Libertarian, Constitution Party Leaders endorse Ron paul for President (2 Articles)

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Libertarian, Constitution Party Leaders endorse Ron paul for President (2 Articles)

Former LP Presidential Candidate Endorses Ron Paul For President

Michael Badnarik, the 2004 Libertarian Party candidate for President of the United States, has endorsed Republican Congressman Ron Paul (Texas) for President.

“My short term goal for the next two years is to make sure that Ron Paul is elected president in 2008,” Badnarik said Friday night at the New Hampshire Liberty Forum, a pro-liberty conference hosted by the Free State Project.

(…) In his Friday night keynote address, Badnarik, who is also a member of the Free State Project and plans to move to New Hampshire by the end of 2008, urged over 200 attendees to support Ron Paul for president by making campaign contributions and activating grassroots support.

“You cannot do it yourself,” he said. “You have to have wide, wide grassroots support.”

Badnarik also urged the Libertarian Party to nominate Ron Paul as well. “I hope the Libertarian Party is smart enough to say, ‘Oh ho, somebody we can trust!’ and nominate Ron Paul as our nominee,” he said. “We should set the Republican, Democrat, Libertarian labels aside, and vote for Ron Paul the person.”

Why do Evangelicals ignore Ron Paul? (Chuck Baldwin, 2004 VP Candidate, Constitution Party News)

Evangelical Christians are already beginning the process of selecting the Republican presidential candidate whom they can anoint as their successor to George W. Bush. Somehow, evangelicals have this deluded idea that President Bush is one of them. How they came to this delusion both fascinates and escapes me. Bush is anything but one of them. However, most evangelicals believe he is, and today it seems that illusion is greater than reality, anyway. Bush proves that more than anyone I have ever known. But enough about Bush.

The question burning in the minds of evangelicals today is: Which Republican candidate for president will we anoint?...

Ron Paul has served as a conservative congressman from Texas for over 16 years. He currently has a 100% rating from The Conservative Index, which is probably the most relevant and accurate reflection of a congressman’s true conservative record out there.

Furthermore, unlike most Republicans, Paul’s commitment to the life issue is more than rhetoric. For example, during the 2005 congressional session, Rep. Paul introduced H.R. 776, entitled the "Sanctity of Life Act of 2005."

Had it passed, H.R. 776 would have recognized the personhood of all unborn babies by declaring, "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception." The bill also recognized the authority of each State to protect the lives of unborn children. In addition, H.R. 776 would have removed abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, thereby nullifying the Roe v Wade decision, and would have denied funding for abortion providers. In plain language, H.R. 776 would have ended abortion on demand. (It is more than interesting to me that none of the evangelicals’ pet politicians, including George W. Bush, even bothered to support Paul’s pro-life bill.)

In addition, Ron Paul has been the most outspoken defender of constitutional government in the entire congress-bar none. He has often stood virtually alone against federal abuse of power, corruption, and big government.

[Poser]

Another loser to suck votes from the Republican nominee.

[Gelato]

Unfortunately, Ron Paul is a "confederate" on life. Like Romney and McCain, Paul has said he would leave abortion to the states to decide.

Paul misunderstands federalism. No state has the authority to infringe upon the right to life. We might as well allow slavery among the states, if we accept, as Paul does, that abortion must be a state choice.

As a practical matter, once Roe is overturned, abortion MUST be stopped at the federal level anyway. Otherwise, we will see future courts imposing Roes on us all over again.

It's a shame Ron Paul has it wrong on this most important point. He also opposes the much-needed Federal Marriage Amendment, because, according to Paul, protecting marriage federally only "take[s] power from the states and give[s] it to Washington."

Apparently, he missed the memo on the states that Congress required to disavow polygamy as a requirement for statehood.

No, Ron Paul. There cannot be state diversity on marriage, nor on life, or our republic will crumble at its foundation.

[MichiganConservative]

Paul has said he would leave abortion to the states to decide.

Generally, we leave murder to the states. The feds get involved if you kill a federal employee or a member of the new-fangled "protected minority" classes. The problem is not that it is left to the states. The problem is the degenerate state of the morality of a large part of the population.

[DreamsofPolycarp]

I'll ask you again. Specifically, on what grounds?

And I will answer you again, specifically. Just like I told you before, on the grounds that there IS NO SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED RIGHT TO PRIVACY in the Constitution, and I defy you to find such. The so called "right to privacy" that one may infer from the 4th (specifically mentioned in other rulings) applies ONLY to the right against unreasonable search and seizure. You either knew that, or should have. To stretch that into some bastardized right the court has to strike down laws that have nothing to do with the right of a person to be secure in his person and possessions is treating the constitution like a wax nose so you can just do whatever you want with it.

Is there no right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution? Is that what you're saying? C'mon, it can't be that difficult.

In fact, it is NOT that difficult. There is NO right to privacy in the constitution that extends to matters not dealt with in the 4th...., unless you make it up.

[DreamsofPolycarp]

They said it was a protected privacy issue and that it could not be considered or legislated as a murder. So yes, they said it is not murder.

They sidestepped the issue entirely and the word "murder" nowhere appears in the ruling. The logical inferences are clear, but when you begin talking about logic, the whole putrid mess of ROE collapses.

[robertpaulsen]

"Just like I told you before"

You told me what before? You told me nothing.

"There is NO right to privacy in the constitution that extends to matters not dealt with in the 4th"

Fine. So you believe the U.S. Supreme Court should overturn Roe v Wade because there is no right to privacy in the U.S. Constirtution. You think they'll rule that way?

What about the sodomy issue? Will that be back in play once the right to privacy is eliminated?

[Gelato]

The punishment is generally up to the states. But no. No state can sanction murder.

States are denied the power to deprive life. (See the 10th and 14th Amendments.)

[Irontank]

And I will answer you again, specifically. Just like I told you before, on the grounds that there IS NO SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED RIGHT TO PRIVACY in the Constitution, and I defy you to find such. The so called "right to privacy" that one may infer from the 4th (specifically mentioned in other rulings) applies ONLY to the right against unreasonable search and seizure.

Moreover...the reality is that the prohibitions in the Bill of Rights apply only to the federal government...notwithstanding the bogus selective incorporation doctrine dreamed up by the federal courts. The Anti-Federalists (who would have preferred to leave in place the very weak governmnet under the Articles of Confederation repeatedly stressed the lack of a bill of rights in the Constitution as a reason to vote against its ratification...the Federalists argued that the lack of a bill of rights was not a defect because it would just prohibit the federal government from doing things it did not have the power to do anyway

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?
--Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 84

The fiction that the ratifiers of the 14th Amendment meant to incorporate the Bill of Rights against the states through the due process clause is a ridiculous and easily disprovable lie.

[robertpaulsen]

"The fiction that the ratifiers of the 14th Amendment meant to incorporate the Bill of Rights against the states through the due process clause is a ridiculous and easily disprovable lie."

Just the fact that the legislators and the courts continued to apply the BOR only to the federal government for the next 50 or so years is proof enough.

But the 14th is the problem. Without the 14th the U.S. Supreme Court can find whatever right they want, hidden in whatever penumbra of an emanation, and it would only apply to federal law. States could ban abortion if they wanted.

This is called federalism, a concept destroyed by the 14th amendment.

[Eric Blair 2084]

I would love it if he actually had a chance to win. Unfortunately, as we all know, candidates like Nader, Perot, Paul only siphon votes off from the 2 main parties.

Now, if you can find me a Socialist Party candidate that would steal some of Hillary's votes, I think it would be great to have a fair 4 party race.

How about

Hillary/Obama-Democrat Party
Newt Gingrich/Duncan Hunter-Republican Party
Ron Paul/Badnarik-Libertarian Party
Marx/Engels/Barney Frank-Socialist Party

Let's let the people decide.

[Irontank]

This is called federalism, a concept destroyed by the 14th amendment

Exactly right

[DreamsofPolycarp]

Is there no right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution
>>>>>There is absolutely no "right to privacy" in the US Constitution

Well, actually, there is. I agree with the Court's earlier rulings that you can infer a right to privacy in a proper reading of the fourth... unreasonable search and seizures and all that. The problem is that the "right to privacy" mentioned in GRISWOLD is SPECIFIC to the area of the constitution they were arguing...., the right of a man to be secure in his property and possessions. Blackmun just picked up on an arbitrary word/ruling and ran with it. Here is the relevant part of the ruling from http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/

The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S., at 453-454; id., at 460, 463-465 (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra. This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.

[Irontank]

In some sense, that is correct. Remember though, the Bill of Rights applies to the federal government only (I know the federal courts claim otherwise...but they have little evidence to support that...and there is a mountain of evidence that the Framers did not intend for the BOR to apply to the states and the 14th Amendment was not intended to apply the BOR to the states). No one disputes that the Framers intended it to apply to the feds only. And Hamilton is mostly right when he wrote that the Bill of Rights was only prohibiting the federal government from doing things it did not have the power to do anyway (Hamilton was countering the Anti-Federalist argument that the Constitution was defective because it lacked a Bill of Rights) Now...it is true that Congress was given the express power to criminalize certain things (e.g. "to provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States") that might carry with it a necessary power to search and seize the belongings of an individual...and in that case, the 4th Amendment would act as a limit on a legitimately exercised federal power. However, for the most part, the real constitutional powers of the fedral government are so limited that anytime the feds could be said to be violating one of the first 8 Bills of Rights (i.e. McCain-Feingold violates the first amendment)...its also violating the 10th Amendment

And...to the extent that state authroities are depriving you of free speech...or establishing a religion...that may violate the state constitution (most of which also have Bills of Rights)...but it does not violate the Federal Bill of Rights

[DreamsofPolycarp]

I would love it if he actually had a chance to win

Nobody thought Billy Jeff had a chance at the Dem candidacy a few years back, either.

However, even if they don't win, primary candidates can sometimes have a STRONG influence on the direction the party takes and their platform, thus enhancing/decreasing the party's ability to appeal to the public. Witness Ronald Reagan in 1976. He challenged Ford, and redefined the party.

God knows the Republicans need SOMEONE to redefine the party.

[ActionNewsBill]

Congressman Ron Paul and the U.S. Congress have passed the Veterans’ Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2006.

[Eric Blair 2084]

God knows the Republicans need SOMEONE to redefine the party.

BJ was the Dim party candidate. But I know what you mean. Goldwater "lost" miserably but "won" posthumously by sticking to his principles of limited government. As far as redefining the Party, it has to go back to LESS GOVERNMENT. Not anarchy like the Libertarians want. But LESS GOVERNMENT control over our lives. There are millions of right wingers I know who have no problem with religion, they think it's great like I do, but I long for the day when the Religious Right was just happy that Republicans left them alone. Now they want Sharia Law and Billions of dollars of Gubmint money. This is why the average Joe on the street thinks that Republicans are the party of Big Government and Dems are in favor of freedom.

Maybe Rudy is the answer??? I don't know. But any politician who believes in killing the enemy who is trying to blow us all up, letting us keep our money and otherwise leaving people the hell alone is a friend of mine.

[WOSG]

"The ICC"

"So say the socialists who always viewed the Constitution as an impediment to their nationalized socialist agenda. "

Point of order: The above is a good example of a logical fallacy of guilt by association.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html

The fact is that the commerce clause is in the Constitution and it does give some powers to Congress. I agree that it should not be treated as carter blache, and your reference of Lopez case is a good one.

[n-tres-ted]

I'm not an authority on the Libertarian Party's positions, or Paul's for that matter. Just about everyone needs to make compromises in choosing among available candidates. Since Paul is unlikely to get much traction in the Republican primaries, I assume these two parties are hoping to entice him to run on their tickets in the general election. Once again, they would be assisting the election of a Democrat, as would have been the case with Gore or Kerry in office. On economic policy, national security and social issues, particularly constitutional rights, the Republican candidate will have the preferable platform compared to any of the other parties. JMO

[WOSG]

"Ron Paul is not a man of principle. He's voted against nonbinding resolutions before because he opposes nonbinding resolutions, but this one he managed to have the principle to vote for."

BINGO. I saw him in person at an event recently. Rep Ron Paul was asked about two votes he made: One to support the Democrats non-binding non-support-the-troops bill; the other was a condemnation of China for making aggressive statements about Taiwan.

He voted against the latter, and his reasoning was that he didn't as a rule support congressional resolutions that meddle in foreign countries statements and decision, since it had no practical impact.

On Iraq, his justification was a long-winded answer about how he opposed Iraq involvement since 1998, how we had original war goal that were not met, and the usual pessimistic anti-pep talk about how failure was inevitable.

It was telling discrepancy. Against telling China where to step off, but yet he was for Democrat Congress meddling in the DoD conduct of Iraq war and dissing the CinC pointlessly.

I was unimpressed. The least he could have done was abstain.

[WOSG]

"Whether you are pro life or not, ROE should be overturned."

"On what grounds?"

On the grounds that Roe is a horrible anti-Constitutional decision that has no basis in law, logic, the Constitution, or common sense. It asserted wrongly about human life and the biology of preborn humans, with the absurdity of 'viability (preborn humans are already alive!). It accorded rights' that are not there, distorted rights (it's not 'privacy' to go to a public place of business and set about with a state-licensed Doctor in a state-licensed facility to kill a preborn human - that is many things, but 'privacy' it aint); and denied the rights of states to protect other rights, something which *is* there, clearly, in the Constitution.

The Constitution is silent on the right and ability of states to regulate this specific medical procedure, even if it didnt involve killing another human, which it does. It is wholly absurd to place regulation of abortion off limits, while placing under state regulation all *other* manner of health care regulation.

Roe v Wade was the worst supreme court decision this side of Dred Scott.