TexasCHLforum.com

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.

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.

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.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... y-258.html

Paul's RCP average was 5.6% this morning. No sense quibbling.

One thing we know for sure, it ain't 25% or 35%, and it ain't gonna be.

I'm just looking at the big picture.

Tajovo wrote: Ron Paul voted against the Amber Alert bill because of a rider that was added to the bill at the last minute, what is known to some as the Rave Act. http://slander.revolutioni.st/protects_pedophiles.html

Ron Paul has my vote.

So this Amber Alert bill was ultimately found to be unconstitutional because of the Rave Act rider, right?

You mean, it wasn't?

So on one side of the issue you have 430 members of Congress, 98 senators, the president, and the entire SCOTUS.

On the other side you have - Ron Paul.

Now tell us something. With views that far out of the mainstream, (allowing for all of the millions of people who voted for all of the above senators, presidents, etc.), by what strategy does this guy intend to be elected president?

I know he has great 2A views, but let's be realistic here. With all the money he's raised, he can't crack single digits. And if he wasn't anti-war, he wouldn't even be cracking low single digits, and he would have been lucky to have raised one tenth as much money.

When the general election rolls around, anybody who doesn't vote Republican has only themselves to blame when the FCC wipes out free speech on TV and radio (via the so-called The Fairness Doctrine) and wipes out both the 1st and 2nd amendments to the constitution via a couple of SCOTUS appointments.

The Left knows what it it is doing.

Do we?

lawrnk wrote: In theory, I love Ron Paul.

In reality, he is frightening and unrealistic Mr. Magoo lookalike, and nothing more. He votes against a bill that helps kidnapped kids, since it is not "constitutional."

More accurately, because he doesn't think it's constitutional. (And let me add, the bill you refer to may or may not be AFAIK. I know nothing of it.) Like many "absolutists", he is convinced that his interpretation of the constitution is the only possible correct one. If others interpret the Commerce Clause differently, for instance, he is right and they are wrong (to him).

In his own way, he is a legislator who feels he has his own built in SCOTUS majority. While he fancies himself as some kind of constitutionalist, his view of the constitution is not the only one.