I don’t consider Paul’s arguments persuasive in the least. He ignores evidence that works against him, repeats defeated platitudes and is playing to a cult like fringe following. I posted links to 2 discussions and a web site regarding why congressional authorization is constitutionally consistent. I gave my own reasons, and noone has challenged them. I could go on and debate it in a rational way, but when someone simply shots that it’s illegal and demands to see where the constitution authorizes "congressional authorization" (as if the Constitution is that explicit and tedious), I don’t have patience to walk through a reasoned debate with them.
But if you ignore all that, Row v. Wade and any repeated pattern of court decisions are analogous.
Mmmike - "IOW, how are the two decisions not analogous? Ron Paul and exodus have a good point about the shakiness of the current jurisprudence. "**********************
elfman2 - "...but when someone simply shouts that it’s illegal and demands to see where the constitution authorizes "congressional authorization" (as if the Constitution is that explicit and tedious), I don’t have patience to walk through a reasoned debate with them."
You think that the Constitution isn't explicit? My reading of the document resulted in a different opinion. The Constitution if very explicit on every issue. What would be the point of basing an entire system of law on one document, if that document only loosely related to the exercise of law?
Try one "reasoned" argument on me. Give me one example of governmental power that is not explicitly assigned by the Constitution.