TexasCHLforum.com

"He votes against a bill that helps kidnapped kids, since it is not "constitutional."" - Well, at least he keeps his word. He swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and as far as I can tell he's the only one who bothers to try anymore. He has been doing this for ten terms.

He's earned my vote. He has been my Congressional hero since 1984, and that's how long I've been wishing and waiting for a Ron Paul presidency. I'll vote for him if I have to write him in. I recently volunteered to be a precinct leader, something no other candidate has ever inspired me to do.

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

Ron Paul on the 2d Amendment:
"As a United States Congressman, I have:

- Led the fight to restore the Second Amendment rights to all Americans, without infringement, that have been stripped away;

- Introduced legislation to repeal the so-called "Gun Free Zone" victim disarmament law of 1990;

- Introduced legislation to repeal the 1993 National "Instant Background Check" gun registration bill;

- Authored legislation to stop taxpayer funds from going to the anti-gun United Nations;

- Opposed all gun control schemes that would register ALL private sales and mandate government "Lock-up Your Safety" devices;

- Introduced legislation to protect American citizens' freedom to carry in our national parks.

- Publicly Opposed legislation just this year that would allow government-appointed psychiatrists to ban U.S. veterans experiencing even mild forms of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome from EVER owning a gun.

If nominated to represent the Republican Party in 2008, you can bet I'll continue to be 100% pro-gun and 100% pro-freedom -- unlike some of my opponents whose messages "get tailored" to fit the views of the crowd they're talking to.

But more than that, I will be a leader for our Constitutional rights -- all of them -- especially your gun rights.

That's why I am running for the Republican nomination for president of the United States.

The fact is, I've never thought that standing up for the Constitution was anything to be ashamed of, but too many of our politicians nowadays care more about their hair than what is right.

Gun control is NOT the answer to our crime problem -- and not one of our Constitutional rights is up for "debate."

Every new restriction creates more bureaucracy that will spend more of our tax dollars and force police to waste time on paperwork instead of patrolling the streets.

Whether you own a gun for personal protection or if you don't own a gun and just believe in the U.S. Constitution -- I hope to earn your support. "

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

Ron Paul votes against many, many bills. I understand it is his practice to actually READ* the bills he votes on, something that apparently not all legislators bother to do. Is it really too much to expect of our Congresscritters that they actually write Constitutional laws?

From http://www.downsizedc.org/read_the_laws.shtml: "Most Congressmen are lawyers, and many others are businessmen. They know what “fiduciary responsibility� is. For Members of Congress, fiduciary responsibility means reading each word of every bill before they vote.

But Congress has not met this duty for a long time. Instead . . .
They carelessly pass mammoth bills that none of them have read. Sometimes printed copies aren't even available when they vote!
Often no one knows what these bills contain, or what they really do, or what they will really cost.
Additions and deletions are made at the last minute, in secrecy.
They combine unpopular proposals with popular measures that few in Congress want to oppose. (This practice is called “log-rolling.�)
And votes are held with little debate or public notice.
Oh, and once these bills are passed, and one of these unpopular proposals comes to light, they pretend to be shocked. “How did that get in there?� they say. "

I apparently forgot about this particular thread. As often is the case, Frankie sums it up perfectly. I love the fact that Paul is a constitutionalist. The reason he will never see the white house continues to be the same fact. One cannot only vote for or against something based on what is "constitutional." Sometimes you must vote with your heart. LAst I checked, Paul is not part of the SCOTUS. The rider on the Amber bill is a no brainer.

I give the example of the Savoy Hotel in Houston. I was there, I admit, about 15 years ago or so. I'd wager I was likely the 10% of teens who were not high that night. The DJ that night was a co-worker of mine. The owner knowingly allowed 3x the legal limit of patrons per the fire dept as he got a cut of the cover. The fire chief raided and shut it down. This is outside the fact that the owner was well aware of the drug use. Hancock and Franklin did not mention the federal government protecting kidnapped children. Paul failed. He was one of a tiny minority to vote against the bill, and he is part of a tiny minority of those who support him. Nuff said.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

Doug.38PR wrote: Ron Paul sees the Constitution as it was originally written. He interprets it's language as the original writers did (which is the proper way to interpret any document).

With all due respect, how can you know this?

It seems you agree with how he interprets it, and that's fine. But how do you know if that's the real meaning? What if I think it means something different? Am I automatically wrong, because Ron Paul and you, and maybe some others, disagree?

I keep saying this over and over, but people still seem to have a hard time with it. All any of us can have about the constitution is an opinion. That's all that the SCOTUS justices have, the same as you and me.

The difference with them is that they are the ones selected by our system to be the official arbiters of what the constitution means. And when a majority of them share the same opinion, it takes on the status of "a ruling". At that point, it's the law of the land, until or unless it is subsequently overruled by a later ruling, or the constitution is amended, or the Congress acts to limit the Court's jurisdiction.

Doug.38PR wrote: The other's (Democrats and Republicans)make it's language to mean whatever they want it to mean today to suit whatever they want. Republicans might talk a lot about the Constitution and State's Rights, but it is just patriotic noise and no patriotic reality.

In fairness, couldn't those same Democrats and Republicans say the same thing about the way they perceive others, such as Paul, to (mis)interpret its language?

Consider that there is an awful lot of case law stretching over a couple of centuries that would indicate that Paul's constitutional views are not widely shared. And this case law has been developed by our most respected practicioners of constitutional law. To me, this is at least a "caution flag" that Paul's views on the constitution may be, in some cases, problematic.

Or at least debatable.

lawrnk wrote:One cannot only vote for or against something based on what is "constitutional."

Of course one can. And sadly, only one actually does so.

Sometimes you must vote with your heart. LAst I checked, Paul is not part of the SCOTUS. The rider on the Amber bill is a no brainer.

I'd bother to argue, but since it's a "no brainer", voted "with your heart", then neither logic nor the Constitution can sway you.

I'm proud to support a man who takes unpopular stands, especially when the Constitution is unpopular.

Kevin

KBCraig wrote:I'm proud to support a man who takes unpopular stands, especially when the Constitution is unpopular.

KBCraig wrote:

lawrnk wrote:One cannot only vote for or against something based on what is "constitutional."

Of course one can. And sadly, only one actually does so.

Sometimes you must vote with your heart. LAst I checked, Paul is not part of the SCOTUS. The rider on the Amber bill is a no brainer.

I'd bother to argue, but since it's a "no brainer", voted "with your heart", then neither logic nor the Constitution can sway you.

I'm proud to support a man who takes unpopular stands, especially when the Constitution is unpopular.

Kevin

I'm sure as long as you guys keep throwing money towards him, he will keep being as unpopular as he already is. He is going to place below Perot or Nader. The constitution is the foundation of this country, not the rule book.

KBCraig wrote:

lawrnk wrote:One cannot only vote for or against something based on what is "constitutional."

Of course one can. And sadly, only one actually does so.

My point (that keeps getting ignored) is, how can Paul or you or anyone else know what is constitutional or not other than by referring to established case law?

Paul can have his opinion, you can have yours, and I can have mine. But that's all they are - our opinions. And if our opinions are contrary to established case law, or if there is no case law in a particular area, all we can say is that we disagree.

In other words, Paul may be incorrect about whether certain activities that the government engages in are constitutional or not.

In our system, it's constitutional if a majority of the SCOTUS says it is, until and unless a new case comes up and produces a different ruling.

I think Paul missed his calling. Instead of becoming a doctor and then a legislator, he should have become a lawyer and pushed for getting himself appointed to the SCOTUS. I say this because he seems so certain that such and such is constitutional while this other thing over there isn't. And so do many people who follow him.

It reminds me of the people who argue that the income tax is unconstitutional. They will regale you day and night with arguments about how the 16th amendment wasn't properly ratified, etc., etc. Meanwhile, the 3 branches of government and the 300 million people who elect them go on their merry way collecting and paying this "unconstitutional" tax.

Like most of us, Ron Paul is a guy with opinions. Nothing more and nothing less. One may agree with them or not. But I don't see him as having any kind of special "pipline" where he can channel the Founders and make pronouncements from the top of Mount Ararat as to what the constitution "really" means.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:My point (that keeps getting ignored) is, how can Paul or you or anyone else know what is constitutional or not other than by referring to established case law?

It's not hard: read the Constitution.

In our system, it's constitutional if a majority of the SCOTUS says it is, until and unless a new case comes up and produces a different ruling.

No, that's not "our system". That's the system SCOTUS arrogated to itself in Marbury v. Madison. The Constitution itself doesn't give the Court any authority to be the final arbiter of Constitutionality, something the founders specifically warned against.

Our system as created in the Constitution gives equal authority and responsibility to the Congress and the President to determine constitutionality. The system of checks and balances calls for every individual to be a check against unconstitutionality.

If Congress passed, and the President signed, a law making it legal to beat confessions out of people, a detective who actually did so wouldn't get a pass; he would still be violating the suspect's constitutional rights.

I to see so many Paul supporters are not in his District. I am ... unfortunately. He was our guest speaker at our Lincoln Day Dinner, and we had a hard time giving away the tickets in the North part of the County. Thankfully, they are finally running someone against him, (Chris Peden, a good, Christian, Conservative Republican, pro-gun) and the Paulies are having a fit, because they say that he was promised that the local Rep. Party wouldn't put up anyone to run for "his" seat! Do they think that he owns that seat? If he won, this District would be without representation. It is only prudent to run another candidate for the seat that he is so eager to vacate! Acting like the local Republicans have lied/tricked him is utter arrogance!

An example of how things are really going in "his" District: Chris Peden had a little rally in Lake Jackson a couple of weekends ago. Paul was laying off Pres. campaign staff at the time and wanting to come home to keep/fight for his local office, as "Peden is doing too well." Peden had a full house. Paul booked a room in the same building for the same day at the same time ... and bussed folks in from Austin! Then, they claimed victory, as they bussed so many folks in that many had to stand outside, as there wasn't enough room for them inside! These are the kinds of things that are really ticking off the mainstream Republicans in this District. It is embarrassing.

His voting against body armor for our troops, as he said that it was un-Constitutional was the last straw for most of us! No matter what your ideology, you set it aside for the good and protection of our men and women, who are putting themselves in harm's way for the sake of this country. Human life trumps written words any/every day of the week!

He let the folks at that rally "talk him into" continuing the bid for Pres., as that will give him/them a voice at the Convention. Now, his folks are saying that, if he loses the Pres. bid ... which he will ... they will run him as a 3rd Party Candidate. What utter nonsense! What utter selfishness!

I saw McCain speak at an Officer's Wives Club meeting, shortly after he returned from being a POW in Viet Nam ... too many years ago to admit. He was a poster boy for PTSD. Not much seems to have changed in all these years.

The choice seems to be between an ultra-liberal possible murdering abused wife, a possible Muslim apostate even worse liberal that might really be a Muslim in disguise, a nut case that calls himself a Constitutionalist, a nut case that might have sold his men out, and God only knows what else! Not a good position for the voters to be in. Not a good position for this country to be in. There is one solution to our problem. God said:

"If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their evil ways; then, will I hear from Heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." 2 Chron. 7:14.

We have, indeed sinned, by running after the desires of our fleshly nature in managing our government ... a gift from God, rather than putting God first. We have made a god of the Constitution. We have made a god of ourselves and our own wills. This country needs a miracle right now. We are on the verge of losing our nation as we know it. God has given us the answer to saving this country. Are we truly willing to follow? Are we truly willing to put aside our own petty desires, feelings, wants, egos? Are we willing to bow ourselves before God and trust Him with the future of the country that was covenanted to Him from the beginning by our forefathers? Are we willing to set aside our ideologies and political differences, kneel before Him and ask that His will, not ours be done?

Yep. That's the hard part, isn't it? It's hard for me, too.

Just my 2 cents, for what it's worth.

KBCraig wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:My point (that keeps getting ignored) is, how can Paul or you or anyone else know what is constitutional or not other than by referring to established case law?

It's not hard: read the Constitution.

What if two or more people read it and come away with two or more honestly different opinions as to what it means? Who decides what it "really" means? Ron Paul? Hillary Clinton?

Who?

KBCraig wrote:

In our system, it's constitutional if a majority of the SCOTUS says it is, until and unless a new case comes up and produces a different ruling.

No, that's not "our system". That's the system SCOTUS arrogated to itself in Marbury v. Madison. The Constitution itself doesn't give the Court any authority to be the final arbiter of Constitutionality, something the founders specifically warned against.

Marbury v Madison is "settled law". That's the reality.

KBCraig wrote: Our system as created in the Constitution gives equal authority and responsibility to the Congress and the President to determine constitutionality.

Nope.

Congress can limit the jurisdiction of the SCOTUS if it so chooses. You will note that it declined to do so in response to Marbury v Madison. Congress also has a voice in the process by which the constitution may be amended. As do the state legislatures.

But I am curious. Where exactly in the constitution is "equal authority" given to the President and the Congress "to determine constitutionality"?

KBCraig wrote: The system of checks and balances calls for every individual to be a check against unconstitutionality.

Again, where is this stated in the constitution? And what does it mean? Who determines whether "every individual" is actually correct when making a claim of unconstitutionality, or if they are full of baloney? Ron Paul? Hillary Clinton? frankie_the_yankee?

KBCraig wrote: If Congress passed, and the President signed, a law making it legal to beat confessions out of people, a detective who actually did so wouldn't get a pass; he would still be violating the suspect's constitutional rights.

You just negated your whole argument. The victim in your example would have to bring a court action against the detective, the police agency, etc. And he would have to claim that the law that was passed by the Congress and signed by the President was unconstitutional, making the beating improper regardless of the fact that it was "authorized" by law.

And the Court would have to agree and so rule in order for the victim to get relief.

The only other alternative would be anarchy. Like maybe the victim should get a gang of people together who agree that his rights were violated and then go to the police station and start a riot or something?

I don't see how the constitution provides for that.

Thomas Jefferson viewed Shays Rebellion as a legitimate exercise of popular will, and such exercises were repeated as recently as the Battle of Athens in 1946.

- Jim

As stated several times, and this is IMHO, it is not the duty of a congressman, or the POTUS to interpret the constitution. It is the inherent responsibility OF THE SCOTUS. Ron Paul needs to realize that and stop voting against kidnapped kids and soldiers.

I also find it amusing to see the plethora of Anarchist groups supporting Ron Paul.

lawrnk wrote:As stated several times, and this is IMHO, it is not the duty of a congressman, or the POTUS to interpret the constitution. It is the inherent responsibility OF THE SCOTUS. Ron Paul needs to realize that and stop voting against kidnapped kids and soldiers.

What y'all are asking for is exactly what got us into the situation that we are in. If a future President and Congress pass a law saying that civilians cannot own semi-automatic weapons or any caliber larger than .32, it will sail right past the Supreme Court.

It is the duty of the President and every member of Congress to uphold the Constitution. They take an oath to that effect. No law infringing the right to keep and bear arms should ever have been brought to the floor in Congress, let alone be passed, signed by the President, and upheld by the Supreme Court. All three branches of government have failed in this respect.

- Jim

locknload wrote: Thankfully, they are finally running someone against him, (Chris Peden, a good, Christian, Conservative Republican, pro-gun)

Do you mean this Chris Peden:
“He’s summarily dismissed by the Republican vote. He is completely ignored by Congress, and he does nothing to promote the needs of this district. For 20 years, you’ve got nothing from your congressman and it’s got to change.�
Chris Peden as quoted in the Victoria Advocate, January 22, 2008

or do you mean this Chris Peden:
"I have an immense amount of respect for Ron Paul. Politics has a way of forcing people to go against their core principles for political gain. This has never been the case for Ron Paul."
Chris Peden as quoted in the Galveston Daily News, January 12, 2007

From the most recent quote, it seems that Chris Peden spoke the truth in 2007, and even became an ironic proof of it one year later.

KBCraig wrote:From the most recent quote, it seems that Chris Peden spoke the truth in 2007, and even became an ironic proof of it one year later.

OK. Let's let Peden speak for himself:

"2nd Amendment:
I take a no-compromise position on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. As a member of the NRA and a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, I believe the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right that is not to be infringed, period.

Should I be elected, one of my first legislative priorities will be to introduce legislation that guarantees the Right to Carry in one state will be granted reciprocity in any other state with a concealed carry permit, as well as on all federal lands.

Our nation has more than enough existing gun control laws. Increasing gun control will not only compromise one of our Constitutional rights, but also offers no positive answer to crime. Gun control laws tend to be ineffective and serve only to harass law-abiding citizens. We should stop crime by putting criminals in prison, not by creating new firearm restrictions."

"Border Security
The problem with our immigration policy is that the federal government doesn't have one. Over the past 20 years, our borders have become more porous, the influx of illegal immigrants has dramatically increased, while the enforcement of our existing immigration laws has decreased.

The United States continues to be the land of hope, progress, and opportunity. I welcome the entry into our great country by people from all over the world…as long as they use the legal channels provided for them. The illegal immigration problem on our hands is an issue of national security. That is why I will not support any form of amnesty—we must gain control of America’s borders.

The House has passed, and if elected I will support, comprehensive legislation requiring employers to verify employee work eligibility, authorize and assist local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws, and build a fence along the southern border.

I support legislation that first addresses our most urgent problem: securing America's borders. We must start by using new technologies such as electronic surveillance where most effective. We need to enforce current laws by holding responsible those who willfully violate our nation's immigration laws. Also, reforming the current system for processing legal applicants for immigration must occur before attempting to add new programs to an already overburdened system.

I will not vote for any bill that gives amnesty to illegal immigrants whose first action on United States soil was to break the law! As your congressman, I will do everything in my power to ensure that we remain a nation of laws."

"Abortion and Gay Marriage:
I’m pro-life and pro-family; I make no apologies for that. This will not change if I am elected to Congress.

I supported the Defense of Marriage Amendment to the Texas constitution and I support the federal Defense of Marriage Act that prohibits state and federal recognition of same sex marriages. It is my unwavering belief that marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman.

As a pro-life conservative, I strongly believe that we should protect those who cannot protect themselves. America was founded on principles that recognize the importance and dignity of each individual, and only when we apply those principles to the weakest among us do we live up to the American ideal.

My hopeful prayer is that the recent ruling by the Supreme Court to outlaw the barbaric Partial Birth Abortion procedure is the first step down the path of overturning Roe V. Wade. As your congressman, I will fight to protect the sanctity of life at all stages, from conception to natural death. I do not support federal funds going to Planned Parenthood or any other organization that promotes abortion. I will do everything in my power to protect the defenseless, and to end the practice of abortion."

"War on Terror
The men and women of the United States military honor us each day with their service and sacrifice. They deserve our respect, our prayers and deepest gratitude. If I am elected as your member of Congress, I pledge my commitment to secure the resources that our service men and women need to fulfill their mission.

I will stand with the right of the state of Israel to defend itself against terrorist aggression by Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations. Despite repeated calls for the destruction of Israel by terrorist factions, I believe Israel, as a nation, has the right to exist.

Though we can be thankful that an attack on America’s soil hasn’t happened since 9/11, we cannot consider it merely good fortune. Our valiant men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan are on the frontlines in the war on terror, but the horrific attack on 9/11 demonstrated that terrorists can bring the battlefield to our shores. For this reason, we must remain continually vigilant and ready with a broad based strategy that includes military action when necessary but also enhanced overseas intelligence capabilities, strengthened coalitions with willing partners and more effective and efficient homeland security.

We must continue to support our brave troops serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and everywhere duty calls. We must fight Islamo-fascists abroad rather than fight them at home. As your congressman, I will be dedicated to giving our military the resources they need to fight the battle against the jihadists who wish to destroy our way of life because they abhor freedom, democracy, and liberty. America has been and will continue to be a beacon of light in a dark world; we must not waver and we can not fail to defend ourselves in a dangerous world.

This great nation faced and met global threats to our peace and security in the past and we will do so again by remaining strong and dedicated to the preservation of liberty."

These are but a few. Of course, there's the comparison between Peden and Paul:

"Winning the War on Terror
Chris Peden believes in a strong national defense and secure communities. As Mayor Pro Tem of Friendswood he added a new police station, additional police officers, and Friendswood EMS was rated top in Texas. Peden has a proven record of securing our communities, and knows that to keep America safe we must stay on the offensive in the War on Terror.

Opposes the War on Terror and Blames America for 9/11

Ron Paul voted against body armor for our troops, and insists America is to blame for the 9/11 attacks. Paul wants us to gut the FBI and the CIA and have our troops retreat home “as quickly as possible and as far as possible�, which he says will make us “safer.�
(Vote 108, 4/3/03); (2007 South Carolina GOP Debate, 5/15/07); (Meet the Press, 12/23/07); (NPR interview, 7/25/07)


Opposes Traditional Family Values
Ron Paul voted against a ban on gay marriage and opposes defining marriage between one man and one woman. He supports the legalization of drugs that harm our children and ruin our families. Ron Paul has even suggested we legalize prostitution.
(Vote 484, 9/30/04); (Meet the Press: 2007 “Meet the Candidates� series 12/ 23/07); (ABC Interview with John Stossel 12/7/07)

Refuses to Protect the Unborn
Ron Paul is not committed to protecting the innocent and unborn. He voted against prosecuting criminals who harm an unborn child while committing a crime not once but twice. Paul even twice voted against a ban on transporting young girls across state lines for abortions.
(Vote 261, 6/30/99; Vote 144, 4/27/05); (Vote 89, 4/26/01; Vote 31, 2/26/04)

Weakens Our Economy
Ron Paul’s consistent votes against Free Trade agreements attack U.S. economic growth and they are exactly the approach that led us to the Great Depression. These Republican-sponsored trade agreements increased U.S. exports, created new jobs, and grew our small businesses yet Ron Paul opposed them.
(Vote 443, 7/28/05; Vote 375, 7/14/04; Vote 432, 7/24/03; Vote 375, 7/14/04; Vote 432, 7/24/03)

Supporting Traditional Family Values
Chris Peden is a devout Christian. He believes marriage is sacred and should be protected from rogue judges legislating from the bench. Chris Peden supports a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, and will defend traditional family values.

Protecting the Unborn
Chris Peden is a strong pro-life conservative. He opposes abortion and believes life begins at conception. Chris Peden will always vote and fight to protect the sanctity of life.

Improving the Economy
As Mayor Pro Tem, Chris Peden led the successful fight to deliver a one million dollar property tax refund to the people of Friendswood and the lowest tax rates in 10 years – all while keeping the budget balanced. Peden believes lowering taxes improves our economy, helps our families and he will continue to fight for lower taxes and smaller government.

© Peden for Congress 2008. All rights reserved."