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.
I'm saying that the Founding Fathers of this country gave us a Republic and we don't have it anymore. Read into it what you want to. The Constitution says nothing about "majority rule", etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
The supreme court said in 1937 that social security was indeed, constitutional.
Are you saying you know how to interpret the constitution better then every Supreme court judge since 1937?
If so, you have a way to change the government. Bring a case before the court and tell them what you know.
I'm saying that the Founding Fathers of this country gave us a Republic and we don't have it anymore. Read into it what you want to. The Constitution says nothing about "majority rule", etc.
Jefferson, Washington, and every other President took to an interpretive view of the constitution, and not a constructional one.
That was the debate between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans.
The Federalists felt that an interpretive view of the constitution was fine. The Democratic-Republicans thought we should follow the constitution to the letter of the law.
The Democratic-Republicans became the modern day Democratic party if you can believe it. The Federalists died out.
But they left their mark, Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican railed against Hamiltons idea of a central bank, and fostering industry. And then he went and overstepped the constitution by buying Louisiana.
You're fighting a 200 year old fight. Follow exactly what the constitution says, or interpret it. The court interprets the constitution, thats all they do. Its in the original constitution. If you don't think the court should interpret the constitution, then you don't like our form of government.
A speech on the congress floor May25th, no teleprompter, no media talking heads. Just the Truth.
If anyone is to be president think about the concept of where our country is going and who will lead our nation to a future built on liberty or tryanny.
Ron Paul : "The last nail is being driven into the coffin of the American Republic. Yet, Congress remains in total denial as our liberties are rapidly fading before our eyes. The process is propelled by unwarranted fear and ignorance as to the true meaning of liberty. It is driven by economic myths, fallacies and irrational good intentions. The rule of law is constantly rejected and authoritarian answers are offered as panaceas for all our problems. Runaway welfarism is used to benefit the rich at the expense of the middle class. Who would have ever thought that the current generation and Congress would stand idly by and watch such a rapid disintegration of the American Republic? Characteristic of this epic event is the casual acceptance by the people and political leaders of the unitary presidency, which is equivalent to granting dictatorial powers to the President. Our Presidents can now, on their own:
1. Order assassinations, including American citizens,
2. Operate secret military tribunals,
3. Engage in torture,
4. Enforce indefinite imprisonment without due process,
5. Order searches and seizures without proper warrants, gutting the 4th Amendment,
6. Ignore the 60 day rule for reporting to the Congress the nature of any military operations as required by the War Power Resolution,
7. Continue the Patriot Act abuses without oversight,
8. Wage war at will,
9. Treat all Americans as suspected terrorists at airports with TSA groping and nude x-raying.
And the Federal Reserve accommodates by counterfeiting the funds needed and not paid for by taxation and borrowing, permitting runaway spending, endless debt, and special interest bail-outs.
And all of this is not enough. The abuses and usurpations of the war power are soon to be codified in the National Defense Authorization Act now rapidly moving its way through the Congress. Instead of repealing the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), as we should, now that bin Laden is dead and gone, Congress is planning to massively increase the war power of the President. Though an opportunity presents itself to end the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, Congress, with bipartisan support, obsesses on how to expand the unconstitutional war power the President already holds. The current proposal would allow a President to pursue war any time, any place, for any reason, without Congressional approval. Many believe this would even permit military activity against American suspects here at home. The proposed authority does not reference the 9/11 attacks. It would be expanded to include the Taliban and "associated" forces—a dangerously vague and expansive definition of our potential enemies. There is no denial that the changes in s.1034 totally eliminate the hard-fought-for restraint on Presidential authority to go to war without Congressional approval achieved at the Constitutional Convention. Congress' war authority has been severely undermined since World War II beginning with the advent of the Korean War which was fought solely under a UN Resolution. Even today, we're waging war in Libya without even consulting with the Congress, similar to how we went to war in Bosnia in the 1990s under President Clinton. The three major reasons for our Constitutional Convention were to:
1. Guarantee free trade and travel among the states.
2. Make gold and silver legal tender and abolish paper money.
3. Strictly limit the Executive Branch's authority to pursue war without Congressional approval.
But today:
1. Federal Reserve notes are legal tender, gold and silver are illegal.
2. The Interstate Commerce Clause is used to regulate all commerce at the expense of free trade among the states.
3. And now the final nail is placed in the coffin of Congressional responsibility for the war power, delivering this power completely to the President—a sharp and huge blow to the concept of our Republic.
In my view, it appears that the fate of the American Republic is now sealed—unless these recent trends are quickly reversed.
The saddest part of this tragedy is that all these horrible changes are being done in the name of patriotism and protecting freedom. They are justified by good intentions while believing the sacrifice of liberty is required for our safety. Nothing could be further from the truth.
More sadly is the conviction that our enemies are driven to attack us for our freedoms and prosperity, and not because of our deeply flawed foreign policy that has generated justifiable grievances and has inspired the radical violence against us. Without this understanding our endless, unnamed, and undeclared wars will continue and our wonderful experience with liberty will end."
Ron Paul 2012
Ron Paul is right! We need to cut more than 0.05% of our spending to even make a dent in the 14 trillion dollar debt in this country.
Our Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson in particular, knew that unless the citizens could defend themselves against a government grown too large and abusive, there could be no freedom: "When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty" --Thomas Jefferson.
Jefferson never said or wrote it. That quote didnt appear until almost a hundred years after his death.
The closest quote from Jefferson was in a 1825 letter:
"Some are whigs, liberals, democrats, call them what you please. Others are tories, serviles, aristocrats. The latter fear the people, and wish to transfer all power to the higher classes of society; the former consider the people as the safest depository of power in the last resort; they cherish them therefore, and wish to leave in them all the powers to the exercise of which they are competent".
Most Republicans swear they love our country, which means they should love our government.
WRONG WRONG WRONG.
Opposing government in favor of liberty is always in favor of the country. There's no rule saying you have to love the government. This entire nation is about changing government all through out it's history.
The very foundation that built this nation was to rebel against a British govt that overtaxed and took away liberties from the colonists.
To say "if you love your country, you must love the government" is the biggest load of **** statement I've ever heard.
Paul would need to be tempered with a Democratic congress I believe, or he'd cut well beyond what people actually want, because its what he thinks is best.
A smaller government is much needed. A flatter tax where the richest Americans pay an effective tax rate of 18% is needed. A military that costs 4 times what the entire rest of the world combined pays isn't needed.
But Paul would eliminate social security, medicare, the FDA, the USDA, etc. Instead allowing states to police those things themselves, which would never work.
A federal government restricted back to the size of 1998 would be ok with me.
Bottom line is that we NEED to cut well beyond what some people actually want....
I know I consistently side with Obama over current Republicans, but I'd side with Ron Paul over Obama....
We need a fresh approach and I don't care where it comes from...
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.
