Sorry, Mr. Franklin, “We’re All Democrats Now”

Hon. Ron Paul ^ | Jan 29 2003 | Hon. Ron Paul

[Princeliberty]

Good Grief!

[robertpaulsen]

In order to get back to a limited government, the first thing we need to do is legalize drugs!

[Princeliberty]

No one believes in Sic Smeper Tyrannus
more than PrinceLiberty.
But the murder of Lincoln was not
justified by any means and had a major
negative impact of this nation's history.

[EBUCK]

It would be a good start....I would repeal the 16th first and foremost. Subsequent lack of funding would take care of the drug issue.

I suppose you voted for "anyone" in the last election that advocated an end to the IRS??? Nope, voting for good drug warriors was probably higher on the list than ending the slide.

[unixfox]

You just hit the nail on the head !! Until we get rid of that, we will ALL be slaves to the so-called government.

[Carry_Okie]

He's right. Lincoln was a monster to limited government as allowed under the Constitution, and I am no Confederate apologist.

Consider USC Title 10, Sections 331-333:

Sec. 331. - Federal aid for State governments

Whenever there is an insurrections in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection

Sec. 332. - Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority

Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion

Sec. 333. - Interference with State and Federal law

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it -

(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the

United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution

That's a bit much in the way of latitude offered to the President for my taste, don't you think? Given that the Declaration of Independence unambiguously states that, when government violates unalienable rights, it is the right of the people to institute new government, pray tell, how could that EVER happen with such laws on the books?

[robertpaulsen]

Mr. Paul sounds more like a Libertarian than a Republican, doesn't he? Do a 'find' on his speech for 'liberty'.

I only voted for those who had "Drug Warrior" after their name on the ballot. I suppose you only voted for Libertarians.

I would first repeal the 17th to get things rolling.

[EBUCK]

I was torn between the two, 16th and 17th.

My decision to name the 16th is that honestly I don't really understand how the 17th hurts so much. I understand that making Senators answerable to majority is bad but to what extent I haven't quite put my finger on.

Mr. Paul is a Libertarian, runnning as a pubbie so that he can get elected.

I voted a pretty good mix this last season. Example..I voted for Smith-R for US Senate but for Cox-L as governor.

[PatrioticAmerican]

Democracy: Two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

[EBUCK]

52 times, Dr. Paul mentioned Liberty in that speech.

Bush, SoTU address 2003....3 times.

Clinton, SoTU address 1999....3 times.

To be fair, DoI, July 4, 1776....1 time.

[EBUCK]

Correction... Democracy, two wolves convincing a majority of sheep to dine with them.

[Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy]

Your correction was far closer to the truth. In reality, democracy means not the rule of the people, nor does it mean plebicites on each and every issue. In truth, the actual wishes of the majority become increasingly irrelevent in all "democracies".

The real power in a democracy lies not with the people, but with those who can manipulate and mislead the people. In a word, with those who control the mass media. When the people are apathetic and badly informed, when they give themselves over to entertainment and leisure, then it is those who can implant false ideas in them via the media who actually control the course of democratic policies.

[EBUCK]

Boil it down a bit more and it comes down to money. Democracy is an open invitation for the rich to take over by subtle and expensive means.

Democracy also allows for the complete and peacefull overthrow of a government though. But that option really depends on the quality of people that make up the masses.

That seems to be the common rat foot soldiers failing. "Faith in human nature to do good." Add into the mix that 2/3's of us are on the gub take and the peacefull overthrow scenario goes right out the window along with out independance and will.

[robertpaulsen]

Other than the 14th (which I'm growing to hate), the 17th further blurs the separation between the states and the feds.

Why do we need the people to vote on a representative and a senator? Who's looking after the interest of the individual state?

The 14th and 17th have combined to make the states homogenous. That's one step closer to a democracy, rather than a representative republic.

[EBUCK]

I see it a bit better now, thanks.

Popular senators are elected for national interests whereas legislatively elected ones would be bound to the state.

That is a big change aint it. Still, repealing the income tax would make that moot.

[B4Ranch]

We almost came to a halt when we had a couple of snipers running around the country. Imagine what would happen if we had just a measly two in every state shooting at the same time of the month. Screeech to a complete stop and the government would be trying to take away everyones guns instead of asking the citizens to arm themselves and assist in the chase.

[Carry_Okie]

You are absolutely correct in citing the 14th as an abomination. Who in the Federal government should have the power to decide what is "equal"?

It's too much power.

Further, the 14th granted the right to corporations to owm property as 'persons subject to the jurisdiction thereof' (up until then, they could not). That opened the floodgates to European money and it only took them another fifty years to first involve us militarily all over the planet, and second, use the resulting financial panics to bring the Congressional power to coin money to its knees.

The Republic has been accelerating downhill ever since.

[Pete-R-Bilt]

scary thought, and a very good point!

I should carry much more(larger) ammo/weapons!

[wharfrat]

Hmmm! you must mean "these" Democrats, I found on this website! www.bhocutt.com. Talking about The National Democratic Party of America! Hmmm!

[glock rocks]

there'd be a definite contention between those of us with the ability to return fire, and the nanny aholes who'd rather you just 'stay in your houses' ... i'll tell you what, B4, i don't think maryland's style of dealing with killers would suffice out here in the west.

i really don't.

hey, i might be off center... in that case, i recommend everyone BUY LOTS MORE AMMO. !!