Ron Paul Announces He's Running (Is it his time?) - Page 6

Originally Posted by MJ1970

jazzguru, It's really not worth it. You're wasting your time and energy.

Originally Posted by tonton

He's right with regard to the military. 100% right. And to say it's political isolationism is a lie. We will still trade with other governments and promote freedom around the world, even if we don't go around spending billions on bombing the shit out of every Muslim who has oil (we don't bomb the actual terrorists in the Philippines, now, do we?)

Originally Posted by tonton

Honestly, yes. Obama's 'Hope and Change' was mostly hope and was unfortunately very little change at all. No change ('conserving' the status quo outright) would have been even worse.

And that premise was absolutely correct. We (Obama and Congress) did almost nothing to fix what is wrong. And things got worse.

Honestly, I've studied this. And history says 'no'. The only times in history that things got better was when there was more government regulation combined with Democracy and (yes) capitalism. Name one time in history when less government has led to progress. Go ahead.

Originally Posted by BR

He doesn't accept the science of evolution. That automatically disqualifies him. He may have some good ideas (many of which I disagree with, but they are well thought at nonetheless), however, we need to stop electing people who flat out deny scientific reality.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

He's not 100% right. His wants military isolationism.

He thinks that the armed forces should not be used without a declaration of war.

He thinks Iran developing a nuke is none of our business.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Indeed. I don't know why I let myself get sucked into these dead-end conversations.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Can you clarify what you mean by "military isolationism"?

Actually, he believes war should not be waged without a declaration of war. And according to our constitution, he is correct.

It isn't.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Iran possessing a nuclear weapon is a very serious problem...not just for us, but for the region. Their are very extreme elements within its government, from the Mullahs to President Ahmadinejad. They are exceptionally anti-Israel and anti-US. Them attaining a nuclear weapon could very easily push the entire region into war.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

I'm wary of getting into this again, but I mean pretty much never using the military except in cases of obvious self-defense (after a direct attack, for example). I mean removing troops from all foreign countries. Neither of these is realistic, IMO.

That's not necessarily true. Congress has the power to "declare war," but the President is the Commander-in-Chief. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents the President from using the military without a declaration of war. Additionally, there are many reasons that declaring war formally today is not always appropriate or desirable, from asymmetrical threats like terrorism to laws on the treatment of POW's.

I'm sorry, I think that's incredibly naive and frankly, dangerous. It sounds wonderful to proclaim that we "won't tell anyone else what to do." But the world doesn't work like that. Iran possessing a nuclear weapon is a very serious problem...not just for us, but for the region. Their are very extreme elements within its government, from the Mullahs to President Ahmadinejad. They are exceptionally anti-Israel and anti-US.

Them attaining a nuclear weapon could very easily push the entire region into war.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

Right. After all, look what's happened with the US in charge there.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

We have no legal or moral authority to invade and occupy sovereign nations, especially when they have not attacked us.

The president was never meant to have the power to tie our troops up in perpetual, endless war.

Israel has 300 nukes. I think it can take care of itself.

From Iran's standpoint, they're the ones being pushed around by nuclear nations like Israel, the U.S., China, Russia, Pakistan.

What's going on over there now? A friendly game of tag?

Perhaps Iran getting nukes - in combination with the U.S. getting out of their face and minding our own business - would actually serve to calm things down a bit. You know, the whole "peace through strength" thing.

A good rule of thumb I’ve discovered is that critics who claim Rep. Ron Paul doesn’t understand the Constitution are themselves the ones whose knowledge is deficient.

For example, Scott McKeag, a teacher in the Iowa City School District, came down hard on the congressman in these pages for denying that the federal government has a role in education according to the Constitution. The congressman further believes that education is better managed by states, localities, and parents.

McKeag cites the Constitution’s “necessary and proper” clause to justify the federal Department of Education, which opened its doors in 1980.

Let’s tick off the problems with this howler.

First, Alexander Hamilton noted in Federalist No. 33 that the necessary and proper clause was inserted merely for clarification and did not augment federal power at all. He even said the Constitution would be exactly the same if that clause were “entirely obliterated.” Appealing to the clause to carry the burden of justifying federal involvement in education — which is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution — is asking it to do much heavier lifting than even Hamilton, the broadest of constitutional constructionists, thought it could bear.

Second, George Nicholas, future attorney general of Kentucky, told the Virginia ratifying convention (and remember, according to James Madison, it is to the ratifying conventions that we turn for constitutional interpretation) that the clause “only enables it [Congress] to carry into execution the powers given to it, but gives it no additional power.” Many other statements to this effect can be found in the documentary records of the ratifying conventions.

In other words, citing this clause for authority to establish a Department of Education only begs the question, since McKeag has not first established education as one of “the powers given to it.”

Third, in numerous state ratifying conventions, the people were assured the federal government would have only the powers “expressly delegated” to it. Power over education is obviously not expressly delegated.

Fourth, Thomas Jefferson explained in 1791 that “necessary and proper” had to mean really necessary, as opposed to merely convenient, in carrying out the enumerated powers if the clause were not to swallow up the whole Constitution and defeat its very purpose. Because education is nowhere listed among the enumerated powers, it wouldn’t survive even the first stage of Jefferson’s test.

McKeag only makes things worse when he appeals to Jefferson: “President Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, championed this idea from his time in the Virginia Legislature.”

Ouch. Here’s what Jefferson actually said: “An amendment to our Constitution must here come in aid of the public education.”

Got that? An amendment to our Constitution. That means federal involvement in education is unconstitutional given the text of the document as it stands. In other words, Jefferson held precisely the view that Ron Paul holds today.

McKeag has no better luck when he tries to claim Madison. Madison warned people in 1792 that if they interpreted the general welfare clause too broadly, we’d wind up with the federal government taking “into its own hands the education of children,” an outcome he considered absurd. Ouch again, Mr. McKeag.

The rest of the article argues from the precedent, “Hey, lots of politicians have thought the people were too stupid to run their own schools and needed to be taxed for the privilege of being bossed around by their Washington betters.” Maybe so, but that doesn’t answer the question: Is it constitutional?

Before filling the heads of Iowan children with any more nonsense, Scott McKeag might consider leaving Ron Paul alone and spending a teensy bit more time reading.

The top 10 reasons why Dr. Ron Paul is the only rational presidential choice for Americans, Democratic, Republican and Independent:

10. Dr. Paul works a real job, has run a small a business and served in the military. He has been a physician for 40 years, co-owned a coin store for 12 years and was a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force and U.S. National Guard for five years. That was how our country was set up -- for public servants to work a real job that they returned to after their public service was done. He has real skills and is not a professional politician.

9. Dr. Paul has decades of experience running a business and in depth knowlegde of health care.

8. Dr. Paul understands money and is chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology.

7. Dr. Paul does the right thing referencing the U.S. Constitution and works for the country versus campaigning for his ego. He has been serving the public in politics for over 40 years.

6. Dr. Paul refuses to accept a federal pension for his public service, something other members get after a short period because they do not have real jobs. According to Dr. Paul, to receive a pension for public service would be "hypocritical and immoral."

5. Unlike most other candidates out there, Dr. Paul is not a good-looking, smooth-talking, snake charmer or charismatic zealot. He is a regular, plain-spoken person who says it the way it is.

4. Dr. Paul doesn't care if big groups like him (like unions and businesses). His donations come primarily from individuals, not from groups. He is willing to serve his country honorably without personal gain. Dr. Paul will do what is right for the U.S. based on the Constitution whether or not big money or big government likes it.

3. Dr. Paul has written a bill, called the Sun Light Rule that requires our politicians have at least 10 days to read bills before signing them.

2. Dr. Paul will bring practical wisdom, cut spending, balance the budget, stabilize the economy and probably be able to do away with the IRS and income tax, a tax that is not constitutional and was started to fund the civil war and supposed to stop after the civil war. He wants to abolish the U.S. Department of Education, giving the states and parents back control. He wants to do away with other large government agencies, restoring the rightful power to the states.

1. Dr. Paul's old-fashioned decency, integrity, honor and real-life experience are exactly what our country needs after hiring actors, puppets, oil and other group-connected slick sales men and marketers. He's been married to the same woman, Carol, for 54 years (married 1957).

Electing dishonorable, irresponsible, good-looking, smooth-talkers over the past several decades has eroded our country's stability.

Are Americans finally ready to elect an honest, decent man who will not listen to non-sense from regular Americans, politicians or corporations? A president who will be accountable and hold us all accountable? I hope so.

"Special interests have replaced the concern that the Founders had for general welfare. Vote trading is seen as good politics. The errand-boy mentality is ordinary, the defender of liberty is seen as bizarre. It's difficult for one who loves true liberty and utterly detests the power of the state to come to Washington for a period of time and not leave a true cynic." -- Dr. Paul

"He does not take money from corporate PACs. Lobbyists cannot sway him; to try is a waste of time. He never bargains with his own deeply held beliefs, nor does he cut backroom deals. Because his political views and his personal convictions are in complete harmony, he seldom faces a "tough" vote. And when the politicking for the week is over, he returns to his district to take up his lifelong occupation, which has nothing to do with politics." -- S. C. Gwynne

I truly believe that I speak for so many young progressives that would be proponents for peace, clean food and water, and a government that actually helps and cares for its citizens.

After 8 years of GWB and the lies about WMDs, 9-11, Monsanto, Iraq...etc...anyone coming from the other party looked like a better choice. I was somehow still under the illusion that the Democratic Party would work for the people and not corporate/banking/defense industry interests.

I cried when Obama won. I really thought it was a new dawn for the US and the world as a whole. I was so ashamed of the Bush administration... all the violence and greed just made me ashamed to be from the US. Somehow though I still thought that there was a difference between the two parties.

I have to thank Mr. Obama for waking me up to this truth. When he showed support for Monsanto and big agribusiness, the continued (and escalated) warmongering, and even the continued selling-out of the American taxpayer to the Federal Reserve, the lightbulb went off in my head -- they are all simply employees.

On the other hand, Dr. Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate that is talking about the big pink elephant in the room. The money wasted on war, the fact that our nation has been sold to international banks, and that the federal government is becoming a monster overtaking state autonomy.

I never would have thought that the day would come where I would actually consider voting for someone else than a democrat. I want the world to be clean and healthy paradise planet for the next generations and for those that are living here now. I want the freedom to be able to buy clean food and drink unfluoridated water. I feel that its not asking too much, but the current administration continues to take away these rights.

Ron Paul seems to be the only option, and the furthered bashing of him by the mainstream media shows that they see him as a threat. I seriously hope that his time will come in 2012.

Peace and Prosperity to the US and EVERY person on the planet! Here is to sanity in 2012.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Huffington Post: I Voted for Obama, Now I'm Voting for Ron Paul

Originally Posted by NoahJ

I just read the transcript of the Republican debate. this last part by Ron Paul was, I thought very good. It speaks to many of the questions asked on these boards. I don't think the transcript is correct in many of the words they wrote, but I think it gets the point across well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/us...pagewanted=all

Originally Posted by nvidia2008

He sounds a bit on the fence though in the quote you provided. Who exactly would take care of the poor? "As voluntary as possible" sounds vague.

Originally Posted by nvidia2008

He sounds a bit on the fence though in the quote you provided. Who exactly would take care of the poor? "As voluntary as possible" sounds vague.

Originally Posted by NoahJ

I wanted to hear it from him. Now you have tainted the reply.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Ron Paul has stated very clearly that under our Constitution states have the right to institute such government programs.

I would think, based on his own political philosophy, that he wants the state programs to be voluntary, as well. But he acknowledges that it is legal under the Constitution for states to put such programs in place.

Also note that he doesn't want to just stop all unconstitutional programs immediately, but grandfather them out over time in favor of opt-in programs.

Originally Posted by NoahJ

Read this more then once.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=223

Originally Posted by NoahJ

Because in his interpretation of the Constitution, any powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution are specifically left to the states only. His particular problem is with Federal Mandates where there is not a choice. With State Mandates, it is constitutionally left to the state if they wish to do it. He does not seem to like Mandates at all, but there is no Constitutional problem with them from his perspective.

Originally Posted by NoahJ

Why don't you show me where the SCOTUS and Ron Paul actually disagree and then I may be more willing to talk about it?