Posted on 09/13/2007 6:54:29 AM PDT by presidio9
Apparently I put in more energy than you did thought. Those hits lead back to posts by rface, a FReeper whose profile says, "Contrary to some of my Ron Paul posts - I, in no way, support his Presidential campaign".
So how 'bout that Fred Thompson's porkiness? Pretty big hypocrite, eh?
LOL You Paulestinians don't have the least bit of discernment.
Close enough...
Duuude, that like harsh man...
Duuuude. Where’s my doobie?
The Paulinati can hook you up I’m sure.
Man, dat whiteboy, he got da bet weed. You talk to he about da man Run Paul and de campaign and da weed.
Not all of them use weed.
There’s crack...
Heroin...
LSD...
And too be absolutely fair, just are just naturally nuts...
Man, dat be true.
“I know that many people will claim that the Resolution was essentially a declaration of war that satisfies the Constitutional requirement...but, really that is a weak argument.”
Actually, it should be a very strong argument to one who believes in strictly following the Constitution. The Constitution does not specify the format or content of a Declaration Of War. If you are a strict constitutionalist, then you should oppose reading something into the Constitution that is not there.
“When you go back and read the debates of the Founders at the Constitutional Convention, they added that declaration requirement because they wanted to ensure that no President would ever the sole discretion to enter the US into a war.”
You might have a point if Bush had resorted to force then petitioned Congress. But that is not what happend. Congress acted giving Bush the authority to act as he saw fit. BTW, the power to declare war is reserved to congress but the power to wage war is reserved to the president. There is a difference and a strict constitutionalist should be aware of that difference. It is always the President’s authority to decide where to attack and when even after a “Declaration of War”.
to AWW with cc to .cni
“Actually, they don’t.” - AWW
Actually, earmarks do increase spending.
The spending process has two steps. First, the Authorization committes pass spending limits that are given to the Appropriations committees. The appropriation committees include the funding for the various agencies and then the earmarks. The only limit is that the appropriations cannot exceed the authorizations and the appropriations are usually less than the authorizations. If earmarks are not added, then the funding for the agencies goes forward to become law and the actually spending would be reduced by the amount of the earmarks not included.
Look at it like this. The authorization committes says DoD can have ten dollars to spend. The appropriations committee then divides the money up among the services and among the programs within the services. Quite often, the appropriations committes include things not even requested by the services. This funding, not requested by the agencies but added by influencial congressmen, are earmarks and do increase spending.
Ron Paul’s argument that earmarks do not affect spending is, like so many of Ron Paul’s arguements, a completely self-serving argument that he uses to justify his actions with little respect for truth.
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.