Ron Paul announces new run for presidency!

Originally posted by wearewatchingyouman
reply to post by kro32

 

Marbury v Madison established that anything repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of Law. Can you please enlighten me as to how "the foregoing powers" of Article 1 section 8 make Ron Paul an idiot?

Marbury vs. Madison established judicial review...not sure where your getting that whole repugnant to the Constitution thing.

Ron Paul in an interview on Fox news stated that Congress has no right to do anything that's not listed in Article 1 Section 8 under their expressed powers.

What Ron Paul doesn't realize is that the Founders of the Constitution also gave Congress implied powers since they knew the world would change and Congress would have to adapt their laws accordingly.

There is far more power giving to Congress in Article 1 Section 8 than just the expressed ones that are clearly written and this has been upheld continously by the Supreme Court.

Ron Paul does not believe that Congress has the ability to do things unless it's one of the expressed items in this article. Any first year political science major could tell you how wrong this is viewpoint is.

reply to post by neo96


I'm bored... baby is sleepin'... a li'l ruckus w/ the man sounds like fun...

Reply to post by kro32

It is your job as the accuser to prove your case.

Put up or shut up


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by kro32


maybe a first year poli sci student whose teacher happened to be a bleeding heart liberal... however if the professor was responsible he would have taught both the loose and strict constructionalist sides of the argument...

yes you are correct that the current pecedent does favor loose constructionalists, but that does not mean the debate is over... thus we have Ron Paul... this doesn't make him a constitutional idiot... just in the minority...

Ron Paul is a bubble shy of plumb.

Originally posted by wearewatchingyouman
reply to post by kro32

 

maybe a first year poli sci student whose teacher happened to be a bleeding heart liberal... however if the professor was responsible he would have taught both the loose and strict constructionalist sides of the argument...

yes you are correct that the current pecedent does favor loose constructionalists, but that does not mean the debate is over... thus we have Ron Paul... this doesn't make him a constitutional idiot... just in the minority...

Even a strict constitutionalist will admit that there is a certain degree of vagueness written into the body of the text. The war powers is one example of this as is promoting general welfare which is listed twice with 2 different meanings neither of which is specifically laid out.

Ron Paul does not recognize vaugeness and therefore will not acknowledge those parts of the Constitution. If he were elected and for some odd reason got Congress to vote on his proposals you would see a very different America, in a bad way, than what we have today.

Of course it's not known for a fact that would happen but anyone with ideas that far fetched certainly isn't someone I would trust in a position of power.