If Ron Paul Gets the Nod

Would you support Ron Paul if he gets the nod, regardless of who you now support?

  • Yes

    Votes: 96 72.2%

  • No

    Votes: 21 15.8%

  • Not Sure

    Votes: 11 8.3%

  • Would vote Democrat

    Votes: 5 3.8%
  • Total voters
    133
Is being too near to a school with a gun an act which affects interstate commerce enough to trigger federal regulatory authority, or not?
Click to expand...

Which answer do you want...I could brief it either way (if I had time)...

Or do you want my PERSONAL opinion as opposed to a legal one?

Rudy wants Congress to pass a law saying that I must prove a need for it before being allowed to buy a handgun. Scanning around Article 1, Section 8 for where they might find the power to do that, I come once again to the commerce clause. Do you believe that Congress has the power to pass the law your candidate proposes under the commerce clause, or some other part of the Constitution?
Click to expand...

That would be a nice thread, as long as you can show where Rudy said that (let me guess years ago during a mayoral election as reported by some blog?)


WildalmostreadytoblastawayatthedaytodayAlaska TM
 
Or do you want my PERSONAL opinion as opposed to a legal one?
Click to expand...

I have asked in this thread for your personal opinion, which I would be interested to see, and I have also asked about strategy when I asked whether it would be a good idea to try and challenge that law again, given the fact that we have now lost Thomas' vote because of the Raich opinion.

Rudy on Meet the Press Feb 6, 2000 in which he said that had been his position for 15 years.
 
Maybe there is a more recent interview in which Rudy has flip-flopped on that long held position?

And maybe I'm supposed to believe him if there is such an interview?

If not, how about answering the question: Does Congress have the power to pass the law Rudy wants passed, or not?
 
Does Congress have the power to pass the law Rudy wants passed, or not?
Click to expand...

Of course they do. Congress has the power to pass that, why wouldnt they:confused:

I have asked in this thread for your personal opinion
Click to expand...

My PERSONAL opinion (which may or may not be based on actual law until I actually analyze the issue in depth)) is that the Gun Free School Zone nonsense is too attenuated to be deemed a valid excersize of the commerce clause.


WildandiwouldstillvoteforrudyundercertaincircsbythewayAlaska TM
 
What do you mean by attenuated?

Declaring that citizens must prove a need for a firearm before purchasing it seems to me to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

Denying citizens the right to buy guns without proving a need for them is not a regulation “'reasonably adapted' to the attainment of a legitimate end under the commerce power." (Quoting Scalia's concurrence in Raich).

If my statement there is false, please explain which "legitimate end under the commerce power" would be served by Rudy's Rule.
 
Actually, Wild, you asked a question:

why wouldnt they
Click to expand...

And I answered it. I'm wondering now about your opinion of my answer, both personally and legally speaking.

Yeah, the thread is drifting a bit, and if it drifts too far, mods will close it. They have not, and I enjoy your answers. They make me think.
 
I don't know a lot about Ron Paul, but have seen him speak and answer questions a few times on TV. I don't know what his positions are on all the issues, but he strikes me as significantly more honest and significantly more intelligent than the average presidential candidate (or other politician). I don't think he's going to be able to win though - honesty seems to be a liability in politics, and intelligence is not a disqualification, but is certainly not a requirement. To get elected, better that one does what most all candidates do - say whatever it takes to advance yourself at the moment and pull a lot of dirty tricks on your rivals.
 
I haven't read this whole thread, but I want to point out that Ron Paul is the only electable Republican candidate. Any of the evil, warmongering neocon candidates (i.e., all the others), if they get the nomination, WILL lose the election. Yes, you can quote me on this after the election -- please bookmark this post, in fact, so anyone who disagrees with me now can say "I told you so" later. I'm telling you it's not going to happen. It will either be Ron Paul or a Democrat who is the next president.

Why is this the case? Because most Americans realize they've been duped by the neocon Bush administration and its doctrine of endless war, and that's why Bush's approval rating is in the toilet. But all the "mainstream" GOP candidates (again, that's everyone but Ron Paul) are little more than Bush clones who have NO crossover appeal.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, has ENORMOUS crossover appeal. Go to his MySpace page and you'll see people leave comments like, "I never thought I'd vote for a Republican, but I'm going to vote for you!" America has never been more ripe for a president who believes in following the Constitution, sealing US borders, and ending US meddling in other countries' affairs.

Some people think Giuliani has crossover (cross-dresser? :p) appeal because he's really just a warmongering liberal (anti-gun, pro-abortion, etc.). But his support for continuing to use the US military to do Israel's dirty work in the Mideast is going to kill his chances with the general population (though most Americans probably think the war was over oil, which it wasn't).

Most Americans are sick of pointless wars of aggression. If the Republicans don't give Paul the nomination, then they deserve to have Hillary or Obama win.
 
Any of the evil, warmongering neocon candidates (i.e., all the others), if they get the nomination, WILL lose the election.
Click to expand...

I'll just leave it at that so as not to engage in puerile bickering over your hate Israel soapbox...except...:) no matter who wins (ie either Rudy, Fred or Hilbama) you are getting 4 more years of the secret Israel conspiracy. Revel in it. :)

You have lost me. Please explain.
Click to expand...

What do your reasons as to the potential unconstitutionality of the legislation have to do with Congresses power to enact it?


WildareweontracknowAlaska TM
 
wildalaska said:
I'll just leave it at that so as not to engage in puerile bickering over your hate Israel soapbox...except... no matter who wins (ie either Rudy, Fred or Hilbama) you are getting 4 more years of the secret Israel conspiracy. Revel in it.
Click to expand...

hi, im back :)

the whole "hate israel" thing is nothing more than a strawman. nowhere did he say that he hates israel. there is a difference between hating someone, and not wanting to do their dirty work for them. israel is a big boy/girl they can handle themselves. i honestly think we should stop "helping" them. not only because we tend to do more harm than good, but its not our fight. if they are in desperate need of help, then, if in our national interest, we should step in. until then, let them help themselves.
 
What do your reasons as to the potential unconstitutionality of the legislation have to do with Congresses power to enact it?
Click to expand...

Are you confusing power with ability? I have a right called freedom of speech, but the example constantly used is that I do NOT have a right to yell fire in a crowded theater. I have the ability to do that, but could be prosecuted. If I could be prosecuted, I did not have the right, only the ability.

Congress had the ability to enact the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act, but the Supreme Court recently ruled some of it unconstitutional. That means they exceeded their power, does it not? They have the ability to enact Rudy's Rule, but I believe it is not within their power, and would deserve to be turned back by the Court, for the reasons I stated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top