rudy displayed great ignorance (or stupidity, for a presidential candidate) in his challenge of paul at one of the earlier debates. paul held a press conference the next day called educating rudy and came up with a book assignment for him. i find it a great laugh too! although instead of 'ron paul educated rudy' i usually say 'ron paul owned rudy', but then my grandma doesn't know what i'm talking about. since then, some idiots denounce the mountain of evidence that supports ron paul, for example, idiot sean hannity has stated that part of the 9/11 is a conspiracy theory. i guess he has his own tin foil hat.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Reasons why you think Ron Paul will/won't be president.
Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
rudy displayed great ignorance (or stupidity, for a presidential candidate) in his challenge of paul at one of the earlier debates. paul held a press conference the next day called educating rudy and came up with a book assignment for him. i find it a great laugh too! although instead of 'ron paul educated rudy' i usually say 'ron paul owned rudy', but then my grandma doesn't know what i'm talking about. since then, some idiots denounce the mountain of evidence that supports ron paul, for example, idiot sean hannity has stated that part of the 9/11 is a conspiracy theory. i guess he has his own tin foil hat.
NoStateofMind
Diamond Member
If the states had any sense at all they would have legislation on these matters. Otherwise no one would live there and = no tax dollars for the state.
Sorry sir, but the founding fathers didn't want a Socialist form of government or it would have been clearly stated. Why do you have such disdain for the Constitution? That's what I would like to know.
NoStateofMind
Diamond Member
Again, it is a state level issue, not federal government.
implying that the states have any sense is a pretty big assumption 😉 I live in NJ right now... if I found out that factories in NJ were dumping pollution into NY, I'd go on about my day as long as it wasn't directly affecting me. I'd imagine most people would feel the same way.
I don't think it's disdain, I just think that the founding fathers meant the constitution to be a living, breathing document, open to interpretation and adaptation, not the static be-all, end-all of our country.
NoStateofMind
Diamond Member
NoStateofMind
Diamond Member
Yes Ron Paul "educated" Rudy giuliani. giuliani debated Ron Paul on the attacks of 9-11 and clearly rudy NEVER EVEN READ THE 9-11 COMMISSION REPORT! This is the one who was on ground zero, yet never took the interest as to why this all happened? So yes, Ron gave him a reading assignment "9-11 commission report". So maybe after reading it he could get a better idea about foreign policy.
What Civil Liberties are you complacent about? How about all of them? It seems not many care, or even think that upholding the Constitution is even an issue. Well sir, I beg to differ! The number one issue in this presidential debate is the protection of our Constitutional Civil Liberties. This past administration has made it clear to the American people that it is federal law that supersedes our Civil Liberties. Which of course is NOT true!
Bill of Rights
Fern
Elite Member
Hmmm. Interesting, thanks. I'll try to check that out when I get a chance.
I could be wrong, but something in the back of my mind makes me think this has been addressed. Very early in the history of our country (IIRC about 1800), the SCOTUS bitch-slaped Congress. I think it may have been under Marshall (Chief Justice). The SCOTUS usurped a tremendous amount of power, and this case was credited with establishing SCOTUS as the power it is today. IIRC, nobody even brought the case before them, they just took it upon themselves to overrule Congress.
But I could be wrong, I'll try to check it out later.
Fern
NoStateofMind
Diamond Member
Well those states would lose out being they would be the defenders of the people LITERALLY. It is their job to do so. If those in charge of the state do not take care of it, vote them out.
Sure it may be a living breathing document, but it was never meant to infer a socialist form of government. Other than that fact, if it needs to be changed thats what amendments are for 😉
Yeah accept the Constitution allows for all of this. Congress is granted powers to give itself new powers when necessary in the Necessary and Proper Clause.
Regardless of federalism or states rights. One person, cannot undue 150+ years of history.
Ron Paul can talk all he wants, but he would never get anything past Congress. Congress is where the power lies. The President has zero legislative power. He cannot do anything without Congress approving it. He can go on his own and not enforce Congressional legislation(the cheif job of the chief executive, enforcing laws/carrying out legislation that is passed), but Congress funds the Executive Branch so that wouldnt last long.
Ron Paul supporters are delusional..
BoberFett
Lifer
Oh good, yet another interpretation of the constitution which gives the fed unlimited power. What's the point of having a document which lays out the limits of government, then including a clause in that document that says there are no limits? Your interpretation is simply wrong.
Ron Paul haters are delusional.
Ron Paul haters are delusional.
it's a moot point... ron paul spots off this stuff, but I've yet to see his practical strategy for dismantling the federal government without the support of congress or the judicial branch.
all that's left are his personal beliefs, which by and large, are mostly to the far right.
Like I said in the other thread, Article I Section 8 does give Congress the power to do things. And this is how it is interperted by legal scholars and the Supreme Court.
It DOESNT give them unlimited power, they cannot violate the other parts of the Constitution, but it does give them power to create institutions such as the Federal Reserve.
Congressman Paul goes on and on how the Fed is unconstitutional, it IS NOT, due to the Necessary and Proper Clause.
The Bush admins wiretapping? Violates the constitution.
Congress creating governmental agencies? Doesn't violate the constitution.
Congress levying personal income taxes? Doesn't violate the constitution.
Im not a Ron Paul hater, as a fiscally conservative who is also more socially liberal, I agree with him on some things.
Ron Paul isn't a constitutional scholar(nor am I), and I hate to say it, but everytime he goes off on his tangent about limiting the federal government to its constitutional limit and he starts listing off stuff. He is completely wrong.
Hes has no chance of getting the Republican Nomination.
Hes ran for President before(back in the 1980s), he had his rabid followers then, as he does now. But beyond those rabid followers he has no support.
The US already spends less on government than all the other modern countries. The problem in the United States is people want all this stuff, but they dont want to pay for it.
Executive orders are merely interperations of Congressional legislation. A president can't legislate by executive order.
Congress has the power of the purse. They can cut off all funding to the Executive branch.
Ron Paul could do exactly 0% of what his platform is. He is unelectable for so many reasons, that is merely one of them.
Fern
Elite Member
OK, the case is Madison vs. Marbury (1802 I think).
This info is from Wiki:
This section, even though critism of the Marbury decision, serves to highlight the scope of the case. I.e., definitive rulings on aspects of the Constitution are the absolute domain of the SCOTUS.
While I can't be sure, and anticipating what that court will do is usually a fools task, I would guess that if Congress were to attempt to limit the Court's purvue in either abortion or 1st Amendment/seperation of religion & government (or any Constitutional issue), they'd strike that down.
So I really don't see them (SCOTUS) agreeing to have specific Constitutional issues stipped from them and delegated downward to the lessor courts of the states. In effect (and IMO) Marbury gives the court broad power over Congress with regard to Art III if only by establishing that matters of juridiction (which, if I understand correctly, is the thrust of Paul's suggestion - stripping juridiction from SCOTUS) are Constitutional in nature. Apparently, SCOTUS thus has juridiction over whatever the heck it wants.
Fern
Edit: The more I read the very first post that includes his platform, the more amazed I become. I don't see how anybody who has been a politition for so long can have so little understanding of how our government works. Many of his proposals effectively work to gut the federal court system of any authority of core Constitutional issues.
I'm also surprised at some of you who claim to be his supporters. Typically you're screaming that the Admin violated this or that right because judges didn't issue a warrent or whatever, and here this guy wants to radically minimize the role of federal judges. Curious position?
Surely such a radical decentralization of the U.S. would result in different state courts holding different opinions about various Constitutional issues. Obviously some more "conservative" than others. I bet the RP supporters would be the very first to scream about the resulting (percieved) violations of civil rights in some states.
NoStateofMind
Diamond Member
No its not hard to understand at all, I just followed it with a question. Anyone with that type of statement shows that his views were based on location and party and not that of policy. This is not college football where you root for the home team. To do that is to be short sighted. I am trying to encourage people to look past what they see with their eyes and see the issues. That is simply NOT being done with the comment above 🙂
Umm, see. You simply dont get how government works.
I should have said, they could simply cut off funding to the President. Congress can selectively fund the Executive branch and force agencies to continue carrying out their duties. Remember checks and balances? Congress has oversite of ALL the federal agencies under the Executive Branch. That would be the pesky thorn in Pauls side if hell froze over and he some how was elected President.
NoStateofMind
Diamond Member
I've been hounding you to post here for how long? Since the inception of this thread i believe and all you put is "Ron Paul is the man"? LMAO! <3's Avalon 😛
BoberFett
Lifer
And without the president, no new laws get passed, also something that Paul would take pride in. Yeah, there's those pesky checks and balances. It sounds like your version of checks and balances only checks the president, and that all the balance weighs towards congress. It's you who obviously doesn't understand government, little man.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
