Why are the Republicans so worried about Ron Paul?

Actually,
I think Ron Paul exemplifies conservatism better than GWB. He is against Abortion (though believes states should decide that), he is against almost all unconstitutional government programs. He is pro defense (not to be confused with pro militarism), he has no objections to the Afghan invasion. He is for sound monetary policy, against fiat money and welfare in all of its forms. What isn't conservative?

But then- I am not sure that the Republican Party is really a conservative institution. Listen to Rush Limbaugh enough and you'll figure that one out. The Republicans used to be conservative, but no longer. Now they have a new platform of big government that they like.

I guess the reason he runs as an R is because a Libertarian cannot get elected. I just watched his interview with Jon Stewart, and he said that 3rd parties spend all of their time trying to get on the ballot and cannot do much else. Libertarianism can work in any party.
 
But then- I am not sure that the Republican Party is really a conservative institution. Listen to Rush Limbaugh enough and you'll figure that one out. The Republicans used to be conservative, but no longer. Now they have a new platform of big government that they like.
Click to expand...

KJM nailed it, the only thing I would add in my opinion the people who really
elect our leaders is large wealthy corporations and they would do anything
to stop a Ron Paul presidency.
 
Dude, I got my constitutional right to get stoned, man.
Click to expand...

Sorry. You don't have any constitutional right to be stoned. States can and do prohibit the use of pot and its perfectly in line with the constitution.


Stage2: I'm sitting here with my handy-dandy copy of the Constitution and I fail to see what is unconstitutional about earmarking money for the shrimp industry. Where I live, shrimping isn't a big issue but along the Texas coast it is a major source of livelihood. One may feel that any earmarking is a bad thing but it isn't unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Well, with that handy dandy constitution could you kindly tell me what power authorizes the government to spend money on shrimp fishing research?
 
Sorry. You don't have any constitutional right to be stoned. States can and do prohibit the use of pot and its perfectly in line with the constitution.
Click to expand...
While other states say it's perfectly ok to get stoned and the federal government steps in and wags its finger. That is not in line with the constitution.


edit: oh and I just haaaaaaad to respond to this one :D

And your point is? The choice is between a party that cuts taxes and spends too much, or a party that raises taxes and spends too much. Not a difficult choice to me.
Click to expand...
I should hope so because a party that cuts taxes and then spends too much is about as irresponsible as one can get. What happens when you spend more every month than your monthly paycheck?

What happens when the government does that? Oh yeah. Our economy goes down the tubes.
 
"Well, with that handy dandy constitution could you kindly tell me what power authorizes the government to spend money on shrimp fishing research?"

Spending money on shrimp fishing is covered in the same article that authorizes spending money on highways, airports, dams, even bridges to nowhere.
There is no Constitutional authority to do so. Instead, the Constitution tells the federal government what it cannot do, not what it can. Most of what it now does is extra-constitutional, supported by unconstitutional acts of the legislature that weren't challenged when they were passed. Had they been challenged we might not need to be having this conversation now.
The Supreme Court once challenged FDR regarding some of the "New Deal" laws and prorgams he instituted. They backed down when he threatened to enlarge the SC to accommodate several more liberal members who would then approve of his tactics. Since there is no Constitutional limit on the number of SC justices they knew they were screwed. The end result: Our country has devolved from a Republic to a Democracy. Our only hope is that the Mayans were right.
 
I should hope so because a party that cuts taxes and then spends too much is about as irresponsible as one can get. What happens when you spend more every month than your monthly paycheck?

What happens when the government does that? Oh yeah. Our economy goes down the tubes.
Click to expand...


Well, its whats happening now and by all indicators, the ecopnomy isn't bad. Its proven that lower taxes actually generate more revenue for the government in the long run. I don't agree with excessive spending, however if its going to happen I'd much rather have it in conjunction with uncle sam keeping his mitts of my wallet.


While other states say it's perfectly ok to get stoned and the federal government steps in and wags its finger. That is not in line with the constitution.
Click to expand...

While I don't want to get into another subject about drugs, suffice it to say that its perfectly constitutional for the feds to ban narcotics coming from outside the country. Its also perfectly fine for states to completely ban narcotics. If smoking dope were a fundamental right, no state could ban narcotics.


Spending money on shrimp fishing is covered in the same article that authorizes spending money on highways, airports, dams, even bridges to nowhere.
There is no Constitutional authority to do so.
Click to expand...

Thats not entirely correct. The constitution allows the government to spend money on things such as roads and waterways. What is doesn't allow is for spending money on shrimp research.

While I grant you that no one bothers to adhere to the constitution anymore, this isn't a justification for Paul or anyone sle who claims to uphold the constitution to take or accept funds that have no business being spent.

To give an analogy, what Paul is doing is tantamount to someone saying, "people are selling dope in my neighborhood, and I can't stop it so I might as well sell dope to so I can spend the money to improve the neighborhood"

Principled people dont get involved in thisge like this. Either its right or wrong. You don't accept or request improper money.
 
If smoking dope were a fundamental right, no state could ban narcotics.
Click to expand...
And, alternatively, If keeping and bearing arms were a fundamental right, no state could ban, or even restrict, arms.
 
Principled people dont get involved in thisge like this. Either its right or wrong. You don't accept or request improper money.
Click to expand...

So you're saying Ron Paul is a pretty normal politician?Whew, what a relief. Some folks seem to think he's not normal at all, but I'm glad you recognize practical constituent service when you see it. ;)
 
Not Paul

Actually I am not too worried about Paul. I am really worried about Hilary. She just can not be allowed to be president. I want a canidate that can beat her, that's all.
 
And, alternatively, If keeping and bearing arms were a fundamental right, no state could ban, or even restrict, arms.
Click to expand...

Well, if you can find me the part where getting high is specifically enumerated in the constitution I'll happily concede the point.
 
Well, its whats happening now and by all indicators, the ecopnomy isn't bad. Its proven that lower taxes actually generate more revenue for the government in the long run. I don't agree with excessive spending, however if its going to happen I'd much rather have it in conjunction with uncle sam keeping his mitts of my wallet.
Click to expand...
Economy's ok? Yeah I guess if your goal is short term. What about all that debt? What about when I'm old enough to retire and all the money I've paid into social security went.....uh, where'd it go again?
While I don't want to get into another subject about drugs, suffice it to say that its perfectly constitutional for the feds to ban narcotics coming from outside the country. Its also perfectly fine for states to completely ban narcotics. If smoking dope were a fundamental right, no state could ban narcotics.
Click to expand...
1. Pot is not a narcotic.
2. Relatively little pot comes from outside the country.
3. If this were only about drugs coming in from other countries your argument would work. It's not. Plenty of illegal drugs are made right here in the good ole US of A.

By Americans, for Americans. :D
 
where getting high is specifically enumerated
Click to expand...
They do not have to be enumerated, pal.
Amendment IX:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
 
Well great, Mibo. Please provide even a single citation to a federal court case holding that getting high is a constitutional right under the 9th, 10th, 1st, 2nd, and/or any other amendment.

You can't.

You don't have a constitutional right to get high or to possess narcotics. It doesn't matter where the marijuana is grown, either. :rolleyes:

Interstate commerce and/or the police power, folks!

Your remedy lies with congress; convince them to repeal and/or amend the United States Code, and you can smoke all you want.
 
My dear Fremmer, you are mistaken. I have no desire to get high, nor to get drunk. It is merely that there is no constitutional authority for the federal government to prevent it if I chose to do so.

Since the constitution spells out powers and limitations of the federal government, please point out to me where the fedgov has the authority to prevent me from doing either. The eighteenth doesn't count since it was repealed and didn't apply to drugs anyway.

Speaking of that, why was an amendment needed for alcohol, but not for drugs? Could it be that at one time we actually followed the constitution, but now we don't? That the fedgov has assumed powers that at one time it had to ask for? Hmmmmmm.
 
Arabia I stand corrected. For the most part I agree you.


Ron said he will not move to a 3rd party because the system is not democratic.
If he was 3rd party....he would have to spend all of his money and time just to get on the ballot in the 50 states.
 
Please provide even a single citation to a federal court case holding that getting high is a constitutional right under the 9th, 10th, 1st, 2nd, and/or any other amendment.
Click to expand...

Alexander Hamilton predicted this kind of question in Federalist 84.

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government.
Click to expand...

Interstate commerce and/or the police power, folks!
Click to expand...

Our national government was not designed to possess general police powers. I agree with Justice Thomas that acting as if the federal government possesses general police powers "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.”"
 
roy reali,
She just can not be allowed to be president. I want a canidate that can beat her, that's all.
Click to expand...
That's certainly no easy task. The electorate is leaning far left this cycle. Beating her is going to require not only energizing the Republican base, but also stealing chunks of hers as well. Paul is the only candidate with a proven record of accomplishing both.
And he can beat Hillary because she's weak on the most important issues for her base, but again, the only candidate who can exploit them is Ron Paul.
 
They do not have to be enumerated, pal.
Amendment IX:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Click to expand...

Ummm.. yeah they do if you don't want the states prohibiting them. If you had a constitutional right to smoke crack, then states couldn't prohibit it outright. The can, and there isn't anything unconstiutional about it.
 
Ummm.. yeah they do if you don't want the states prohibiting them. If you had a constitutional right to smoke crack, then states couldn't prohibit it outright. The can, and there isn't anything unconstiutional about it.
Click to expand...
States.

So when California says it's ok for a doctor to prescribe marijuana for a patient how exactly is the state deciding the issue here?

Oh right, commerce clause. Because Mrs Raich purchased her marijuana from a Californian that only grows in California and only sells to Californians that means she wouldn't be buying pot from someone in Arizona and thus taking herself out of interstate commerce which means the federal government has a say in it.


Mk.
 
No, Redworm, there was NO real commerce at all, of any kind, intrastate or interstate. Quoting from Justice Thomas' dissent:

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
Click to expand...

I have forgotten the specifics. I think one of them grew her own, and the other was so sick that a friend tended her plants for her. Neither of them bought the cannabis in question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top