Paul preaches nonintervention, less government

Sioux City Journal ^ | August 8, 2007 | Bret Hayworth

[CenTexConfederate]

Paul preaches nonintervention, less government By Bret Hayworth Journal staff writer Leave a comment. | Share delicious digg newsvine | Small | Large

LAWTON, Iowa -- Pledging a return to constitutional principles, Republican Party presidential Ron Paul contended Tuesday it is time misguided economic, foreign-policy and education moves are turned around.

So many policies or programs the federal government has enacted in recent decades don't have an origin in the Constitution, so they should be stopped, said Paul, a congressman from Texas. He cited the Federal Reserve System, federal funding for public education, federal income tax and entitlement programs such as Social Security as being outside the bounds of constitutional authority.

Paul said he wants a government with a reduced scope similar to pre-20th century growth fueled by federal income tax revenue.

[ejonesie22]

Damn, beat me...

What a bunch of clowns, huh...

[hedgetrimmer]

The 16th amendment authorizes federal education, entitlements etc? Show us.

[TexasAg1996]

So you can’t tell us either?

Two people, myself included, have just identified the 16th Amendment. Please now explain how that isn't "part of the Constitution" or how it doesn't allow income taxes.

[Hack]

Yet Rep. Paul obtains millions of dollars in earmarks for profitable businesses in his own district.

[ejonesie22]

16th AMENDMENT!

Damn...

[TonyInOhio]

CTC, here's the thing. Ron Paul has no chance of winning the GOP nomination; he can't even win support from a majority of the members of Free Republic, arguably the most conservative activist site on the Web.

So, why do we keep arguing over a candidate that has no chance to win? Or, do you really believe that Paul can win the nomination and then the general election?

[hedgetrimmer]

You must favor global socialist government by your support for an ever expanding federal government.

[ejonesie22]

You post states:

Since you're such an expert, why don't you cite the articles in the constitution that support federal income tax, etc..

Since you started this crap with that as your first question, well the rest is...

[hedgetrimmer]

Clearly you cannot substantiate anything you are saying.

[CenTexConfederate]

There were no WMDs in Iraq. They were never a threat to the United States. Saddam was a secular fascist. In the 1980s during the Reagan Administration, he was an ally of ours. The Iraqi Ambassador in DC was a regular on the old CNN show, Crossfire with Pat Buchanan, Robert Novak, and Tom Braden. This war was cooked up by Utopian dreamers prommising us a cakewalk. Our men and women would be greeted by crowds chanting USA USA and throwing flowers.

[samtheman]

All your points are excellent but I'd like to repeat this one:

Switzerland BTW isn't a world power and has no strategic interests around the world. If Paul thinks Switzerland can be compared to the USA he should move there and run there for office.

I thought about that too, while I was reading this article. Thanks for mentioning it. (It's pretty darn obvious, if you're not an RP cult member.)

[TexasAg1996]

You must favor global socialist government by your support for an ever expanding federal government.

He he. Can't you even be consistent for 3 posts? You asked what Constitutional authority there was for income taxes. We said the 16th Amendment. Somehow, you then equated that with a belief in a "global socialist government."

Nice straw man. Can I do it now? By not supporting the 16th Amendment, you clearly wish to suppress all religious freedom in the U.S. since you don't support Amendments to the Constitution. See, I can play the "random response to a clear answer" game, too.

[ejonesie22]

Wow man, you are a hoot...

I give you the answer, a link to support it and you still argue...

And you wonder why we have so much fun with you guys...

Damn, just damn ...

[trisham]

CTC, here's the thing. Ron Paul has no chance of winning the GOP nomination; he can't even win support from a majority of the members of Free Republic, arguably the most conservative activist site on the Web.

So, why do we keep arguing over a candidate that has no chance to win? Or, do you really believe that Paul can win the nomination and then the general election?

***************

Good question. Once Fred declares his candidacy, most of this nonsense will (hopefully) go away.

[samtheman]

thanks for showing up on all these RP sites

your posts are appreciated (at least by me)

[samtheman]

I meant: RP threads (not sites)

[ejonesie22]

I hope not, I am saving a sh*t load of cash on entertainment expenses with these RP threads...

[CenTexConfederate]

You’ll be on Social Security by the time old Fred declares :>)

[wideawake]

(1) Article I Sec. 9 authorizes Congress to lay and collect taxes.

The 16th amendment specifically included taxes on income as part of that authorization. Moreover, a perusal of The Federalist shows that the Founders contemplated taxes on income as a legitimate - but at the time impracticable - means of collecting federal revenue. Section 9 also authorizes Congress to make all laws necessary and proper for the execution of their powers under the Section.

Such laws as the law creating an Internal Revenue Service and placing it under the direction of the Treasury.

(2) Art I Section 9 also authorizes Congress to borrow on the credit of the United States and to regulate the value of money. The same section also authorizes Congress to make laws necessary and proper for the execution of these powers, including the creation of the federal Reserve System and placing it under the direction of the Treasury.

(3) Article I Section 9 also authorize Congress to lay and collect taxes for the general welfare of the United States. The same section also authorizes Congress to make laws necessary and proper for the execution of these powers - such as the Social Security Act, funding for public education, etc.

[trisham]

LOL!