Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › Ron Paul Questions and Concerns Well
- This topic has 266 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by
scaredyclassic.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 31, 2011 at 12:54 PM #731731October 31, 2011 at 12:55 PM #731732
SK in CV
Participant[quote=pri_dk]I’ve seen a few Ron Paul interviews and I think in every one of them he answers several questions with “The Constitution says…”
He seems pretty sure of what it says and what it means.
It’s almost as if he’s suggesting that every Supreme Court justice never actually read it or just totally missed the point.
Where does it say these Supreme Court guys get to be the last word on the Constitution anyway?[/quote]
Marbury v. Madison would be a good place to start.
October 31, 2011 at 1:05 PM #731737markmax33
Guest[quote=pri_dk]I’ve seen a few Ron Paul interviews and I think in every one of them he answers several questions with “The Constitution says…”
He seems pretty sure of what it says and what it means.
It’s almost as if he’s suggesting that every Supreme Court justice never actually read it or just totally missed the point.
Where does it say these Supreme Court guys get to be the last word on the Constitution anyway?[/quote]
The supreme court is not allowed to legislate from the bench. They are supposed to read the rules and interpret them. Roe v Wade is a great example of the supreme court legislating from the bench:
http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/roe.html
You can read about that decision in that long article, but basically Murder, crime, etc is all taken care of as a states rights issue and meant to be that way in the constitution. There was no basis in the constitution for the Roe V Wade decision and it impacted all the states that didn’t want legal abortions. If you change the constitution, you must ammend it.
October 31, 2011 at 1:06 PM #731738Anonymous
GuestMarbury v. Madison. That’s a really old one.
In Ron Paul’s world, US history started sometime around the internet bubble days. That’s when the Fed came into being and started destroying everything.
I’m pretty sure that bad things would happen if the president were the authority that interpreted the constitution.
Why doesn’t Ron Paul run for Supreme Court justice?
October 31, 2011 at 1:10 PM #731739Guest[quote=walterwhite]Marbury v Madison is the case that stands for the proposition that the us sup ct is the final arbiter on how to interpret the language of the constitution. So when Ron Paul reads the literal language of, say the commerce clause, if he follows the law, he doesn’t get to ignore the last few hundred years of sup cf precedent trying to figure out just what the heck the commerce clause means, what the limits are, etc.[/quote]
When the founding fathers clearly write something and then even explain it further in other writings what the intent was and it is blatently ignored you end up with this train of thought.
The president’s auth of office:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
October 31, 2011 at 1:11 PM #731740scaredyclassic
ParticipantBut it’s not clear, and no where in the constitution does it say it should be interpreted by what the founders thought.
Clarity. Read the 2nd amendment and tell me you can make heads or tails of it.
October 31, 2011 at 1:13 PM #731742Guest[quote=markmax33]Roe v Wade is a great example of the supreme court legislating from the bench.[/quote]
Roe vs. Wade is not legislation. It is not a law.
Roe vs. Wade is an interpretation of the limits of government power over personal choices – limits that are defined in the Constitution.
Why is Ron Paul against the Bill of Rights?
Why is Ron Paul against personal freedom?
October 31, 2011 at 1:17 PM #731745Guest[quote=pri_dk]Marbury v. Madison. That’s a really old one.
In Ron Paul’s world, US history started sometime around the internet bubble days. That’s when the Fed came into being and started destroying everything.
I’m pretty sure that bad things would happen if the president were the authority that interpreted the constitution.
Why doesn’t Ron Paul run for Supreme Court justice?[/quote]
Ron Paul has been saying the SAME thing since the 1970s. There are several videos all over the place that can confirm that! I’m sorry you aren’t up to speed.
October 31, 2011 at 1:18 PM #731744Participant4th am. No unreasonable searches or seizures.
Well that’s clear? No interpretation needed?
What did the founding fathers mean by unreasonable searches in the context of sayan Internet search on your home computer to some server in Finland for child porn of Asian kids?
Do you think they really had an opinion?
Is Rand even a real name?
October 31, 2011 at 1:20 PM #731746Guest[quote=markmax33]When the founding fathers clearly write something and then even explain it further in other writings what the intent was and it is blatently ignored you end up with this train of thought.[/quote]
So Ron Paul thinks he gets it and thinks most every other Constitutional scholar in history can’t even read correctly?
Why is Ron Paul so arrogant?
October 31, 2011 at 1:23 PM #731748Guest
What happened to all the red?
I thought the gold standard was supposed to end the boom and bust cycle!
October 31, 2011 at 1:30 PM #731749Participant[quote=walterwhite]4th am. No unreasonable searches or seizures.
Well that’s clear? No interpretation needed?
What did the founding fathers mean by unreasonable searches in the context of sayan Internet search on your home computer to some server in Finland for child porn of Asian kids?
Do you think they really had an opinion?
Is Rand even a real name?[/quote]
I’m pretty sure the Constitution didn’t give Al Gore the authority to invent the internets.
/me shakes fists at the clouds.
October 31, 2011 at 1:31 PM #731750ParticipantI think we had all kinds of crazy depressions and boom bust cycles thru the 1800s … Massive depression in 1893…not sure…read it in a Howard zinn comic book…
October 31, 2011 at 1:36 PM #731751ParticipantDid the founding fathers have porn? No photos. Were there pornographic etchings? TG, perhaps your knowledge of porn history could enlighten as to the founders intent re issues of porn.
Of course back then it was I think ok to have sex with 11 or 12 year olds.
Things change.
October 31, 2011 at 1:46 PM #731752Guest1800 depressions were bad. People starved to death.
Now we just watch a lot of TV.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.