in the Constitution. Scary.

Yes, all our congressmen should be like Ru Paul.

I seem to remember seeing his name as one of the Republican congressmen who voted with the Dems on the "non-binding Iraq resolution".

If I am wrong about this, please let me know.

You are not wrong about this. He is.

any evidence that the Congress has any constitutional authority beyond that strictly enumerated in Article I, Section 8?

While I agree it shouldn't, some of the amendments do convey legislative authority. And even without the amendments there are other powers given to Congress in other parts of Article I (E.g. impeachment) and other parts of the Constitution (E.g. deciding which cases come under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court)

ML/NJ

****The 71-year-old Ob-Gyn doctor has delivered more than 4,000 babies ****

Doctors don't deliver babies - mothers do.

I seem to remember seeing his name as one of the Republican congressmen who voted with the Dems on the "non-binding Iraq resolution".

What part of the Constitution establishes congressional control over military operations (otherwise known as "political commisars")? My opinion of Ron Paul has dropped to zero because of that. He can't find financial support for rice farmers in the Constitution, but he somehow discovered that congress has more authority over the daily operations of the military than the President.

If all our Republican Congressmen were like Ron Paul, we'd either have a 450 member majority or a 50 member minority.

The 17 Republicans Who Voted For Defeat In Iraq

"..Representative Ronald Ernest Paul (TX).."

Try door number 2.

I'm missing something. I checked out Ru Paul and hit upon RuPaul, an American drag performer. The more I think about it there are probably many in Congress who are like RuPaul.

I'm sick of the Constitution being called a "living document" and Congress distorting it to be used to justify funding for every entitlement that comes down the pike.....I find it annoying that Will makes fun of that. Too bad he didn't pick on the non-binding resolution vote....that is something that Paul should be picked on for.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1786261/posts

Ron Paul's Statement on the Iraq War Resolution (Before the U.S. House of Representatives)

This grand debate is welcomed but it could be that this is nothing more than a distraction from the dangerous military confrontation approaching with Iran and supported by many in leadership on both sides of the aisle.

This resolution, unfortunately, does not address the disaster in Iraq. Instead, it seeks to appear opposed to the war while at the same time offering no change of the status quo in Iraq. As such, it is not actually a vote against a troop surge. A real vote against a troop surge is a vote against the coming supplemental appropriation that finances it. I hope all of my colleagues who vote against the surge today will vote against the budgetary surge when it really counts: when we vote on the supplemental.

The biggest red herring in this debate is the constant innuendo that those who don’t support expanding the war are somehow opposing the troops. It’s nothing more than a canard to claim that those of us who struggled to prevent the bloodshed and now want it stopped are somehow less patriotic and less concerned about the welfare of our military personnel.

Osama bin Laden has expressed sadistic pleasure with our invasion of Iraq and was surprised that we served his interests above and beyond his dreams on how we responded after the 9/11 attacks. His pleasure comes from our policy of folly getting ourselves bogged down in the middle of a religious civil war, 7,000 miles from home that is financially bleeding us to death. Total costs now are reasonably estimated to exceed $2 trillion. His recruitment of Islamic extremists has been greatly enhanced by our occupation of Iraq.

Unfortunately, we continue to concentrate on the obvious mismanagement of a war promoted by false information and ignore debating the real issue which is: Why are we determined to follow a foreign policy of empire building and pre-emption which is unbecoming of a constitutional republic?

Those on the right should recall that the traditional conservative position of non-intervention was their position for most of the 20th Century-and they benefited politically from the wars carelessly entered into by the political left. Seven years ago the Right benefited politically by condemning the illegal intervention in Kosovo and Somalia. At the time conservatives were outraged over the failed policy of nation building.

It’s important to recall that the left, in 2003, offered little opposition to the pre-emptive war in Iraq, and many are now not willing to stop it by de-funding it or work to prevent an attack on Iran.

The catch-all phrase, “War on Terrorism”, in all honesty, has no more meaning than if one wants to wage a war against criminal gangsterism. It’s deliberately vague and non definable to justify and permit perpetual war anywhere, and under any circumstances. Don’t forget: the Iraqis and Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with any terrorist attack against us including that on 9/11.

Special interests and the demented philosophy of conquest have driven most wars throughout history. Rarely has the cause of liberty, as it was in our own revolution, been the driving force. In recent decades our policies have been driven by neo-conservative empire radicalism, profiteering in the military industrial complex, misplaced do-good internationalism, mercantilistic notions regarding the need to control natural resources, and blind loyalty to various governments in the Middle East.

For all the misinformation given the American people to justify our invasion, such as our need for national security, enforcing UN resolutions, removing a dictator, establishing a democracy, protecting our oil, the argument has been reduced to this: If we leave now Iraq will be left in a mess-implying the implausible that if we stay it won’t be a mess.

Since it could go badly when we leave, that blame must be placed on those who took us there, not on those of us who now insist that Americans no longer need be killed or maimed and that Americans no longer need to kill any more Iraqis. We’ve had enough of both!

Resorting to a medical analogy, a wrong diagnosis was made at the beginning of the war and the wrong treatment was prescribed. Refusing to reassess our mistakes and insist on just more and more of a failed remedy is destined to kill the patient-in this case the casualties will be our liberties and prosperity here at home and peace abroad.

There’s no logical reason to reject the restraints placed in the Constitution regarding our engaging in foreign conflicts unrelated to our national security. The advice of the founders and our early presidents was sound then and it’s sound today.

We shouldn’t wait until our financial system is completely ruined and we are forced to change our ways. We should do it as quickly as possible and stop the carnage and financial bleeding that will bring us to our knees and force us to stop that which we should have never started.

We all know, in time, the war will be de-funded one way or another and the troops will come home. So why not now?

Where can we get 434 more congressmen and senators just like him?

Why? He is against the Iraq War and voted with the dems against the surge. He is another Murtha

Ron Paul is no hypocrite...he has been consistent in his position on Iraq (he may be alone in that among the 2008 Presidential candidates) and in what he thinks American foreign policy should be...and, unfortunately, Ron Paul's predictions back in 2002 about what would result from the invasion of Iraq have proven to be exactly accurate

He operates from the basic (and accurate I think) assumption that government is not to be trusted...most foreign policy (like most domestic federal policy) is just bureaucratic manuevering riddled with incompetence, inefficiency and corruption...ultimately, designed to expand the power of government and those that keep government in power

Of all the enemies of true liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other....War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.
--James Madison

Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines' safety that it should have.

In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believe the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today.
--Ronald Reagan in his autobiography explaining why he elected to "cut and run" from Lebanon

I don't have any faith that the US government will be able to successfully "build" a free and stable society in Iraq...or Iran...or anywhere else...than I do that it would be able to do so in any American city...where such federal "society-building" efforts have only ever destroyed societies

Oh it's RON Paul.

Sorry ! I was thinking of the other faker.

After reading post #15 and #17 I don't think 'faker' is a fair analysis of Paul. It is obvious that you don't like him and I'm sure you have your reasons. You just aren't doing a good job of articulating them.