Are you nervous that the millimeter imaging technology might think you are a female because your body "parts" are smaller than the resolution available?
Ron Paul doesn't care about the court of public opinion; he cares about the Constitution. That should be obvious by the way his voting record in Congress.
Exactly... something about a truck load of veto pens.
But really you hit the nail on the head. The President's job is to uphold the Constitution (read the oath of office sometime). And if legislation passes across his desk that he feels is unconstitutional than it is his duty to veto it.
Since Ron has a better understanding of the Constitution than most people in Washington, he probably would veto almost everything as you have said.
Stale mate, or Congress would go around him. Either way he would be doing his job which we haven't had from a President in decades, maybe even a century or more.
It says: "No State shall pass any Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts"
The clause was written to protect creditors and their ability to collect debts by prohibiting the States from interfering with the obligations of contracts.
The first of many bad rulings on the Contracts clause was Nebbia v New York.
In "The Age of Abundance", Brink Lindsey offers a bold reinterpretation of the latter half of the twentieth century. Readers will learn how and why the contemporary ideologies of left and right emerged in response to the novel challenges of mass prosperity -- and how a new, more libertarian consensus is forming that mixes the social freedom of the left with the economic freedom of the right.
States have zero representation in Washington DC. The People have representation but the States don't.
The House is elected by the People. The Senate used to be elected by State legislatures, but after socialistic nonsense that was amended early 20th century so that Senators were popularly elected too. This means that your local state government has no representation to the Federal government which is A VERY BAD THING.
The federal government is NOT authorized to dictate community standards or communications protocols, or mediums etc. The FCC is prima facie unconstitutional and should be abolished.
That would be good except that we have a political duopoly in this country. If we had 4 or 5 parties then you are correct. However we have two parties that DO work together quite often with very little policy difference between the them. Their only goal is to retain power and their platforms are meaningless.
Many of the arguments in the Federalist Papers were scrapped at the Convention. Thus citing the FP for legal reasons is a fallacy. They can provide historical insight, but not legal insight.
The Founding Fathers had won their independence from the British Crown. For the first time in human history individuals were free to govern themselves and were sovereign. And the Founders wanted to pass on this liberty and freedom forever. So what did they do? They locked up liberty and freedom into a trust known as the Constitution. The American People are the benefactors of the trust. The benefactors cannot abolish the trust or get rid of it. It can be modified but so long as specific conditions are met.
Slashdot Mirror
Nowhere in the US Constitution does the federal government have authorization to build or fund train lines.
You're right: democracy IS flawed.
Fortunately the US is NOT a democracy; it's a Constitutional Republic. UNfortunately no one pays any attention to the Constitution anymore.
Are you nervous that the millimeter imaging technology might think you are a female because your body "parts" are smaller than the resolution available?
HA HA HA!
Ron Paul doesn't care about the court of public opinion; he cares about the Constitution. That should be obvious by the way his voting record in Congress.
Dennis mentioned aliens. Ron Paul did not.
But Ron's platform is about adherence to the Constitution; Kucinich's is not.
Exactly... something about a truck load of veto pens.
But really you hit the nail on the head. The President's job is to uphold the Constitution (read the oath of office sometime). And if legislation passes across his desk that he feels is unconstitutional than it is his duty to veto it.
Since Ron has a better understanding of the Constitution than most people in Washington, he probably would veto almost everything as you have said.
Stale mate, or Congress would go around him. Either way he would be doing his job which we haven't had from a President in decades, maybe even a century or more.
People bitch and moan about airport security yet they keep voting for people who give them bigger and more intrusive government.
US Congressman and Presidential Candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) voted against the DHS / TSA nonsense. Why did he receive as few votes as he did?
Using a mailbox is a violation of federal law.
Only the USPS can use your mail box.
Yes and no.
It says:
"No State shall pass any Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts"
The clause was written to protect creditors and their ability to collect debts by prohibiting the States from interfering with the obligations of contracts.
The first of many bad rulings on the Contracts clause was Nebbia v New York.
The US Constittuion gives us an unlimited right to contract.
It also does not allow the federal government to create communications monopolies (except for the post office).
Two words: defense contractors
You should read a book on the subject:
In "The Age of Abundance", Brink Lindsey offers a bold reinterpretation of the latter half of the twentieth century. Readers will learn how and why the contemporary ideologies of left and right emerged in response to the novel challenges of mass prosperity -- and how a new, more libertarian consensus is forming that mixes the social freedom of the left with the economic freedom of the right.
It's a FASCINATING read!
http://www.brinklindsey.com/
States have zero representation in Washington DC. The People have representation but the States don't.
The House is elected by the People. The Senate used to be elected by State legislatures, but after socialistic nonsense that was amended early 20th century so that Senators were popularly elected too. This means that your local state government has no representation to the Federal government which is A VERY BAD THING.
Yes the US is a Constitutional Republic in which our representatives are democratically elected. We are not a democracy :-)
I wish more people understood that. Ignorance in this country is widespread and it's largely due to government schools.
You need to read a book on this very subject:
"The Age of Abundance: How Prosperity Transformed America's Politics and Culture" by Brink Lindsey.
http://www.amazon.com/Age-Abundance-Prosperity-Transformed-Americas/dp/0060747668/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205891737&sr=8-1
You need to read a book on this very subject:
"The Age of Abundance: How Prosperity Transformed America's Politics and Culture" by Brink Lindsey.
http://www.amazon.com/Age-Abundance-Prosperity-Transformed-Americas/dp/0060747668/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205891737&sr=8-1
You should read a book on this very subject called Age of Abundance by Brink Lindsey. It's fascinating.
The federal government is NOT authorized to dictate community standards or communications protocols, or mediums etc. The FCC is prima facie unconstitutional and should be abolished.
...is that the FCC even exists at all!
No where in the Constitution is the federal government allowed to regulate communications, networks, mediums of expression, obscenity, or indecency.
One thing is for sure. They don't have to worry about a dental plan for their astronauts.
That would be good except that we have a political duopoly in this country. If we had 4 or 5 parties then you are correct. However we have two parties that DO work together quite often with very little policy difference between the them. Their only goal is to retain power and their platforms are meaningless.
It's time for America to have a second party!
The Nuremburg trials were illegal as were the precedents that came about afterwards.
Many of the arguments in the Federalist Papers were scrapped at the Convention. Thus citing the FP for legal reasons is a fallacy. They can provide historical insight, but not legal insight.
The Founding Fathers had won their independence from the British Crown. For the first time in human history individuals were free to govern themselves and were sovereign. And the Founders wanted to pass on this liberty and freedom forever. So what did they do? They locked up liberty and freedom into a trust known as the Constitution. The American People are the benefactors of the trust. The benefactors cannot abolish the trust or get rid of it. It can be modified but so long as specific conditions are met.