Posted on 09/27/2007 11:13:55 AM PDT by jmeagan
CHICAGO - Late on a balmy Friday night in Wicker Park, a gentrifying neighborhood just northwest of the Loop, a small tribe of 20-somethings gathers outside a corner bar. Their leader, a petite, energetic 25-year-old named Meghann Walker, hands out leaflets to people heading inside.
"Do you guys know Ron Paul is going to be in town tomorrow?" Walker asks a short-haired young woman in jeans and flip-flops. "There'll be a lot of good people there, that's for sure."
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
I oppose L.Ron Paul because I oppose sophistry in constitutional reasoning.
I will say it again - the people who most vocally claim to be the Constitution's defenders simultaneously champion an interpretation of the Constitution that is narrow, straightjacketed, and completely unknown in US history.
They interpret the Constitution using the method of the Constitution's enemies, the Anti-Federalists.
They claim to be friends of the Constitution yet they parrot the anti-Constitutional arguments of the Anti-Federalists, treasonous cranks like Lysander Spooner and traitors like Alexander Stephens - people who actively fought against the Constitution and who sought to dismember the Union.
Pretty telling.
LOL Dream on, Alice. You'll get to Wonderland some day.
Old argument from way before Paul, but believe it or not it was made at the height of the space age. If we had these folks in charge we’d be speaking Russian.
I believe the pigs will be flying that day.
Reason would dictate that there is no need for a constitutional amendment authorizing an Air Force, which is so clearly necessary to national defense.
One the one hand I have luantics arguing that the Constitution is a "living document" and on the other I have lunatics arguing that the Constitution is a museum piece.
What's next? An argument that it is unconstitutional to outfit the Postal Service with trucks because the internal combustion engine - like airplanes - did not exist in 1787?
But look at the bloated monstrosity of a government it has given us and ask yourself if you want to continue the tradition of sophistry in Constitutional reasoning.
It is not an either/or.
There is a rational middle way between Lysander Spooner and John Conyers.
Of course we may want to make a Constitutional amendment against Hurricanes...
A mission to Mars, a mission to the Moon, space stations, space shuttles and the like are weakly related to national defense. Look at all the Federal government funding of “science” like nutrition, pyschology, whatever strikes Congresses fancy. It’s all the same reasoning. If we want Federal funding of science like this we should amend the Constitution, defining the allowable purposes of the funding, the limits of it, and where it would be better to leave it in the hands of the states.
Yeah I remember hearing you squealing back in '83 when Reagan cut and ran from Beirut!
There have been several Al-Qaeda sympathizing terrorist cells of U.S. born jihadis busted and prosecuted. One cell was outside of Buffalo, New York... another cell was in Northern Virginia... and there were more.
Until recently almost all Arab immigrants were Christians, and almost all Persian immigrants and Muslim immigrants were not fundamentalists. But if your a fundamentalist Muslim whether Shiite or Sunni, Arab or Persians, you are taught that Infidels are the common enemy.
And then there are the Muslims of CAIR and other front groups, fighting the Jihad by other means - for now!
Welll...I don't know that its eminently constitutional...I don't get too exercised about it because I think you could argue that it would fall within the term "armies" that is used in Article I, Section 8
On the other hand, its not a standing army of foot soldiers (which is obviously what the Founders had in mind when they drafted that provision). Should an Air Force be treated differently then? Some people would argue that the term "armies" is just "armed forces" and, clearly an Air Force is part of the armed forces
But, in my opinion, you cannot read the term "armies" as just the same as "armed forces" because the Constitution treats a navy differently (unlike "armies", the Constitution gives the Congress the power to create a permanent navy...because, unlike armies, the Founders were generally not too concerned about the oppressive nature of navies as they are incapable of occupying territory)...and a navy is part the armed forces...but the Constitution makes a distinction...so why would should not an Air Force also be distinguished?
Personally, I think the Founders would have treated an air force just like a navy and simply given Congress the power to create an Air Force, because, like a navy, an air force cannot be used as an occupying force against a civilian population
My only point is, lets not err on the side of giving the federal government additional powers...if its a no-brainer (like an Air Force)...we should make the feds go get an amendment
Their disdain for standing armies is evidenced by the fact that Congress is given the power to raise and support armies
See post 101 and 102 for the rest of the sentence, or take a gander at the US Constitution.
It was amazing. I clicked to post the start of this thread and then I clicked for my pings. When I got to my pings, someone had already put up an anti-Paul picture and it showed in my pings. By the time I clicked back to the thread, a second anti picture was already up.
What bothers me the most is that most of them don’t even try to make a reasoned argument. That is what I miss the most about the old Town hall Forum. I remember one time when this leftist school teacher came on TH to argue his positions. Now, my English, spelling and grammar are pretty bad, but this guy made me look like a genius in those areas. Not one poster attacked him on that basis, it was all about his ideas.
Is it the position of Paul that we cannot fight “wars” with modern weapons because they are not Constitutionally authorized?
Nope. The rest of the sentence is not included in 101 or 102. It is YOU who is not reading the Constitution precisely (no shocker there).
Those headlines are absolutely classic...
I wouldn't think so.
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.