[x]

See Where You Rank in Washington

  1.  
    Originally Posted by Lord Supremo View Post

    ...says you.

     

    It was, he said, a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved. How is an army for that purpose to be obtained from the freemen of the United States? They certainly, said he, will know to what object it is to be applied. Is it possible, he asked, that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves and their brethren? or, if raised, whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands? He said, it was a deception in gentlemen to say that this power could be thus used. The honorable gentleman said, that in the Constitution every possible provision against an abuse of power was made; and if gentlemen would candidly investigate for themselves, they would find that the evils they lament cannot ensue therefrom.

    http://teachingamericanhistory.org/r...setts0124.html

    Seems pretty clear that they were arguing that the Constitution as written did not allow Congress to use the military against Americans.
     3
    Add Dyzalot to Rail
  2. How does Dyzalot not have an under title?

    Please make it: Doesn't vote
    Add JAAAAA!!!! to Rail
  3. That passage reads to me more like an assurance that the federal government wouldn't be able to use its military to impose a general tyrannical rule.

    The proposition "the military can never be used against Americans" is facially absurd. If an American is fighting for the enemy in a war, the military will most certainly be used against him.
    Add Lord Supremo to Rail
  4. That passage reads to me more like an assurance that the federal government wouldn't be able to use its military to impose a general tyrannical rule.

    The proposition "the military can never be used against Americans" is facially absurd. If an American is fighting for the enemy in a war, the military will most certainly be used against him.
    Add Lord Supremo to Rail
  5.  
    Originally Posted by Lord Supremo View Post

    That passage reads to me more like an assurance that the federal government wouldn't be able to use its military to impose a general tyrannical rule.

    The proposition "the military can never be used against Americans" is facially absurd. If an American is fighting for the enemy in a war, the military will most certainly be used against him.

    What's more tyrannical than assassinations, kidnappings and indefinite detentions?

    How about this from Madison?

     

    Treason consists in levying war against the United States, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. The punishment of this well-defined crime is to be declared by Congress; no oppression, therefore, can arise on this ground. This security does away the objection that the most grievous oppressions might happen under color of punishing crimes against the general government. The limitation of the forfeiture to the life of the criminal is also an additional privilege.

    http://teachingamericanhistory.org/r...ol3/june6.html

    That seems pretty clear that the very oppressions we see today were supposed to be not allowed by the Constitution since they made sure to make treason a criminal matter.
    Edited By: Dyzalot Feb 24th, 2012 at 12:09 PM
     3
    Add Dyzalot to Rail
  6. You and I agree that Americans who are working with terrorist organizations should be tried with treason rather than summarily killed (although I'm willing to qualify that with a "when practicable"...if American Terrorist A is holed up in some sort of fortress in Yemen or something and there are 100 armed men standing ready to do battle with anyone who comes to try and take him, I'm fine with just going ahead and bombing the place instead of risking heaps of lives in a firefight to arrest him. I'm not sure if you agree on that.) But even though I disagree with these practices and think they are unconstitutional, they clearly don't come out of "thin air," they come from an honest interpretation of the Constitution about which reasonable people acting in good faith can disagree.
    Add Lord Supremo to Rail
  7. 2012 Election RIGGED
    Add pkrnut1 to Rail
  8.  
    Originally Posted by pkrnut1 View Post

    2012 Election RIGGED

    awesome contribution
    Add Lord Supremo to Rail
  9. HEADLINE:

    Canadian lurker rejects American election process as rigged (Story page 23G in the sunday paper)
    Add jesterwords to Rail
  10. So glad I found this site. I had never had the opportunity to actually read the arguments made to the states to convince them to ratify. Here is another interesting argument at the Virginia ratifying convention made in order to allay the fears of the federal government being too powerful.

     

    Mr. Corbin then continued as follows: The honorable gentleman declared in the most solemn manner, that, if he could see one single trait in that government to secure liberty, he would not object to it. I meet him on this ground. Liberty is secured, sir, by the limitation of its powers, which are clearly and unequivocally defined, and which are to be exercised by our own representatives freely chosen.

    http://teachingamericanhistory.org/r...ol3/june7.html

    Pretty clear that the argument is that liberty is protected because the Constitution is a set of limited, specifically enumerated powers.
     3
    Add Dyzalot to Rail
  11.  
    Originally Posted by Lord Supremo View Post

    ftfy

    <----- also a great contribution

     
    Originally Posted by jesterwords View Post

    HEADLINE:

    Canadian lurker rejects American election process as rigged (Story page 23G in the sunday paper)


    Canadian lurker who probably knows more about USA then most Americans
    Add pkrnut1 to Rail
  12. Are you arguing that there is no such thing as an implied power?

     
    Originally Posted by pkrnut1 View Post

    <----- also a great contribution

    Thanks, I thought it was pretty good. It's sparked a vaguely interesting discussion, so that's always a bonus

     
    Originally Posted by pkrnut1

    Canadian lurker who probably knows more about USA then most Americans

    And yet, you don't know the difference between then and than.
    Add Lord Supremo to Rail
  13.  
    Originally Posted by Lord Supremo View Post

    Are you arguing that there is no such thing as an implied power?

    I am arguing no such thing. It appears those arguing for ratification were making such a statement as it pertains to the federal government. If it was sold as a government without implied powers then that's what it should be no matter what anyone wishes. Any powers forgotten or needed could be added by amendment anyways so any powers people thought should be implied but aren't could then just be enumerated.
     3
    Add Dyzalot to Rail
  14.  
    Originally Posted by Dyzalot View Post

    No but I don't think its a Hayek quote either. It also wasn't from a debate or interview.

    Maybe the best part of the debate last night was when John King admitted that the MSM hasn't been truthful about the delegate counts.

    it was from his speech after the caucuses... It aired on CNN, fox, etc... shit I even caught it Colbert. It is alos a clearly a reference to the obsucre economist. Youre right tho, it is not a quote. of course my statement also wasn't meant to be taken literally, I was just taking a piss. however, as noted sarcasm is broken in this thread.

    If that video, is the highlight from the debates then Dr. Paul has no fucking chance.
    Add rayspizza to Rail
  15. Lord Supremo sir , why are you being negative towards me. I do not think Canadian elections are any better. I typed in rigged , hoping maybe I could get a conversation going also like you did, but you just shot me down. Why ?
    Edited By: pkrnut1 Feb 24th, 2012 at 12:58 PM
    Reason: spelling (do not want to be wrong for the Lord )
    Add pkrnut1 to Rail
  16.  
    Originally Posted by rayspizza View Post

    If that video, is the highlight from the debates then Dr. Paul has no fucking chance.

    This was his best moment in my opinion.

     3
    Add Dyzalot to Rail
  17.  
    Originally Posted by Dyzalot View Post

    I am arguing no such thing. It appears those arguing for ratification were making such a statement as it pertains to the federal government. If it was sold as a government without implied powers then that's what it should be no matter what anyone wishes.

    Yet, it was the First Congress which chartered the Bank of the United States. I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't say anywhere "the Congress shall have Power to charter a Bank of the United States." Yet, the First Congress was made up almost entirely of people who were highly involved with the writing of the Constitution, its ratification, or both. Explain?

    edit: I'm also unsure of what it means that there could be no implied powers. The First Congress also established the Department of War. Yet there is no part of the Constitution which explicitly states that the Congress may establish a Department of War, or any Department at all. Are you saying that the ratifiers meant that every law that was not specifically provided for in the Constitution required a Constitutional Amendment first?
    Edited By: Lord Supremo Feb 24th, 2012 at 01:09 PM
    Add Lord Supremo to Rail
  18. Well Jefferson, Madison and the Attorney General at the time all opposed it and said it wasn't Constitutional because the power wasn't enumerated. Hamilton said the federal government has every power available to it except those expressley denied by the Constitution. I wish I could read the arguments made in the different houses at the time but can't find anything. The wiki does say this:

     

    Like most of the Southern members of Congress (indeed like most members of Congress in general), neither Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson nor Representative James Madison had any particular interest in two of Hamilton's tripartite recommendations: the establishing of an official government Mint, and the chartering of the Bank of the United States. They believed this centralization of power away from private banks was dangerous to a sound monetary system and was mostly to the benefit of business interests in the commercial north, not southern agricultural interests. They furthermore argued that the creation of such a bank violated the Constitution, which did not list the creation of a Bank of the United States or of a government mint among the expressed powers allowed to the federal government

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_B..._United_States

    That certainly makes it sound like there was widespread opposition to it in the Congress. I would also disagree with Hamilton since that is not how the Constitution was "sold" to the states.

     
    Originally Posted by Lord Supremo View Post

    . Are you saying that the ratifiers meant that every law that was not specifically provided for in the Constitution required a Constitutional Amendment first?

    Not every law, every power.

     

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    and

     

    shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

    Appears to say that Congress may make departments to carry out any powers delegated to it or the executive by the Constitution. Since the power to wage war was delegated to it then they had the power to create a department to oversee or administer that power. There was no power enumerated to them to create a banking system or oversee one.
    Edited By: Dyzalot Feb 24th, 2012 at 02:04 PM
     3
    Add Dyzalot to Rail
  19. http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articl...tt-romneys-vp/


    Rand Paul VP in 2012? Not sure how I feel about this, but Im leaning towards it being a good thing.
    Edited By: mattg1983 Feb 24th, 2012 at 05:19 PM
    Add mattg1983 to Rail
  20. Missing the newsworthy part

    “I don’t know if I can answer that question, but I can say it would be an honor to be considered,” said Mr. Paul.

    Nothing to see here
    Add Zeppelin to Rail
  21. Lol headline says it would be a honor to serve as Romneys vice president.

    paul really said It would be a honor to be considered.

    Lol Journalism these days
    Edited By: dolphin13 Feb 24th, 2012 at 05:23 PM
    Add dolphin13 to Rail
  22.  3
    Add Dyzalot to Rail
  23. Edited By: LVpokerdealer Feb 24th, 2012 at 06:59 PM
    Add LVpokerdealer to Rail
  24.  
    Originally Posted by dolphin13 View Post

    Lol headline says it would be a honor to serve as Romneys vice president.

    paul really said It would be a honor to be considered.

    Lol Journalism these days

    Yea thats a pretty big difference. I know this is just a rumor, but it definitely seems possible.
    Add mattg1983 to Rail
  25.  
    Originally Posted by mattg1983 View Post

    http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articl...tt-romneys-vp/


    Rand Paul VP in 2012? Not sure how I feel about this, but Im leaning towards it being a good thing.


    1st I don't think it would happen.

    2nd I don't think it would be a good idea because Romney won't beat Obama and you don't want to attach yourself to a loser. Unless Rand is able to speak his mind on the issues which is unlikely because they differ from Romney then I don't see any upside to it (unless by a miracle Romney becomes President).

    I think the Paul movement will continue to grow after 4 more year of increased debt, devaluing the dollar, unnecessary wars so that in 2016 he will have a shot at the nomination. There has been a good amount of growth between 08-2012 and I expect that to continue.

    Just my opinion though.
     
    Add WiCane to Rail
  26. All the media talks about is how Rick Santorum is the conservative candidate and Mitt Romney isn't. Ron Paul is trying to win the conservative vote. Why should he attack Romney who most conservatives aren't voting for anyway?
    Add SerlinSteak19 to Rail
  27. I also think Rand sees how "the GOP establishment" treats his dad. He's not going to go out of his way to alienate he GOP for no good reason. His policies already do enough of that. He'd just say something like i am honored to be considered but wants to focus on working in the senate or something. Unlike Ron, Rand has a real shot at becoming president. There's no way he accepts the vp slot. Zero chance. I'd lay 10,000 to 1 but Kevin would take me up on it.
    Edited By: dolphin13 Feb 24th, 2012 at 07:49 PM
    Add dolphin13 to Rail
  28. zero chance rand would accept it

    Ohhhh and be sure to root for these guys Sunday at the Daytona 500 even though I have never watched a NASCAR event



    Add LVpokerdealer to Rail
  29.  
    Originally Posted by mattg1983 View Post

    http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articl...tt-romneys-vp/

    Rand Paul VP in 2012? Not sure how I feel about this, but Im leaning towards it being a good thing.

    Lol, that quote is so out of context. "It would be an honor to serve" is a lot different than, "it would be an honor to be considered".

     
    Originally Posted by WiCane View Post

    I think the Paul movement will continue to grow after 4 more year of increased debt, devaluing the dollar, unnecessary wars so that in 2016 he will have a shot at the nomination. There has been a good amount of growth between 08-2012 and I expect that to continue.

    Just my opinion though.

    I agree with this. I think a lot more people are running for offices like Congress and Senate that have been inspired by the Paul movement. Even if he is not elected as president this term, more and more liberty minded people sitting in the House and Senate only increase our strength as a voice in government. I think that is what he means by a revolution takes time.
    Add P0KERDUUDE to Rail
  30. Article from the Washington Post regarding the Paul/Romney relationship.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...LaXR_blog.html
    Add dixiecrat88 to Rail

Similar Threads