Ron Paul Slams Obama´s Statements Today On Libya And The Constitution!

reply to post by Cuervo


Good point Cuervo and I understand what you are saying. I just don't trust State governments anymore than I do the federal government but I also know that it was the federal government who forced states to get rid of a lot of horrible practices.

I will be the first to admit that the Federal Government is a giant cess pool and the corruption is deep but on these issues I am most concerned about they have usually taken the more correct approach. I feel better knowing that the rights I have in one state will be the same in any state I travel too. That doesn't mean I agree with them all but it's easier to petition to have one law changed than multiple versions of it in many different states.

Also let's not forget that the Federal Government often protects us from violations of the Constitution from times when the States overstep their bounds.

Here is a case in point:

www.nytimes.com...

There are many examples of things similar to this where the States try to violate the rights of Americans and I have trouble believing that the States are going to be run perfectly always making the correct decisions while the federal government does not.

If Ron is still running by election day, I may actually vote for once. Even though, I know in my heart, that it won't matter who we elect. That presidents are just simply puppets of TPTB.

Sure, I don't agree with many things that Ron says, but he is one of the few politicians I know of that sticks to what they believe in. What he spoke of in the 80's, he still speaks of today.

reply to post by kro32



www.ontheissues.org...

just putting the list you made a thread about, on this thread so people can give it a read through...

The federal government has the view that the states are nothing more than an extension of itself. The idea that anything not granted and protected by the constitution should be left up to the states is a real thorn in the side of the president and congress. (not just this current prez and congress). The fed is supposed to be there to act as agents for the people (nation) in instances that would be difficult and or impossible for the states to execute. Like commerce among all states, national security, international treaties and so on. The supreme court is there to give the people or states or federal government an abilty to have a check on each other. It shouldn't mean that one has more power over the other including even the people, ie the purpose of the US Supreme Court.
The idea that the States should decide anything not in the constitution for themselves would not neccessarily give them the ultimate power but the federal government should itself not have the ulitimate power either.
That's basically what I see in the argument for states rights. What is sad is its already spelled out in the constitution. Yes the constitution can be changed ,if needed, to address pressing issues of the changing times. But it takes a clear majority of the consent of the people to do so. Untill that actually happens then the constitution is a fixed document and not a living one. It can not and should not be used and interepreted for what ever maybe happening at the time just because something ought to be done about some issue at the moment (Libya).
To have and have had presidents who take the view that the constitution is really nothing more than just suggestions on how to run a country is an utter abomination to the intelligence and well being of the American people. The best way to deal with this is to see to it that the states are more accountable to not only the state of the union but even more so - to the people. This can be accomplished if the people feel they have better control over their concerns at the state level which gives them a greater stake in being involved in government. Because in a lot of issues it would be the states that are having the most direct effect on their lives and not the federal government. When you factor in that you are having representives from other states that you didn't have a voice in putting into office having control over you, that always concerns me a lot.
So as it stands for me I am not a Ron Paul supporter but there are things ,like some other candidates as well, that say things that I like to hear. I would like to go on a little more in better detail but gotta get some outside things finished up before the thunderstorm I'm hearing gets over the top of me!!!

Side Note:
I will hopefully soon figure out how to work all these functions on these forums so I can address specific comments posted by everybody here. So didn't want to sound as though I was just jumping into the middle of everybody's debate out of the blue without wanting to directly address individual comments.
Have a good one and have a good fourth of July while its still free to do so

reply to post by kro32


If we went back 100 yeas, is that so bad ----- We had more morals, ethics, RESPONSIBILITY & Consequences!

We also were NOT BROKE & Bankrupt as we are today.

We are failing and falling fast - so ANYWAY is BETTER THAN WHAT WE ARE TODAY!

The idiot ---- Constitution -- PAUL IS RIGHT --
It is you who does not want to follow anything by law (constitution in this case) -- You should be ANOTHER ONE OF OUR LEADERS! You speak as they and would probably do the same -- TAKE, LIE, CHEAT, all the while they (the leaders just take more and expect more from us- their slaves!

Originally posted by WarmHeartedWorld
reply to post by kro32

 

If we went back 100 yeas, is that so bad ----- We had more morals, ethics, RESPONSIBILITY & Consequences!

We also were NOT BROKE & Bankrupt as we are today.

We are failing and falling fast - so ANYWAY is BETTER THAN WHAT WE ARE TODAY!

The idiot ---- Constitution -- PAUL IS RIGHT --
It is you who does not want to follow anything by law (constitution in this case) -- You should be ANOTHER ONE OF OUR LEADERS! You speak as they and would probably do the same -- TAKE, LIE, CHEAT, all the while they (the leaders just take more and expect more from us- their slaves!

Ask any minority if they'd rather live in 1911 or 2011 America.

Government-wise, I agree that the basic structure we had 100 years ago would be best now especially since humanity has reached an ethical height that could actually handle governing themselves on a local scale. But I'd never want to live back then. Unless I was John Marston, of course.

Basically: 1911 State Empowerment + 2011 Populace = 50 happy nation-states.

Originally posted by kro32
Ron Paul is an idiot.

Voting him in would set this county back 100 years.

Setting the country back 100 years would take us to a time before an income tax in perpetuity existed. In 1911 the final public debt - and bear in mind this is without any income tax what-so-ever - was $2,765,000,000. Today, with an income tax firmly entrenched in perpetuity that national public debt is $14,355,230,943,618.48.

Oh no! That idiot wants to set this country back to a better time? Dear God! Somebody stop him!

Originally posted by kro32

Originally posted by Blueracer
reply to post by kro32

 

So you don't believe that people in a certain state should decide for themselves, the laws that they want? Do you believe that someone in DC should make those decisions for Arkansas, Louisiana or California?

Correct, this is why each state sends representatives to Washington. Of course there will always be the majority of the issues handled at the State level by the State and thats the way it should be. Not everything should be decided by the state however as it would create chaos.

Certainly you can see the problems of states having different rules and laws. If you can't I'd suggest reading a history book or two and see some of the problems that has led too in the past.

The majority of laws in a state are made by the state and it's fine if they differ but there is also a place in our system for national standards also.

Rules governing food and safety

Rules for environmental protections

Rules for nuclear safety

I think you get the point.

I see where your coming from but wouldnt it be better for you to have choice of which laws you are willing to abide by? i could pick a state that would suite me best and move to that state because it has the best ideas for me. im pretty sure it wouldn't cause chaos, it would just have people studying each states laws and they would be able to decide under which government they wanna live? how in the world could this be a bad idea?

reply to post by kro32


PA doesnt allow tint on your car windows, my state does. i can live with that. my state does not bail out private industry that cant manage to make money. what good has the fed govt done for you? name something? taxed you, then gave your money to gm, when you cant afford to buy a new car? that doesnt make sense does it? it would have been cheaper to buy everyone in the u.s. that can drive a new car. we are bombing 6 or 7 countries right now, and honestly, i dont know why? can any one screw up worse than oboma?

so far only one person really against Ron Paul and it seems to me more due to a fear of change...

lets just hope all of America passes the Freedom test as well as ATS did because another Obama/Bush clones gonna destroy what little is left of American freedom and liberty.