It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by TupacShakur
Here's an interview that aired today on Fox News Sunday with Ron Paul:
HQ video on this website.
The first thing he brings up is Ron Pauls comments on FEMA with our current situation with Hurricane Irene, I was sure he would get some flak for that. But he defends himself and gives the reasons for why he thinks that way.
Wallace asks him about his "unconventional" viewpoints, and Ron Paul talks about how it's strange that freedom, liberty, a balanced budget, and a Constitutional and limited government are seen as "unconventional". He spins it around and says our state of government for the past 50 years has actually been the unconventional one. Chris Wallace rubs me the wrong way...
Ron Paul then talks about how he would follow the Constitution as president and this really stuck out:
"The constitution was written to restrict the government, not to restrict the people"
Wallace also asks him about his recent comments about Gaddafi and asks if he thinks it's a good thing that Libya is rid of Gadaffi. Paul agrees that it's a good thing, but talks about our government doing business with him 5 years ago and asks "Was that a good thing?", BOOM!
Then he branches out and talks about how Libya won't end up as a perfect, happily flourishing democracy because there are talks about how we might need troops on the ground to maintain order. Paul then says logic tells us we shouldn't be dealing with our foreign policy in this manner, we can't pretend like we can pick the dictators around the world because that's been unsuccesful.
He also brings up how his foreign policy is what attracts lots of people and gets him lots of support, because he gets more donations from those who are active in military duty than all other candidates combined.
Then they discuss the economy, Bernanke, and a few other things.
It's good to see Ron Paul getting some Sunday air time on the big networks.edit on 28-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post
Originally posted by haarvik
reply to post by kro32
Implied powers are what has caused this whole mess. There is nothing implied, that is the lawyers looking to validate their reason for ripping off the American populace. The Constitution should be followed verbatim, as it was written. To do otherwise is to commit an act of treason.
The infamous Supreme Court ruling in McCulloch v. Maryland overrules the 10th amendment because they say it does and Ron Paul by disagreeing with this shows that he does not agree with the power the founders gave the Supreme Court in the Constitution.
Originally posted by Snorkelbacon
reply to post by kro32
I'm not a scholar by any means, and it sounds like you know a lot more than i do, so I'm asking this question very honestly because i'm curious about your statement on the courts. So if the supreme courts, for whatever reason, decided we no longer had the right to free speech, or any guns period, or that it was ok for U.S. citizens to be searched without probable cause for whatever reason, then there ruling would be constitutional? If yes, can the courts ever make an unconstitutional ruling?
The SC members should not be affiliated with any party, but a neutral body. This is the only way a fair and impartial court can operate.