The way that Ron Paul supporters do not recognize certain signs about Paul reminds me

The goal is the attempt... the Politicians speak a lot but, their actions prove otherwise to what they say. At least he sticks to his platform of Constitutional Bills rather than bending for Special Interests or the Emotional Plight of a certain group which be taken care of at the State level. If you feel as though since the States weren't able or not willing... what if the Congress is unwilling? Should we give more power to the Executive Branch to create laws from their pen strokes if Amber Alert wasn't passed through the House? In all honesty you're asking for the degradation of the Republic surely but, slowly with how you perceive the Republic should be handled. It's been switched from a Constitutional Republic to a Constitutional Federal Republic and what next? To solely derive every argument to the emotional aspect of "What about the children!?" or some other lame ass attempt such as "What if they receive no medical care they could die!" completely revokes the power of the Individual to that of the State. You're asking to be bonded in chains because "It's needed"... Government isn't needed for all the aspects you typically believe it needs to be.

What legislation is needed to run the Republic? It really matters as to what kind of a Nation you're seeking by what you consider needed legislation.

 

The Founding Fathers expressly wrote the Constitution to give the Federal Government more power, not less. The reason for this is that the Articles of Confederation were ineffective at Governing our country. Now you can certainly have a debate about how much of that power should be with the State or not and that's healthy. Paul would rather eliminate most of the Federal power and return it to the States.

That didn't work well before.

 

Then you're not really doing much to "fix the problem," are you? I'm genuinely interested in these obvious signs.

 

The 10th Amendment clearly defines the role of the Federal & State Governments... Even the Articles present clearly do not give Power for the Federal Government to do as they please.

Also to say it "didn't work well before" is mainly due in large because the Federal Government was largely in debt after the war and was ineffective at managing it's own finances... Also to say that moving Social Issues to the States would create the same calamity as the AoC is truly stretching it. Education, Trade, Security and any other practice are all Social aspects that should be regulated by local communities not Bureaucratic busybodies.

 

"The ruling upheld the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution in which federal laws take precedence over state laws when regulating the same activity. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution is one major avenue for the national government to exercise its authority over states. From the 1930s New Deal era through the 1970s the federal government significantly grew by increasingly regulating many facets of life. By the 1980s states' rights proponents began to reverse the trend. Debates over federal controls continued into the late 1990s focused on proposed national health care reforms.
At the center of issues intensively debated by the founders of the United States was federalism, the distribution of power between the federal and state governments. Dispute over the degree of centralization of political power in the United States highlighted by debates between Alexander Hamilton and JamesMadison led to formation of the first political parties in the nation. As a result, the Supremacy Clause was written into Article IV of the Constitution providing the primary basis for the federal government's power over states. The article states the "acts of the Federal Government are operational as supreme law throughout the Union . . . enforceable in all courts of the land. Thestates have no power to impede, burden, or in any manner control the operation of" federal law."

 

Yes, they're called the original Articles & Amendments already included with the Constitution. Not the usurpation of how the Political bodies have acted so far after Lincoln "The Tyrant" began to make Laws that were never amended but, purely were just "Acts" because they know the States would never adopt 99% of the materials that comes out of the House. Most of the "Acts" that typically come out of the House come in complete violation to the Constitution itself and are typically designed to shift power from one group to another or completely scratch out the Law. "It's justifiable to invade a person's private space because every person is guilty before they're innocent due to the possibility of Terrorism." Sounds legit because the Congress passed it!

 

This is where the Supreme Court comes in and they have repeatedly sided with the Federal Government. This is an issue that Paul doesn't understand. He still believes, as do many Congressmen, that States rights and the 10th amendment trump Supreme Court decisions and it doesn't. The Supreme Court has upheld the Supremecy Clause.

 

your mind is boggled? really?

the way things currently are must be keeping you at ease...$15 trillion in debt seems like quite a relaxing thought, along with all of the flawed policies...

do you actually know anything about paul? because yeah, hes far out there, far, far, far away, where a chance to succeed still exists, but i'm sure you've heard different from the media, cause that's who you seem to emulate whenever you post

 

I'm a political scientist and i've studied Mr. Paul for a very long time. A shutdown of the government would stop social security checks or veterans pay from going out. Paul would do this if the budget was attached with anything he didn't like. His voting record tells us this.

I don't even know who Paul would get to introduce legislation for him. Other than his son he doesn't have much support.

 

well, it sounds like you're in luck,

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ill-giving-president-line-item-veto/?page=all

 

Easily overridden by the Congress if Paul alienates them however. It also doesn't help Paul put any of his proposals onto the floor it only lets him strike things out. Congress will simply not send Paul the bills if he is vetoing everything under the sun which will lead us to a government shutdown.

Also the line-item veto was declared unconstitutional and the new one only gives the President the power to send the bill back to Congress to conduct an up or down vote on specific issues. Paul wouldn't be able to just strike issues out.

 

i'm aware of that, but it would put the blame of inaction onto congress, as far as the public eye is concerned, and we all know that things will change if it does get passed.

have some faith that the corruption in the congress can be fixed with the public eye, i believe this veto makes it happen, and it is exactly what paul needs if he hopes to accomplish anything, because without it, i'm sure he wouldnt