Ron Paul throwing in the towel

[seamusTX]

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution begins, "The Congress shall have power to ..." followed by a short list of actions that Congress is allowed to perform.

Then we come down to the 10th Amendment: "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."

Most of the legislation passed by Congress violates these clauses, while transferring money from one pocket to another. The Supreme Court rarely says No.

Ron Paul is an uncomfortable reminder of that.

- Jim

[lawrnk]

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution begins, "The Congress shall have power to ..." followed by a short list of actions that Congress is allowed to perform.

Then we come down to the 10th Amendment: "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."

Most of the legislation passed by Congress violates these clauses, while transferring money from one pocket to another. The Supreme Court rarely says No.

Ron Paul is an uncomfortable reminder of that.

- Jim

So the supreme court interprets the constitution. They determined the dealth penalty to be constitutional. Yet Dr. Paul is against it.

[boomerang]

We all interpret the Constitution.

[KBCraig]

Lots of votes for and against bills that are not related to anything constitutional.

There is no such thing as a bill that is "not related to anything constitutional."

Either it's expressly authorized by the Constitution, or it's unconstitutional.

http://www.themiddleclass.org/legislato ... nAodaktcWA

Thank you for a perfect illustration of what I just said. Not one of those bills has any constitutional basis.

[lawrnk]

We all interpret the Constitution.

That is a bit of a side step to the question, isn't it?

[boomerang]

No, it's not. A legislator has the right (some might say duty) to vote against legislation he or she believes to be unconstitutional.

I can't find anything in the Constitution that says the Supreme Court has final say on what's constitutional or unconstitutional.

[lawrnk]

Lots of votes for and against bills that are not related to anything constitutional.

There is no such thing as a bill that is "not related to anything constitutional."

Either it's expressly authorized by the Constitution, or it's unconstitutional.

http://www.themiddleclass.org/legislato ... nAodaktcWA

Thank you for a perfect illustration of what I just said. Not one of those bills has any constitutional basis.

So when congress votes on school lunches, its related to the constitution?
Article III. Supreme court. Death Penalty. Paul is against it. What gives?

[lawrnk]

No, it's not. A legislator has the right (some might say duty) to vote against legislation he or she believes to be unconstitutional.

I can't find anything in the Constitution that says the Supreme Court has final say on what's constitutional or unconstitutional.

I think article III sums it up for me. So, you find the death penalty unconstitutional?

[lawrnk]

Lots of votes for and against bills that are not related to anything constitutional.

There is no such thing as a bill that is "not related to anything constitutional."

Either it's expressly authorized by the Constitution, or it's unconstitutional.

http://www.themiddleclass.org/legislato ... nAodaktcWA

Thank you for a perfect illustration of what I just said. Not one of those bills has any constitutional basis.

I'm guessing the "dream down payment act" was unconstitutional. I can't find any constitutional reference to handing out free money via reverse racism to citizens. http://www.themiddleclass.org/bill/amer ... t-act-2003 What I like about Paul is he is somewhat Reaganish in limiting big government. But it is silly to say he votes only for bills protected by the constitution when his votes show otherwise.

[boomerang]

No, it's not. A legislator has the right (some might say duty) to vote against legislation he or she believes to be unconstitutional.

I can't find anything in the Constitution that says the Supreme Court has final say on what's constitutional or unconstitutional.

I think article III sums it up for me.

I still can't find it. Can you point it out for me? Thank you.

So, you find the death penalty unconstitutional?

Me personally? No.

[lawrnk]

No, it's not. A legislator has the right (some might say duty) to vote against legislation he or she believes to be unconstitutional.

I can't find anything in the Constitution that says the Supreme Court has final say on what's constitutional or unconstitutional.

I think article III sums it up for me.

I still can't find it. Can you point it out for me? Thank you.

Article III. - The Judicial Branch Note

Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3 - Treason Note

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

So, you find the death penalty unconstitutional?

Me personally? No.

I'll go wth Marbury v. Madison regard article III . But since you bring it up, are you denying the supreme courts role of interpreting the constitution?

[lawrnk]

No, it's not. A legislator has the right (some might say duty) to vote against legislation he or she believes to be unconstitutional.

I can't find anything in the Constitution that says the Supreme Court has final say on what's constitutional or unconstitutional.

I think article III sums it up for me.

I still can't find it. Can you point it out for me? Thank you.

So, you find the death penalty unconstitutional?

Me personally? No.

Yet Dr. Paul determined it was. As a constitutionalist.

[boomerang]

Yet Dr. Paul determined it was. As a constitutionalist.

And your point is what?

I think reasonable people can have different opinions about if the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment, or if .38 is a good concealed carry caliber, or even the best flavor of ice cream.

[Tajovo]

Yet Dr. Paul determined it was. As a constitutionalist.

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=rc5lC9u-09E[/youtube]

Edited to add: Who could say it better than the good doctor himself.

[tarkus]

He didn't say it was unconstitutional in that clip. He said he was against it.