One Ron Paul Thread to Rule Them All, one thread to find him

[SmilezRoyale]

In a reasonable world, if two companies, Party A and Party B were settling a legal dispute and they wanted an objective judge of the contract to give a ruling over whether a breach of contract had occurred, the two parties would only submit to a third party arbitrator agreed to by both A and B. B would never accept an arbitrator appointed by a number of former CEOs, of Party A, even when provided the consolation that the arbitrators could not lose their job if they reached a decision that A did not consider to be favorable at the time.

Considering the fact that we are talking about individuals bringing challenges to state laws they believe have infringed upon their rights, are you saying that state governments (ie. party A) chose the federal judges?

I'm saying that in cases where federal laws entail gross infringements of legitimate power, and no agents within the federal government are willing to admit unconstitutionality, having an authority outside the federal government with some degree of social standing declare the law void.

Likewise, in cases where particular state laws entail gross infringements of legitimate power, and no agents within the state government are willing to admit unconstitutionality, having an authority outside the state government with some degree of social standing declare the law void.

Obviously fiscal federalism is going to compromise the degree of independence just as court packing would.

This will be my last post on this thread for today again. Sowwy.

[Wikkiwallana]

I'm saying that in cases where federal laws entail gross infringements of legitimate power

Such as?

[Evraim]

I'm saying that in cases where federal laws entail gross infringements of legitimate power

Such as?

Me... I would never abuse such authority.

[SmilezRoyale]

I'm saying that in cases where federal laws entail gross infringements of legitimate power

Such as?

I'm thinking in particular of the NDAA, the butterfly-effect interpretation of the commerce clause, the 'necessary and proper' [i.e. the grab bag] clause, etc.

My earlier posts used the word 'unconstitutional' a great deal; TBQH I don't give a damn about the constitution. If the federal government gets out of hand, you want every ideological weapon used against it.

[Death Metal]

The thing that Paulism wants, however, is even more dangerous. Because even questionable federal laws can at least be brought up to a court to be challenged, even if they "don't have" to abide by the court's decision as people claim.

Ron Paul's agenda basically wants to remove that altogether for the states, allowing them to do whatever they please with absolutely no oversight, and to basically allow Congress to vote to have the official legal high ground to say "bitch, please" to any SCOTUS decision.

So yes, while the federal government can, and some can certainly argue has overstepped it's bounds, Ron Paul is practically encouraging both federal and local governments to completely ignore bounds. Because without the SCOTUS able to rule on a law, that means it can openly violate the constitution with no recourse.

Ironic that Ron Paul, the man who claims to be the "stalwart champion" of the Constitution, wants to make it a completely worthless piece of paper with almost no legal authority.

[Ravineworld]

Also, while raising taxes isn't a magic button to fixing the deficit at all, ending the Bush tax cuts (which were supposed to be ended by now anyway) while closing tax exemption loopholes for oil industry and top percentile earners would reduce the yearly net losses.

There's still a lot more that needs to be done of course (cutting non-essential funds to NASA, budget ceiling on DARPA, hiring and salary freezes across the board to name a few); but to say bringing back taxes to the Clinton era won't do anything is just untrue.

And further cutting taxes is just insane.

Well, I kinda agree, at least for now.
When GE pays $0 in taxes each year, we have a big problem, especially when the middle class and poor get hit so hard with taxes.

[Alien Space Bats]

When GE pays $0 in taxes each year, we have a big problem, especially when the middle class and poor get hit so hard with taxes.

And when CVS pays nearly 35% taxes while GE pays nothing, that's a real sign that something's wrong.

[Evraim]

As it has always been - Ron Paul has little appeal when it actually comes down to people doing having to actually do something. His support is armchair activists and weekend warriors - people who are willing to talk about him, but reluctant to go anywhere, do anything, or contribute actual money.

If I were being cynical, I'd suggest that Ron Paul mainly appeals to stoners, because they think he'd legalise - and that's possibly not the most reliable demographic to motivate to vote - although he'd have the market cornered if politicians were elected based on how many people you can get to buy snacks at 2am.

I think that's a rather outrageous generalization. I've never done drugs, but I'm definitely in favor of him because he used to be a part of the tea party movement.
He probably would legalize marijuana, but I don't see how that is a big issue. He definitely doesn't have the ridiculous amount of funding Romney does but I believe it is ridiculous to say his supporters are lazy or unsupportive.

Also, you made a pretty big grammatical error up there, couldn't quite understand it.

He would leave it to the states.

[Ravineworld]

As it has always been - Ron Paul has little appeal when it actually comes down to people doing having to actually do something. His support is armchair activists and weekend warriors - people who are willing to talk about him, but reluctant to go anywhere, do anything, or contribute actual money.

If I were being cynical, I'd suggest that Ron Paul mainly appeals to stoners, because they think he'd legalise - and that's possibly not the most reliable demographic to motivate to vote - although he'd have the market cornered if politicians were elected based on how many people you can get to buy snacks at 2am.

I think that's a rather outrageous generalization. I've never done drugs, but I'm definitely in favor of him because he used to be a part of the tea party movement.
He probably would legalize marijuana, but I don't see how that is a big issue. He definitely doesn't have the ridiculous amount of funding Romney does but I believe it is ridiculous to say his supporters are lazy or unsupportive.

Also, you made a pretty big grammatical error up there, couldn't quite understand it.

Well, I kinda agree, at least for now.
When GE pays $0 in taxes each year, we have a big problem, especially when the middle class and poor get hit so hard with taxes.

Or we could always default. I don't like the idea of taking advantage of other nations, but I know that our government is responsible for the debt - not us.
Our government needs to stop playing global superman, and be more self-centered (not necessarily isolationist). Does anybody actually have the statistics for the amount spent in overseas defense?

I agree we need to be more self centered. Up until we get rid of our debt, we need to get rid of stupid tax loopholes on the rich

[Revolutopia]

Or we could always default. I don't like the idea of taking advantage of other nations, but I know that our government is responsible for the debt - not us.
Our government needs to stop playing global superman, and be more self-centered (not necessarily isolationist). Does anybody actually have the statistics for the amount spent in overseas defense?

Maybe we could not fuck the entire global economy, by defaulting. Moreover, saying how the majority of the US debt is American hands that defaulting would affect countless Americans.

[Grave_n_idle]

As it has always been - Ron Paul has little appeal when it actually comes down to people doing having to actually do something. His support is armchair activists and weekend warriors - people who are willing to talk about him, but reluctant to go anywhere, do anything, or contribute actual money.

If I were being cynical, I'd suggest that Ron Paul mainly appeals to stoners, because they think he'd legalise - and that's possibly not the most reliable demographic to motivate to vote - although he'd have the market cornered if politicians were elected based on how many people you can get to buy snacks at 2am.

I think that's a rather outrageous generalization. I've never done drugs, but I'm definitely in favor of him because he used to be a part of the tea party movement.
He probably would legalize marijuana, but I don't see how that is a big issue. He definitely doesn't have the ridiculous amount of funding Romney does but I believe it is ridiculous to say his supporters are lazy or unsupportive.

Also, you made a pretty big grammatical error up there, couldn't quite understand it.

You say it's an outrageous generalisation, and as evidence to the contrary... you offer yourself. One individual. I'm sure you can see how that's not a smoking gun.

As I said, though - I'd suggest Ron Paul's target demographic was stoners if I was being cynical. I do suspect there are certainly supporters that follow Paul hoping he'll legalise (of course, he would lack that power, even as president) - but I'm sure that stoners don't fill his entire roster.

But the question of whether his supporters are lazy or unsupportive... well, that's a different matter. I'm not discussing what I might say if I were more cynical - I'm talking about an observable phenomenon - that Paul's supposed fame on the internet... evaporates when someone actually has to do something.

[The Black Forrest]

As it has always been - Ron Paul has little appeal when it actually comes down to people doing having to actually do something. His support is armchair activists and weekend warriors - people who are willing to talk about him, but reluctant to go anywhere, do anything, or contribute actual money.

If I were being cynical, I'd suggest that Ron Paul mainly appeals to stoners, because they think he'd legalise - and that's possibly not the most reliable demographic to motivate to vote - although he'd have the market cornered if politicians were elected based on how many people you can get to buy snacks at 2am.

I think that's a rather outrageous generalization. I've never done drugs, but I'm definitely in favor of him because he used to be a part of the tea party movement.
He probably would legalize marijuana, but I don't see how that is a big issue. He definitely doesn't have the ridiculous amount of funding Romney does but I believe it is ridiculous to say his supporters are lazy or unsupportive.

Well one has to ask with all the talk of the masses support Paul; where are they when it comes to voting. Paul takes 2nd or 3rd to the mendacious Mr. Romney or barking at the moon Santorum.

Arm chair activists is a good label anecdotally speaking. I know a few who are rather angry liberts and they prattle on about Paul and yet they don't vote!
Actually

[Ravineworld]

I think that's a rather outrageous generalization. I've never done drugs, but I'm definitely in favor of him because he used to be a part of the tea party movement.
He probably would legalize marijuana, but I don't see how that is a big issue. He definitely doesn't have the ridiculous amount of funding Romney does but I believe it is ridiculous to say his supporters are lazy or unsupportive.

Also, you made a pretty big grammatical error up there, couldn't quite understand it.

You say it's an outrageous generalisation, and as evidence to the contrary... you offer yourself. One individual. I'm sure you can see how that's not a smoking gun.

As I said, though - I'd suggest Ron Paul's target demographic was stoners if I was being cynical. I do suspect there are certainly supporters that follow Paul hoping he'll legalise (of course, he would lack that power, even as president) - but I'm sure that stoners don't fill his entire roster.

But the question of whether his supporters are lazy or unsupportive... well, that's a different matter. I'm not discussing what I might say if I were more cynical - I'm talking about an observable phenomenon - that Paul's supposed fame on the internet... evaporates when someone actually has to do something.

Actually he does have the power to repeal the drug war.
He can, by executive order, deschedule such substances.
And he can veto any further drug control measures.
I don't really understand why anyone would be against getting rid of the drug war.

[Kaeshar]

You say it's an outrageous generalisation, and as evidence to the contrary... you offer yourself. One individual. I'm sure you can see how that's not a smoking gun.

As I said, though - I'd suggest Ron Paul's target demographic was stoners if I was being cynical. I do suspect there are certainly supporters that follow Paul hoping he'll legalise (of course, he would lack that power, even as president) - but I'm sure that stoners don't fill his entire roster.

But the question of whether his supporters are lazy or unsupportive... well, that's a different matter. I'm not discussing what I might say if I were more cynical - I'm talking about an observable phenomenon - that Paul's supposed fame on the internet... evaporates when someone actually has to do something.

Actually he does have the power to repeal the drug war.
He can, by executive order, deschedule such substances.
And he can veto any further drug control measures.
I don't really understand why anyone would be against getting rid of the drug war.

Part of it could be jobs, but even there, its not a clear cut thing, the narco agents could be reassigned elsewhere, people in other positions could mostly find other areas that would need them. However, some jobs could end up being created Then theres the problem of the current job environment, but thats just an external factor. I think the pros could outwiegh or balance out the cons.

The biggest pro would be reducing the prision population as there are alot of people in there just for drug possession and California has a HUGE prision problem.

[Grave_n_idle]

You say it's an outrageous generalisation, and as evidence to the contrary... you offer yourself. One individual. I'm sure you can see how that's not a smoking gun.

As I said, though - I'd suggest Ron Paul's target demographic was stoners if I was being cynical. I do suspect there are certainly supporters that follow Paul hoping he'll legalise (of course, he would lack that power, even as president) - but I'm sure that stoners don't fill his entire roster.

But the question of whether his supporters are lazy or unsupportive... well, that's a different matter. I'm not discussing what I might say if I were more cynical - I'm talking about an observable phenomenon - that Paul's supposed fame on the internet... evaporates when someone actually has to do something.

Actually he does have the power to repeal the drug war.
He can, by executive order, deschedule such substances.
And he can veto any further drug control measures.
I don't really understand why anyone would be against getting rid of the drug war.

I think you overestimate the power of the presidency. The Presidential veto isn't a mechanism to rule by fiat. And while over-riding the veto is unusual, it's certainly not impossible, and not even unlikely if the President attempted to push such a radical agenda.

On the other hand, you also massively underestimate the support for the drug war. Americans. in general, don't want the drug war to end. Even among those who favour legalising marijuana, for example, there is no unanimity about how to deal with 'hardcore' drugs. It's just not going to happen.

[Ravineworld]

Actually he does have the power to repeal the drug war.
He can, by executive order, deschedule such substances.
And he can veto any further drug control measures.
I don't really understand why anyone would be against getting rid of the drug war.

I think you overestimate the power of the presidency. The Presidential veto isn't a mechanism to rule by fiat. And while over-riding the veto is unusual, it's certainly not impossible, and not even unlikely if the President attempted to push such a radical agenda.

On the other hand, you also massively underestimate the support for the drug war. Americans. in general, don't want the drug war to end. Even among those who favour legalising marijuana, for example, there is no unanimity about how to deal with 'hardcore' drugs. It's just not going to happen.

The drug war is unconstitutional.
If a woman can legally abort a viable fetus (btw I'm not saying that should be illegal necessarily) due to the right to privacy, then I most certainly should have the right to use whatever substance I want as long as I don't harm others. Prohibition of alchohol required an amendment to the constitution. How come Prohibition of drugs doesn't?
It's unconstitutional. Plain and simple.

[Grave_n_idle]

I think you overestimate the power of the presidency. The Presidential veto isn't a mechanism to rule by fiat. And while over-riding the veto is unusual, it's certainly not impossible, and not even unlikely if the President attempted to push such a radical agenda.

On the other hand, you also massively underestimate the support for the drug war. Americans. in general, don't want the drug war to end. Even among those who favour legalising marijuana, for example, there is no unanimity about how to deal with 'hardcore' drugs. It's just not going to happen.

The drug war is unconstitutional.
If a woman can legally abort a viable fetus (btw I'm not saying that should be illegal necessarily) due to the right to privacy, then I most certainly should have the right to use whatever substance I want as long as I don't harm others. Prohibition of alchohol required an amendment to the constitution. How come Prohibition of drugs doesn't?
It's unconstitutional. Plain and simple.

It's neither that plain, nor that simple - partly because you base your logic on a flawed assumption: "...as long as I don't harm others".

People DO harm others, especially when they are 'under the influence'.

The government has a responsibility to protect the general welfare. I think they're doing it wrong, but 'wrong' =/= unconstitutional.

[Evraim]

The drug war is unconstitutional.
If a woman can legally abort a viable fetus (btw I'm not saying that should be illegal necessarily) due to the right to privacy, then I most certainly should have the right to use whatever substance I want as long as I don't harm others. Prohibition of alchohol required an amendment to the constitution. How come Prohibition of drugs doesn't?
It's unconstitutional. Plain and simple.

It's neither that plain, nor that simple - partly because you base your logic on a flawed assumption: "...as long as I don't harm others".

People DO harm others, especially when they are 'under the influence'.

The government has a responsibility to protect the general welfare. I think they're doing it wrong, but 'wrong' =/= unconstitutional.

1.) Why is the same standard not applied to alcohol?

2.) Additionally, one would have to consider the addictive characteristics of many currently illegal substances. Would not that qualify as a type of coercion.

I had two considerations to offer into the debate.

[Grave_n_idle]

It's neither that plain, nor that simple - partly because you base your logic on a flawed assumption: "...as long as I don't harm others".

People DO harm others, especially when they are 'under the influence'.

The government has a responsibility to protect the general welfare. I think they're doing it wrong, but 'wrong' =/= unconstitutional.

1.) Why is the same standard not applied to alcohol?

2.) Additionally, one would have to consider the addictive characteristics of many currently illegal substances. Would not that qualify as a type of coercion.

I had two considerations to offer into the debate.

1) The fact that different addictive and mind-altering chemicals are not treated the same isn't an argument against limiting access to some. I agree, the law is applied in an unbalanced fashion, and I'm not trying to defend that. I do think, however, that if alcohol and tobacco were new inventions, they'd be treated differently.

Alcohol certainly does have a history of harm, especially under-the-influence. Tobacco similarly has a history of harm. I'm not defending their abuse.

2) I'm not sure what the point is supposed to be. Are you arguing that certain controlled substances should be controlled because they are addictive?

[Evraim]

1.) Why is the same standard not applied to alcohol?

2.) Additionally, one would have to consider the addictive characteristics of many currently illegal substances. Would not that qualify as a type of coercion.

I had two considerations to offer into the debate.

1) The fact that different addictive and mind-altering chemicals are not treated the same isn't an argument against limiting access to some. I agree, the law is applied in an unbalanced fashion, and I'm not trying to defend that. I do think, however, that if alcohol and tobacco were new inventions, they'd be treated differently.

Alcohol certainly does have a history of harm, especially under-the-influence. Tobacco similarly has a history of harm. I'm not defending their abuse.

2) I'm not sure what the point is supposed to be. Are you arguing that certain controlled substances should be controlled because they are addictive?

1.) I agree. My point was that the current policy is not entirely sensible.

2.) I'm not certain. I would say that drugs are similar to gambling in that they exploit people, but whether or not drugs and gambling should be legal is an argument I am not ready to jump into yet. I think the alternative might be worse as seen with the prohibition of alcohol. A sizeable majority of users are purchasing drugs from criminal elements.

[Wikkiwallana]

It's neither that plain, nor that simple - partly because you base your logic on a flawed assumption: "...as long as I don't harm others".

People DO harm others, especially when they are 'under the influence'.

The government has a responsibility to protect the general welfare. I think they're doing it wrong, but 'wrong' =/= unconstitutional.

1.) Why is the same standard not applied to alcohol?

When the original versions of the current federal laws banning various drugs were passed, a lot of the representatives had major investments in or ownership of various breweries, distilleries, and tobacco farms, so they specifically excluded alcohol and tobacco from the laws to protects their wealth. One of the drafters of the bill also had large cotton farms and didn't want hemp products threatening the market share of cotton, so he boosted marijuana to the highest category, despite not deserving to be there, and wrote the law to treat all kinds of hemp plants the same as the intoxicating variety.

Back before the History Channel went the tinfoil hat route, it was actually pretty fascinating and informative. At least, during the hour and a half or so a week it wasn't talking about WWII.

[Dempublicents1]

Prohibition of alchohol required an amendment to the constitution. How come Prohibition of drugs doesn't?
It's unconstitutional. Plain and simple.

Prohibition of alcohol didn't require a constitutional amendment in principle. It was simply a way to do it nationwide. There are plenty of localities even today that ban alcohol.

[Quelesh]

Actually he does have the power to repeal the drug war.
He can, by executive order, deschedule such substances.
And he can veto any further drug control measures.
I don't really understand why anyone would be against getting rid of the drug war.

Part of it could be jobs, but even there, its not a clear cut thing, the narco agents could be reassigned elsewhere, people in other positions could mostly find other areas that would need them. However, some jobs could end up being created Then theres the problem of the current job environment, but thats just an external factor. I think the pros could outwiegh or balance out the cons.

The biggest pro would be reducing the prision population as there are alot of people in there just for drug possession and California has a HUGE prision problem.

I think jobs and the economy are significant parts of the equation for some anti-legalization forces.

If drugs were legalized, there would be no need to continue to lock up about half of our current prison population, and over the next few years, as people are no longer being arrested for drug crimes to replace the prisoners being released, the prison population would plummet. This means that we would need vastly fewer prison guards and other corrections department officials, which means lots of lost jobs. Crime would also plummet (because so much of our crime is currently related to the illegal drug trade), which means that the rolls of police forces could be cut in half at least. Lots of police jobs lost.

Thousands and thousands of police and corrections officials out of jobs, police unions and corrections unions losing money, companies like Corrections Corporation of America losing money (and maybe even going out of business, as eliminating prison overcrowding may eliminate the perceived need to contract for private prisons in the first place), the Drug Enforcement Administration shutting its doors and its employees losing their jobs, government agencies and offices like the Office of National Drug Control Policy disappearing, many other private companies that in one way or another depend on the war on drugs (e.g. drug-testing companies) losing a lot of money and probably going out of business. There are a lot of people who would line up against such an outcome. A pretty good swath of our economy now depends upon the criminalization of drugs.

I think that we should (and really need to) legalize drugs despite all this, but there is a lot of entrenched infrastructure in place dependent upon the drug war, and the legalization of drugs will require the dismantling of that infrastructure. A lot of people are going to oppose that.

[Grave_n_idle]

Prohibition of alchohol required an amendment to the constitution. How come Prohibition of drugs doesn't?
It's unconstitutional. Plain and simple.

Prohibition of alcohol didn't require a constitutional amendment in principle. It was simply a way to do it nationwide. There are plenty of localities even today that ban alcohol.

Indeed. There's a town not twenty minutes from here that has prohibition.

[Wikkiwallana]

Prohibition of alcohol didn't require a constitutional amendment in principle. It was simply a way to do it nationwide. There are plenty of localities even today that ban alcohol.

Indeed. There's a town not twenty minutes from here that has prohibition.

In one of the more interesting bits of irony regarding prohibition, Lynchburg, Tennessee, the place where they make Jack Daniels, is a dry county.