Mitt Romney: I dont know what the Constitution says! Ask Ron Paul

Originally posted by tooo many pills
reply to post by Annee

 

I personally want a leader who is going to move the country forward. I don't want to be "stuck" by a 200 year old document - - if it interferes with progression - - then I want a leader to challenge it.

What exactly does that mean? Because our past 7-8+ leaders have been progressively challenging that 200 year old document and look where it got us.

Where has it got us?

Seems to me - - many think we are progressing the way we should - - depending on what one considers important to the progression of a power country.

Originally posted by Annee

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My point is - - - Civil Rights should never be given to states. Civil Rights should be protected Federally.

Ron Paul has voted against individuals Civil Rights. He hides his true nature behind the Constitution.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I understand it - - most supporters of Ron Paul are the young idealistic - - - that did not live in the times before certain Civil Rights became Federal Law. They are not seeing the full picture - - they are short sighted. IMO.

Wow...you do like to take jabs at people who actually understand the Constitution better than you.

You do know that giving all state powers to the Feds makes the Federal government bigger, which is UnConstitutional?... Of course you don't know...

Let's see what the founding fathers have to say about your CLAIM shall we?...

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press." Thomas Jefferson

Obviously in the above Thomas Jefferson is talking about all states having their own Constitution. This does not mean that our main Constitution has no power, or say, but the states can expand on that Constitution which the founding fathers wrote.

"The way to have safe government is not to trust it all to the one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to everyone exactly the functions in which he is competent....To let the National Government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations..... The State Governments with the Civil Rights, Laws, Police and administration of what concerns the State generally. The Counties with the local concerns, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these Republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations until it ends in the administration of everyman's farm by himself, by placing under everyone what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best." Thomas Jefferson

Do you understand the part where Jefforson said, and I quote AGAIN:...

...
The State Governments with the Civil Rights, Laws, Police and administration of what concerns the State generally...

He is not talking about the Federal government, but the state GOVERNMENTS...

So in summary you are the one completely ignorant on these matters, despite your attempted jabs at the people who understand the Constitution better than you...

BTW, another important thing that the founding fathers like Jefforson said and which is very important for Americans to understand is the following.

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." Thomas Jefferson

Even the founding fathers knew that a central bank, and much less a private central bank, is a bad idea and that corporations would grow around such a central private bank and would eventually deprive Americans of our properties.

It is quite ironic that the PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS not only signed into law the Federal Reseve, which is a private bank, but also the IRS as it exists today with all it's UnConstitutional PROGRESSIVE taxes, which in essence deprive Americans of property.

The IRS deprives Americans of property simply because even though you can pay for your house, or for land and have it completely paid off you still have to pay yearly taxes on it, which in essense says such a land belongs to the STATE, not to the individual...

And I leave you with these last statements made by the Founding Fathers.

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
Patrick Henry
...

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington
...

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783
...

"We must all hang together, or, assuredly, we shall all hang separately." Benjamin Franklin at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

www.dojgov.net...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Wow...you do like to take jabs at people who actually understand the Constitution better than you.

I'm giving my viewpoint/opinion on the subject.

You however - - have taken several jabs - - at those who think differently then you.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Obviously in the above Thomas Jefferson is talking about all states having their own Constitution. This does not mean that our main Constitution has no power, or say, but the states can expand on that Constitution which the founding fathers wrote.

Have I focused on anything besides CIVIL Rights? Of course states have their own constitution. Didn't I say states need rights to make laws for anything geographical or directly related to their specifics? Oh Yeah - - I did.

I want an honest and logical answer:

1. Why and for what benefit to the individual is marriage a state right?
2. Why and for what benefit to the individual should contraceptives be a state right?

Originally posted by Annee
...

I personally want a leader who is going to move the country forward. I don't want to be "stuck" by a 200 year old document - - if it interferes with progression - - then I want a leader to challenge it.

edit on 10-1-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)

So you want MORE PROGRESS?...

It wasn't enough that "PROGRESS" brought us the Federal Reserve which pretty much alongside other legislation like regulations on all businesses, caused the Great Depression, recessions, inflation, and even the current economic crisis?...

You want more progress despite the fact that the "World Bank" and other World bodies are the cause for the global economic crisis, which they, alongside those in power of the Federal Reserve in the U.S., are using the Global economic crisis to grab even more power?...

You want more "PROGRESIVE TAXES" since the IRS as it exists today has UnConstitutional PROGRESSIVE taxes, and you yourself stated you want MORE PROGRESS...

And you want to take jabs at Ron Paul and his supporters?...

You see, this is something people like you can't comprehend. To the left PROGRESS is not about technological, medical, or any other form of advancement... PROGRESS is about making countries, and the world to accept and implement LEFTIST POLITICS... That's what PROGRESS is really all about...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
caused the Great Depression, recessions, inflation, and even the current economic crisis?...

I've researched the Great Depression. A lot goin on with that.

You are getting off topic.

Originally posted by Annee

I'm giving my viewpoint/opinion on the subject.

You however - - have taken several jabs - - at those who think differently then you.

You did more than give your ignorant opinion, you took several jabs at Ron Paul suppoters, and I am a Ron Paul suppoter. You expected members like me to stay quiet and ignore your attempted jabs and ignorant comments?

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by Annee

I'm giving my viewpoint/opinion on the subject.

You however - - have taken several jabs - - at those who think differently then you.

You did more than give your ignorant opinion, you took several jabs at Ron Paul suppoters, and I am a Ron Paul suppoter. You expected members like me to stay quiet and ignore your attempted jabs and ignorant comments?

So sorry - - my opinion is Ignorant - - because it doesn't agree with yours.

Please provide specifics of my "jabs" so we can discuss individually.

Originally posted by Annee

Have I focused on anything besides CIVIL Rights? Of course states have their own constitution. Didn't I say states need rights to make laws for anything geographical or directly related to their specifics? Oh Yeah - - I did.

You have flip flopped in quite a few of your statements, but le'ts not discuss this. There is no point in trying to show you what you yourself have posted.

Originally posted by Annee
I want an honest and logical answer:

1. Why and for what benefit to t individual is marriage a state right?
2. Why and for what benefit to the individual should contraceptives be a state right?

edit on 10-1-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)

Why should states decide on these topics?... because the people can decide what they want, and if you don't like the decisions reached by one state, then you can move to another which has reached decisions you like. But if the Federal Government is the one to make such decisions, you have nowhere to move since all states would have to follow the Federal Government's decision...

If that isn't logical to you, I don't know what to say.

Originally posted by Annee

So sorry - - my opinion is Ignorant - - because it doesn't agree with yours.

No, your opinion is ignorant because you either chose to ignore, or are ignorant of history, and the reason why the Founding Fathers started a revolution to take the United States away from the tyranny of a King who thought he knew what is better for everyone in the new colonies, and you don't understand that your World Government will only lead to a similar tyranny that the Founding Fathers fought against.

Originally posted by Annee
Please provide specifics of my "jabs" so we can discuss individually.
...
As I understand it - - most supporters of Ron Paul are the young idealistic - - - that did not live in the times before certain Civil Rights became Federal Law. They are not seeing the full picture - - they are short sighted. IMO.

We are not idealistic, nor short-sighted, people like you who think a One World government can only be good for everyone are the ones who are idealistic, and very short-sighted and ignorant sorry to say.

In a world where there is only one government, where is there to go if you disagree with that One World Government?... Yet people like you want this to happen nomatter what...

You want centralization of power which history itself has shown only leads to dictatorships, but what you want is a World dictatorship...

Originally posted by Misoir
Oh get over yourselves. Not everyone here could be able to give a good answer to such a ridiculous question when it is asked on the spot. Does a state have the constitutional right to ban contraceptives?

I disagree...First, it is not so ridiculous a question because Rick Santorum has advocated for exactly that and rounded up supporters in doing so.

Secondly, Banning contraception is a specifically Catholic Mandate..which follows as Santorum is a devout Catholic...and yes the bill of rights speak to "privacy", (1st amend) speaks to "freedom of religion". And the ninth amendment goes further in stating the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people."

The fourth and fith amendments speak to protection against all governmental invasions "of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life."

To allow states to enforce a Catholic religious mandate and outlaw contraception while claiming it does not infringe on privacy would be the same as passing a law that all women must wear burkas and then claiming the law does not specifically speak to or demand a religious preference.

The catholic premise ...as Monty Python put it, of "every sperm is sacred" would also, by logic, not just ban contraception, but masturbation....do we have a Prison system large enough?

Despite all of that, contraception was banned in 30 states until 1965 when the Supreme Court decided the issue and determined the ban unconstitutional.

Griswold v. Connecticut
en.wikipedia.org...

Romney, like President Obama, is a Harvard Law School graduate and for him to feign ignorance on the constitutionality of the issue and the landmark 1965 SCOTUS ruling was nothing more than outright BS and an attempt to appeal to Santorum's religous right supporters.

Santorum has repeatedly said he thought the 1965 Supreme Court ruling was wrong.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by Annee

Have I focused on anything besides CIVIL Rights? Of course states have their own constitution. Didn't I say states need rights to make laws for anything geographical or directly related to their specifics? Oh Yeah - - I did.

You have flip flopped in quite a few of your statements, but le'ts not discuss this. There is no point in trying to show you what you yourself have posted.

Originally posted by Annee
I want an honest and logical answer:

1. Why and for what benefit to t individual is marriage a state right?
2. Why and for what benefit to the individual should contraceptives be a state right?

edit on 10-1-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)

Why should states decide on these topics?... because the people can decide what they want, and if you don't like the decisions reached by one state, then you can move to another which has reached decisions you like. But if the Federal Government is the one to make such decisions, you have nowhere to move since all states would have to follow the Federal Government's decision...

If that isn't logical to you, I don't know what to say.

No it is not logical.

I find the "you can move to another state" asinine. Again - - Ideological Tribes.

As far as your statement: if the Federal Government is the one to make such (Civil - all have same equal rights) decisions, you have nowhere to move since all states would have to follow the Federal Government's decision

You proved my point.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Enough! You continue to make this personal.

I do not support Ron Paul or the direction he wants to take this country.

My opinion is valid (not ignorant) - - it does not in anyway denote anyone else's opinion.

Moving on . . .

Originally posted by Annee

No it is not logical.

I find the "you can move to another state" asinine. Again - - Ideological Tribes.

Of course you would find it asinine, you would rather FORCE people to accept what you, i mean the leftist Federal Government wants...

Originally posted by Annee
As far as your statement: if the Federal Government is the one to make such (Civil - all have same equal rights) decisions, you have nowhere to move since all states would have to follow the Federal Government's decision

You proved my point.

Ah, so your point is people must abide by the Federal Government nomatter what even if it leads to a dictatorship...

You actually proved my point. Your World Government will be nothing more than a World Dictatorship...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by Annee

So sorry - - my opinion is Ignorant - - because it doesn't agree with yours.

No, your opinion is ignorant because you either chose to ignore, or are ignorant of history, and the reason why the Founding Fathers started a revolution to take the United States away from the tyranny of a King who thought he knew what is better for everyone in the new colonies, and you don't understand that your World Government will only lead to a similar tyranny that the Founding Fathers fought against.

Originally posted by Annee
Please provide specifics of my "jabs" so we can discuss individually.
...
As I understand it - - most supporters of Ron Paul are the young idealistic - - - that did not live in the times before certain Civil Rights became Federal Law. They are not seeing the full picture - - they are short sighted. IMO.

We are not idealistic, nor short-sighted, people like you who think a One World government can only be good for everyone are the ones who are idealistic, and very short-sighted and ignorant sorry to say.

In a world where there is only one government, where is there to go if you disagree with that One World Government?... Yet people like you want this to happen nomatter what...

You want centralization of power which history itself has shown only leads to dictatorships, but what you want is a World dictatorship...

edit on 10-1-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

You know what is the most annoying thing about you Libertarian conservatives. Each and every personal opinion is taken as an abomination against some holy doctrine. Why do you call Annee ignorant multiple times?. Don't you see how weak your arguments become once you start to insult to prove a point?

Originally posted by Indigo5
...
The catholic premise ...as Monty Python put it, of "every sperm is sacred" would also, by logic, not just ban contraception, but masturbation....do we have a Prison system large enough?
...

Can you actually show proof that "every sperm is sacred" according to Catholic premise like you claim?...

I was raised Catholic and I don't remember any such premise. Masturbation is supposedly a sin, but not because "every sperm is sacred"...

Originally posted by CrikeyMagnet

Originally posted by Annee
If Ron Paul had his way - - absolutely it would be a states right to ban contraceptives.

Forgive me for my Canadian-ness, but doesn't the constitution say something along the lines of "If it's not specifically spelled out in this document as a power of the Federal government, then it is a power of the state's government."? So... go for it. Ban contraceptives.

The Constitution does not say a lot of things. It does restrict government power beyond what is enumerated in the constitution, but at the same time it expands individual citizens rights beyond what is enumurated.

The Ninth Amenedment reads..."The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

A citizens right to choose between private and public education? The right to study a given foriegn language? That and many more rights that were not spelled out in the bill of rights have been determined to be amongst rights protected under the bill of rights.

To simply assume that any right not articulated in the constitution and it's amendments, is not protected by the same is to disregard the constitution in it's entirety and the 9th amendment was written to guard against just such ignorance.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by Annee

No it is not logical.

I find the "you can move to another state" asinine. Again - - Ideological Tribes.

Of course you would find it asinine, you would rather FORCE people to accept what you, i mean the leftist Federal Government wants...

Originally posted by Annee
As far as your statement: if the Federal Government is the one to make such (Civil - all have same equal rights) decisions, you have nowhere to move since all states would have to follow the Federal Government's decision

You proved my point.

Ah, so your point is people must abide by the Federal Government nomatter what even if it leads to a dictatorship...

You actually proved my point. Your World Government will be nothing more than a World Dictatorship...

edit on 10-1-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

Don't you see how simplistic you approach certain matters?

What is wrong with protecting minorities on a federal level? The Civil Rights Act is a mile-stone in political history. I just understand why that is so hard to see.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse


Can you actually show proof that "every sperm is sacred" according to Catholic premise like you claim?...

I was raised Catholic and I don't remember any such premise. Masturbation is supposedly a sin, but not because "every sperm is sacred"...

Sorry...you made me do it...



And to be fair the Catholic Church deems contraception "intrinsicly evil"...Catechism of the Catholic Church Paragraph 2370

And as early as Jerome C. 374... "Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception."

What is has your Catholic teachings been with relation to contraception?

Originally posted by dadgad

You know what is the most annoying thing about you Libertarian conservatives. Each and every personal opinion is taken as an abomination against some holy doctrine. Why do you call Annee ignorant multiple times?. Don't you see how weak your arguments become once you start to insult to prove a point?

I am not trying to insult her, it is the truth.

So, according to you a person who doesn't learn from past mistakes made by mankind and written down on paper is not ignorant?

Anne wants a one World Government, where the state/government has all power, but what does history have to say about nations who have gone down such a road?

Isn't it ignorant and foolish to once again try to go down that same road?