Paul is a Constitutionalist. Therefore, if something is not named in the Constitution as an enumerated power of the federal government, the federal government should keep their stinkin' noses and hands OUT of it. It's pretty simple really. It doesn't matter whether you, I or even Dr. Paul personally likes one of the unconstitutional things that the federal government is doing, or a piece of legislation they propose, because if it is outside of their authority, they have no business doing it. There is one way to change that and that is through amending the Constitution. So, if that is what you want to do, then by all means, lead the effort to get that done. But, don't yell out of one side of your mouth when the federal government partakes in unconstitutional activities like warrantless surveillance, sneak and peak, throwing out habeas corpus, starting unconstitutional wars and the like, but then proclaim that you like the other unconstitutional things they are doing like dictating the minimum wage, etc. You can't have it both ways.
What is so scary about freedom anyway? Why do we want to turn our lives and decisions over to the federal government, so they can dictate to us? That's not exactly what our country was supposed to be, right? The decisions that we decided needed to be legislated, were supposed to be made very close to us, at the state or local levels, so that WE THE PEOPLE, could have a whole lot of influence on how those decisions went. If we didn't like the decisions, we could throw the bums out. Why are we wanting everything turned over to the federal government? It is those same people who are running our country off a cliff, while putting laws in place to lock up and gag the people who are supposed to own this country (US). Our every move was not intended to be laid out for us, nor every need accommodated, by ANY government at all. Freedom doesn't make guarantees to us. Other than an opportunity to live our lives the way we choose, unless we infringe on the liberty of someone else. Sounds pretty darn good to me. How about you?
Note: By the way, Paul does not vote for pork-barrel spending at all. Check your facts. Maybe you don't understand how it works. When his constituents come to him and ask him to submit an earmark, he passes it on to the Appropriations Cmte. Then, he votes AGAINST the bill.
Earmark Victory May Be a Hollow One
by Ron Paul
Last week's big battle on the House floor over earmarks in the annual appropriations bills was won by Republicans, who succeeded in getting the Democratic leadership to agree to clearly identify each earmark in the future. While this is certainly a victory for more transparency and openness in the spending process, and as such should be applauded, I am concerned that this may not necessarily be a victory for those of us who want a smaller federal government.
Though much attention is focused on the notorious abuses of earmarking, and there are plenty of examples, in fact even if all earmarks were eliminated we would not necessarily save a single penny in the federal budget. Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives. In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds - their tax dollars - than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats. So we can be critical of the abuses in the current system but we shouldn't lose sight of how some reforms may not actually make the system much better.
The real problem, and one that was unfortunately not addressed in last week's earmark dispute, is the size of the federal government and the amount of money we are spending in these appropriations bills. Even c
Yes, he is. Paul voted for the federal "partial birth" abortion ban.
That did nothing to ban abortion. It banned the use of a specific technique.
Wait a minute, wasn't it you who were just arguing for the fact that if something was not named in the Constitution, it was to be left to the states and to the people?
To the states? Or to the people? There's a big difference, and it's within the jurisdiction only of the SCOTUS.
No. It's not the federal government's business whether or how (or whether) the states will address abortion. What IS their job is to stop doing those things that they are not Constitutionally supposed to be doing. Dictating abortion is one of those things. Wait a minute, wasn't it you who were just arguing for the fact that if something was not named in the Constitution, it was to be left to the states and to the people?
Wait a minute. You seem to think that the Supreme Court has the authority to operate outside of the Constitution. Is that it? Because that is most certainly not true. What we have going on is a bunch of activist judges who seem to think that it is up to them to make law, rather than Congress, as the Constitution says.
Roe v. Wade says to the people - it's a right of individual choice and state governments have no power to dictate it.
Yes and it is unconstitutional as all heck. Federal judges are using their bench power to effectively make laws that have not been Constitutionally created by Congress. In recent years Federal judges regularly have struck down State and local laws in subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education and abortion. This "government by Federal judiciary" causes a virtual nullification of the Tenth Amendment's limitations on Federal Power.
Further, when Federal judges impose their preferred policies on State and local governments, instead of respecting the policies adopted by duly elected legislatures, city councils and county commissions - bodies duly elected by and thus accountable to the people, our republican form of government is threatened. The Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, has issued decisions that, in effect, have overturned abortion laws of all 50 states.
As a result of this abuse of judicial power, the federal government grows ever more invasive, as the states become ever more subservient.
Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) has said, "Congress has a responsibility to protect the states from threats to their republican form of government, whether by a foreign power or one of the other two branches. Government by judiciary is incompatible with republican government. Therefore Congress must act to rein in the out-of-control federal judiciary."
And he is trying to do just that by two bills that he has sponsored.
Well, you just made my point for me. Somehow you seem to think that Paul is trying to ban abortions and he is not. He wants the federal government out of it and wants the decision turned over to the states and the people, just like you described.
No, you are wrong. His legislation is to get the federal government out of funding abortion and the whole abortion decision. Abortion is not listed anywhere in the Constitution, so Constitutionally, it should be left up to the states to decide. You know, just like how the federal government has no Constitutional authority to conduct a War on Drugs, conducting warrantless surveillance, doing away with habeas corpus, sneak and peak, or any of the myriad of other things they have no business doing.
What on earth are you talking about? Paul doesn't want to end public education. The federal Dept. of Education is not who provides public education. Rather, they are the big government agency who forces on states, programs like No Child Left Behind, Outcome-Based Education and the like. They do that by essentially blackmailing states by not allowing us to get our own money back to educate our children, unless we follow their dictates. Is this what you think is a good plan?
Slashdot Mirror
What is so scary about freedom anyway? Why do we want to turn our lives and decisions over to the federal government, so they can dictate to us? That's not exactly what our country was supposed to be, right? The decisions that we decided needed to be legislated, were supposed to be made very close to us, at the state or local levels, so that WE THE PEOPLE, could have a whole lot of influence on how those decisions went. If we didn't like the decisions, we could throw the bums out. Why are we wanting everything turned over to the federal government? It is those same people who are running our country off a cliff, while putting laws in place to lock up and gag the people who are supposed to own this country (US). Our every move was not intended to be laid out for us, nor every need accommodated, by ANY government at all. Freedom doesn't make guarantees to us. Other than an opportunity to live our lives the way we choose, unless we infringe on the liberty of someone else. Sounds pretty darn good to me. How about you?
Note: By the way, Paul does not vote for pork-barrel spending at all. Check your facts. Maybe you don't understand how it works. When his constituents come to him and ask him to submit an earmark, he passes it on to the Appropriations Cmte. Then, he votes AGAINST the bill.
Earmark Victory May Be a Hollow One
by Ron Paul
Last week's big battle on the House floor over earmarks in the annual appropriations bills was won by Republicans, who succeeded in getting the Democratic leadership to agree to clearly identify each earmark in the future. While this is certainly a victory for more transparency and openness in the spending process, and as such should be applauded, I am concerned that this may not necessarily be a victory for those of us who want a smaller federal government.
Though much attention is focused on the notorious abuses of earmarking, and there are plenty of examples, in fact even if all earmarks were eliminated we would not necessarily save a single penny in the federal budget. Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives. In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds - their tax dollars - than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats. So we can be critical of the abuses in the current system but we shouldn't lose sight of how some reforms may not actually make the system much better.
The real problem, and one that was unfortunately not addressed in last week's earmark dispute, is the size of the federal government and the amount of money we are spending in these appropriations bills. Even c
Yes, he is. Paul voted for the federal "partial birth" abortion ban.
That did nothing to ban abortion. It banned the use of a specific technique. Wait a minute, wasn't it you who were just arguing for the fact that if something was not named in the Constitution, it was to be left to the states and to the people?To the states? Or to the people? There's a big difference, and it's within the jurisdiction only of the SCOTUS.
No. It's not the federal government's business whether or how (or whether) the states will address abortion. What IS their job is to stop doing those things that they are not Constitutionally supposed to be doing. Dictating abortion is one of those things. Wait a minute, wasn't it you who were just arguing for the fact that if something was not named in the Constitution, it was to be left to the states and to the people?
Wait a minute. You seem to think that the Supreme Court has the authority to operate outside of the Constitution. Is that it? Because that is most certainly not true. What we have going on is a bunch of activist judges who seem to think that it is up to them to make law, rather than Congress, as the Constitution says.Roe v. Wade says to the people - it's a right of individual choice and state governments have no power to dictate it.
Yes and it is unconstitutional as all heck. Federal judges are using their bench power to effectively make laws that have not been Constitutionally created by Congress. In recent years Federal judges regularly have struck down State and local laws in subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education and abortion. This "government by Federal judiciary" causes a virtual nullification of the Tenth Amendment's limitations on Federal Power.
Further, when Federal judges impose their preferred policies on State and local governments, instead of respecting the policies adopted by duly elected legislatures, city councils and county commissions - bodies duly elected by and thus accountable to the people, our republican form of government is threatened. The Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, has issued decisions that, in effect, have overturned abortion laws of all 50 states.
As a result of this abuse of judicial power, the federal government grows ever more invasive, as the states become ever more subservient.
Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) has said, "Congress has a responsibility to protect the states from threats to their republican form of government, whether by a foreign power or one of the other two branches. Government by judiciary is incompatible with republican government. Therefore Congress must act to rein in the out-of-control federal judiciary."
And he is trying to do just that by two bills that he has sponsored.
Well, you just made my point for me. Somehow you seem to think that Paul is trying to ban abortions and he is not. He wants the federal government out of it and wants the decision turned over to the states and the people, just like you described.
No, you are wrong. His legislation is to get the federal government out of funding abortion and the whole abortion decision. Abortion is not listed anywhere in the Constitution, so Constitutionally, it should be left up to the states to decide. You know, just like how the federal government has no Constitutional authority to conduct a War on Drugs, conducting warrantless surveillance, doing away with habeas corpus, sneak and peak, or any of the myriad of other things they have no business doing.
What on earth are you talking about? Paul doesn't want to end public education. The federal Dept. of Education is not who provides public education. Rather, they are the big government agency who forces on states, programs like No Child Left Behind, Outcome-Based Education and the like. They do that by essentially blackmailing states by not allowing us to get our own money back to educate our children, unless we follow their dictates. Is this what you think is a good plan?