Skip to comments.
Profiles In Courage [Cuba]
NRO's The Corner ^
| 4/9/03
| Kathryn Jean Lopez
Posted on 04/10/2003 3:35:35 AM PDT by William McKinley
PROFILES IN COURAGE [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
The House voted 414-0 last night on a resolution "Stating the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the systematic human rights violations in Cuba committed by the Castro regime; calling for the immediate release of all political prisoners and supporting free elections for Cuba." The vote was 414-0.
11 Voting "present"
Frank Ballance
John Conyers
Jesse Jackson Jr.
Sheila Jackson-Lee
Eddie Bernice Johnson
Carolyn Kilpatrick
Barbara Lee
Ron Paul
Bobby Rush
Maxine Waters
Albert Wynn
Posted at 10:11 PM
TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Ron Paul?
To: All
KEEP AMERICA FREE
DONATE TODAY
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC
Donate Here By Secure Server
Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com Become A Monthly Donor
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!
2
posted on
04/10/2003 3:36:24 AM PDT
by
Support Free Republic
(Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
To: William McKinley
How could anyone not embrace this?
To: William McKinley
Of the 10 names of those refusing to support this measure, 9 are known anti-American, avidly pro-Castro, Marxist scum traitors: Ballance, Johnson, E. B. Rush, Conyers, Kilpatrick, Waters, Jackson (IL), Lee, Wynn, and Jackson-Lee (TX).
One is an increasingly loopy libertarian: Ron Paul. I used to like Paul to some degree for his interesting ideas, but in recent years he is getting just plain bizarre.
4
posted on
04/10/2003 3:43:58 AM PDT
by
friendly
To: The_Media_never_lie
How could anyone not embrace this? Someone who can't find in the Constitution a delegated power giving the Congress responsibility for Cuba?
5
posted on
04/10/2003 4:19:53 AM PDT
by
Grut
To: Grut
The Congress has a role in foreign affairs, per the Constitution. And one chamber of the legislature offering what amounts to a position statement has no constitutional impact, whatsoever.
6
posted on
04/10/2003 4:34:43 AM PDT
by
William McKinley
(You're so vain, you probably think this tagline's about you)
To: friendly
I thought Wynn was a relatively moderate black who had hopes of joining the RAT leadership. I wonder why he joined those others.
To: Grut
It's a RESOLUTION, not a law. Do you not know the difference?
To: William McKinley
Ron Paul is darn lucky he wasn't serving in Congress in the 1850's.
To: William McKinley
Ron Paul lost all of my respect with that. He's as loony as the rest of the wingnut libertarians.
V
10
posted on
04/10/2003 5:33:46 AM PDT
by
Beck_isright
("QUAGMIRE" - French word for unable to find anyone to surrender to)
To: William McKinley
Ron Paul? What is up with his vote?
11
posted on
04/10/2003 6:32:24 AM PDT
by
Fury
To: William McKinley; Fury
Ron Paul never votes for ANY of these non-binding resolutions. He views them as a tremendous waste of money since they have no force or effect whatsoever... but apparently they cost tens of thousands of dollars in printing/labor costs.
12
posted on
04/10/2003 6:37:30 AM PDT
by
ambrose
To: ambrose; Fury
That can't be it.
From here:
An anti-ICC amendment offered by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) was passed by the House on a vote of 264 to 152 during consideration of the Defense Department authorization bill (H.R. 4546) on May 10. Paul's amendment, in the form of a non-binding resolution, expresses the sense of the Congress that none of the funds authorized to be appropriated by H.R. 4546 "should be used for any assistance to, or to cooperate with or to provide any support for, the International Criminal Court." Upon offering the amendment, Paul stated that its purpose "is to urge the President not to use any funds for the International Criminal Court" and to "indicate that Congress is behind him in his rejection of this unconstitutional global court."
13
posted on
04/10/2003 6:43:38 AM PDT
by
William McKinley
(You're so vain, you probably think this tagline's about you)
To: 11th Earl of Mar
It's a RESOLUTION, not a law. Do you not know the difference? Sure. A law maybe makes a difference; a resolution only pretends to. Ron Paul was exactly correct to vote against this because not only is it a waste of OUR money, it wastes it pretending to do something for which the Congress has no authority, i.e., governing Cuba.
That's assuming my reading of Rep. Paul's motives is correct. The rest of the non-voting lot are probably just being their usual selves.
Incidentally, if the Constitution doesn't apply to Taliban prisoners held at Gitmo because it's "not in the United States", is Gitmo officially in Cuba? And if so, can it be argued that this resolution applies to them?
14
posted on
04/10/2003 8:16:13 AM PDT
by
Grut
To: Grut
"vote against this" = "vote 'present'". Sorry.
15
posted on
04/10/2003 8:19:20 AM PDT
by
Grut
To: aristeides
Actually I don't know about Wynn. His father needs to scold him for hanging out with a really, really bad crowd.
16
posted on
04/10/2003 9:42:29 AM PDT
by
friendly
To: ambrose
Ron Paul never votes for ANY of these non-binding resolutions. He views them as a tremendous waste of money since they have no force or effect whatsoever... but apparently they cost tens of thousands of dollars in printing/labor costs. I stand corrected and retract my criticism of Ron Paul, since I now understand his ferocious ethical position. Thank you for this insight into his voting pattern.
17
posted on
04/10/2003 9:44:38 AM PDT
by
friendly
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson