Another Victory for Ron Paul

[Google]

LAKE JACKSON, Texas – Today, 2012 GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul again took first place in a straw poll at a major conservative gathering. The Republican Leadership Conference held in New Orleans was the setting for Congressman Paul’s latest victory, who won with 40% of the vote.
Ron Paul Wins RLC Straw Poll « Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee

There is no other candidate shown the level of disrespect by the media than Ron Paul so far in this young primary campaign. When covering the last CPAC, Fox News listed the possible straw poll winner. Failing to mention Paul, one of the commentators suggested he might win , to which the host responded "yes but he has no chance", and that was that.

Ron Paul did win that straw poll.

I was listening to Limbaugh the day after the last debate and was enraged when he said "it's refreshing to hear this perspective of the wars" (paraphrasing), referring to Romney's genius statement that America should not be fighting other country's war for independence. Paul's stance is the same as it was in 2008 when Hannity and Limbaugh savaged him as unAmerican.

 

[rightwinger]

Paul is a nice guy.....


We know what happens to nice guys

 

[jillian]

you think ron paul is shown disrespect?

i think he's given far more attention than his limited appeal and knowledge deserves.

but then again, i feel that way about a lot of people who are given far more credence than they should.

 

[Liberty]

Paul isn't that nice. He is going to throw the statists in a gigantic toilet filled with the piss of patriots..I am looking forward to it, figuratively.

 

[rightwinger]

Paul isn't that nice. He is going to throw the statists in a gigantic toilet filled with the piss of patriots..I am looking forward to it, figuratively.

Paul has his loyal 10% who swarm every poll. Still won't get him any delegates in the Republican primaries

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Paul’s ignorance of Constitutional case law is profound, it obviously runs in the family given the son’s Civil Rights Act fiasco.

 

[Liberty]

Paul’s ignorance of Constitutional case law is profound, it obviously runs in the family given the son’s Civil Rights Act fiasco.

Case law...lol. Constitution is the law of the land, not the whims of biased men and women who have the flaws of human existence.

 

[rightwinger]

Paul’s ignorance of Constitutional case law is profound, it obviously runs in the family given the son’s Civil Rights Act fiasco.

Case law...lol. Constitution is the law of the land, not the whims of biased men and women who have the flaws of human existence.

No it isn't ...where have you been for the last 200 years?

 

[Liberty]

Paul’s ignorance of Constitutional case law is profound, it obviously runs in the family given the son’s Civil Rights Act fiasco.

Case law...lol. Constitution is the law of the land, not the whims of biased men and women who have the flaws of human existence.

No it isn't ...where have you been for the last 200 years?

so, where in the constitution does it say judges interpret?

 

[rightwinger]

Case law...lol. Constitution is the law of the land, not the whims of biased men and women who have the flaws of human existence.

No it isn't ...where have you been for the last 200 years?

so, where in the constitution does it say judges interpret?

Mar bury vs Madison

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Mar bury vs Madison

Clear Constitutional heresy to the radical right.

 

[Liberty]

ok, thats a court case. I don't see it anywhere in the constitution. what article/section ?

 

[Big Black Dog]

Ron Paul? Disrespect? You haven't heard media disrespect yet. Just wait until Sarah Palin tosses her name into the pot. They will flood the airwaves with disrespect.

 

[grunt11b]

ok, thats a court case. I don't see it anywhere in the constitution. what article/section ?

It's like pissing in the wind dude, you will never convince them or be able to educate them on such things, they only know that they love cherry flavored koolaid, and that's all that matters to them.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Judges are supposed to decide if a law that come before their court is CONSTITUTIONAL. The only interpreting they are supposed to do is decide if a law is CONSTITUTIONAL.

Unlike the Florida Supreme Court who asked Algore's lawyers how much time they needed for a recount and then gave it to them thus creating Law.

 

[Susan45]

Article III
Section 1.

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 behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2.

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 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.

Article III | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[Liberty]

Thanks Susan, sheesh I am still having a problem finding the word interpret. Perhaps you can narrow it down for my stupid ass?

 

[Contumacious]

you think ron paul is shown disrespect?

i think he's given far more attention than his limited appeal and knowledge deserves.

but then again, i feel that way about a lot of people who are given far more credence than they should.

I agree with you.

I really can not believe that he gets attention by just promising Liberty and restoring the constitution.

He needs to get his act together, we need more handouts, more military involvements,

don't worry, he won't make it.

.

 

[rightwinger]

ok, thats a court case. I don't see it anywhere in the constitution. what article/section ?

The Constitution is a living document and evolves through the amendment process and court decisions

Welcome to the 21st century

 

[Liberty]

ok, thats a court case. I don't see it anywhere in the constitution. what article/section ?

The Constitution is a living document and evolves through the amendment process and court decisions

Welcome to the 21st century

that's incorrect, son. The Constitution is the law of the land, so perhaps you can cite for me where in the Constitution it says that courts interpret?