TexasCHLforum.com

seamusTX wrote:

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

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

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.

Tajovo wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

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.

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.

AEA wrote:

LarryH wrote:I will vote for "the lesser of two evils".

Why is it that this is the choice we must make every time?
Why can't ALL Americans understand the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

boomerang wrote:My first choice is Paul.

My second choice is Obama. If I'm going to vote for a democrat I may as well vote for one who is honest about it.