You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
If Ron Paul Gets the Nod
- Thread starter Maxb49
- Start date
Is it flexible wording or an insatiable thirst for power which give us court cases about whether rape, being an indigenous California toad, being too near to a school with a gun, growing your own cannabis or wheat, or building your own machine gun are interstate commerce?
Wildalaska
Moderator
Is it flexible wording or an insatiable thirst for power which give us court cases about whether rape, being an indigenous California toad, being too near to a school with a gun, growing your own cannabis or wheat, or building your own machine gun are interstate commerce?
And your point is?
WildimnotquitesureAlaska TM
Wildalaska
Moderator
Does accomodating reality mean less freedom?
Does not accomodating reality mean more freedom?
WildrightbackatyaAlaska TM
And your point is?
I could reword what Justice Thomas said about this issue, but why bother, when he said it so well.
This carves out a vast swath of activities that are subject to federal regulation. See ante, at 8—9 (O’Connor, J., dissenting). If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison’s assurance to the people of New York that the “powers delegated” to the Federal Government are “few and defined,” while those of the States are “numerous and indefinite.” The Federalist No. 45, at 313 (J. Madison).
Because most Americans are responsible enough to realize that that changing times call for changing measures, and that our constituion is flexible enough to accomodate reality.
In your opinion, is section 922(q) of TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 an example of our fine, flexible Constitution in action, or is it an act outside the Constitution, in other words, a mere usurpation?
Is being too near to a school with a gun an act which affects interstate commerce enough to trigger federal regulatory authority, or not?
Wildalaska
Moderator
Is being too near to a school with a gun an act which affects interstate commerce enough to trigger federal regulatory authority, or not?
Interesting question? What has the Supreme Court said?
WildthatsthestartAlaska TM
DonR101395
New member
Because most Americans are responsible enough to realize that that changing times call for changing measures, and that our constituion is flexible enough to accomodate reality.
For once I'm glad I'm irresponsible. I'm not willing to flex or accommodate any longer when referring to my rights guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.
I have some compromises I would like to propose for those so keen on compromise; you know groups like the Brady Bunch, the New York Times, anti-gun legislators; I propose they give up a large portion of their 1st amendment rights. They get a background check, take a psych eval, and go through a 3 day waiting period before buying pens, paper, ink or anything to do with publishing, writing or speaking in public media or private media made available to the public. When they are willing to do this, I will still think they are scum, but at least I won't have to hear as much of the garbage they put out.
What has the Supreme Court said?
I think you know they have not ruled on 922 (q) since it was revised after the Lopez case, and I don't see how their opinion has any bearing on YOUR opinion, which was the question I asked.
But, since you insist, here is what Rhenquist, O'Connor, and Thomas had to say about that law and how their recent decision in the Raich case might come to bear on it.
If the Court is right, then Lopez stands for nothing more than a drafting guide
Does that information help you to form YOUR opinion on the constitutionality of that law? Since the Court has not ruled on it, you can't just point to their ruling. The question is open, and we are all entitled to opinions. I'm not afraid to share mine. Are you?
I voted no, but it was with conditions. First off, he will not get the nod. Secondly, I feel his policy on running from Iraq could very well be the worst idea in the history of bad ideas, which is the #1 reason he will not get the nod.
The reson I can not support Ron Paul-if you have not gathered already-is his cut-and-run strategy on Iraq. But more than that his concept of "secret warriors" being sent out to find our enemies and kill them. If you ask me-and you should-it is the single most stupid thing in the history of stupid things. Sending covert ops guys into Whereveristan and trying to find Bin Laden without intel is a suicide mission. If you have any idea of the CIA's record of actualy accomplishing that manner of intel gathering or their record of actualy eliminating of our foes you would understand how insane a task this realy is.
If you have no idea how incredibly bad an idea this is, just pick up the book Legacy of Ashes. It is the most damning a portyral of a government agency since I wrote the gazette about the cost of a stamp increasing. Trust me on this one, I am a big fan of our nation and hate to see one of its departments criticized(other than the BATFE), but if it is National Security Level intel I would rather be to critical than not critical enough.
PS
It is so good to come back from hiadis(sp?) and find tfl just as energetic as a live-wire.
The reson I can not support Ron Paul-if you have not gathered already-is his cut-and-run strategy on Iraq. But more than that his concept of "secret warriors" being sent out to find our enemies and kill them. If you ask me-and you should-it is the single most stupid thing in the history of stupid things. Sending covert ops guys into Whereveristan and trying to find Bin Laden without intel is a suicide mission. If you have any idea of the CIA's record of actualy accomplishing that manner of intel gathering or their record of actualy eliminating of our foes you would understand how insane a task this realy is.
If you have no idea how incredibly bad an idea this is, just pick up the book Legacy of Ashes. It is the most damning a portyral of a government agency since I wrote the gazette about the cost of a stamp increasing. Trust me on this one, I am a big fan of our nation and hate to see one of its departments criticized(other than the BATFE), but if it is National Security Level intel I would rather be to critical than not critical enough.
PS
It is so good to come back from hiadis(sp?) and find tfl just as energetic as a live-wire.
Unregistered
Moderator
The problem with bringing the country back to its consitutional boundaries is that it took us 225 years to get where we are. There is no way to undo that as quickly as RP would like to.
We have millions of people suckling at the teat of the federal government. To suddenly cut everything back to its constitutional boundaries would result in nothing less than civil war.
We have millions of people suckling at the teat of the federal government. To suddenly cut everything back to its constitutional boundaries would result in nothing less than civil war.
unregistered said:The problem with bringing the country back to its consitutional boundaries is that it took us 225 years to get where we are. There is no way to undo that as quickly as RP would like to.
We have millions of people suckling at the teat of the federal government. To suddenly cut everything back to its constitutional boundaries would result in nothing less than civil war.
its prolly a good thing that he has no intentions of doing it quickly then. he has stated numerous times that for the many changes he would like to make, there would have to be transition programs. that, just like you say, you cant just take away entitlements that people have come to expect, or "need".
Unregistered
Moderator
Has he worked out the details of the transition programs? If so, where can I see them?
unregistered said:Has he worked out the details of the transition programs? If so, where can I see them?
no idea. how many politicians have their desired programs written up prior to being elected? how many presidents? the president cant introduce legislation, either. he has spoken on his ideas for social security though. he wants to give people the option to opt out. we would prolly know a lot more details about his positions if people werent overly obsessed with the iraq war. almost every single question ive heard asked of him at the debates had to do with the war. its ridiculous. people dont seem to realize there are other just as, or more, important issues out there than the war. this is probably the reason that theres conservatives out there that are willing to vote for giuliani. they havent been shown how far left he actually is.
Unregistered
Moderator
Its hard to get real fired up about a plan no one knows.
then its only a question of timingWe have millions of people suckling at the teat of the federal government. To suddenly cut everything back to its constitutional boundaries would result in nothing less than civil war.
wildalaska anwser the question. If I want another question as a response(ie a dodge) I'll watch Meet the press.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Does accomodating reality mean less freedom?
Yes, no, not necessarily, depends.
WilddoyouaregueitalawysdoesAlaska TM
Ron Paul
In general Paul would boost internal and national DEFENSE rather send it overseas. If he went overseas it would be to hit the one responsible for American deaths. I would take Paul over any of the current candidates as he would return rights to the citizen -- and who then would have been able to crash planes into buildings? They would have been shot by half a dozen armed CCW holders and off duty police.
What are you afraid of by returning to CONSTITUTIONAL rights and limitations to our government? There are no such things as ENTITLEMENTS -- no one is entitled to anything from the government but national defense, interstate commerce, currency, and "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." It is unfathomable that we allow our hard earned money to be forcibly taken away from us and given to those who will not work . . . and don't argue the point - I run a rescue mission that cares for those who can't work and give a hand up to those who what to get off drugs and booze -- all without tax dollars. I see everyday what so called "entitlements" do to the souls of people . . . it ain't pretty.
In general Paul would boost internal and national DEFENSE rather send it overseas. If he went overseas it would be to hit the one responsible for American deaths. I would take Paul over any of the current candidates as he would return rights to the citizen -- and who then would have been able to crash planes into buildings? They would have been shot by half a dozen armed CCW holders and off duty police.
What are you afraid of by returning to CONSTITUTIONAL rights and limitations to our government? There are no such things as ENTITLEMENTS -- no one is entitled to anything from the government but national defense, interstate commerce, currency, and "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." It is unfathomable that we allow our hard earned money to be forcibly taken away from us and given to those who will not work . . . and don't argue the point - I run a rescue mission that cares for those who can't work and give a hand up to those who what to get off drugs and booze -- all without tax dollars. I see everyday what so called "entitlements" do to the souls of people . . . it ain't pretty.
Last edited:
MicroBalrog
New member
Abolish the IRS, FBI, CIA and the DHS? That would be fine, but what’s the plan? Gotta have some of the services these agencies provide. A quick search on my part produced no evidence of actual plans on his part.
Why does America need the DHS? It went along just fine without it before the Bush administration.