Getting tired of Ron Paul

[majorownage]

I never said he was against that. I said he is an isolationist. I believe Ron Paul will do exactly what he says he will. I would vote for him in a second because I know he would fix our fiscal problem. Foreign policy is the problem. However, because of this I believe he would be very slow to propose military action, to the point of being negligent. I feel his Isolationist ideals would cloud his judgements. I feel he's far more attune to turn face, and I feel he would fail to act because of how focused he is on non-intervention. Democrats will vote for who they are told. The right I feel is considerably more open minded. I watch FNC regularly, and I can tell when I'm being fed propaganda or unsubstantiated information. If I could pick my favorite candidate, it would be Santorum.

He's not as isolationist as you think. He has a problem with our wars because they are unconstitutional.

[Woods Racing Transmission]

He's not as isolationist as you think. He has a problem with our wars because they are unconstitutional.

So if congress had "declared" war on Iraq, Afghanistan and such he would be fine? I would say since congress funded these wars they pretty much declared war.

[majorownage]

So if congress had "declared" war on Iraq, Afghanistan and such he would be fine? I would say since congress funded these wars they pretty much declared war.

Yes he would be fine. THATS the big reason he has a problem.

And funding them is completely different.


CJ, I pegged you right on with my between the lines reading.

[CJ]

He's not as isolationist as you think. He has a problem with our wars because they are unconstitutional.

Ron Paul always begins his anti-war comments those those words, however it's clear his ideals primarily revolve around anti-intervention and isolationism. What he is referring to is Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. The problem is (and has always been) the war powers doctrine. This gives the commander in chief the power to take our country to war based on any sudden threat to national security. In both Afghanistan and Iraq congress unilaterally approved military action. Nothing was unconstitutional. Do you remember how rabid the liberals were back in the 2004 election? They were talking about illegal wars, impeachment, etc. etc. and nothing ever happened. Why? Because it wasn't unconstitutional. Does the war powers act circumvent the purpose of Article I? Yes, I believe it does, but it isn't unconstitutional as he's exercising the powers given to him by Congress. Bush didn't need to seek congressional approval on Iraq, but he did. The last time Congress "declared war" on a country was Pearl Harbor. And because of fear that strategic advantage could be lost due to political indecisiveness the war powers act was put into effect which essentially made "declaring war" obsolete. So citing the failure to declare war based on Article I is a scapegoat which absolves congressional authority and law. When I hear a politician say these two wars were unconstitutional I immediately know they are being deceptive and preying on peoples lack of knowledge, because factually it is incorrect.

CJ, I pegged you right on with my between the lines reading.

The whole reason that dialog began was because you didn't. You still (and will continue I suspect) to miss what I'm saying unless you toss away the assumptions.

[majorownage]

When I hear a politician say these two wars were unconstitutional I immediately know they are being deceptive and preying on peoples lack of knowledge, because factually it is incorrect.

Pretty sure the Constitution is above Federal Law (war powers resolution) sonny.

[CJ]

Pretty sure the Constitution is above Federal Law (war powers resolution) sonny.

Major, it's become evident that you do not know enough about the Constitution and government law to participate in a conversation.

[davbrucas]

the Romans empire fell for a variety of reasons. The rise of Islam, over extending their territorial responsibilities, etc.

Sounds a lot like our situation today.

[CJ]

Sounds a lot like our situation today.

That's definitely true. However, Rome had a true empire of territories they had to maintain, support, and defend. That isn't really true for us in the same light. But then again, if we did tank I'm sure historians would have plenty of similarities to compare.

[Vertnut]

I just saw this part. This, I belive, is the reason this country is as screwed up as we are. Everyone is only worried about that little letter next to the canidates name.

The Dems have been running this fucker for 5 years (controlled congress the last two years of Bush and three years with Barry). It's their policy. Please don't act like you know me. It's not my first rodeo, and I've probably been voting since before you were born. This thread has really gone down the shitter. Ron Paul is not our only savior. Some of you are way too gullible. Anyone else tired of 20-year-olds regurgitating what they've read or heard about policies of presidents' past?

[majorownage]

Major, it's become evident that you do not know enough about the Constitution and government law to participate in a conversation.

Please expound on how an undeclared war is not illegal.

http://www.newnation.org/Archives/NN...Column-28.html <<Good read

[CJ]

Please expound on how an undeclared war is not illegal.

http://www.newnation.org/Archives/NN...Column-28.html <<Good read

I just did above. The war powers act allows a president to do this. As of the passing of that bill (as I said previously) Article I Section 8 is obsolete. Referencing it is irrelevant. People have been accusing presidents of illegal wars since Vietnam. Not a single one of those allegations have stuck, because it isn't illegal or unconstitutional. If it was Bush would have been impeached and arrested 100 times with how rabid the liberals were after him. Take Obama for instance, he just recently went to war with Libya - and he didn't even get congressional approval whatsoever. Perfect example. If you feel the war powers act is unconstitutional, then so be it, it is contradictory to the constitution. However, it was approved by democrats in 1973, Nixon vetoed it, and then with a super majority vote they passed it through anyways. That's a valid argument. But neither of these wars are unconstitutional or illegal. They were legally sought and congressionally approved (with the exception of Libya).

And once again we get a Ron Paul link. This is what I'm talking about. If you keep getting all your info from here, you'll never hear the other side of it. Perfect example - I click the link and type "war powers" and I get an interpretation of Madison in regards to the constitution. It isn't even mentioned in this article. So someone reading this article would not have any idea that it's not only legal, but they would be devoid of what kind of powers that act gives the President. This is precisely why you didn't know about it.

[majorownage]

I just did above. The war powers act allows a president to do this. As of the passing of that bill (as I said previously) Article I Section 8 is obsolete. Referencing it is irrelevant. People have been accusing presidents of illegal wars since Vietnam. Not a single one of those allegations have stuck, because it isn't illegal or unconstitutional. If it was Bush would have been impeached and arrested 100 times with how rabid the liberals were after him.

How does federal law negate a section in the constitution?

[Lason]

The Dems have been running this fucker for 5 years (controlled congress the last two years of Bush and three years with Barry). It's their policy. Please don't act like you know me. It's not my first rodeo, and I've probably been voting since before you were born. This thread has really gone down the shitter. Ron Paul is not our only savior. Some of you are way too gullible. Anyone else tired of 20-year-olds regurgitating what they've read or heard about policies of presidents' past?

So we just started going downhill the last 5 years?

We all know you have been around since before dirt, you make that very well known.

All we are saying is the policies we have had (even before barry) are doing nothing but driving us to collapse. Can you deny that?

<-----In my 30's and am not regurgitating anything about past presidents.

[CJ]

How does federal law negate a section in the constitution?

The Constitution contains the "Necessary and Proper Clause" which states:

"Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

And Congress cited the act of allowing a President to defend the country without legislative hindrance as being necessary and proper for carrying into execution.

My personal standing is anything that isn't white or black in the constitution is going to be exploited by human nature. If politicians see a weakness in any sentence they will work to exploit it. This is a perfect example of that. The founding fathers did their very best to make everything perfectly clear and simple (you can thank Benjamin Franklin for this). However, they are not perfect, and in order for it to be ratified by all the states it had to have some concessions (which are primarily the dialog most exploited). It's shady, it's misinterpretation, but it isn't unconstitutional or illegal as the power given to the President is granted through a power given to Congress.

[mikec]

CJ, I had previously perceived you as being elitist and condescending, at times. You are doing a fantastic job right now of blowing that out of the water with your explanations on why you think as you do, validating it with the knowledge you are throwing out. Honestly, this is making a tremendous difference in how most everyone analyzes your posts. I will try and take time later to delve deeper into what you are saying. If you happen to have a link to validate one or two of your points, I for one, would be appreciative, as it would make make my continued learning a bit easier/faster?

For now, thanks for typing it all out...