Ron Paul: Questions That Won't Be Asked About Iraq

"Because we're right. On virtually everything. "--->"Uhhh...no."

Uhhh...yes. I was using "right" in terms of "right-left." The only consistent way to look at "right" versus "left" is to say that "left" is where the government controls everything, and "right" is where the government controls nothing (i.e., anarchy).

Since there is no Anarchist party, the Libertarian Party represents the absolute farthest "right" party in the United States. That's the truth. The Republican Party is so far to the left of the Libertarian Party that it's not even funny. (It's depressing.)

"One thing Libertarians do which drives me nuts is they cheer people who carry handguns against the law, or smoke weed against the law (all of which may or may not have merit) as a form of protest."

I don't agree that "Libertarians" (meaning the majority of Libertarians) do either of those things. But even if they did, "as a form of protest" (which I don't agree is the reason, either)...what of it? Those violations of the law hurt no one.

"However, when some dictator is threatening American Citizens they bring up the Law saying stuff like, 'No, you cannot kill Saddam, it's against the Bill of Attainment clause in the Constitution.'"

It's Bill of Attainder. And it was put in the Constitution for a very good reason: English Kings found it to be very easy to have their Parliaments take a person's property--or even life--without any trial to establish that those persons had broken any law. Juries of one's peers are more difficult to sway, because juries aren't partnered with the King in ruling the land, but are instead citizens, like the accused.

"Either it's okay to break the law at times or it isn't you cannot have it both ways."

This seems to be a matter of confusion here at Free Republic. Libertarians' (or at least *this* Libertarian's) views on the matter don't conflict at all.

It is *generally* morally right for a *citizen* to follow The Law. It is actually *immoral*, in my opinion, for a citizen to follow an *immoral* law, especially in a manner that hurts a fellow citizen. "Immoral" laws, in my opinion, consist of laws that are both: 1) illegitimate, and 2) unnecessarily harmful. For example, I would *never* vote to convict on a federal charge involving medical marijuana. (In fact, a jury in California recently sentenced a man to up to 15 years in federal prison on just such a charge.)

The reason what that jury did was immoral--again, in my opinion--was that: 1) federal medical marijuana laws are unconstitutional, and this illegitimate, and 2) medical marijuana laws are unnecessarily harmful, because both parties are willing participants in the transaction.

So it's *generally* immoral for citizens to break the law. But it is ALWAYS immoral for elected government officials to break The Law (when they are making laws, or disregarding them).

The reason it's ALWAYS immoral for elected government officials to break The Law (e.g., the Constitution) is because they swear an OATH (to G@d, in most cases!) to uphold the Constitution. Therefore, they are breaking an oath when THEY break The Law.

I don't see at all what the problem is for G.W. Bush to *demand* that the Congress give an up-or-down vote on whether or not to declare war on Saddam Hussein. Bush and all members of Congress take an oath to follow the Constitution, and I don't see--in this case, especially--why any one of them should have trouble honoring that oath.

Yeah, right! They would have laughed at someone who wants to follow--to the letter--the document that THEY produced!

Well, YES! They began trying to change the constitution almost from the day it was finalized. There was alot of disagreement and compromises that went into it's creation. Libertarians think it's a divine document straight from the mouth of god. It isn't. It started off pretty good and improved over time. That's why there was an AMENDMENT PROCESS... Because they understood that a)it wasn't perfect and b)it NEEDED to change over time. I know this offends/scares/confuses some Libertarians, but you'll get used to it after a while... ;-)

They would have laughed at a bunch of good-intentioned people decided it was better to lose the battle/sit on the sidelines that to compromise. (Libertarians) They were FULL of COMPROMISE. They did the best they could. Republicans do the best they can. Founders weren't perfect. Republicans weren't perfect. But founders/republicans are out making things happen, while libertarians just watch and complain... :-)

As opposed to people like you (and liberals, who are exactly like you) who spout nonsense like, "the Constitution contains ideals..." and,

Again a libertarian expression of worship rather than thought. The constitution IS about ideals. The paper isn't important. The ideals were around BEFORE the constitution was drafted. You're caught in a chicken-before-the-egg argument. America was a great country with great men BEFORE the constitution was written. The constitution is just a contract between the parties (citizens) affirming the ideals. And if parties agree the contract can be amended (see constitutional amendments.)

1) federal medical marijuana laws are unconstitutional

Says who? Cite decision please.

I agree w/ you on declaring war constitutionally and I agree w/ you that while the average joe six pack can, at times, ignore certain laws, while our leaders should ALWAYS follow the law.

What I meant by the "follow the law" statement was how some "Libertarians" on this board were trying to apply domestic civil law to Saddam (i.e. not enough evidence).

While I've considered myself a "Libertarian", though I've never voted LP, for a few years, the reaction of prominent Libertarians to 9-11 was more than dismaying. I wish they just stuck to "Declare War Constituitionally" instead of tripe and nonsense that has been put forth by some.

No, the Constitution is the Law of the Land. It's not about worship. That's why when the feds regulate ANYTHING, they precede the law with "In the interest of interstate commerce...." so the law is constitutional. That's why a constitutional amendment needed to be passed for the income tax.

Pols end-run the law because it restricts their power. Hence the living constitution argument.

"What I meant by the 'follow the law' statement was how some 'Libertarians' on this board were trying to apply domestic civil law to Saddam (i.e. not enough evidence)."

As every good Libertarian knows (I'm just making this up...what I mean is that *I* "know" it ;-))...there ARE only "domestic" laws. There's no such thing...to THIS Libertarian, at least...as "international" law. There ARE treaties...like the Geneva Convention...with which the U.S. federal government says it will comply. But there is no "controlling authority" (to borrow a phrase)...greater than the U.S. federal government.

I understand your frustration with what may seem to you to be an "obstruction" thrown in the way of "killing a bad man."

But the rules of the Constitution (that Congress MUST declare war...and that even Congress can't order the death of someone not convicted of a crime) protect US!

Who do you think is the most dangerous man in the world, right now?.......

OK, and who do you think *I* will name as the "most dangerous man in the world"?

...my nomination is for G.W. Bush. Why? Because G.W. Bush has so vastly much more POWER...and because he's already given abundant evidence that he will use that power illegitimately (in violation of the Constitution).

To give you an analogy: over Labor Day, I was back at my parents house. I was using a saber saw. A saber saw by itself is dangerous, simply because it's powerful. But my Dad's saw had a problem, where the saw blade would "stick"...and wouldn't start moving, if it was in certain positions. So I had to pull the blade down to a better position, and THEN turn on the saw. (But, of course, I didn't go an unplug the saw every time it "stuck"...which was about 1/2 the time I tried to turn it on.)

That's just really, really dangerous. I was very careful to avoid turning on the saw...but if I'd accidently--somehow--turned on the saw while I was pulling down that blade, I could have very easily lost a finger (or two).

Scary.

The United States military is, without question, the most powerful human force on earth. That means it must be used with only the most extraordinary caution. And it ESPECIALLY shouldn't be used in a way that violates The Law!

Everybody knows Saddam Hussein is a bad man. But what about Salah Idris? What about his custodian? And what about their sick customers?

You probably don't know who I'm talking about...but Salah Idris was the owner (private owner!) of the Al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. And his custodian (whose name I don't even know) was the poor devil who was killed in the U.S. cruise missile attack. And it's quite likely that literally THOUSANDS of sick people did in Sudan, because our country blew up that pharmaceutical plant.

But...if you don't care about innocent people outside our country, killed directly because of the wrongs WE did, what about:

1) the Branch Davidians?

2) Randy Weaver, and his family?

Those are the sort of things that happen when the U.S. government starts violating The Law.

"While I've considered myself a 'Libertarian', though I've never voted LP,..."

You can not be a Libertarian...or even a "libertarian" (small l), if you don't vote for the Libertarian Party. You can be a "freedom loving conservative" (to quote a certain FR poster)...but you can't be a Libertarian (or even libertarian).

There isn't any party even CLOSE to being libertarian, except for the Libertarian Party...which is purely libertarian.

If you really agree with the Libertarian Party (that the only legitimate purpose of government is to protect people from physical harm and fraud) you should be voting Libertarian. (Or, if in Ron Paul's district, you could vote for him. :-))

"Says who?"

Say the Founder Fathers:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

"Cite decision please."

Not necessary. Is the 10th Amendment unclear? No, it's very clear.

If I told you it was unconstitutional for the federal government to FORCE the PGA (a private organization) to allow a person to ride in a cart, in violation of PGA rules, would you ask me to cite the decision?

Hopefully not...because the decision was completely, utterly, and totally, bogus and unconstitutional. Anyone who can read the Constitution...which apparently doesn't include any of the Supreme Court judges...should know that.

"OK, and who do you think *I* will name as the "most dangerous man in the world"?

...my nomination is for G.W. Bush. Why? Because G.W. Bush has so vastly much more POWER...and because he's already given abundant evidence that he will use that power illegitimately (in violation of the Constitution). "

Man, I'm starting to think you're losing it. True, Bush has more power than Saddam Hussein. But the fact of Saddam supporting terrorists who intentionally killed over 3,000 innocent civilians is vastly worse than Bush sidestepping his Constitutional authority. BTW, I reread the war clause and it's as follows:

Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

I don't how any authorization of force by congress doesn't comply with this? It just says declare war. I doesn't limit it to government, countries, actually using the words "declare war" (though they have a much more dramatic impact). How does a majority vote in congress authorizing force against Iraq not comply with this?

Why didn't you just unplug the saw? I mean it's not that tough. Also, if it kept jumping, just get it fixed. Much better than risking your fingers.

You can not be a Libertarian...or even a "libertarian" (small l), if you don't vote for the Libertarian Party. You can be a "freedom loving conservative" (to quote a certain FR poster)...but you can't be a Libertarian (or even libertarian).

Labels, labels. Hey, we can see the word two different ways. I differentiate a big L as an LP voting type of individual, and a little l as libertarian leaning Republican. Last time I checked, there was no hard and fast definintion.

Additionally, it's my belief, that our government hasn't really been following the Constitution for a while and won't for a long time to come. Too many pigs are at the trough.

^