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.
By "radical", I mean a radical departure from the current course. I am aware that the style of government that Paul advocates for is much closer to the founders' original intent than what we currently have. However, what we currently have is actually very old as well. Almost from the beginning of the Republic, presidents, justices and lawmakers began interpreting the Constitution in such a way as to give them more power than is explicitly stated.
I know, for example, that many people who are apt to like Ron Paul hate the fact that the Supreme Court can overrule the Congress and find that a law passed by Congress is unconstitutional. Well, the Supreme Court has had this power since 1803, after Supreme Court Justice John Marshall ruled it so in Marbury vs. Madison. You can disagree with this ruling, but your disagreement is somewhat "radical" because you're trying to turn the clock back on 210 years of precedent.
The same can be said about a president ordering troops into combat. That clearly, clearly was never intended by the founders and for very good reason. It's much easier for an individual to decide to start a war than it is for a large body of elected representatives. I could be wrong, but I suspect the overwhelming majority of Americans -- right, left and center -- agree with the Constitution on this one, and think that we should only send troops into harm's way for longer than 60 days on the authority of a congressional declaration of war. But alas ... that's not the way we've done things since Truman's Korean adventure. That was 60 years ago. Sixty years is a long time in the history of our Republic ... greater than 25 percent of our existence. Turning back the clock on this would, at this point, be "radical" ... albeit a radical move that is in keeping with our original laws and traditions that would surely be popular with the people.
Paul would be a principled president, for sure, but he'd be a "weak" one because I don't think he would do much to advance a legislative agenda. He thinks (and correctly so) that the legislative course of the nation is supposed to be charted by the legislative branch. So, all he'd do is say .. no, can't do that ... that either... oops, that one's a no-no too ... to whatever Congress approved.
He'd do a number on U.S. Force structure, which is well within the scope of constitutionally granted executive powers,he'd scale way back on his job as chief law enforcer on certain laws, and he would probably do whatever he could to limit or completely destroy the Fed. After that, what could he do? He couldn't end income taxes because it's the job of the Congress to do that. He could recommend it, but that's about it.
Interesting post that raises a lot of questions and things to think about.
No president can do everything he wants to-- he is of course constrained by what congress will allow him to do... or is he? The abuse of executive orders is spinning out of control and now we have an executive branch that is unbalanced, a branch that can set us on the path of war without so much as consulting with the legislature. A branch that can order states not enforce their own illegal immigration laws (thinking Arizona here). A branch that can cause its executive bodies to punish states for not agreeing with it (EPA, Department of Energy, Department of Education...etc). Basically, a branch with FAR too much power.
My favorite thing about Paul is that he will drastically scale back the power of the executive branch by disbanding whole units of executive powers (like Department of Education, Energy, Homeland Security). He also won't get us tangled up in wars that we can't win. He will definitely save this country money, which will help to reduce our bloated debt of 14 trillion. Sound economic policies may return to America-- wouldn't that be nice?
Progressives have a history of infiltration and marginalization. They did it to the Democrats, at the turn of the last century. They are entwined with the Republican party(McCain, Graham...) 2010 got a lot of them out, but not all and they have tried like hell to stand and say they are tea party supporters, when some of their ideology is very Progressive.
The masks come off, when the end justifies the means.
Interesting post that raises a lot of questions and things to think about.
No president can do everything he wants to-- he is of course constrained by what congress will allow him to do... or is he? The abuse of executive orders is spinning out of control and now we have an executive branch that is unbalanced, a branch that can set us on the path of war without so much as consulting with the legislature. A branch that can order states not enforce their own illegal immigration laws (thinking Arizona here). A branch that can cause its executive bodies to punish states for not agreeing with it (EPA, Department of Energy, Department of Education...etc). Basically, a branch with FAR too much power.
My favorite thing about Paul is that he will drastically scale back the power of the executive branch by disbanding whole units of executive powers (like Department of Education, Energy, Homeland Security). He also won't get us tangled up in wars that we can't win. He will definitely save this country money, which will help to reduce our bloated debt of 14 trillion. Sound economic policies may return to America-- wouldn't that be nice?
Good post.
The power shift from local and states to the federal level began under Lincoln and has been growing steadily. We now have a federal government that is totally out of control - especially the executive branch.
It will be impossible to restore the balance of powers that our founding fathers envisioned.
Interesting post that raises a lot of questions and things to think about.
No president can do everything he wants to-- he is of course constrained by what congress will allow him to do... or is he? The abuse of executive orders is spinning out of control and now we have an executive branch that is unbalanced, a branch that can set us on the path of war without so much as consulting with the legislature. A branch that can order states not enforce their own illegal immigration laws (thinking Arizona here). A branch that can cause its executive bodies to punish states for not agreeing with it (EPA, Department of Energy, Department of Education...etc). Basically, a branch with FAR too much power.
My favorite thing about Paul is that he will drastically scale back the power of the executive branch by disbanding whole units of executive powers (like Department of Education, Energy, Homeland Security). He also won't get us tangled up in wars that we can't win. He will definitely save this country money, which will help to reduce our bloated debt of 14 trillion. Sound economic policies may return to America-- wouldn't that be nice?
obviously, working people have a hard time getting as involved because they need to be out working and supporting their families.
if the people who now depend on the government don't wake up, they are going to have a rather rude awakening. they need to only look at greece and iceland to see the damage that massive debt does. the united states gravy train is going to end simply because we can't continue to spend all this money on wars, social services, and pensions. if we could have printed our way out of debt, we would have! but as anyone can see, NOTHING HAS BEEN FIXED.
if you are dependent on either social services or pensions, you better get off your rear and start objecting to the wars before it is too late. you need to at least contact your representatives and demand to know what they are doing to end the wars/save money.
i can tell you with 100% certainty if the government had to chose between war profiteering and social services, war profiteering would win and social services/pensions would take the cut.
in the end, there probably will be major cuts unless the private sector gets back up and running (not likely in this administration) so you want to try to limit the damage that you might feel personally.
I was going to clarify for all, that Paul is a Constitutionalist, as in Libertarian Constitutionalist,
not like the Constitution Party whose goal is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations,
Far from being like, or having the same ideology as Joe Liberman, a middle of the road Libertarian. Who votes 85% of the time to push Progressive policy.
Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist.
The tea party is the original grass roots organization of Ron Paul supporters.
I'm thinking you don't know what "Libertarian" means.....
Liebermann is nowhere near Libertarian. He's a neo-con warmonger.
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.
That's a very nice way of putting it
Definitely a foreign policy interventionist.
