Posted on 05/28/2007 2:00:11 PM PDT by bnelson44
You have no more examples. Yes, you were trying to make a comparison between the writings of the two and who said anything about individual rights and the autobahn?
No you aren't. If you were, you wouldn't be making false statements about Ron Paul.
Reason: The position of the Student Scholars is that 9/11 was executed by the U.S. government. Do you agree or disagree with that?
Paul: I'd say there's no evidence of that.
Reason: So what did you mean when you told Student Scholars you'd be open to a new 9/11 investigation?
Paul: Well, I think the more we know about what we went on is good. But I don't think there's any evidence of [an inside job] and I don't believe that. The blame goes to bad policy. And a lot of times bad policy is well-motivated. The people who believe in a one world government are well motivated, but they disagree with me.
If it was only my opinion that Ron Paul's supporters are unclear on the concept, then you'd be right.
However, RP supporters prove me right every day.
Here's a question no RP supporter has ever been able to answer: Is Paul an "originalist" as some RP supporters claim, or is he a "strict constructionist" as other RP supporters claim?
Bonus points for explaining the difference.
The jury is indeed empowered to apply the law.
What Spooner and Paul are saying is that the jury is empowered to decide whether the law is a law or not.
At this point you are incoherent.
Playing stupid to wiggle out of an argument is childish.
If you are not playing, I apologize and you have my sympathy.
Just because you wish the sad truth about Ron Paul were false doesn't make it so.
No, you keep trying to change the argument to make some sort of point.
Fascinating, isn't it, that the words "inside job" are bracketed - indicating that they were not part of what Paul said.
And, of course, the "truthers" fall into two camps: the ones that say the Bush administration were actively responsible for the atrocity (the "9/11 was an inside job" species of moonbat or "MIHOP" - "made it happen on purpose" variety) and the ones who say the Bush administration was passively responsible for the atrocity because they knew of the plot and deliberately neglected to act (the more common species of 9/11 moonbat - the "LIHOP" or "let it happen on purpose" crew).
It is the LIHOPers, not the MIHOPers, who are calling for a new investigation of 9/11.
Ron Paul, interestingly, is also calling for a new investigation.
What does he believe the new investigation might discover that the first did not?
You are trying to paint him as an anarchist. He isn't.
You are trying to paint him as a "9-11 truther". He isn't.
What other lies will you tell about him next?
Maybe why Able Danger was ignored? Just a guess. Hell, I’d like to know too...
Juries have the right to disagree with the Supreme Court, - when the courts rulings on the constitutionality of legislative statutes, - infringe upon the Constitutional rights of individuals.
Surely, you must agree that juries are empowered to apply both the facts and law of the case at hand to decide guilt or innocence?
The jury is indeed empowered to apply the law.
And applying the Law of the Land, as the jury understands it, is not usurping the power of the USSC, correct?
What Spooner and Paul are saying is that the jury is empowered to decide whether the law is a law or not.
All officials are empowered [and indeed are bound] to support and defend the Law of the Land as they understand it.
Can you agree that jurors are officials of the court and are so bound?
As someone who has actually read the 9/11 Commission Report, I have a great many things I would like answered. Most of them involve holding accountable the specific individuals who dropped the ball...repeatedly.
I can think of two: Gorelick and Tennet.
Here's a question no RP supporter has ever been able to answer: Is Paul an "originalist" as some RP supporters claim, or is he a "strict constructionist" as other RP supporters claim?
The man is a supporter of our Constitution both as it was originally written and as it was strictly constructed.
Bonus points for explaining the difference.
Any difference you see is only what you want to see, - in your mind.
Bogus points to you if you can explain your "originalist" vs "strict constructionist" false dichotomy.
So his laudatory profile page on antiwar.com is just a put-on, right? And his su[pport for defunding our forces overseas was just a joke, right?
You are trying to paint him as an anarchist. He isn't.
I didn't say he was. I just pointed out that he is a big fan of an anarchist ideologue named Lysander Spooner and that he is a popular guy among those who call themselves "anarchocapitalists" like the crew at lewrockwell.com.
It would be weird for a government employee to actually be an anarchist, wouldn't it?
You are trying to paint him as a "9-11 truther". He isn't.
Oh, of course not. He counts prominent 9/11 "truther" Alex Jones among his fans, and he went on Alex Jones' talk show. And he's calling for the repeal of the Patriot Act and a "new investigation" into 9/11 - the number one and two domestic policy goals of the majority of "truthers."
I have no idea why anyone would look askance at all that.
What other lies will you tell about him next?
There is so much wrong with Ron Paul it would be superfluous to make up new things about him.
One of your compatriots answered that already in post 129.
He's aware of the distinction even if you are not.
Here's a clue: an originalist tries to discern what the intent of the Framers was in drafting the Constitution and attempts to hew to their understanding of the Constitution.
A strict constructionist treats the Constitution as a self-contained document and attempts to interpret it on its own terms without reference to external factors like the intent of the Framers.
Please ping me again when you have decided to take such matters seriously.
I'm done with you...
You said the same thing twice. A plain reading of the Constitution is not in conflict with a "constructionist" view. Nor the other way around.
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.