Posted on 05/28/2007 2:00:11 PM PDT by bnelson44
Analysis of the GOP Bloggers Straw Poll
Perhaps unsurprisingly, Ron Paul supporters like nobody less than Giuliani — for whom most observers called that debate based on his response to Paul’s “blowback” comments, even as the Ronbots contended that the very same exchange proved Ron Paul the obvious winner.
Unlike supporters of the realistic (and popular, arguably faddish and maybe unrealistic) candidates, Ron Paul supporters apparently would not vote for any other GOP candidate in the Republican primary — though intriguingly, a minority would consider Tancredo.
I submit this as fair evidence that Ron Paul’s online base of support is not drawn from actual Republican party primary voters. Activists for every other candidate have their fallbacks, nemeses and frenemies, but no other group is so far outside the mainstream as the activists for Ron Paul.
Maybe Ron Paul is the GOP vanguard. More likely, his support measures something besides the current Republican mood.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogpi.net ...
And I don’t think you know anything about him.
Stop it. You are making yourself look silly...
Here's a clue: an originalist tries to discern what the intent of the Framers was in drafting the Constitution and attempts to hew to their understanding of the Constitution.
I discern that the intent of the Framers in drafting the 2nd was to prevent infringements on owning/carrying arms. And I attempt to hew to that understanding of the Constitution.
A strict constructionist treats the Constitution as a self-contained document and attempts to interpret it on its own terms without reference to external factors like the intent of the Framers.
As a strict constructionist, I treat the 2nd as a self-contained amendment and can interpret it on its own terms without need to reference to external factors like the intent of the Framers.
My two positions do not conflict, - but please, feel free to ping me again when you have decided to take such matters seriously.
There will be many points of contact where a strict constructionist's conclusion and an originalist's conclusion will be identical - they are, after all, working from the same text.
Thank you for making my point.
However, there will be points where they bump heads.
The 2nd Amendment creates a potential conflict between the two views because an originalist will be relying on what the Framers notion of a "militia" is,
No, an originalist would realize that the explanation of why a free State needs a militia is not in conflict with the clear words that follow. Only socialist gun grabbers view the 2nd in that context.
while a strict constructionist can - but is not obligated to - take a more regulatory view of firearm ownership based on the use of "militia" in the text of the Amendment.
A strict constructionist is obligated to take the view that the right to own and carry arms shall not be infringed.
The two approaches are not identical.
Only in ~your~ mind are the two approaches in conflict. - You've bought into the majority rule "regulatory view" concept, imho.
Perhaps you are unclear on what makes a person look silly.
Here's an example: going on Alex Jones' radio show.
No one is "obligated" to interpret the Constitution your way.
If that is all you've got is a tenuous "guilt by association" in the face of direct evidence directly to the contrary, then you really have drank deep of the cool-aid.
I know enough about him to know I'd never support him for President.
The spurned Republicans want an honest candidate who walks his talk.
With Paul, we will get no amnesty and a crackdown on border jumpers. Look what we will get with the other candidates... just a (sometimes) pretty face. Look what we got with Bush: increased education spending in the first few months of his 1st term, a “bring democracy to the Middle East” foreign policy that commits us to billions or trillions, and finally this amnesty mess that he REPEATEDLY tries to ram down our throats and will bring only ruin the GOP.
It’s about time the GOP put up a “truth teller” instead of a glad-handing pretty-face, or someone who hides behind a recently found religion.
If the GOP can find another candidate as true to his word as Paul (look at his voting history) and that new candidate is stronger on defense, then I’d support him. Until then, no more crooks or fakes.
Here's a question no RP supporter has ever been able to answer: Is Paul an "originalist" as some RP supporters claim, or is he a "strict constructionist" as other RP supporters claim?
In the last few posts, I've undeniably answered your 'question' about "originalist" vs "strict constructionist" views.
< You clearly have no interest in investigating the distinction between intentional and performative approaches to constitutional interpretation.
Not true, my interest in the subject is shown by my rebuttals to your positions; which you cannot counter.
No one is "obligated" to interpret the Constitution your way.
How droll. Who said they did?
A couple of underlying assumptions presented here:
(1) That Jones, Hannity and Savage are more or less equivalents in terms of prestige and respectability.
They aren't - going on Alex Jones' show is like going on a Klan radio show.
(2) That the prestige factor between show and host is not really different.
In reality, Giuliani goes on Hannity because he is hoping that Hannity's broad exposure to the conservative base will win him some unearned inroads.
By going on Hannity, Giuliani is not doing Hannity a favor - Hannity is doing him a big favor.
Same thing with Schumer - Savage basically did him the favor of building bipartisan opposition to the Dubai World ports deal by letting him on a show that gets respect in the conservative media.
In Paul's case, the prestige goes the other way - here is a sitting US Congressman going on the tiny radio show of a barking moonbat who is known solely for his conspiracy theories.
Someone of Paul's prominence going on a show like that lends weight and legitimacy to the 9/11 "Truthers" movement.
A "rebuttal" is not cutting-and-pasting the same bald assertion you made on an earlier post.
Would that you had presented me with an argument.
Who said they did?
You, o scholar.
Post 163 has my unanswered arguments that counter every one your comments.
It's quite amusing to see you deny that fact.
No, there is a slight difference, at least according to the NRA article I read to get that definition. An originalist tries to interpret the intent of the author, and a strict constructionalist just takes it as is to the letter.
If an “originalist” was getting it right, he’d be following the strict letter of the Constitution. Otherwise, they are no better than those finding “penumbras” and “emanations” where none exist.
I agree. I’m not sure why we elect anyone who does not understand and respect the Constitution. It’s not made of rubber. You can’t stretch it around any federal power grab like our Supreme Court has allowed for so many years.
Wrong, Dittie Chick. I, too have met Paul. He is a lot of things, but certainly not a squirrel.
You fear him and people like him because you and people like you want the USA to be run like a gargantuan homeowners' association and he doesn't.
There, all fixed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.