The Ron Paul 08 thread! Step on in and learn about him :)

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by willravel

It's frustrating, because you're not understanding simple constitutional law and governmental procedure.

That's not the problem. I understand the constitution and constitutional law a damn sight better than most people here. The problem is that YOU and a whole host of others around this country think that there are only 9 people who wear black robes and sit on a bench that are qualified to interpret the constitution. This is why we end up with ass backwards and flagrantly illegal decisions like dred scott, cruikshank, and kelo.

Originally Posted by willravel

(2nd amendment crap from willravel....)
You read the constitution, and then ignore all of the constitutionally supported rulings over the next few hundred years. It's not 1776. It's 2007. The 231 years, 3 months, and 7 days between then and now still apply. You can ignore them if you want, but the reality is that legally, they happened.

Again, you are taking ONE single case that has been repeatedly misinterpreted and perverted by at least 8 circuit courts and trying to declare that those particular idiots know something about the constitution. The time period is irrelevant and whats really amazing is that you think the further AWAY from the period that the constitution was written, the more clearly these idiots in black robes have the ability to know what the founders intended. The part that I bolded? check marbury v. madison.

Originally Posted by willravel

Neither you nor Dr. Ron Paul are supreme court justices. It's not up to you to interpret laws, those interpretations which can be enforced by the executive. You vote. That is your right.

again, your belief that ONLY the judiciary has the so called intelligence and wisdom to interpret a legal document correctly is so clearly foolhardy and wrong and also contributes to the ridiculous fights the parties have in the senate when confirming justices. It's assinine watching our so called representatives try to put a judge on the bench that will twist the constitution their direction. I don't NEED to be a supreme court justice to understand the constitution, only to pervert it legally.

Originally Posted by host

Surely we have the talent in the US to accomplish this, too:

but not the will, therein lies the problem.

Originally Posted by host

Sweden's majority is committed to the results described above. The government gets it done. What the government in Sweden accomplishes could be accomplished here, with your support.

And you don't have it. Having seen the results of the current government support of lazy asses like the current generation of kids graduating high school nowadays, makes me doubly sure I won't be supporting them by working my ass off.

Originally Posted by host

No other method besides the efforts of strong federal government have achieved the low poverty rate in Sweden.

A strong federal government, the exact opposite of what this country was founded to be.

Originally Posted by host

It is not that government does not work, it is that you are not interested in trying to make it work, but you offer not other remedy to mitigate growing wealth inequality.

The US government was not given authority to make wealth accumulation equal and fair, it was given authority to protect the individual rights and liberties of it's citizens.

[MuadDib]

Ron Paul believes in Bigfoot and thinks the Civil War should not have been fought. He also likes new Coke and thinks Godfather III was pretty good. So his judgment’s in question.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

That's not the problem. I understand the constitution and constitutional law a damn sight better than most people here. The problem is that YOU and a whole host of others around this country think that there are only 9 people who wear black robes and sit on a bench that are qualified to interpret the constitution. This is why we end up with ass backwards and flagrantly illegal decisions like dred scott, cruikshank, and kelo.

It's their job to interpret laws, and their interpretation is the way to interpret the law. That's the whole story. If you disagree, then that's your prerogative, but what they say is the interpretation of the law. You, dk, are not a justice, therefore your interpretation is not law.

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Again, you are taking ONE single case that has been repeatedly misinterpreted and perverted by at least 8 circuit courts and trying to declare that those particular idiots know something about the constitution. The time period is irrelevant and whats really amazing is that you think the further AWAY from the period that the constitution was written, the more clearly these idiots in black robes have the ability to know what the founders intended. The part that I bolded? check marbury v. madison.

You can call them idiots, but at the end of the day it's their interpretation that matters, not yours. Don't like it? Become a justice.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by willravel

It's their job to interpret laws, and their interpretation is the way to interpret the law. That's the whole story. If you disagree, then that's your prerogative, but what they say is the interpretation of the law. You, dk, are not a justice, therefore your interpretation is not law.

Their job is NOT to interpret laws, but to determine if those laws are in direct contradiction with the constitution. This is also the problem here. Some groups in this country are happy to let the USSC interpret a law even though it's in direct contradiction with the intent of the law as it was written and these groups are all fat, dumb, and ignorant with that part of their governed life.

Originally Posted by willravel

You can call them idiots, but at the end of the day it's their interpretation that matters, not yours. Don't like it? Become a justice.

working on it.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Their job is NOT to interpret laws, but to determine if those laws are in direct contradiction with the constitution.

Talk about contradiction... If they say it contradicts the constitution, it does. That's the interpretation. Jesus.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by willravel

Talk about contradiction... If they say it contradicts the constitution, it does. That's the interpretation. Jesus.

there is only a contradiction when someone thinks that 'interpret' is defined as 'what did the lawmakers or founder REALLY mean when they wrote that.' Otherwise, it's reading the plain wording of the law and applying it to that end.

Again, why is it so damn hard to read what was written, the plain word, and NOT have to 'interpret' what the hell the words 'really' mean?

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

there is only a contradiction when someone thinks that 'interpret' is defined as 'what did the lawmakers or founder REALLY mean when they wrote that.' Otherwise, it's reading the plain wording of the law and applying it to that end.

Again, why is it so damn hard to read what was written, the plain word, and NOT have to 'interpret' what the hell the words 'really' mean?

I know you're interpreting the second amendment wrong, and I suspect you think the same as me. I've got the wording on my side, and you've got the NRA. Who's right? Well me obviously, but if you were on the supreme court you'd be in the position to interpret it in the way you think it was written, and I'd have to make my windows bulletproof in case a neighbor accidentally shoots at my house when trying to kill a burglar.

[MuadDib]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

there is only a contradiction when someone thinks that 'interpret' is defined as 'what did the lawmakers or founder REALLY mean when they wrote that.' Otherwise, it's reading the plain wording of the law and applying it to that end.

Again, why is it so damn hard to read what was written, the plain word, and NOT have to 'interpret' what the hell the words 'really' mean?

Because the 'plain word' isn't always so plain? The Constitution didn't come with a reference guide to explain away questions for all time. How does e-commerce square with the concept of interstate commerce? Does the absence of words in the Constitution mean something? When the Second Amendment declares a right to bare arms, does the lack of an 'any' or 'all' mean that the right can be abridged just not eliminated or is it more fundamental? In the real world these are questions that need to be addressed. Article III creates the one supreme court for a reason. If all the founder's had intended was for the 'plain' wording of the Constitution to be self-evident then we wouldn't need a supreme court most of us can read the wording of the Constitution just as well as any justice.

Furthermore, your 'plain word' approach to Constitutional law completely overlooks the concepts of judicial review and stare decisis. You're the one who brought up Marbury v. Madison which set forth that, "[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.". Even if you want to argue the Marbury was wrongly decided (and you may have a point), that is irrelevant in the face of over 200 years case law built off of this premise. Moreover, the decision has never been countered by Congress in the last two centuries either. Though the Constitution is silent in this regard, it is silent in many regards so either a) we look to intent and by looking to the Federalist Papers we can see the desire for judicial review or b) we 'plain word' it and there is no Constitutional right, but instead the right was taken by the Court and Congress has tacitly made it law by allowing it. Either way it is and has been since Marbury and thus the Court's job is literally to interpret the Constitution.

Finally, on a purely pragmatic note, as others have pointed out we don't live in 1772. In fact, we are not even the same government we were then. We live in an executive centric system, have a national economy based upon IT and services, and we serve as the hegemon in a geopolitical 'sea of anarchy'. None of these realities were desired or even intended by the founders. However, our ancestors chose to take this country in a different direction and we cannot 'unring the bell'. This system of judicial power is completely ingrained into our government. You can't realistically extricate it without upheaving our entire government.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by willravel

I know you're interpreting the second amendment wrong, and I suspect you think the same as me. I've got the wording on my side, and you've got the NRA. Who's right? Well me obviously, but if you were on the supreme court you'd be in the position to interpret it in the way you think it was written, and I'd have to make my windows bulletproof in case a neighbor accidentally shoots at my house when trying to kill a burglar.

again, not turning this into a 2nd amendment debate, but one need only look at the federalist and anti-federalist papers, as well as most other essays and documentation AT THAT TIME PERIOD, to completely understand that the 2nd amendment in no way implies, states, or mandates that ONLY a standing government military is afforded a right to bear arms. People who cannot understand that concept are being completely and willfully ignorant of history and the plain meaning of words.

Originally Posted by MuadDib

Because the 'plain word' isn't always so plain? The Constitution didn't come with a reference guide to explain away questions for all time.

WTF??? no reference guide? Do you feel that the founders intentionally used vague language and deliberately misleading terms in assigning certain enumerated powers to a central (read that as federal) government so that 200+ years later the courts could come up with any meaning whatsoever to satisfy the political moments of the year?

Originally Posted by MuadDib

How does e-commerce square with the concept of interstate commerce?

learn the history of WHY they were given the power over interstate commerce, in order to prevent ONE state from being taxed a significantly higher amount than any other state due to some animosity or otherwise negative influence.

Originally Posted by MuadDib

Does the absence of words in the Constitution mean something?

Absolutely, it means that the federal government has ZERO authority to have any power over whatever is unsaid.

Originally Posted by MuadDib

When the Second Amendment declares a right to bare arms, does the lack of an 'any' or 'all' mean that the right can be abridged just not eliminated or is it more fundamental?

shall not be infringed means 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED'!!! how much more simple should they have said it?

Originally Posted by MuadDib

In the real world these are questions that need to be addressed. Article III creates the one supreme court for a reason. If all the founder's had intended was for the 'plain' wording of the Constitution to be self-evident then we wouldn't need a supreme court most of us can read the wording of the Constitution just as well as any justice.

Again, because not every law that is created by an ever burgeoninig congress is constitutional, especially if congress has no authority over said subject of law.

Originally Posted by MuadDib

Furthermore, your 'plain word' approach to Constitutional law completely overlooks the concepts of judicial review and stare decisis.

Judicial review, to determine whether the congress had the authority to assume power over said subject of law and 'stare decisis' to keep future politically minded justices from altering the plain text, like 'shall not be infringed' really means 'reasonable restrictions'.

Originally Posted by MuadDib

You're the one who brought up Marbury v. Madison which set forth that, "[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.".

right, this would be to attempt to ensure that powers like the commerce clause aren't used to regulate things that would be grown, harvested, and used by an individual, on their own property, of which said crop would NEVER cross state lines or be sold to others in a market environment, yet have political ideology pervert the plain meaning of regulating 'interstate commerce' to be 'interpreted' to mean any activity that could affect interstate OR intrastate commerce if 'intrastate commerce' were to have an effect on said interstate commerce, no matter how slight.

Originally Posted by MuadDib

Even if you want to argue the Marbury was wrongly decided (and you may have a point), that is irrelevant in the face of over 200 years case law built off of this premise. Moreover, the decision has never been countered by Congress in the last two centuries either.

why would congress wish to counter this decision when they have politically appointed justices who will more often than not side with 'compelling government interest' in nearly all cases?

Originally Posted by MuadDib

Though the Constitution is silent in this regard, it is silent in many regards so either a) we look to intent and by looking to the Federalist Papers we can see the desire for judicial review or b) we 'plain word' it and there is no Constitutional right, but instead the right was taken by the Court and Congress has tacitly made it law by allowing it. Either way it is and has been since Marbury and thus the Court's job is literally to interpret the Constitution.

and when said interpretation flies in the face of the 'plain word' or an interpretation is broadly expanded to include powers that are in no way written within the articles of the constitution, what then? oh sorry guys, 9 fuckheads in black robes just took away all private property rights, too bad so fucking sad?

Originally Posted by MuadDib

Finally, on a purely pragmatic note, as others have pointed out we don't live in 1772.

and? this means what?

Originally Posted by MuadDib

In fact, we are not even the same government we were then. We live in an executive centric system,

say 'thank you FDR'!!

Originally Posted by MuadDib

have a national economy based upon IT and services, and we serve as the hegemon in a geopolitical 'sea of anarchy'. None of these realities were desired or even intended by the founders.

again, big thanks to FDR

Originally Posted by MuadDib

However, our ancestors chose to take this country in a different direction and we cannot 'unring the bell'.

2nd amendment good sir.

Originally Posted by MuadDib

This system of judicial power is completely ingrained into our government. You can't realistically extricate it without upheaving our entire government.

wasn't advocating removing the supreme court. only advocating putting people in who aren't willing to pervert the constitution according to their 'causes'.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

again, not turning this into a 2nd amendment debate, but one need only look at the federalist and anti-federalist papers, as well as most other essays and documentation AT THAT TIME PERIOD, to completely understand that the 2nd amendment in no way implies, states, or mandates that ONLY a standing government military is afforded a right to bear arms. People who cannot understand that concept are being completely and willfully ignorant of history and the plain meaning of words.

Documentation AT THAT TIME PERIOD is now just history because, as I've stated ad nauseum, we don't live in the late 1700s. Rules that are necessary today mean that the Constitution needs to be interpreted based on the language, and then based on reasonable context. Parts of the Constitution are antiquated. That's reality. In order for the Constitution to be functional, it has to be interpreted and read to incorporate today's social and political reality. Or do you want us to live under literal 1776 law? Maybe you think that things like Net Neutrality shouldn't happen because Tom Jefferson didn't include it.

Give this article a gander:

http://www.rutherford.org/articles_d...?record_id=363

[ubertuber]

So... Ron Paul??

I heard he raised some money. That's got to be worth talking about.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by willravel

Documentation AT THAT TIME PERIOD is now just history because, as I've stated ad nauseum, we don't live in the late 1700s. Rules that are necessary today mean that the Constitution needs to be interpreted based on the language, and then based on reasonable context. Parts of the Constitution are antiquated. That's reality. In order for the Constitution to be functional, it has to be interpreted and read to incorporate today's social and political reality. Or do you want us to live under literal 1776 law? Maybe you think that things like Net Neutrality shouldn't happen because Tom Jefferson didn't include it.

there is NOTHING in the constitution that can't equate today without making it a 'living' constitution. They put in a process to amend it and it wasn't to have 9 touchy feely black robed morons negate or reinterpret crap because it's now 2007. A 'living' constitution provides the perfect stepping stones to tyranny, something that YOU yourself were afraid of under GW, if you'll remember.

Originally Posted by willravel

Give this article a gander:

http://www.rutherford.org/articles_d...?record_id=363

this article is the perfect example of that slippery slope. you know it, I know it. you should freely admit it. To promote this 'living' constitution crap is to ensure that the only constitution that exists is one that 9 black robed individuals have created and who knows what freedoms you'll be lucky to be given then.

Originally Posted by ubertuber

So... Ron Paul??

I heard he raised some money. That's got to be worth talking about.

agreed. i'm done with the constitutional berate.

[MuadDib]

[telekinetic]

How much money, exactly, did he raise?

[bloodykisses]

I must say this about Ron Paul fans...they are COMMITTED. If you like Ron Paul, you don't just like him, you worship at the altar of Paul.

[samcol]

Originally Posted by twistedmosaic

How much money, exactly, did he raise?

I used the screenshot that the fifth of november site took when it began and used my own number the second it ended and came up with $4,332,202.19. However, Paul's website is vaguely saying $4.2 million.

[dc_dux]

There is a surprising development in Iowa, where the presidential caucuses are just over 6 weeks away.

From two new polls yesterday.
Mike Huckabee with virtually no money has surged into second place with 19-21% of likely caucus goers (surprise!)

No surprise here:
Ron Paul mired in 5th or 6th with 4-5% of likely caucus goers (well maybe a small surprise that he is tied with McCain in one poll)

Stratetic Vision Poll

CBS/NY Times Poll

[MSD]

Originally Posted by bloodykisses

I must say this about Ron Paul fans...they are COMMITTED. If you like Ron Paul, you don't just like him, you worship at the altar of Paul.

Every time I see Ron Paul supporters, I can't help thinking of Lyndon LaRouche, but slightly more fanatical and without the object of worship formally heading a cult.

[skier]

Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct

Every time I see Ron Paul supporters, I can't help thinking of Lyndon LaRouche, but slightly more fanatical and without the object of worship formally heading a cult.

There is nothing more dangerous than a man with a cause.