Rick Santorum says, "Vote for Ron Paul" to Limited Government question...

article 1, section 10 - powers prohibited of states, "No State shall… make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts"

meaning that the individual states are prohibited from declaring their own legal tender, only congress has that power

the evidence is the constitution itself

nowhere does it say, "only gold and silver can be legal tender"

 

WTF???????? Are you reading that same thing I am reading? "It says No state shall make anything BUT (that means except for) gold and silver coin a tender...." Hence it allows(not prohibits) gold and silver coin to be made by the states as legal tender. Is English your primary language?

 

again, section 10 addresses what individual states are not allowed to do

here's a layman explanation for the contracts clause of section 10:


No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

States may not exercise certain powers reserved for the federal government: they may not enter into treaties, alliances or confederations, grant letters of marque or reprisal, coin money or issue bills of credit (such as currency). Furthermore, no state may make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts, which expressly forbids any state government, but not the federal government from making a tender of any type or form of money to meet any financial obligation, unless that form of money is coins made of gold or silver. Much of this clause is devoted to preventing the States from using or creating any currency other than that created by Congress. In Federalist no. 44, Madison explains that "... it may be observed that the same reasons which shew the necessity of denying to the States the power of regulating coin, prove with equal force that they ought not to be at liberty to substitute a paper medium in the place of coin. Had every State a right to regulate the value of its coin, there might be as many different currencies as States; and thus the intercourse among them would be impeded."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_10:_Limits_on_the_States

the assertion i'm presenting here has stood the test of time for nearly 200 years, since 1819

if you don't like wiki's simple explanation, i can provide detailed academic sources from law texts

 

In Europe they are also seeking for limited government (centralization of power means more power) All their (transatlantic alliance) imperialistic programs are synchronized over time, everything was/is perfectly planned, as always with creating an empire. The people you vote for are the helpers of the establishment. Romney and Paul have the most support, most voters means most power. They keep propagating the masses with this kind of news (and Iran and Syria, because this part of history is all about creating two giant empires and cause war)

 

He says he is for "limited government". He is lying to you.

 

Limited is a subjective term.

You're lying to me.

 

I cant take it any longer.
For the sheep that keep repeating the same garbage over and over and over ..again and again ..

TRY REAL DEBATE..

Such as

1. The Romney care in MASS is a success by any Measure..you may not like it.. because of your political view..but IT WORKED and he balanced his budget while doing it
Oh ..Jolly gee ..how can he debate Obama on it ?
1. Obama's hasn't/wont/cant work.
2. Obama raised taxes and cut benefits and never balanced anything.
3. Obama didn't pass it with transparency and with over 70 % voter approval
4. Abortions went DOWN in Mass..
5. Bi partisan effort works with proper leadership.

Now I want you sheep to debate on the FACTS not opinions..
LEADERSHIP is a known score-able exercise.
On heath care compare what is know facts of Romney V.Obama and EVERY TIME Romney wins.

Now in balancing Budgets..Obama is known for Failure.1 TRILLION DOLLARS every year ..
Romney has balance or returned a surplus in EVERY thing he has EVER TOUCHED , what puts him light years ahead of everybody else in this race ..FACT ..non debate able.
Whether you choose to brand him this or that..FINE..but quit with the crapola he is BAD when just the opposite is true.
When you compare Romney to the other guys left standing one has to ask why this race isn't over yet...
In one simple word..his RELIGION.

If he wasn't a Mormon but a mainstream religious guy YOU know it would be a done deal..
Now ask ..deep in your heart ..WHY is that ?
Big Government ?

Nope..

Big Religion..
and you've been played again...only by those seeking power without a party ..and denying power by any others different from themselves.

 

I hate to break it to you, but this thread has a topic. There are many other threads with topics covering all your points. Calling people sheep is not real debate. It's meaningless and rude. The fact that Romney is popular in one of the most liberal states in the union is not really relevant to this topic, IMO. It certainly does not contradict my assertion that he is a big govt guy.

 

They are indeed. Santorum is the worst of both. He's big government in terms of both social and fiscal issues. Romney has always been a complete middle of the road, Northeastern, big government Republican. Gingrich is a big government bureaucrat. And I agree that the GOP will lose the election. It does not matter if Obama has a 45% approval rating because his approval rating only needs to be higher than the person he is running against. And it will be once the GOP candidate is chosen. The race will be closer than last time, but the result will be the same.

 

number of states won makes absolutely no difference, bud.
it's all about the number of delegates pledged to each candidate.
do some research before spreading misinformation, ok chief?

 

That's becuase the government spent its way out of this recession. Which is going to make matters worse in the future. Don't worry, the next economic downturn we experience is going to be payback time.

 

Yes it does. It says the states can only make gold and silver legal tender, and it does not say that the federal govt has the power to declare legal tender. However it does explicitly prohibit the federal govt from issuing bills of credit, AKA fiat currency.

You fail, troll. Any spin you put on it won't make up for the fact that your nutcase interpretations of the Constitution are completely wrong.

 

do you think ron paul was ignorant of the fed/feds ability to do this in 1988?

 

With exceptions listed, specifically for gold and silver as legal tender. Proven by your own source.

Your own source contradicts your claims. It specifically says that the states are allowed to make gold and silver legal tender. The fact that you are denying this shows either your reading comprehension is null or you are trolling.

 

The Fed doesn't have the power to authorize federal spending. Where did you get such a silly notion?

 

no, you're just so indoctrinated by libertarian propaganda and misinformation that you're blind to the truth

section 10 is about what states can't do

they can't declare anything legal tender other than what congress authorizes as legal tender

the source i posted status that clearly:

"States may not exercise certain powers reserved for the federal government."

"Much of this clause [section 10 contracts] is devoted to preventing the States from using or creating any currency other than that created by Congress."

 

As a moderator I of course have to BOW to you. ( how ever I have already beaten down another moderator in debate )
I do not need to point out Sheep is a loose term that implies people follow a certain theme whether real or not...or perpetuate that ideology for their own political gain. Rude..far less than much of a lot of the threads I read here..


Even the fact you brought Romney into a thread not titled BIG government or anything to do with Romney shows your bias.
How is Working across party lines to get what is once thought of as impossible a BIG governmental deal? I CALL IT EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP.
( you can label it big government )

He was 1st after all..so something MUST have worked..and it was at a STATE level..not the federal BIG government level.
He also balanced his budget without raising taxes on income or those that create jobs..the complete opposite of Obama.
and The others have ZERO experiences in any executive position. That is just the plain truth.

IF you insist on labeling someone BIG government and someone calls you out for lack of evidence ..that is not rude..It is DEBATE.

How is Romney a Big Government Republican from The NE ?
4 years balancing and fixing a most liberal state without raising taxes ..promoting right to work..allowing state troopers to check ID for citizenship..promoting an END to the DREAM act..is just 4 years.

Is Olympic bailout was a PRIVATE deal..his Bain business was a private NON big government deal 25 years away from DC..
You guys are sheep..for just repeating the anti Romney opposition line without substance. Either debate or stop...

And for instance YOU must show who you support when challenging someone as a BIG government person.You must show how Romney was for bigger government..

Romney 2012..

BETTER than the rest ..anywhere .. anytime.oh..He is /was and will be for the right to work..without UNIONS.

 

Yeah and Ron Paul has the least delegates. You get delegates by winning states. Ron Paul has no chance of winning at this point.

 

Economic doom is always in the future for Ron Paul. He's been predicting it for 30 years. At some point you've got to say he's full of (*)(*)(*)(*).

Spending your way out of a recession is a legit strategy that causes little to no negative effects.

 

If what Paul was selling was accepted he would be leading and winning..

He isn't even playing in the 2 states today..

How can you ask delegates to switch when you dont compete ?

 

Sort of. "Legit" is a matter of opinion. The second bit is accurate. But only in the short term. You may even be able to head off long run problems provided your house was in good fiscal shape when you started spending. However, that is not the case with the U.S. You are seeing the long run effects of over spending in Europe. And we will likely see it here at some point. When you are teetering on the edge of not being able to pay back your debt, spending another $1.0 trillion to get a few people back to work is a pretty stupid thing to do.

 

Because republicans wouldn't know a conservative candidate who believes in fiscal responsibility of anything, if they bit them on the nose!!

 

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

"No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts"

Just right there it proves that the Fifty States of the United States of America are legally bound to only use Gold/Silver Currency in payment of Debts. So how exactly are the States now able to use FIAT currency which completely goes against the Law?

 

willful ignorance? ^

The delegate selection process is INCOMPLETE at this point in many states, and many delegates are UNBOUND to the results of the popular vote.

 

Europe is a completely different situation. They're sharing a currency between multiple countries. The whole point of a fiat currency is so that you have control over your own currency to deal with your own needs. It'll be a lot harder for America to experience what Greece is experiencing because American money is controlled by American interests.

If we need more money to combat a recession that's what we get. If that extra money comes back to bite us in the form of inflation after the recession ends then we raise interest rates and bring it back down.

Greece does not have that luxury nor does any other single European Union nation. They need to apply to the ECB for changes in monetary policy. And only when it's in the best interest of the EU as a whole do they get what they want. So if one country is going through a recession they don't have the ability to spend their way out of it like we do unless the recession is EU wide.

The demand of our dollar and our ability of our nation to control the value of our dollar is what makes us a very strong economic power.