Thanks. Anyways, this is what I'm referring to. It basically says among other things that the Supreme Court can't interfere with the legislative and administrative functions of the states. I would observe that this among other things would mean the Supreme Court can't rule on California's proposition 8, and that McCollugh vs. Maryland, Roe vs. Wade, and Brown vs. Board would all have been wrong among others.
That is the way it works. We don't vote for parties, regardless of how corrupted its become. It seems like you'd be in favor of a more parliamentary system. Because vetoing the stupid crap Congress passes is being Congress' b****. If anything the veto forces Congress to be more bipartisan. I want a government where the three branches have distinct roles and act in opposition to each other, not a government in which the executive and judiciary branches simply rubberstamp all of Congress' bull****. One man at the head of his party that makes Congress his b**** and that scoffs at the Courts is the anti-thesis of what I want.
Check my last post. And all of those cases are very important but Brown V. Board was ignored for 50 years. As for the cases that were supported, the Court was practically just enacting legislation because they were able to have people listen to their decision because of popular support. Check our Will of the People it's a great book about the power of the Court, but really the Court's power is dependent on popular support... Which means Congress could do exactly the same thing. If the Court was truly independent and could use force to have its decisions followed it would be different. Congress controls finance, president has police force... Court has cool robes.
Congress has the authority via the Constitution to legislatively control the jurisdiction of the courts, and the Bill of Rights grants all other authority not granted elsewhere in the Constitution to the people or States. Of course, my main issue with the courts is that their rulings seem to be considered law. I think that each case should be ruled on a case-by-case basis and not simply cast aside based on a precident regarding an entirely different scenario with the same Constitutional subject.
I would put it Libertarians 100% for the one percent; GOP 99% for the one percent; Dems 65% (at least the leadership) for the one percent; most of the 40% IIRC who don't vote are for the 99% i.e, their income/wealth level.
Why the F### not?? I already donated $500 this month to Ron Paul campaign, I want to see some positive results.
I think it's the people's faults, not Huntsman for thinking global warming is a hoax and that evolution is a fluke. If those two things I mentioned are what "alienates" him from the conservative voters, then smh.... Also, guess who is more consistent than Ron Paul? Huntsman. Ron Paul isn't going to get crap done with his wacky ideals. Like the Senate is going to want to vote to allow states to legalize hard drugs or prostitution. Is this what the people are voting for? lol
Dude, read this entire eight page mailer found by Reuters, signed by Ron Paul, and tell me exactly which parts of it you agree/disagree with. Because it is f---ing nutballs, all of it. It's a .PDF, the source of the latest Reuters story: http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/11/12/Solicitation2.pdf --Tracking us with "New" money (the specially-printed bills that are harder to counterfeit and, of course, everywhere now without harm). --Forcing us to turn in old money. --Trilateral commission. --the imminent early '90s economic collapse --Urban race wars. --The "federal-homosexual" AIDS coverup. And that's just from one mailer, in which he tries to bilk people out of $100 bucks to sign up for such continued drivel. Face it: either he's a racist, or he's quite willing to traffic in such nonsense to scare the feeble-brained, just to make a buck. Face this, as well: he will never, should never, get close enough to smell even a whiff of the Oval Office. I just did. I just did.
Ron Paul makes conservatives not look so bad... Personally, I want to find a candidate who loves war. Not war with other countries, no, we need to unite all the countries of the world and focus on our greatest war: the war with the moon. Look at that arrogant son a of *****, sitting up there in the sky like he owns it. Let's take him down! That's right! I want to shoot the moon out of the sky!!! WHO'S WITH ME?!?! ... Back to reality. I really like Ron Paul... I'll still vote for Obama...
ron paul to me appears to be the only beacon of sanity from the republican party. Tbh, I think they've turned into some kind of joke, the debates are like watching the jerry springer show. Most of the candidates have the smug smartass look on their face thinking they know more than they really do.
Really? Really? Read what he put out under his own name (click on the links there to see his original newsletters): http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98883/ron-paul-incendiary-newsletters-exclusive TPM's Top 10, by no means definitive: [rquoter]1. “Order was only restored in LA when it came time for the blacks to collect their welfare checks. The ‘poor’ lined up at the Post Office to get their handouts (since there were no deliveries) — and then complained about slow service.” -Report on LA riots, June 1992 2. “I’ve been told not to talk, but these stooges don’t scare me. Threats or no threats, I’ve laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.)” -Direct mail ad promoting Paul’s newsletters, written from Paul’s perspective, 1993 3. “It is human nature that like attracts likes. But whites are not allowed to express this same human impulse. Except in a de facto sense, there can be no white schools, white clubs, or white neighborhoods. The political system demands white integration, while allowing black segregation.” -‘The Disappearing White Majority,’ January 1993 4. “I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities. They could also not be as promiscuous. Is it any wonder the AIDS epidemic started after they ‘came out of the closet,’ and started hyper-promiscuous sodomy?” -June 1990 5. “Whether [the 1993 World Trade Center bombing] was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little.” -‘The New York Bombing,’ April 1993 6. “An ex-cop I know advises that if you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds, for example).” ‘Blast ‘Em’, October 1992 7. “The opposition will do its best to provoke some precipitous action on on our part to discredit us and our cause. Follow the orders of Captain Parker at Lexington: Stand your ground. Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.” -Militia’s 10-point advice to other militias, January 1995. 8. “When the New Money is imposed, every American family must have a Survival Kit of highly liquid, small-denomination silver and gold coins for hand-to-hand use. The Ron Paul Survival Kit — now an industry standard — comes in an official World War II US Army ammo holder.” -Ad for ‘The Original Famous Ron Paul Survival Kit,’ undated 9. “[Martin Luther King, Jr.], the FBI files reveal, was not only a world-class adulterer, he also seduced underage girls and boys…And we are supposed to honor this ‘Christian minister’ and lying socialist satyr with a holiday that puts him on par with George Washington?” -December 1990 10. “It turns out that the brilliant [Bobby Fischer], who has all the makings of an American hero, is very politically incorrect on Jewish questions, for which he will never be forgiven, even though he is a Jew. Thus we are not supposed to herald him as the world’s greatest chess player.” -November 1992, background on Fischer’s “politically incorrect” views (which include Holocaust denial) here. [/rquoter] A "beacon of sanity." Really?
He didn't write any of them nor does he agree with their views. And yes, he has spoken against the drug war for its mistreatment of minorities and also he changed his mind about the death penalty because of its mistreatment of minorities. Not to mention his position on the death penalty is about the only position he has changed his mind on his entire career. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3EADdr-5AY If you ask me, I think these racist statement are the work of his editor Lew Rockwell and/or friend Murray Rothbard. If not them, then one of the many ghost writers they hired. In the end, Ron is responsible for not paying attention to what other people were writing in a newsletter under his name, but he isn't a racist...
As has been shown multiple times, that's not at all what he said in the 1990's. He actively promoted his newsletters. He said things were taken out of context. But when questioned about them, he and his campaign never denied he wrote them - if he didn't write them, why defend them back then instead of saying that he wasn't associated with them?
