Mark Levin's Liberal Constitutional Arguments...

Discussion in 'Politics' started by paulitician, Jan 19, 2012.

  1. paulitician
    Offline

    paulitician Platinum Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    38,401
    Thanks Received:
    4,137
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +11,976
    Intertesting take from Jack Hunter.


    Mark Levin is one of the most intelligent talk radio hosts in the business. He is also one of the most philosophically inconsistent. This is especially true when it comes to interpreting the U.S. Constitution. It is even truer when Levin criticizes Ron Paul.

    Last week, Levin told The Daily Caller’s Jamie Weinstein that if Paul won the GOP nomination and faced President Obama in November’s general election, he “would have to write somebody in because Ron Paul’s foreign policy is so antithetical to traditional conservative foreign policy.” He added: “I have other problems with [Paul]. I don’t think his interpretation of the Constitution is always accurate …”

    Being within the Republican mainstream on foreign policy is not the same thing as being a constitutionalist. Ron Paul’s foreign policy position is that of the Founders — not necessarily the Republican one, or the Democrat one, but the constitutional one. There was a time when the constitutional position on anything was also considered the conservative position.

    Levin’s willingness to circumvent the Constitution when it doesn’t jibe with his foreign policy views was highlighted well last year when the talk host defended President Obama’s “right” to send troops to Libya without consulting Congress.

    When Obama decided to intervene militarily in Libya, some Capitol Hill leaders in both parties decided to question whether the president had the authority to do so. Ron Paul was one of them. Not surprisingly, when George W. Bush was president, Obama was one of them too. In 2007, then-Senator Obama said, “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”



    Read more: Ron Paul | Mark Levin | Mark Levin's liberal constitutional arguments | The Daily Caller
     
  2. Katzndogz
    Offline

    Katzndogz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    65,659
    Thanks Received:
    7,418
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +8,337
    Ron Paul's interpretation of the Constitution really isn't always accurate. People believe that it is, because Paul prefaces his most erroneous statements with "Constitution".
     
  3. The Infidel
    Offline

    The Infidel EVIL CONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    May 19, 2010
    Messages:
    17,252
    Thanks Received:
    3,170
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    AMERITOPIA
    Ratings:
    +3,173

    You lost me there
     
  4. DiamondDave
    Offline

    DiamondDave Army Vet

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    18,169
    Thanks Received:
    2,812
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    MD, on the Potomac River
    Ratings:
    +2,816
    Paul's position on foreign policy is indeed not always consistent with the constitution...

    But his followers are almost like the libertarian version of Obamabots... and almost preach it like if Paul said it, it is inherently in strict alignment with the constitution
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. The Infidel
    Offline

    The Infidel EVIL CONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    May 19, 2010
    Messages:
    17,252
    Thanks Received:
    3,170
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    AMERITOPIA
    Ratings:
    +3,173

    Funny... Levin is a 'constitutional lawyer', but Ru-Paul is right :cuckoo:

    I wish that dumbass would just run third party and get it over with. He is a waste of time if ya ask me, and should NOT be able to run as Republican candidate.... Unless he promises to run as a Republican, which he will not do.

     
  6. paulitician
    Offline

    paulitician Platinum Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    38,401
    Thanks Received:
    4,137
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +11,976
    Well that's what the dispute is all about i guess. Personally,i know for sure Levin isn't consistent with his interpretation of the Constitution.
     
  7. paulitician
    Offline

    paulitician Platinum Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    38,401
    Thanks Received:
    4,137
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +11,976
    How so?
     
  8. DiamondDave
    Offline

    DiamondDave Army Vet

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    18,169
    Thanks Received:
    2,812
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    MD, on the Potomac River
    Ratings:
    +2,816
    Nor is Paul
     
  9. The Infidel
    Offline

    The Infidel EVIL CONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    May 19, 2010
    Messages:
    17,252
    Thanks Received:
    3,170
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    AMERITOPIA
    Ratings:
    +3,173

    Levin follows it to the tee.... you just prove to me you know less than ya think.
    Of course your a Paul-bot and that explains alot.

    Why wont R. Paul promise to not run 3rd party?

    He is chickenshit.
     
  10. paulitician
    Offline

    paulitician Platinum Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    38,401
    Thanks Received:
    4,137
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +11,976
    Levin's take on the Libyan War was very disappointing. I lost a lot of faith in him after that.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2012

Share This Page