Replies

Ah, so now suddenly Paul is for closing the borders. Too bad he voted against troops on the border so many times.

Don't bother giving me the Constitution argument on this. The fact is that Paul won't defend America abroad and he won't defend her at home either.

You cannot describe a piece of legislation with one cutesy, descriptive sentence, though I would imagine that is as far as most Congressmen get when researching a piece of legislation up for a vote.

Don't bother giving me the Constitution argument on this.

Ok, we'll just ignore Posse Comitatus violations and "other provisions" that were inside the Goode Amendment HR 4200. I still don't agree with Paul's stance on border issues. And it's a fair and compelling argument against Paul's candidacy. Paul has a well thought out and long consistent record against using any combat troops on US soil, he is also consistently against workplace SS number identification schemes on the basis that the US is a right to work country. Up until 9/11 most conservatives were opposed to national ID cards, on various grounds, and I am still against national ID cards. The Bush administration has abandoned the REAL ID Act by almost indefintely delaying it's implementation due to resistance from State level governments. So the prior position of the conservative movement regarding Posse Comitatus and national ID cards hasn't been abandoned, you can successfully argue it is an outmoded stance, but the stance goes back to at least the time period of the introduction of the Social Security Administration.

Actually his record there does not look too bad.

Rep. Paul voted against the Trafficant Amendment to H.R. 1401. This amendment authorized the Secretary of Defense, under certain circumstances, to assign members of the Armed Forces to assist the Border Patrol and Customs Service only in drug interdiction and counter terrorism activities along our borders. The Traficant amendment passed by a vote of 242 to 181.

There seem to have been several times this amendment was offered. Also as the Goode Amendment. What I don't understand is, if these amendments passed anyway, why they were voted on so many times.

Since it seems inconsistent with border control to vote against these amendments, why would Dr. Paul vote against them? Were there other elements expanding governmental powers, sacrificing individual liberties and responsibilities, increasing the tax burden, etc. that ultimately, in Dr. Paul's view, outweighed the benefits?

At any rate, to flat out say Dr. Paul is not interested in border security based on the records to which you refer is to misinterpret the evidence altogether.