[Weirdad]

His solitary "no" vote really ticks you off, doesn't it? Your distress either means that you (a) do understand how Congress is supposed to work, but you don't care, because your ends (meaningless warm fuzzies for Austrlia) justify perpetuating dysfunctional practices in Congress; or else it means that you (b) DO NOT HAVE A CLUE about how Congress is supposed to work.

The end does not justify the means, shaggy eel. Dr. Ron Paul is principled, and his presence in Congress is SALT AND LIGHT; he is a preservative for the legislative body that our founding fathers intended.

You probably think the US Constitution is "A Living Document" that ought to be interpreted to suit any need, and woe to the man who will not manipulate it for all it's worth.

[shaggy eel]

,,, I'm a New Zealander, living in New Zealand. I'm learning quite a lot on this site - the Constitution is something I'll have to get to grips with. Would you like to give me some advice on the Treaty of Waitangi? Everyone's a consultant in that regard, so there's plenty of room for your valued and esteemed input.

If this vote has little to do with Ron Paul's Constitutional duties, why did he have to vote on it?

[Alabama_Wild_Man]

"...You probably think the US Constitution is "A Living Document" that ought to be interpreted to suit any need, and woe to the man who will not manipulate it for all it's worth..."

=====================================================
Geeze...A "Living Document", indeed.

I get a sick feelin' in the pit of my stomach on each occasion that I hear that. That's how the Constitution should be, constructed - finished and completed. The Framers should've stopped with that section of the tenth amendment...."Congress shall make no law...". Everything that the Federal Government had been given the power to 'regulate/control' should've ended at that point.