Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem is with your point of view is that the Constitution is black and white. It is not gray. If you want to change it, there is an amendment process. Thus, you're arguing that you're ignorant of the Constitution and how our government is supposed to operate. Like many people, you seem to not understand our system of government. You want to ridicule someone who wants to work within the system the way it is supposed to operate.
Who do you support? A big government Republican?
The concept of the Constitution as a living document is nothing new. The failure of the Articles of Confederation was still fresh in the Founding Fathers' minds when the Constitution was written. Had they intended a strict "black and white" interpretation they would have avoided broad definitions such as found in the Necessary and Proper Clause or the Commerce Clause. Most of the issues strict Constitutionalists have with Supreme Court interpretations stem from those two clauses.
I don't claim to be a Constitutional expert, but I do call out rhetoric when I see it. Ron Paul can say the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional until he is blue in the face, but the fact is McColloch vs. Maryland in 1819 ruled the authority of the government to create a central bank. Until that ruling is overturned, the Constitutional standing of the Federal Reserve is merely Ron Paul's opinion.
Ron Paul has a singular view of the Constitution shaped by his early interest in Austrian economics. It is important to understand that the opinion of one individual does not invalidate hundreds of years of Constitutional interpretation.
Ron Paul has a singular view of the Constitution shaped by his early interest in Austrian economics. It is important to understand that the opinion of one individual does not invalidate hundreds of years of Constitutional interpretation.
Sure it does... if you want to get serious about it the Constitution was a "preference" of a much smaller collective at the time.
When you take into consideration that the Austrian school is a proven theory on how money works and SCIENTIFICALLY points out the economic flaw in OTHER theories that use convoluted mechanisms to flat our rob people....I'd say that has a pretty strong leverage over "interpretation"...
The concept of the Constitution as a living document is nothing new. The failure of the Articles of Confederation was still fresh in the Founding Fathers' minds when the Constitution was written. Had they intended a strict "black and white" interpretation they would have avoided broad definitions such as found in the Necessary and Proper Clause or the Commerce Clause. Most of the issues strict Constitutionalists have with Supreme Court interpretations stem from those two clauses.
I don't claim to be a Constitutional expert, but I do call out rhetoric when I see it. Ron Paul can say the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional until he is blue in the face, but the fact is McColloch vs. Maryland in 1819 ruled the authority of the government to create a central bank. Until that ruling is overturned, the Constitutional standing of the Federal Reserve is merely Ron Paul's opinion.
Ron Paul has a singular view of the Constitution shaped by his early interest in Austrian economics. It is important to understand that the opinion of one individual does not invalidate hundreds of years of Constitutional interpretation.
Read the Constitution. It says what it says and means what it means. It doesn't need to be interpreted. You simply WANT IT TO MEAN WHAT YOU WANT IT TO MEAN, hence you claim it is "living" and to be "interpreted".
Why someone thinks RP for president would create an Apocalypse is beyond me. LOL. He actually plans to follow the Constitution. Something others take an oath to do, but do not uphold. Long before all this govt bloat and control was around America was quite prosperous and ran just fine.
Read the Constitution. It says what it says and means what it means. It doesn't need to be interpreted. You simply WANT IT TO MEAN WHAT YOU WANT IT TO MEAN, hence you claim it is "living" and to be "interpreted".
Ideological boiler plate talk is the reason Ron Paul polls poorly with most Americans. When has Ron Paul ever mentioned McColloch vs. Maryland when demonizing the Federal Reserve System? Ron Paul's problem is that he has built his political career around a black-and-white definition of everything, when the reality is that most sane people see policy and politics in shades of gray. Ideologues make terrible leaders because they lack the humility to accept they may not be right 100% of the time and are unable to adapt when change is warranted.
Yes he speaks plainly, but all the politicians do. That is to get information across to people. The black-n-white comes from people and the media. I find people constantly try to paint things one way or the other. I think he creates the most balanced approach. Based on individual liberty not over lord control. One this country had at one time. Do some serious roll backs need to happen? I believe yes. I actually don't usually advocate dramatic change, but things have gone too far and real improvement will not happen unless some real roll back occurs.
The gravity mass of big govt is too massive and thinking small changes will occur in this environment seems unrealistic. There is too much of one big oligarchy driving this country into the ground. If things don't turn around soon I am afraid things can get much worse. I expect some drama this year.
I would not underestimate how many people in this country are truly unhappy w/ the direction this country has gone.
Ron Paul was never a serious candidate because if given the chance he would end social security and medicare, and he would pull our overseas military forces back home and cut defense.
This ends his approval with 70% of Americans, and unless one of those positions changes, or the country dissolves, he won't make the White House.
Paul has no intention of abolishing Medicare and SS. Perhaps, this message gets lost in his delivery and obscured by his comments claiming that these programs are unconstitutional.
He believes that they need major reform, but that we need to keep our current obligation. Now is not the time to pull the rug from under children, elderly, and the poor.
Perhaps you disagree with his policies or perhaps Paul hasn't articulated himself well on this topic, but he would not abolish these programs, even if he had the power.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
