Ron Paul for President '08

College Confidential Community
81

<p>
[quote]
Ah yes, clearly - because of the article of the constitution that makes it so easy to change so we can just change things we don't like at a whim....

[/quote]
We can't, no, but the government can change things if it is necessary and proper. (See Article I, Section VII)</p>

<p>
[quote]
Thats not what I said - I said that they back up my originalist/textualist interpretation of the constitution (obviously), and not the "living document" theory.

[/quote]
You apparently are not aware of the definition of immutable.
[quote]
m·mu·ta·ble adj. Not subject or susceptible to change.

[/quote]
Okay, go for it. Show me where the Constitution should not be a living document - in either the Federalist Papers or in the Constitution itself. Are you saying that the elastic clause was there by accident, that it was overlooked?</p>

<p>I'm sorry, the only way you could say that the people who wrote the Constitution did NOT want it to be a living document would be if you had no knowledge of history or government. Here, try this on for size: (from the Committe of Detail [and so you don't have to look it up - not having taken a Government class will let you miss a surprising amount of information -, they were the men who were chosen to draft the Constitution], no less)
[quote]
In the draught of a fundamental constitution, two things deserve attention:</p>

<pre><code> 1. To insert essential principles only; lest the operations of government should be clogged by rendering those provisions permanent and unalterable, which ought to be accommodated to times and events: and

2. To use simple and precise language, and general propositions, according to the example of the constitutions of the several states.

[/quote]
How can you argue with that by saying the original intent was to be unalterable? Or how about John Marshall in McCulloch vs. Maryland, where the concept of judicial review (the basis for the Judicial Branch) was established:
[quote]
[the Constitution is] intended to endure for ages to come, and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs

[/quote]
And Thomas Jefferson himself:
[quote]
I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

[/quote]
I think the writer of the Declaration of Independence, the framers of the Constitution and (arguably) the most important Chief Justice trump Justice Scalia.
</code></pre>

82

<p>SUPPORT COLBERT '08!</p>

<p><a href="http://www.stewartcolbert08.com/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.stewartcolbert08.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

83

<p>Yes YES Yes</p>

<p>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</p>

84

<p>The Federalist papers suck. Federalists suck. Anti-Federalists did not help to write the Federalist Pspers, shocking as it may be.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Are you saying that the elastic clause was there by accident, that it was overlooked?

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>Duh. Infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters are bound to make a mistake somewhere. They accidentally created a process to make amendments, too.</p>

<p>Edit: Fine. Infinite monkeys with infinite parchment and quill pens.</p>

85

<p>Paul Campaign Raises Over $5,000,000 In Third Quarter</p>

<p>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE</p>

<p>October 3, 2007</p>

<p>ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA -- The Ron Paul 2008 presidential campaign raised $5,080,000 during the third quarter of 2007. That is an impressive 114 percent increase from the second quarter.</p>

<p>Cash on hand for the Paul campaign is $5,300,000.</p>

<p>"Dr. Paul's message is freedom, peace and prosperity," said Paul campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "As these fundraising numbers show, more Americans each day are embracing Dr. Paul's message."</p>

<p>Ron Paul's 114 percent increase is in stark contrast to the decrease suffered by Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain. Romney's fundraising was down 29 percent. Giuliani was down 40 percent. McCain was down 55 percent. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.ronpaul2008.com%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.ronpaul2008.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

86

<p>Yay! Now why is the media ignoring this? I just read an article where they mentioned just about every single Republican candidate except Ron Paul even when Ron Paul has more than 5 million on hand! What's the deal? He and John McCain are practically at the same fund level but not nearly the same press level. Disappointing...</p>

87

<p>Because John McCain is a despicable douchebag and Ron Paul is not.</p>

88

<p>Because John McCain has more mainstream views the media views him as worth talking about. Ron Paul, on the other hand, is an extremist loony.</p>

89

<p>No, they're both extremist loonies. Heck, all true party-lines Republicans are extremist loonies (yes, I know Ron Paul is not one of these). Ron Paul is a cool extremist loony though, even though I disagree with him.</p>

90

<p>No, McCain is not an extremist. Loony, yes, not an extremist. His views are MUCH more mainstream than Paul's. I'm not saying he's the MOST mainstream, but he's more mainstream than Paul.</p>

91

<p>Wow, Jarn - I just got around to reading that last long post of yours, and I must say I'm impressed. Not by its content, mind you.... lets just examine some of these claims and see who actually needs to reread the constitution (or perhaps prior posts). </p>

<p>
[quote]
We can't, no, but the government can change things if it is necessary and proper. (See Article I, Section VII)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ah yes, the elastic clause. You'll note that my post had to do with changing the constitution itself (not other laws), which is actually covered in Article V, not Article I, and yes it requires the consent of the people of at least two thirds of the states.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I think the writer of the Declaration of Independence, the framers of the Constitution and (arguably) the most important Chief Justice trump Justice Scalia.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Perhaps you should read a bit about rhetoric - you'll learn that an appeal to authority is not a valid form of argument. And before you say it, no, I don't think that Scalia is right just because he is who he is - I think he's right because he has a good argument.</p>

<p>But as long as we're throwing names around, here's James Madison:

[quote]
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>:rolleyes:</p>

<p>The framers of the constitution were pretty smart - they understood that society would change, and the constitution is sufficiently flexible to accomodate that. It sets up a system of government and sets restraints on that government. This is why our government is called a "constitutional republic". However, the living document theorists would have us believe that we do not operate under such a system, but rather are ruled by a panel of nine people who may rule that the constitution means whatever they want it to mean based on "the times" or "society today".</p>

<p>The consitution doesn't say "the right to keep and bear muskets" or "the right to publish printed materials". We have to understand that the original intent of the framers was to allow people to own any type of modern arms (not to be restricted by the misleading term "assault weapon") and to allow people to express themselves in any way they wish (including burning their own property - i.e. a flag).</p>

92

<p>
[quote]
I just got around to reading that last long post of yours, and I must say I'm impressed. Not by its content

[/quote]
Good, because I'm not impressed by your ability to think logically. :)</p>

<p>
[quote]
You'll note that my post had to do with changing the constitution itself (not other laws)

[/quote]
The elastic clause is used to give the federal government powers not explicitly granted to it in</p>

<p>
[quote]
Perhaps you should read a bit about rhetoric - you'll learn that an appeal to authority is not a valid form of argument. And before you say it, no, I don't think that Scalia is right just because he is who he is - I think he's right because he has a good argument.

[/quote]
I quoted who I did because I think they have a better argument and to counter your argument about how the Founding Fathers wanted things. Maybe you should read a little about context... it can be very helpful for being able to understand what you read - elsewise you make rather stupid assumptions. In my post I said
[quote]
I'm sorry, the only way you could say that the people who wrote the Constitution did NOT want it to be a living document would be if you had no knowledge of history or government. Here, try this on for size:

[/quote]
Followed by those quotes. It was directly responding to your claim that the people who wrote the Constitution did not want it to be changeable. It never had anything to do with an appeal to authority. This quote:
[quote]
I think the writer of the Declaration of Independence, the framers of the Constitution and (arguably) the most important Chief Justice trump Justice Scalia.

[/quote]
was to say that the founders themselves would have a better idea of what they wanted than Scalia. Again, reading comprehension. Please.</p>

<p>
[quote]
However, the living document theorists would have us believe that we do not operate under such a system, but rather are ruled by a panel of nine people who may rule that the constitution means whatever they want it to mean based on "the times" or "society today".

[/quote]
You have a flawed idea of what a Living Constitution is about. I think you might want to read up on it a bit more. Either that or you set up a straw man for the purposes of easily knocking down an opposing viewpoint... which is a logical fallacy, by the way. (Judging by your posts, you may want to also look up the definition of fallacy).</p>

93

<p>Ron Paul: A New Hope
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG2PUZoukfA%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG2PUZoukfA&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Official Website
<a href="http://www.ronpaul2008.com/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.ronpaul2008.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>He is for a strong national defense. He wants to pull out of Iraq and the Middle East in order to achieve that. Staying in there will only make the situation worse. He wants strong national borders. Having a non-interventionist foreign policy can save us a lot of money. Ron Paul will not pull the plug from the people who are already dependent on government welfare. He will use the money saved from a non-interventionist foreign policy to start weaning people off the government teat. He will allow people that want to opt out of contributing to the system to get out of the system, and it will work because of money saved from a humble foreign policy. He is not isolationist. An isolationist is North Korea. A non-interventionist is Switzerland. See the difference? Non-interventionism and a leaner federal government is a rational and logical policy. A leaner federal government means more liberty. A leaner federal government means less corporatism. Corporatism is a result of big government. A leaner federal government means that they can't lobby for favors. Also we need corporate law reform, since, ultimately, corporations are an artificial legal contrivance. </p>

<p>Ron Paul has the integrity to do the things he plans to do, and the voting record to prove that he's been pushing forth these ideas for decades, unlike the other candidates. Thanks for reading.</p>

<p>Also, check your state rules for voting in the primary election. For example, in New York, the party change deadline was Oct. 12, 2007. (NY is a closed primary state.) If you had to change parties, including from no party to a party, that date was the deadline in order for your change to take into effect for the primary election. However, if you haven't registered to vote at all, the last date to register for the primary is Jan. 11, 2008. Rather confusing. Nevertheless, you must register as a Republican to vote for Ron Paul in the NY State Presidential Primary Election on Feb 5, 2008.</p>

94

<p>I just donated 25.00 to the campaign. If it didn't have to eat I would donate more but I'm a starving student.</p>

<p>Go Ron Paul!</p>

<p>HE CAN WIN.</p>

95

<p>For the past 35 years I have always voted Democrat (as the 'lesser of the 2 evils.')</p>

<p>For the first time in my life, I will be voting in the Republican primary for RON PAUL!</p>

<p>I am totally blown away by him! At last, an honest candidate who will RESTORE OUR CONSTITUTION!</p>

<p>And yes, he CAN win! He's been winning nearly all the straw polls. There is a HUGE movement. Many Democrats like him. Conservatives like him. He stands out from all the rest (who all say the same thing). </p>

<p>Vote in the Republican primaries! Act now to see when the deadline is in your state? (in some states it is this month!)</p>

96

<p>
[quote]
This is why true progressive candidates have virtually no chance: mass media determine who the "front-runners" are, and the average voter doesn't hear about anyone else.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's why it's up to US!</p>

97

<p>Ron Paul!!</p>

98

<p>If you haven't already register to vote Republican so you can make a difference in the closed primaries! Also, if you can, print a few "Issue" pamphlets and try to spread Ron Paul momentum. I just recently sent an email to just about everyone I know telling them to check out Ron Paul's website. Don't be afraid to do it - most everyone on my list was receptive and polite. The only way Ron Paul can win is with your support and continued efforts to let people know who he is because the media surely won't. </p>

<p>And remember, HE CAN WIN!</p>

99

<p>Ron Paul 2008!!</p>

100

<p>And donate, donate, donate! Even if it's just a little it will help. There is strength in numbers.</p>