A great choice but little chance?
 

Ron Paul has been trying to wake people up for years, I'll be voting for him.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252847,00.html

When you read about a vote in Congress that goes something like 412-1, odds are pretty good that the sole "nay" came from Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas. He so consistently votes against widely popular bills, in fact, that the Washington Post recently gave him the moniker "Congressman 'No.'"

Paul isn't a reflexive contrarian--he doesn't oppose just to oppose. Rather, he has a core set of principles that guide him. They happen to be the same principles envisioned by the framers of the U.S. Constitution: limited government, federalism, free trade and commerce -- with a premium on peace.

When most members of Congress see a bill for the first time, they immediately judge the bill on its merits, or if you're more cynical, they determine what the political interests that support them will think of it, or how it might benefit their constituents.

For Paul, the vast majority of bills don't get that far. He first asks, "Does the Constitution authorize Congress to pass this law?" Most of the time, the answer to that question is "no." And so Paul votes accordingly.

This hasn't won him many friends in Congress, or, for that matter, his own party. It hasn't won him influential committee assignments or powerful chairmanships, either. Those are generally handed out to the party animals who vote as they're told. An incorruptible man of principle in a corrupt body almost utterly devoid of principle, Paul is often a caucus of one.

Ahh...Dr. No. Despite that (R) behind is name, he's a Libertatian at heart. He joined the Libertarian Party in the late 80's, and still professes Libertarian ideology.

Yup, just changed his "suffix" in order to get elected. He's so popular in the 14th District that he's run unopposed the past several elections. The Republicrats all hate him, not least because of his -extremely- blunt style. He tells it like it is, and doesn't pull punches for the sake of tact. A lot of the time, everybody simply gets up and leaves the room when he speaks, taking their aides with them. His speeches against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are particularly pointed.

I know who I'm voting for!

I've never once voted in a primary, simply because I'm a dedicated independent pain in the ass, but i'll be voting in this one if he can get in.

I first learned of Paul on this forum about a year ago. He doesn't seem to attract media attention, but when he does speak publically he is well worth listening to.

So the fact that everytime he speaks, everyone else leaves the room, votes by himself consistently, and doesn't take into consideration his constituents' needs means he's a desirable elected official?

From this description, it sounds like he's ineffective.
What exactly does he accomplish other than voicing his conscious?

It seems to me that's a very desirable trait in a protestor, but not someone I'd prefer to represent my interests in a political body...not if I wanted my interests to come to any fruition anyway.

At some point, Principle must take precidence over Profit. Dr. Paul's constituents in the 14th District of Texas have obviously decided which they prefer. I fail to see how his consistant popularity and unopposed elections equate to "not serving his constituent's needs." Texas is probably the most stereotypically pro-war, "red" state in the whole country, yet Dr. Paul has voted consistantly against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, on both moral and Constitutional grounds. And he keeps getting re-elected. Seems his constituents like what they see, and so do I. If Dr. Paul was, by some miracle, elected President, I would be on the first plane back to North Carolina. Hell, if Dr. Paul was elected President, I'd probably join the Marines just for the honor of serving under the last honest man in Washington.

The news story claims that he doesn't consider whether bills will benefit his constituency, instead he prefers to vote whether in his opinion a bill is authorized by the Constitution.

My statement isn't about placing "Profit" over "Principle"
It's about understanding some fundamentals about politics, that a political body is not about the decisions of one single person. That in order for things to move forward, often times multiple groups' interests must be served--not just one ideal.

It's great that you're so supportive of someone standing up and speaking his mind on a topic, but if everyone walks out of the room when he does so then it's ineffective at best, counterproductive at worst.

If someone like that ever became president, although it simply isn't possible, our politics would become a trainwreck. Absolutely nothing would be accomplished. Especially in representative governance, our officials are supposed to represent OUR interests, not what they personally feel about something. The disdain people have for elected officials when they "govern from the polls" or whatever is bizarre to me, that's the ideal representative--someone who shelves his or her own personal agenda for those who elected him or her.

Regardless, whether the constituents are satisfied with what he does or doesn't do is up to them. I'm not going to second guess what they evidently want. But it's an objective fact that if you talk and no one's listenging to you and you are the sole vote against a bill all the time and can't get anyone to vote with you, then you are a waste of political capital that can't accomplish a single tangible thing once your tenure is up.

Have you been so severely conditioned to accept a special interest group objective over the foundation of the constitution?

Mr. Paul has 'consistently' placed his vote with what the constitution SPECIFICALLY authorizes the government to do, yet you criticize his positions because they fall outside the unconstitutionality of a party objective. what do you want out of a country, party, and candidate?

The concept of "what the constitution SPECIFICALLY authorizes the government to do" was debated by the founders and for the two hundred years since its adoption - original intent vs living document.

Rep. Paul is obviously of the Scalia, Bork "original intent" belief. I dont suggest they are necessarily wrong...

...But there are equally compelling and valid arguments for the "living document" school of thought as expressed by Thurgood Marshall (among many other jurists and judicial scholars)

"The Constitution must be interpreted in light of the moral, political, and cultural climate of the age of interpretation."

which is exactly why we find ourselves tearing at the seams today.

the constitution is NOT a living document. It is a legal document. It MUST be interpreted as such, ESPECIALLY considering that there is already a built in way to alter the constitution without judicial tyranny or social engineering.

At least Ron Paul is still trying to do the right thing. Too bad too many other wayward people don't believe that way.

How would it ever be altered, if it can only be interpreted as Ron Paul, and you, dksuddeth advocate that it has to be? I'm also assuming that you would advocate eliminating most....or all....of the amendments to the constitution, to "restore" it to "legality".

...and what of the amendments eliminating slavery and establishing women's suffrage, in your "non-living", legal document, view?

The constitution must be able to change with time.

It is called Article 5 of the constitution. This is the method to modify, alter, or amend the constitution.

So any amendment made so far, is completely legal and didn't require a judicial moral, political, and cultural climate of the age interpretation mumbo jumbo excuse.

Ron Paul has stuck to the constitution, whereas no other politician in the last 150 years has done, and this should tell each and every one of us that neither the republicans OR democrats are interested in following the constitution, but in pursuing their 'vision' of a non-free america.

really? if you truly advocate that view, then what is to stop ANY branch of the government from offering up their own 'change with the times' interpretation of infringing on your precious freedom of speech or privacy?

there is a built in process for 'change' and it is not by judicial social engineering.

I know you dont agree with Thurgood Marshall (as quoted above) but that doesnt equate with a nation "tearing at the seams". The tiered federal judiciary works pretty well for the most part in interpreting the law. The fact that interpretations of the Constitution don't always match yours or Ron Paul's (or mine) doesnt make them wayward.

The 9th amendment and "non-enumerated rights" of the people (the founders had the wisdom to know there might be rights in the future that are not specifically identfied in the Constitution) is one example of the living nature of the Constitution.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Is privacy a non-enumerated right? It is a matter of interpretation.

If I recall, the Federalist Papers also debated evolving federal vs states rights as the nation evolved, even within the context of the 10th amendment

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Can "the people" express their desire for new or enhanced federal powers (not specifically delegated in the Constitution - like parts of the Patriot Act) through their elected representatives in Congress? It is a matter of interpretation.

I do have problems with the excessive use of "free speech zones" by the Bush administration to restrict protests to places that keep people away from any direct contact with the President. I dont know if any such cases (like the limits on protests in NYC during the Repub convention in '04) have worked through the federal judiciary yet.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court decides all of the above and it's positions have fluctuated over time and with regard to various issues.


Where is Loquitor when you need a good lawyer?

I unclicked the ignore tab to see the opening post and I'm curious how this thread even got under way.

There is one line of original thought...that dksuddeth was going to vote for this guy.

The rest isn't put in a quote box, but it's a direct lift from the link.
It's either plagiarism intended to look like he's contributing content or what else might it be?

Eh, I kinda doubt that he intended plagiarism here, since he posted the source link right above it. I'm guessing he just didn't bother with the formatting. It was obvious enough to me that he wasn't the author. I don't see a problem, really.

But then, I never really understood this board's prohibition on articles without comment, so I'll just defer to whatever the moderators decide.

I won't vote for Democrats and I rarely even vote for Republicans these days. If Ron Paul got the GOP nomination, not only would I vote for him but I would do volunteer work for his campaign.

I am a fan of his on the domestic side but as far as foreign policy I am a bit perplexed as to his stances. The war in Iraq is something that well reasoned people can argue for or against and both sides have some merit in their reasoning. But the war in Afghanistan? I'm not so sure I understand his rationale for the opposition to the war... can someone summarize?

I am a fan of his on the domestic side but as far as foreign policy I am a bit perplexed as to his stances. The war in Iraq is something that well reasoned people can argue for or against and both sides have some merit in their reasoning. But the war in Afghanistan? I'm not so sure I understand his rationale for the opposition to the war... can someone summarize?

Ron Paul's objections to the war in Afghanistan are primarily based on the war's unConstitutionality. Congress did not declare War, so Constitutionally speaking, the war in Afghanistan is just as illegal as the one in Iraq.

They sort of did. They passed a joint resolution:
"The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terr...jres23.es.html

Why does that not meet the requirements for a declaration of war?*

*asking for my own edification not arguing/debating

this man needs to be heard more. who couldn't like this guy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Bze5xpW1v4

We have at least one thing in common.

um...... actually, no. The concept of a living constitution is relatively recent. Up until about 75 years ago, as a general matter, it would never have occurred to anyone to say that the constitution changes outside the amendment process. They certainly would agree that courts might change their rulings about the constitution, but that's a different concept. Pretty much until the New Deal courts almost always felt compelled to justify decisions by reference to text - sometimes disingenuously, sure, but at least the basic theory was that a written text had an ascertainable meaning.

Again, this is a vast oversimplification but true in gross.

loquitor...if I recall my history, the drafters of the Constitution hotly debated adding the Bill of Rights for fear that if the rights were specified it might allow future government to "restrict" any other rights not enumerated. Thus, Madison (or maybe Jefferson) came up with the 9th amendment and the concept of unenumerated rights.

It is in that sense, and particularly the 9th Amendment, that I characterize the Constitution as a living document....leaving future governments, throught legislative or judicial action, to identfy the rights of the people that are protected.

Another oversimplification.

dc_dux, you might want to have a look at some of Randy Barnett's scholarship on the Ninth Amendment (which he integrates into a more or less unified view of federal power and constitutional rights).

Then again, you might not want to. I don't think his views are to your taste - he's a thoroughgoing libertarian originalist. In case you're wondering who he is, he is the guy who represented April Raich in the Supreme Court, arguing that the commerce clause doesn't permit the feds to prevent sick people from growing marijuana for their own medical use. He lost, 6-3, with Thomas, O'Connor and Rehnquist dissenting. He's a law prof at Boston U.

I think I would rather read the Federalist Papers again. The wisdom of these untrained laymen of 200 years ago is more impressive than what I hear or read from today's legal scholars.

that's true, but loquitur is correct in claiming that the idea that one would consider society's values and norms in interpreting the law is a relatively new idea.

Before Pound began arguing for a different kind of jurisprudence, sociological jurisprudence, and Holmes arguing that judges make law even when they claim they are simply applying it (legal realism), the dominant thought was that law was box of reason that was and should be self-contained. This was happening in the halls of academia during the 1920's, however, and not until a little later did practicing judges start to follow one school or another.

What you're talking about, that the framers considered later thinkers would figure out rights and such, was really only properly done through case law and common law. Both substantive justice and formal justice have their adherents, but the former is definately only less than 100 years old and came about in response to a range of social issues and coincided with the rise of social sciences (more precisely, sociology) in the US as a new discipline that claimed to be experts in values and norms.

dc_dux, the Federalist Papers won't tell you anything about the Bill of Rights. The Federalist Papers dealt only with the original unamended constitution. For discussion of the Bill of Rights you have to look at the debates in the First Congress, which proposed the Bill of Rights, and the ratification debates in the states. (IIRC, it started as 12 Amendments and got sharpened)

Here is a quote from the abstract of Barnett's paper, <A HREF="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=789384">The Ninth Amendment: It Means What It Says</A>, published at Texas Law Review, Vol. 85, No. 1, 2006:
Oh, and I was wrong about where he is a law prof. He has left BU and is now at Georgetown.

What a horrifying concept. Why, if everyone did this, we would no longer have bridges to nowhere, and $600 toilet seats.

Ron Paul will be at the debate this Thursday evening - 8 PM ET on MSNBC
hopefully he gets a chance to slice through talking points

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...7foxclaims.htm
The reality in wich many people live in what they think is freedom is created by the media. I am sure the mass media hates the internet.
Videos with Ron Paul :
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q

I donated to his campaign yesterday :thumbsup:

I'm really beginning to think he has a legitimate chance. I don't think they can push him out of the debates now that he is more prominent and actually winning the polls.

Ole "Ronnie" Paul destroys the only thing that republicans have in their arsenal of BS to attract votes beyond their 28 percent "base": <h3>FEAR of "the other"....</h3>

I predict that too many of Ron Paul's supporters will chalk the following up as oversensitivity from the "politically correct", but I found the 11 year old examples that describe Paul's thinking....the prejudices he harbored that would disqualify him from even holding his current office....make him seem just another unprincipled opportunist, pandering to the flawed sentiments of "his base", in exchange for their politcal support:

of course the same thing from bill cosby is just someone finally speaking out sensibly. right?

Have to side with dksuddeth here. Any number of people single out black culture as being more violent and criminal, but because its coming from a white guy this is treated as racist.

Some is bad word choice, saying "sensible political opinions" isn't really a great way to put it, but most people see their opinions as the only sensible opinions, so as blunt as it is its true. From his point of view.

Now the one thing I don't agree with, and should be held against him, is the comment about blacks in D.C.. Maybe 85% are arrested, but I'd image atleast some of those are for pretty stupid stuff. Widening the assumption to include another 10% of the black population is rediculous in my opionion.

And if you think the Israeli government doesn't want to stifle criticism you're crazy. They don't want us to turn our backs on them and they'd do anything to stop it. Every country around them hates them, if the west pulls back its support they're going to be in trouble.

I'm interested in Ron Paul and think he would be better than Giuliani. I'm glad I got rid of cable finally so I don't have to hear the news stations go on and on about the candidates 18 months prior to the election however. :) The only other way to get away from it is to leave the country.

He just needs to work on his website and have Google Videos and text answering every one of the opinions that a President needs to put out there.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Then again, the saying goes "never trust a man with two first names." ;) lol