Posted on 04/27/2011 9:40:19 AM PDT by Bokababe
The Texas libertarian is widely seen as a longshot candidate for the GOP's 2012 presidential nomination. So why is he preparing for another White House campaign?....
(Excerpt) Read more at theweek.com ...
I would like to suggest three more words: money, money, money. Unless I am mistaken, donations accrued prior to an official declaration to run for POTUS can be used however desired. Sooo, if the old guy pockets a few million, it's his to use however he wants...
Mistake in Paragraph 9 of #130: Valencia fell to Islam for a couple of YEARS not a couple of centuries.
I was making specific points about Ron, basically challenging untrue points, not trying to make a case for him.
(Pure) Libertarians like liberals live in imaginary world and Ron has many points that make no sense.
On the other hand he will say important things relating to the Federal Reserve that the RINO party wont because they are part of the system
2. Wilson was an internationalist (League of Nations/14 Points, etc.). There is a huge difference between interventionism and internationalism. Rather than accept the idea that we must work with allies and submit to their ongoing judgment (Wilsonian internationalism or John Kerry BS), even I would find isolationism (on a temporary basis until restoration of sanity) preferable. The interventionist wants the nation to intervene when it and only it sees fit without a by-your-leave to other nations much less the League of Nations or United Nations. Interventionism, like isolationism, at least is consistent with sovereignty.
He votes against bills with earmarks like he says. If the bill passes his voters get stuck with the bill. Your heads I win tails you lose point is that his voters should pay taxes for the earmarks in the bill Paul voted against without getting anything.
He never said earmarks to his district dont benefit his district. His voters pay the taxes, that doesnt benefit them or the deficits of the bill itself. .
You point is just BS attacking your own strawman
He votes against bills with earmarks like he says. If the bill passes his voters get stuck with the bill. Your heads I win tails you lose point is that his voters should pay taxes for the earmarks in the bill Paul voted against without getting anything.
He never said earmarks to his district dont benefit his district. His voters pay the taxes, that doesnt benefit them or the deficits of the bill itself. .
You point is just BS attacking your own strawman
The constitution says the states have the power to outlaw abortion, not the Federal government.
Your position opposing that is to throw the constitution in the garbage when Republicans are in power, pass anything that suits your position and make believe an Obama will never get elected and use the Federal power precedents against us. Then throw the word 'constitution' around when a Democrat is in power after you used it as toilet paper.
Guess who else agrees with me and Palin? Scalia and Thomas. But you dont care, you just want Republican Kings ruling the country in your imaginary world.
That was only politics, though. Time really stopped several times due to quite delightful young ladies.
I did develop a certain fondness for Karl Hess even after he became a left libertarian. Great writer and probably a great man whom I never met.
Paul has some bad positions but the argument you are making is ridiculous.
Boehner just convinced his caucus to pass a FY11 (half year)budget by lying to them and claiming it had $40B in cuts when it only had 1/2 billion. That is 1/80 of what he told them to get their vote promise and that last CR passed.
Boehner pushed TARP and Bush stimulus 1 on his minority members in 2008. He is the king RINO bankrupter and never should have stayed on. What do I care if he pushes through massive debt bills with no earmarks for himself? So he saves one million dollars in a bill he rams through that runs up a trillion dollars in debt? Who gives a crap?
With his flaws, Paul voted against all that crap.
Strictly on the issue of earmarks, Boehner supports the conservative position and Paul does not. QED.
Maybe you think these two 'thinks abortion is ok in some instances' :?
“Justices Thomas and Scalia might have voted to strike down the (Federal Partial Birth abortion ) law had a Commerce Clause objection been raised. It's possible that this law will be revisited and a different result obtained. “ Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, wrote an interesting concurrence in yesterday's partial birth abortion case, indicating that he might be sympathetic to a Commerce Clause challenge to the federal partial birth abortion ban that was just upheld by the Court.” But no one — perhaps fortunately — raised the Commerce Clause, ...”
ref at Catholic Answers Forums
And don't try your “ Scalia and Thomas want to kill babies“ crap, it wont fly!
You make it clear that you think the US constitution is just a document that means nothing, unlike Scalia and Thomas. You know who agreed with you? pissant!
I don’t agree with Paul on some state’s rights stuff. I think it’s entirely appropriate for the federal government to prevent state or local governments from violating people’s rights.
But by no stretch does Paul’s states right position on interstate abortions make him pro-choice. If (insert state) wanted to restrict abortion I’m sure he’d be for that bill.
Sickoflibs explained the earmarks thing. Paul would happy if the bills failed but as long as he knows they’ll pass he’ll keep getting his for his district.
If I ran for congress I’d do so on a platform of cutting spending, especially in my own district. I’d vow not to bring a penny home except directly into people’s pockets via tax cuts and in the economic growth that would result from my policies. I’d say “this district needs to do it’s part in refusing the feeding frenzy, let us set an example.”
I would not be elected and the money would be spent somewhere else anyway. Earmarks aren’t new spending.
And that’s why they should be banned, they encourage spending behavior even amongst fiscally conservative congressman. Paul votes no on the bills themselves. Others vote yes and would be less likely to do so if their districts weren’t getting any earmarked spoils.
So you recognize that it is appropriate for the federal government to enforce our God-given rights as declared in the U.S. Constitution (Mankind can declare, or recognize, rights, not create them), yet you don’t think that by refusing to move the federal government to protect the Right to Life (the most basic of our God-given rights) that it disqualifies him from being called “pro-life”?
In the 1850s, in an America in which the Bill of Rights applied only against the federal government (the 14th Amendment, intended by its author John Bingham and the other Congressmen who approved it to apply against the states all “privileges or immunities of citizenship,” including the individual rights declared in the Bill of Rights, was not introduced, approved and ratified until after the Civil War), if a congressman claimed to be opposed to slavery but believed that the Constitution did not permit the federal government to legislate regarding slavery in the several states and went on to say that states had the right to impose slavery on a portion of the population, and went on to oppose the enactment of federal laws that granted freedom to slaves if they legally resided in a U.S. territory, such congressman would not have been deemed to be an abolitionist—heck, that was pretty much Stephen Douglas’s position. The Constitution nowadays provides Congress with many more weapons to fight abortion than abolitionist congressmen had in the 1850s to fight slavery, yet Ron Paul expects to be called a pro-lifer even though he opposes federal efforts to combat abortion?
Ron Paul voted against the Child Custody Protection Act (making it a crime to transport a minor across state lines for an abortion in violation of state parental-notification laws) every time the House voted on it (the only other “Republicans” to oppose it were pro-abortion RINOs). Ron Paul voted against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (recognizing unborn children harmed in violent attacks that were already federal crimes as separate victims in addition to the mother) every time the House voted on it (again, the only other “Republicans” to vote against it were pro-abortion RINOs). Ron Paul voted against the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (similar to the Child Custody Protection Act that had never become law) every time he voted on it (and again, the only other “Republicans” to vote against it were pro-abortion RINOs); Paul’s opposition was not based on a principled belief that the Constitution does not allow Congress to prohibit abortions performed on minors taken across state lines in violation of state laws, since he voted for amendments introduced by Sheila Jackson Lee and Bobby Scott that would have exempted only grandparents, clergymen, nurses, cabdrivers and busdrivers from the law.
Maybe in his heart Ron Paul is opposed to abortion, but his voting record in Congress cannot be described as pro-life, and if he were president he would by no means fight abortion in the way that George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and even George H.W. Bush did. I have my doubts about Paul truly basing his votes on principle (the same goes for his vaunted opposition to pork—he will fill up bills with lots of pork for his district, and then cast one of the few votes against final passage so as to claim to be a principled “pork-buster”), but even if his commitment to the Constitution was the reason he votes as he does the end result is someone I could never support for president (even if he wasn’t crazy and senile).
I think he’s pretty seriously bended to be so hardcore “state’s rights” to the detriment of other more important principles but I wouldn’t say he’s not pro-life because of it. Though I see your point. He wouldn’t be the best Pro-Life President.
Didnt GWB say it was not his job to care if the bills he supported/signed were constitutional, like one he signed regulating OUR free speech against politicians? Not a good example of what I would support. How about this?
Q: Do you think there’s an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?
PALIN: I do. Yeah, I do.
Q: The cornerstone of Roe v. Wade.
PALIN: I do. And I believe that individual states can best handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in an issue like that.
Source: 2008 CBS News presidential interview with Katie Couric Oct 1, 2008
Q: Why is Roe v. Wade a bad decision?
PALIN: I think it should be a states’ issue not a federal government-mandated, mandating yes or no on such an important issue. I’m, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas. Now, foundationally, it’s no secret that I’m pro-life that I believe in a culture of life is very important for this country. Personally that’s what I would like to see further embraced by America.
Source: 2008 CBS News presidential interview with Katie Couric Oct 1, 2008
Source:Issues2000: Sarah Palin Answers on Abortion
It was Pissant that clued me on to this when he attacked Palin on abortion using YOUR exact same argument which is. "Ends justifies the means".
GW 'who cares about the constitution?' B ???? You kidding? How about Scalia and Thomas?
“ Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, wrote an interesting concurrence in yesterday's partial birth abortion case, indicating that he might be sympathetic to a Commerce Clause challenge to the federal partial birth abortion ban that was just upheld by the Court.” But no one — perhaps fortunately — raised the Commerce Clause, so Thomas and Scalia voted with the rest of them to uphold the ban..... .”
ref at Catholic Answers Forums
Ron Paul is getting no place near the WH anymore than prior years, but I have to completely disagree with you two on the US constitution and Federal powers, including on abortion. I agree with Thomas, Scalia and Palin. The Federal government has no business inventing a 'right to abortion' that nullifies the states abortion laws OR outlawing abortion in the states over state laws. If Roe was completely overturned, then federal abortion laws should be too (and hopefully in that order.)
Claiming that we must have a Republican president that throws the US constitution in the toilet to pass laws you may agree with sets dangerous precedents for the next, even more liberal president, like Obama. Bush signed that law regulating our First Amendment Right to Free Speech because he thought it would do good things.
sickoflibs, in response to both of your posts to me, I don’t think that your defense of Ron Paul is very coherent.
While I agree with you (and Ron Paul) that a huge percentage of the laws passed pursuant to the Commerce Clause are beyond the scope of congressional power, and agree with Justice Thomas’s concurrence in Lopez that “commerce” means selling things, not manufacturing them, there are plenty of other ennumerated powers in the Constitution other than the Commerce Clause (and a Necessary and Proper Clause that warns us against reading the powers in an unreasonably restrictive way). For example, if you had read my posts carefully, you would have picked up on the fact that I was saying that Congress could ban abortion pursuant to its powers under the 14th Amendment.
Section 5 of the 14th Amendment provides that Congress has the power to enforce the provisions of the other sections of the 14th Amendment “by appropriate legislation.” Section 1 of the 14th Amendment prohibits states from making or enforcing any law that abridges the privileges or immunities of citizenship (if you’re wondering what this phrase means, ignore the embarrassing Slaughter-House Cases and read the statements in Congress by John Bingham, the Father of the 14th Amendment—the clause was meant to incorporate the individual rights in the Bill of Rights against the states, plus the Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship that had been expounded upon by Justice Bushrod Washington in the Corfield case), or depriving any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, or denying any person the equal protection of laws.
It is clear that by allowing innocent human beings to be murdered in the womb (often in state hospitals with state funds), states are violating two (or maybe all three, depending on how you read the Equal Protection Clause) of these prohibitions, and it would be a dereliction of duty for a pro-life congressman not to legislate pursuant to Section 5 of the 14th Amendment if he was taking a principled stand against the unconstitutional misuse of the Commerce Clause. For someone who recognizes that life begins at conception to argue that Congress can’t ban abortion under Section 5 would be tantamount to arguing that Congress couldn’t prohibit states from permitting lynchings of blacks, or confiscating all firearms not owned by the state, or convicting people of felonies without a jury trial or right to counsel (by which I mean the right to bring counsel, not to receive free counsel), or any other violation of the people’s constitutional rights. When Congress and the state legislatures approved and ratified the 14th Amendment, they did not trust the Judicial Branch to be the sole means of enforcing the rights that many states had been depriving the people for so long, which is why the 14th Amendment specifically grants Congress the power to enforce the amendment’s provisions—if Ron Paul truly cared about original intent and the congressional authority conferred by the Constitution, he would not have any qualms about voting for all of the abortion restrictions that I set forth in my earlier post.
Of course, some will argue that “the courts have ruled that the unborn are not “persons” as the term is used in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, and have separately ruled that Section 5 of the 14th Amendment may only be used to legislate consistently with judicial interpretations of the 14th Amendment.” While a liberal who believes that only the Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution could make such a statement with a straight face, it would be idiotic to argue simultaneously that the Supreme Court is wrong about the scope of the Commerce Clause and a principled congressman should not use the clause to pass laws pursuant to the clause that are not directly related to commerce, but that the Supreme Court is the final word on whether an unborn human being is indeed a “person” pursuant to Section 1 of the 14th Amendment and on when Congress may legislate pursuant to Section 5 of the 14th Amendment. Surely Ron Paul doesn’t believe that the logic behind the legally untenable majority opinion in Roe v. Wade is binding upon a member of Congress who took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, right? Ron Paul’s refusal to vote for pro-life laws for supposed constitutional reasons shows him to be a very shallow thinker and a not very principled self-proclaimed constitutionalist.
I also think that it’s cute that you quoted Justice Thomas as saying that he would have entertained a claim that the Partical-Birth Abortion Ban was not authorized by the Commerce Clause. As you know, a federal law can be declared unconstitutional on its face because it violates some constitutional right, or it can be declared unconstitutional because it is beyond Congress’s constitutional powers. Given that Congress justified its authority to pass the PBA Ban on the Commerce Clause, Justice Thomas wanted to make clear that he would not cherry-pick on when to bring the hammer down on Congress for overstepping its legislative authority. However, Justice Thomas’s position, with which I agree, does not in any wise prevent Congress from passing the PBA Ban based on Section 5 of the Commerce Clause. It is the lazy constitutionalist who believes that because Congress always bases laws on the Commerce Clause that there’s no other source of congressional authority in the Constitution.
And here’s the kicker: the principled Ron Paul, constitutionalist supreme, who would never cast a vote based on the ends if the means do not follow his strict reading of the Constitution . . . voted for the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban every time it came before the House! That’s right, the same so-called pro-lifer who, because of his deep respect for the proper role of the U.S. Congress and as part of his strident campaign against the misuse of the Commerce Clause, voted against the Child Custody Protection Act (making it a crime to transport a minor across state lines for an abortion in violation of state parental-notification laws) every time the House voted on it, and against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (recognizing unborn children harmed in violent attacks that were already federal crimes as separate victims in addition to the mother) every time the House voted on it, and against the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (similar to the Child Custody Protection Act that had never become law) every time he voted on it (and even voted for two amendments that would prevent fewer abortions but would keep the law just as irreconcilable with the Commerce Clause), simultaneously voted for the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, which is just as outside the scope of the Commerce Clause as the other three abortion laws, every time the bill came before the House. Either Ron Paul is willing to legislate illegitimately pursuant to the Commerce Clause when it is politically expedient for him to do so (he would have been tarred and feathered by his constituents had he voted against a PBA Ban that even longtime pro-aborts such as Patrick Kennedy and Pat Moynihan supported), or he recognizes that Congress may ban abortion pursuant to Section 5 of the 14th Amendment (reliance on which was not actually mentioned in the bill) but is only willing to ban abortion pursuant to Section 5 when it is politically expedient for him to do so. In other words, Ron Paul is a charlatan.
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.