Discussion in 'War Zone' started by Kycntryboy, Jul 4, 2009.
Wow, three potential 2012 candidates in two weeks, simply amazing.
I will grant you extreme, but is he really "pretty nutty" and a "crack pot" like you suggest? He simply derives his stances from the Constitution. How, exactly, can you justify 90% of the things the US does with its own Constitution? "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, will retain troops in South Korea, Germany, and a majority of the other countries of the world." Of course, Jefferson was a crack pot too, and pretty nutty to boot!
I would only ask that you question your own conviction that he is a "crack pot" by doing your own research, hearing his speeches and so forth.
Argh, I've become a RonBot! I can't believe it...
I was defining "won every single debate" as the polls that showed he did. Please explain to me how people can "dwell almost exclusively on the Internet?" Excuse me, but the Internet is not a place, it is a medium. Furthermore, how can it be that such a "tiny" (paraphrasing your position) group of people who "dwell almost exclusively on the Internet" were able to outspam such a "vast" (paraphrasing your position) group of "real" supporters (paraphrasing you again)?
Also, let me ask you this question: why did Ron Paul receive more money from service members than any other candidate during the primaries?
He did not say we were responsible for 9/11. He said that the reason for it was a response to decades of policies that we did indeed have. Explain to me one thing, if you will: Why did 19 people hijack planes and destroy buildings here in suicide attacks? Why did it happen? What could possibly motivate people to do that, and why did they do it to us? The reasons given by the CIA and Osama bin Laden are known. You know, the ones who study it and the ones who did that act. What are the reasons you believe?
About the gold standard... I will simple ask you to google Article 1 Section 10.
Now I will try to have enough self-control to avoid breaking your dogma further, and will withdraw because this thread was really supposed to be about Bristol Palin jokes.
"Provide for the common defence"
Thank you. It's a little tiresome to hear the continuous and shrill whining of the Ron Paul interpretation of government. This notion that if something isn't expressly spelled out in the constitution that it's somehow unconstitutional is just ridiculous. The framers deliberately made it a broad and vague document - part of their genius.
Wow....you just sounded like the homeless guy from With Honors :icon_tong
I like a lot of Ron Paul's standpoints; however, to say he won any debate, let alone every debate is a stretch. This man is one of the worst speakers I've heard in my lifetime. When people say he is nutty, it's because every time he speaks he sounds like a whiny old kook.
Additionally, a lot of his foreign policy ideas are completely unrealistic in today's age.
The U.S. has some questionably unconstitutional laws, but having forward bases isn't one of them.
Extreme is not usually a descriptor I would want associated with someone trying to attain the highest office of the land, but I guess that is just me.
Where were these people in the primaries then? Didn't do so well when it counted, eh? Winning debates and raising money is like winning a pre-season game, doesn't really matter in the end.
And I ask you to reread it, it deals with States and not the federal government.
Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
And how the heck do you explain that is not the case when the same Constitution explicitly allows Congress and the President to do what it prohibits the states from doing, like granting letters of marque or entering into treaties? Reading comprehension, I guess it is overrated in the schools nowadays........
I love you to death, but what's with your recent habitual use of the word "heck?" It sounds like you're a Jesus freak, or something. Feel free to use hell - better yet, fuck. People who say heck make me want to punch them in the larynx - really fucking hard!
Gee whiz! What the hey, Brett?
Fuck off asshole.
Shucks, Flash, you sure sound like you're going to pop him in the mouth.
(I knew you were talking about the four places one can go when one dies: Heaven, Hell, Heck, and Limbo.)
How about I just put my boot up your ass and call it a day?
Gettin awful testy Flash.. Mrs. Flash cut you off or something?
I am stuck at work and have not had a beer all day, on July 4th of all days. Wouldn't you be cranky too?
And you are one to talk there, still feeling queasy?
Ahhh, that's more like it!
I can't drink for a month.. Bite me.
Hurts, doesn't it?
Unless he/she is extremely awesome. Dude.
Well it depends. The Constitution is meant to be pretty much interpreted literally. But things like "provide for the common defense" have very broad meaning, as you stated.
However, if one finds the Founders got something wrong or forgot something, then the process to modify the Constitution is formal amendment.
For example, the 13th Amendment to outlaw slavery, because the Constitution apparently did not protect the rights of non-white people. And then the 15th Amendment to protect non-white citizen's, and women's, right to vote.
You haven't said anything here. The amendment process is obviously available, but it's not intended to be used to establish greater specificity where the original document is deliberately broad, but to correct fundamental structural deficiencies or adapt basic tenets as our society evolves (like with slavery or women's suffrage). Don't apply absolutist theological analogies to a legal document - literal vs. some other kind of interpretation. Laws are ALWAYS subject to interpretation - that's why we have appellate courts and SCOTUS. The idea of a broad and vague founding document and unbending, literal interpretation are mutually exclusive and have never existed in the real world of constitutional law. These concepts exist only in the deluded minds of extremist idealogues and morons with AM talk radio shows.
Maybe I had mis-understood you; I understand laws are subject to interpretation, that's why we have the Courts as you said, however from my understanding, a justice is just supposed to interpret the law as it is written, all amendments included; they aren't supposed to try to "read into" the laws and legislate from the bench.
So like the 13th Amendment, that's literal, slavery is illegal. Or the 15th Amendment, every citizen has the right to vote, and so forth.
If something is outright immoral and the Court overturns it via activism, that can be dangerous because then it isn't solid. For example, if the Court had overturned slavery instead of it being done away with via a formal amendment, then whether or not blacks could be made into slaves again would reside with a few people on the Court instead of with the 13th Amendment.
You're getting yourself all mixed up here. First off, exactly what do you mean by activism? That's a term that gets thrown around a lot in the media, but I want to know what you mean by it. Furthermore, how do you define interpretation? If it's always black and white, then you don't need judges, right? Second, the court couldn't overturn the 13th amendment (and don't say that they could in theory). That is a ridiculous argument. For your own education, I would invite you to read the majority opinion in the Roe v. Wade case written by Justice Blackmun to get a sense of just how many factors are considered when the SCOTUS renders a decision. No SCOTUS ruling happens through strict and literal interpretation of the founding documents and all kinds of things are factored in, from the history of any particular issue to the social ramifications of any given ruling. Read it before you reply.
Interpreting the law by how one thinks it should be instead of how it actually is.
You need judges when people get into arguments over whether laws made by the legislature are in line or not in line with the Constitution.
I never said they could. I said that if slavery had been overturned by judicial activism instead of by the 13th Amendment, than whether or not blacks could be made into slaves again would reside with a few people on the Court instead of with the 13th Amendment. With a formal amendment, you need 2/3 of the Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures.
Ignoring the pro-life versus pro-choice argument, in terms of law, Roe v. Wade is considered by many to be blatant judicial activism. The Court made a very arbitrary decision with that, and because it was done via activism, a woman's "right to choose" (if one is pro-choice), resides with a few people on the Court, instead of with a formal amendment.
The history of an issue and the social ramifications are not supposed to apply when interpreting the law. You interpret it as it is written, even if you personally think it is wrong. If it is blatantly wrong, you change it via formal amendment.
Without that, nothing is solid.
The history of an issue and the social ramifications should come into play for legislators.
Separate names with a comma.