Palin: GOP Should Not Alienate Ron Paul Voters

Sarah Palin said she wasn't surprised at Rick Santorum's success in Iowa, and warned that the GOP should not take Ron Paul's supporters lightly.

Speaking on Fox News before Iowa's final numbers were in, she called Santorum "spot-on" with his policies toward Iran and praised his "social conservative" positions.

Her strongest comments came for Paul, however, saying "the GOP had better not marginalize Ron Paul and his supporters after this" because "a lot of Americans are war-weary and we are broke" and Paul has reached that constituency well. She warned that the GOP "better work with them."

you simply repeat yourselves.

Wrong.

Everything you just repeated was refuted in earlier posts.

Wrong again.

1)Thomas’ opinion was on the losing side.

Was his opinion correct? (As I asked and you failed to answer: Don't tell me you think the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says that it says? Do you think that about, say, Roe v Wade or Lawrence v Texas?)

2) Thomas’ rationale affirms the Commerce clause in general, while disputing only a specific and small exception as described by Thomas.

The exception is "local cultivation and consumption of marijuana;" nothing in the opinion supports your claim that it's "small."

Thomas’ rationale affirms the Commerce clause in general, while disputing only a specific and small exception as described by Thomas.

The exception is "local cultivation and consumption of marijuana;" nothing in the opinion supports your claim that it's "small."

Incorrect on all points...and more repeating of wrong stuff.

My identification of the exception is clearly correct:
"local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not “Commerce … among the several States.” U.S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3. By holding that Congress may regulate activity that is neither interstate nor commerce under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution’s limits on federal power." - GONZALES V. RAICH (03-1454) 545 U.S. 1 (2005), dissenting

And since nonexistence can't by its nature be positively proved, the burden of proof is on you to show that Thomas' opinion identifies the exception as small. To get you started, here's the link - http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html.

Ron Paul must be heard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EQSOwgWG1c&feature=related

Why must he be heard - does he present an argument in support of your claims regarding the constitutionality of current federal drug laws?

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.