What Would a Ron Paul Presidency Really Be Like?

[Kaligula]

So we need a strong, overbearing central government to prevent Sharia law from breaking out in the United States? How can anyone take this tripe seriously....

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

"What if a Ron Paul nomination does happen? Would you support him, or Hillary?"

Hm, I was pondering a similar question recently: what if a pillowcase full of thousand-dollar bills plummeted from the sky and landed in my lap? ...Ain't gonna happen, but...

Actually, your question goes to a fundamental political philosophy of mine: the primaries are the place to vote for the very best candidate, the one who matches your philosophies best, with secondary consideration being given to the matter of winnability.

Ah, but then comes the general election. That, sir or madam, is when I vote against. And there are few I'd relish voting against more than der Hildebeast.

Ron Paul may be many things, top among them a severe disappointment for his blinkered view of global islamofascism and his embrace of Sheehanites and wackjob truthers like Alex Jones. What a pity that his steadfast Constitutionalism and small-government message has been polluted by the company he keeps and his wrongheaded view of the War on Terror. But he's not a Gramsciian Socialist like Hillary. He's not a Bolshevik proudly trumpeting an intent to take things away from us for the common good. He's not a flinty-eyed power-mad Marxist. And he's not married to Bill.

Easy vote, then, come the general. But for the primaries it's essential that he not be nominated.

[AndreaThorn]

And that cuts spending how, exactly?

[AndreaThorn]

You missed that Ron Paul is a Republican. He differs from the Libertarian party on several issues, and border security is one of them.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Most people have no idea how much money the government steals a nickel at a time. The Fair Tax makes Americans aware of exactly how much the government is taking from them in order to buy votes from others.

[KDD]

I have some advice about this Sean Hannity guy. What’s with his continual coddling of Giuliani?

[lormand]

[Rb ver. 2.0]

“What Would a Ron Paul Presidency Really Be Like?”

Hebert Hoover’s.

[Blogatron]

Lots of lumps for everyone.

[Publius Valerius]

1. The CIA and IRS would still exist as Congress would still fund them and any Paul veto would be over ridden.

The IRS is part of the Department of the Treasury, which is an executive department. They can be created or abolished at the will of the President. I'm really not sure where the CIA falls into the scheme of things, but I'm fairly certain that it is an executive agency, also.

If Paul refused to enforce the law for example to pay social security or collect taxes, he would be impeached and removed as he should be.

Maybe, maybe not. If Paul really were elected, it would be a pretty clear mandate. I'm not sure that it would necessarily want to tinker unless Paul's approval ratings were very low.

[JLS]

The IRS is part of the Department of the Treasury, which is an executive department. They can be created or abolished at the will of the President.

Of course not. I guess a president could refuse to fill poltical appointee at an executive departmenet but they most certainly can not abolish them. Nor can they fire the thousands of nonpolitical employees. They would all be in place all during a Paul presidency, churning out paper work, auditing tax payers etc. And a bureaucracy in DC will be more statist without GOP political leadership than with it.

For example here is a link to the Congressional Act Establishing the US Department of Treasury:

US Dept Treasury

[trisham]

We’ll never know.

*****************

Thank goodness.

[trisham]

I'm too busy gazing with doe eyes at the Ron Paul poster decorating my wall.

***************************

Is it this one?

[Publius Valerius]

I guess a president could refuse to fill poltical appointee at an executive departmenet but they most certainly can not abolish them.

I maintain that he could. It is a part of the Executive Branch, and any attempt by Congress to interfere in the functioning of a department that is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Executive branch will run into separation of powers problems. There might be a political fight over it, but I think that as a matter of practicality, the President would hold all the cards in this one. I vaguely recall a Supreme Court case that dealt with whether Congress could require the President to spend money in the budget. It seems like that would shed some light on this question.

[Dead Corpse]

Hhhmmm... without the NEA, NASA, FAA, FCC, and a thousand other Alphabet agencies having nothing to do with Art 1 Sec 8, the cost of running the FedGov drops to under a billion annual that is easily covered by excise taxes. An NRST replaces the income tax and all withholding is dropped. Welfare and SS are summarily ended.

Without government interference and the massive multi-layer tax burden, health care costs drop, everything costs less, our manufacturing base goes into over drive, people start making money hand over fist, and the US rockets back into the #1 economic slot over taking Dubai once again.

Without 22,000 unConstitutional gun laws on the books, drug related crime dies and hiring Blackwater militiamen to help police the border halts illegal immigration in it's tracks.

Islamic extremists, attempting to recreate 9-11, find that their home countries are in a set of nuclear crosshairs. Starting with the carpet bombing of Mecca.

The UN, now relocated to France, becomes increasingly irrelevant.

Legislation to overturn Roe V Wade is pushed to Congress and all Federal Funding for abortion clinics is ended via Executive order.

[JLS]

And the answer to the line item veto decision was in fact the President is bound to spend the monies appropriated by Congress and SIGNED BY HIM in appropriation bills. There is no federal line item veto.

And again all those thousands of people would still be working in those agencies and performing the same jobs even if the president rearranged the boxes on the chart and none of them said for example CIA.

[Designer]

"OK, this question has been asked over and over and over with no answer.. but... specifically HOW will he do this?"

Asked and answered.

I posted a straight answer to MNJohnnie approximately two weeks ago, against my better judgement.

Not that any of you Paul bashers care to read it.

[Designer]

"Do you love the Constitution, or not?"

Sometimes I wonder about the Paul bashers.

I'm thinking they might have a vested interest in the continued growth of big government or of turning our country over to a global U.N. government.

No other way to explain them.

[Designer]

"What if a Ron Paul nomination does happen? Would you support him, or Hillary?"

I don't know about ROTLC, but I have seen more than one post from a REPUBLICAN who said he would rather support Hitlery than vote for Ron Paul.

Hope that answers your question.

[ejonesie22]

I would stock up on supplies and a sh*t load of this: