It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Constitution-less Conservatives

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ararisq
 



Why do you think Ron Paul wants to use the power of the presidency to overturn Roe v Wade?


This is from his website:


* Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”

* Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”


Right here he takes the decision away from the Supreme Court, (the judicial branch) and instead wants to make it an executive branch decision. As president, he would not have the Constitutional authority to repeal Roe V Wade. But as Ron Paul proves above, he hates the US Constitution so much that he would act like a dictator, and repeal Roe V Wade without the Judicial branch.


What makes you think Ron Paul wants to edit the constitution using the presidency?


Again from his website:


* End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.


See, again, this is not in the purview of the Presidency, it would require a Constitutional Amendment in order to repeal the 14th Amendment. This does not involve the Executive branch, but the Congressional Branch and the states. But as Ron Paul plans on being the dictator in Chief if elected, he plans on stripping away every American's Jus Soli Citizenship without abiding by the US Constitution.

You can mention the Constitution all you want on your campaign website, but if you don't plan on following it at all as president, it makes you look like a charlatan.

I understand that many see Ron Paul as the messiah, and think he's the second coming of Jesus Christ, but his words give him away as the domestic enemy he is.




posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok
Right here he takes the decision away from the Supreme Court, (the judicial branch) and instead wants to make it an executive branch decision. As president, he would not have the Constitutional authority to repeal Roe V Wade. But as Ron Paul proves above, he hates the US Constitution so much that he would act like a dictator, and repeal Roe V Wade without the Judicial branch.


You are wrong on two counts. First Ron Paul has stated for a long time that it is the Legislative Branch that has the power to remove jurisdiction from the courts. You are also wrong that this violates the Constitution. Article III, Section 2 reads in part, "the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

In 2004 Ron Paul wrote:



A far better approach, rarely discussed, is for Congress to exercise its existing constitutional power to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts. Congress could statutorily remove whole issues like gay marriage from the federal judiciary, striking a blow against judicial tyranny and restoring some degree of states' rights. We seem to have forgotten that the Supreme Court is supreme only over lower federal courts; it is not supreme over the other branches of government. The judiciary is co-equal under our federal system, but too often it serves as an unelected, unaccountable legislature.



Originally posted by HauntWok
Again from his website:


* End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.


See, again, this is not in the purview of the Presidency, it would require a Constitutional Amendment in order to repeal the 14th Amendment. This does not involve the Executive branch, but the Congressional Branch and the states. But as Ron Paul plans on being the dictator in Chief if elected, he plans on stripping away every American's Jus Soli Citizenship without abiding by the US Constitution.

You can mention the Constitution all you want on your campaign website, but if you don't plan on following it at all as president, it makes you look like a charlatan.

I understand that many see Ron Paul as the messiah, and think he's the second coming of Jesus Christ, but his words give him away as the domestic enemy he is.


Is that line you quote above 'seriously', come on - without laughing - the line you want to use to PROVE that Ron Paul wants to use the Presidency to edit the constitution? You have to be joking.

Let me do the research for you.

Ron Paul from 2006


I've introduced legislation that would amend the Constitution and end automatic birthright citizenship. The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868, on the heels of the Civil War. The country, especially the western territories, was wide open and ripe for homesteading. There was no welfare state to exploit, and the modern problems associated with immigration could not have been imagined.

Our founders knew that unforeseen problems with our system of government would arise, and that's precisely why they gave us a method for amending the Constitution. It's time to rethink birthright citizenship by amending the 14th amendment.


Notice the part about introducing legislation to amend the Constitution. That is a far cry from having a President do it himself. The laws for amending the Constitution are well known - but I can enumerate them for you if you need it.
edit on 9/7/2011 by ararisq because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ararisq
 


This is neither 2004, or 2006, this is 2011 and we are talking about what is currently on his campaign website.

Ron Paul has been in congress for over 30 years now. He should know the Constitution.

What about state rights? He wants to repeal Roe V Wade without even considering the states in the matter. (By the way, this is how Roe V Wade got to the Supreme Court to begin with).

Sorry, he has proven with his website here in 2011 (not talking about what he said in 2004 or 2006, but 2011) that he has no intention of following the Constitution.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by ararisq
 


This is neither 2004, or 2006, this is 2011 and we are talking about what is currently on his campaign website.

Ron Paul has been in congress for over 30 years now. He should know the Constitution.

What about state rights? He wants to repeal Roe V Wade without even considering the states in the matter. (By the way, this is how Roe V Wade got to the Supreme Court to begin with).

Sorry, he has proven with his website here in 2011 (not talking about what he said in 2004 or 2006, but 2011) that he has no intention of following the Constitution.


I have alot of trouble believing that you believe what you are saying. When Obama said he wanted national healthcare did you take that to mean he wanted to do it without Congress? You are picking and choosing and slicing up wording to support your point but I don't understand why you keep trying. I understand if you repeat a lie enough it becomes truth but this is ATS you cannot get away with it. You will be refuted. I see you have conceded the argument by just copying and pasting the lie.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


You know, that is impressive, but sadly in all my years as a voter (since 78) I have learned that political candidates will tell the voters what they want them to hear, but once in government position they tend to forget what they said during their campaign and follow their agendas.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ararisq
 



When Obama said he wanted national healthcare did you take that to mean he wanted to do it without Congress?


I didn't believe he would do it at all. I in fact didn't believe half of what Obama said during the campaign, and whoever did was a complete fool.


You are picking and choosing and slicing up wording to support your point but I don't understand why you keep trying.


Just trying to show that Ron Paul isn't the Messiah or the second coming of Jesus Christ people on the internet believe he is.

reply to post by marg6043
 


That is exactly my point. Just because they blow rainbows up your butt, doesn't mean they are all that they seem to be. Ron Paul has spent a career in Congress. He is a career politician and as such is just as corrupt as the rest of them. Just because someone is fooled by his game doesn't mean we all are.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok
...extremists who will step on the neck of anyone who has a constitutionally protected right to decent against the fascist ideals of the Paul regime.


IF there are people that retain those opinions, while disgusting (to me), it is their opinion. The First Amendment is there to protect them from State action against such. Just as it is your opinion to believe this is the coming State if Ron Paul were elected.

Quite ironic really; you are perpetuating the a very similar line in your opinion as that which you are dissenting against.



I'm actually more afraid of Paul's Cannon Law, his extremist religious ideology should make him completely un-electable. I certainly don't want to be forced to practice a religion I don't believe in, from what it reads on Ron Paul's campaign site, that's certainly a possibility...




Are we living in a theocracy? I don't think so, from my understanding (and correct me if I'm wrong) don't we live in a Republic? For some reason I don't think that we should have radical religious types in our government shoving down our throats their version of morality and their cult's laws.


You are correct, the proper form of Government (notice I say proper; practiced form is quite different) is a Constitutional Republic. The Federal Government, along with all 50 states has their own Constitution. The Federal Constitution guarantees each state "Republican form of Government".

As far as "radical religious types in our government" this is a ridiculous argument. Since under our form of Government, the makeup of all members are derived from the People or the States (though, this could be argued given the 17th Amendment.) Given that, just because citizen's have engaged in politics does not sequester them from the protections of the either the States' or Federal Government's constitutions.

It does however protect the People from those within seats of Government from enacting certain laws. The Establishment clause, as with all of the Constitution, is to protect the People from Governmental abuses. Creation of a State Church (one in which the Government is the Church and the Church is the Government) is strictly prohibited.



The fact that Ron Paul puts so much emphasis on his cult's teachings and even readily admits that they influence decisions that he will make as president shows me that he doesn't care at all about the US Constitution but instead cares more about Cannon Law.


I am unsure what type of candidate you would want. Is an extreme-environmentalist any different -- or an atheist? It seems you wish no one to have personal beliefs or convictions when operating within the confines of Government. Your argument goes against what you are arguing.

It is up to the People to hold all those accountable to what they have been enumerated, depending upon the branch they reside in, to follow only those powers in which have been granted by the People. This is really been a huge failure on the Peoples' part.


It just goes to show that the entirety of the Christian faith is an extremist terrorist organization just like TEA Party members like to paint Islam as a terrorist faith.


Was this tongue-in-cheek? If so, bravo because it shows how we all can paint with a broad brush. Though your sentence structure is odd here. Are you saying "the entirety of the Christian faith is an extremist terrorist organization." or are you saying "..the entirety of the Christian faith is an extremist terrorist organization just like TEA Party members..."


Sure he has the freedom to believe in any religion he chooses, and that's fine by me. But the second his religion crosses the threshold of our Republic, that's in my opinion wrong.


And how do YOU determine when the threshold is crossed? Because he speaks freely about his faith? Is that not the crux of the First Amendment?! I think you have something important to get across, but your thoughts and logic are jumbled.


...as President has made it clear that he would usurp the powers delegated to the judicial branch and overturn their decision.


As presidents have usurped powers before. The Supreme Court is not the end all be all that you make it to be. I am not arguing on the validity of Roe v. Wade, but the branches are equal in power (another point that could be intensely argued given today's politics). The strongest hand the Executive branch has is the Bully Pulpit. Utilizing it to sway the general populace to engage their Representatives, who in turn challenge the Judicial. Just as the Judicial can challenge the Executive or the Legislative.


Ron Paul is about the biggest enemy of freedom there is.


Actually, Government in any form is an enemy of freedom; it just depends on how much the People are willing to abdicate is the problem.
edit on 8-9-2011 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-9-2011 by ownbestenemy because: Fixed broken quotes



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 


Hauntwok,
We have a major problem in this country. MORE AND MORE we have people who misquote the Constitution.
Some do it because they do not know any better.
Others twist it, turn it and take it out of context to try and make it mean something that it doesn't. Most who do this are very progressive liberals.
I challenge you HauntWok to read the other writings of our founding fathers. Read about their thoughts on slavery, read about their stance on religion, read of their hopes and their fears.
I hope this will help you put the constitution into the context in which it was written.
Most of the fears that you have stated in this thread are TOTALLY unfounded.
Peace,
Quad



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Wow Hauntwok, you might as well have kick someones granny in the teeth
edit on 8-9-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-9-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Apparently I have, but this is the kind of reaction one would expect from people who serve a demagogue.

The fact still remains that Ron Paul has been in Congress 30 years, as a life long beltway insider, it's likely that he is working for the same oligarchy that he claims to be against.

The people who follow Ron Paul seem to embrace him and his message as the gospel. It's a sad day when people like Ron Paul can fool so many people into believing that he's something he really isn't

I would encourage people to really look into these candidates, like Ron Paul, and find out the special interest groups that fund them.


National Association of Realtors $10,000
Credit Union National Association $7,500
Corriente Advisors $4,800
John Templeton Foundation $4,800
Beal Bank $4,800
Bavarian Waste $4,000
Landman $2,900
Home Healthcare $2,820
Machinist $2,780
Herndon Oil $2,400


Think he's working for YOU? I don't think so.

Wanna see how he voted and why? Look here and you will see how he voted and on what issue and what special interest group bribed him for his vote.



new topics




 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join