Quote from Ron Paul

Yes, anyone that takes the Constitution literally must be crazy!

Here is what I was trying to show you regarding the Supreme Court giving themselves the authority/power:

The Framers of the Constitution didn't give to the Supreme Court the power to interpret the constitutionality of laws made by Congress. The Supreme Court itself did this, in an unanimous opinion written by the notorious Federalist Chief Justice John Marshall, in the case of Marbry v. Madison in 1803. This decision - handed down when Thomas Jefferson was president - so upset Jefferson that he suggested (in a letter to Abigail Adams on 9/11/1804) that if the Court were to fall into the wrong hands, it "would make the judiciary a despotic branch."

He noted in that letter that he tried to prevent this sort of danger within the courts in general by achieving balance between his own Democratic Republican Party (now called simply the Democratic Party) and the Federalists (who today are reincarnated as Republicans). "In making these appointments," he wrote, "I put in a proportion of federalists, equal, I believe, to the proportion they bear in numbers through the Union generally."

Jefferson added: "Both of our political parties, at least the honest part of them, agree conscientiously in the same object - the public good; but they differ essentially in what they deem the means of promoting that good. ... One [the Federalists] fears most the ignorance of the people; the other [the Democratic Republicans], the selfishness of rulers independent of them. Which is right, time and experience will prove."

The new Federalists - Bush's Republicans - clearly fear We The People, and cherish their own power to rule independent of us. And if they can seize control of the Supreme Court before the next elections, their power may become nearly absolute.

Supreme Court - Media Ignore Possible "Fascist" Play

I disagree with your assertion that todays Democratic Party bears any resemblance to Jefferson's Republicans. There is no major party today that has any resemblance to Jefferson's Republicans, and todays Republicans and Democrats are far closer to the Federalist and Whig parties of the past.

Well no, the old Federalists and Republicans would not fit in today with the modern dems and reps, but the fact is, the Republicans that freed the slaves back then overtime have become the Democrats and the GOP today were the Federalists.
 
Here is what I was trying to show you regarding the Supreme Court giving themselves the authority/power:

The Framers of the Constitution didn't give to the Supreme Court the power to interpret the constitutionality of laws made by Congress. The Supreme Court itself did this, in an unanimous opinion written by the notorious Federalist Chief Justice John Marshall, in the case of Marbry v. Madison in 1803. This decision - handed down when Thomas Jefferson was president - so upset Jefferson that he suggested (in a letter to Abigail Adams on 9/11/1804) that if the Court were to fall into the wrong hands, it "would make the judiciary a despotic branch."

He noted in that letter that he tried to prevent this sort of danger within the courts in general by achieving balance between his own Democratic Republican Party (now called simply the Democratic Party) and the Federalists (who today are reincarnated as Republicans). "In making these appointments," he wrote, "I put in a proportion of federalists, equal, I believe, to the proportion they bear in numbers through the Union generally."

Jefferson added: "Both of our political parties, at least the honest part of them, agree conscientiously in the same object - the public good; but they differ essentially in what they deem the means of promoting that good. ... One [the Federalists] fears most the ignorance of the people; the other [the Democratic Republicans], the selfishness of rulers independent of them. Which is right, time and experience will prove."

The new Federalists - Bush's Republicans - clearly fear We The People, and cherish their own power to rule independent of us. And if they can seize control of the Supreme Court before the next elections, their power may become nearly absolute.

Supreme Court - Media Ignore Possible "Fascist" Play

I disagree with your assertion that todays Democratic Party bears any resemblance to Jefferson's Republicans. There is no major party today that has any resemblance to Jefferson's Republicans, and todays Republicans and Democrats are far closer to the Federalist and Whig parties of the past.

Well no, the old Federalists and Republicans would not fit in today with the modern dems and reps, but the fact is, the Republicans that freed the slaves back then overtime have become the Democrats and the GOP today were the Federalists.

I don't think Lincoln's Republicans became todays Democrats, I think they stayed the same big government party that they were back then. I think the Democrats of Lincoln's day simply became statists as well.
 
I disagree with your assertion that todays Democratic Party bears any resemblance to Jefferson's Republicans. There is no major party today that has any resemblance to Jefferson's Republicans, and todays Republicans and Democrats are far closer to the Federalist and Whig parties of the past.

Well no, the old Federalists and Republicans would not fit in today with the modern dems and reps, but the fact is, the Republicans that freed the slaves back then overtime have become the Democrats and the GOP today were the Federalists.

I don't think Lincoln's Republicans became todays Democrats, I think they stayed the same big government party that they were back then. I think the Democrats of Lincoln's day simply became statists as well.

Why didn't I love history when I was in highschool? I love this shit now.

Federalist Party, which wanted a fiscally sound and strong nationalistic government and was opposed by the Democratic-Republicans.

The Democratic-Republican Party was founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison around 1792. Supporters usually identified themselves as Republicans,[1] but sometimes as Democrats.[2] The term "Democratic Republican" was also used by contemporaries, but mostly by the party's opponents.[3] It was the dominant political party in the United States from 1800 to 1824, when it split into competing factions, one of which became the modern Democratic Party.


The Whig Party was a political party of the United States during the era of Jacksonian democracy. Considered integral to the Second Party System and operating from 1833 to 1856,[2] the party was formed in opposition to the policies of President Andrew Jackson and the Democratic Party. In particular, the Whigs supported the supremacy of Congress over the executive branch and favored a program of modernization and economic protectionism.
 
"Without the right to secede, state’s rights are meaningless"

that's from his yesterday's myspace blog.

as always Ron Paul is right.

As usual RP is as crazy as bat shit.

No retard, Ron Paul is wrong on this, but the man is right on many many things and is asset on Congress. Would I like him as the President or Governor of my State? NO! But in the Congress absolutely.

See liberal douche bags like yourself always paint conservatives with a blanket brush. You can't ever say he is dead wrong on this, but the man is right on with this!
 
Yes, in the case of Marbury v. Madison Chief Justice John Marshall essentially stated that the Supreme Court has the right of judicial review, which means that they have the right to decide if a law is constitutional or not. However, it was taken for granted at the time that the other branches were also responsible for dealing with matters of constitutionality, along with the individual states. For instance, the Supreme Court declared that the Second Bank of the United States, which was a national bank on par with the Federal Reserve today, was constitutional, but President Andrew Jackson disagreed and put an end to it. Also of note should be the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 which were authored by Thomas Jefferson. Which state:

"The government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."

The entire document is a firm defense of states' rights and absolutely opposed to the view Jillian takes that apparently the Constitution did away with the idea of Federalism. I recommend reading the whole thing.

The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

And in the new reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act - a piece of legislation almost certain to eventually come before the Supreme Court - Section 3605 expands the Secret Service (SS) from a Presidential protection detail to a national police force with the power to designate anyplace where people are meeting in the USA as a SENS (Special Event of National Significance).

Once a SENS is established - anywhere, anytime, at the sole discretion of the SS (and it's not even necessary that the President or any other Executive Branch member be present) - the SS shall have the power to (quoting the new PATRIOT Act provisions) "carry firearms" and "make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony."

Samuel Alito not only would support such expansions of Presidential power on the Supreme Court, he was the author and/or principle proponent of several of the devices used today by Bush to secure such power (including the argument that the power of the Presidency is "unitary").

The vote this week about Samuel Alito is not a vote about Republicans versus Democrats. It's a vote about the future of democracy in the United States of America.

Do we accept Madison's vision of a nation in search of peace and with personal privacy intact, or do we embrace Sam Alito's vision of questionable elections, concentration camps, spying on citizens to create an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty, repression of women's and minority rights, and war without end?

As our legislators vote, we must carefully note their positions on this issue. Their oath of office is not to the President or even to "protect the people," but to the Constitution. And it is the Constitution - and the future of our democratic republic - that is at stake here.

Yes, the Patriot Act certainly is an assault on the Constitution.

Name were in the constitution that it directly states that Americans have a right to privacy? I am not talking about inferences, I am talking about actual words, since that is all you seem to be interested in.

As a libertarian you believe in privacy right correct, but what do you do with freedom of the press guaranteed by the 1st amendment? A good chunk of the time you can't have both, to deny one would go again your belief system!
 
And in the new reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act - a piece of legislation almost certain to eventually come before the Supreme Court - Section 3605 expands the Secret Service (SS) from a Presidential protection detail to a national police force with the power to designate anyplace where people are meeting in the USA as a SENS (Special Event of National Significance).

Once a SENS is established - anywhere, anytime, at the sole discretion of the SS (and it's not even necessary that the President or any other Executive Branch member be present) - the SS shall have the power to (quoting the new PATRIOT Act provisions) "carry firearms" and "make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony."

Samuel Alito not only would support such expansions of Presidential power on the Supreme Court, he was the author and/or principle proponent of several of the devices used today by Bush to secure such power (including the argument that the power of the Presidency is "unitary").

The vote this week about Samuel Alito is not a vote about Republicans versus Democrats. It's a vote about the future of democracy in the United States of America.

Do we accept Madison's vision of a nation in search of peace and with personal privacy intact, or do we embrace Sam Alito's vision of questionable elections, concentration camps, spying on citizens to create an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty, repression of women's and minority rights, and war without end?

As our legislators vote, we must carefully note their positions on this issue. Their oath of office is not to the President or even to "protect the people," but to the Constitution. And it is the Constitution - and the future of our democratic republic - that is at stake here.

Yes, the Patriot Act certainly is an assault on the Constitution.

Name were in the constitution that it directly states that Americans have a right to privacy? I am not talking about inferences, I am talking about actual words, since that is all you seem to be interested in.

As a libertarian you believe in privacy right correct, but what do you do with freedom of the press guaranteed by the 1st amendment? A good chunk of the time you can't have both, to deny one would go again your belief system!

Quite the conundrum, but luckily for me the framers put in the 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights wasn't necessarily necessary, because these rights were thought to be inherent. However, opponents of the Constitution refused to sign on unless the Bill of Rights was added. Without the Bill of Rights those rights would still be ours, as well as rights not mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Such as a right to privacy from government as you brought up. The 9th amendment backs me up on this.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - 9th Amendment

Now as to your assertion that I must state exactly where the right to privacy is in the Constitution.

"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." - 10th Amendment

Therefore, the Constitution limits the powers of the federal government by explicitly stating their only legitimate powers, and doesn't have to list the rights of the people of the United States.
 
Yes, the Patriot Act certainly is an assault on the Constitution.

Name were in the constitution that it directly states that Americans have a right to privacy? I am not talking about inferences, I am talking about actual words, since that is all you seem to be interested in.

As a libertarian you believe in privacy right correct, but what do you do with freedom of the press guaranteed by the 1st amendment? A good chunk of the time you can't have both, to deny one would go again your belief system!

Quite the conundrum, but luckily for me the framers put in the 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights wasn't necessarily necessary, because these rights were thought to be inherent. However, opponents of the Constitution refused to sign on unless the Bill of Rights was added. Without the Bill of Rights those rights would still be ours, as well as rights not mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Such as a right to privacy from government as you brought up. The 9th amendment backs me up on this.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - 9th Amendment

Now as to your assertion that I must state exactly where the right to privacy is in the Constitution.

"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." - 10th Amendment

Therefore, the Constitution limits the powers of the federal government by explicitly stating their only legitimate powers, and doesn't have to list the rights of the people of the United States.

Good job of proving my point! There is no place in the constitution AT ALL that directly protects privacy, yet its a cherished right so common law found that privacy protection was found in the prenumbras of the constitution.

But strokers like you will always call on the 10th amendment of the constitution likes its god's own words, but then conveniently dismiss the supremacy clause of Article VI Clause 2. You will also conveniently forget the commerce clause of Article I Section 8 Clause 2. Believe what you want to believe, but just as Obama is not a real Messiah that the left holds him out as, Ron Paul is not the real Messiah that the Anarchist hold him out as!
 
Name were in the constitution that it directly states that Americans have a right to privacy? I am not talking about inferences, I am talking about actual words, since that is all you seem to be interested in.

As a libertarian you believe in privacy right correct, but what do you do with freedom of the press guaranteed by the 1st amendment? A good chunk of the time you can't have both, to deny one would go again your belief system!

Quite the conundrum, but luckily for me the framers put in the 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights wasn't necessarily necessary, because these rights were thought to be inherent. However, opponents of the Constitution refused to sign on unless the Bill of Rights was added. Without the Bill of Rights those rights would still be ours, as well as rights not mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Such as a right to privacy from government as you brought up. The 9th amendment backs me up on this.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - 9th Amendment

Now as to your assertion that I must state exactly where the right to privacy is in the Constitution.

"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." - 10th Amendment

Therefore, the Constitution limits the powers of the federal government by explicitly stating their only legitimate powers, and doesn't have to list the rights of the people of the United States.

Good job of proving my point! There is no place in the constitution AT ALL that directly protects privacy, yet its a cherished right so common law found that privacy protection was found in the prenumbras of the constitution.

But strokers like you will always call on the 10th amendment of the constitution likes its god's own words, but then conveniently dismiss the supremacy clause of Article VI Clause 2. You will also conveniently forget the commerce clause of Article I Section 8 Clause 2. Believe what you want to believe, but just as Obama is not a real Messiah that the left holds him out as, Ron Paul is not the real Messiah that the Anarchist hold him out as!

You would do well to quote the relevant section of the Constitution that you believe forbids the states from seceding, I've found that there are few that will simply go look something up on their own. Luckily for our discussion I am familiar with both clauses that you've cited.

We've already concluded that the Constitution does not forbid secession, therefore the states may engage that particular right. However, you contend that these two clauses in some way restrict their right to secede. I disagree. Once a state secedes from the Union it takes the powers that it ceded to the federal government back, and becomes its own independent nation once again. The Constitution of the United States no longer applies. It means that the state no longer gives any powers to the federal government and it is no longer prohibited to do anything under the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Congress will no longer be able to regulate any part of its commerce, and it will no longer be bound by the laws of the United States government.
 
You would do well to quote the relevant section of the Constitution that you believe forbids the states from seceding, I've found that there are few that will simply go look something up on their own. Luckily for our discussion I am familiar with both clauses that you've cited.

We've already concluded that the Constitution does not forbid secession, therefore the states may engage that particular right. However, you contend that these two clauses in some way restrict their right to secede. I disagree. Once a state secedes from the Union it takes the powers that it ceded to the federal government back, and becomes its own independent nation once again. The Constitution of the United States no longer applies. It means that the state no longer gives any powers to the federal government and it is no longer prohibited to do anything under the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Congress will no longer be able to regulate any part of its commerce, and it will no longer be bound by the laws of the United States government.

I have agreed that the Constitution does not forbid secession outright? However, it does not forbid rape, murder or theft, so does that mean I can go out an start killing, raping and stealing? NO! Other things shape our laws than just the constitutions, but you would need an education before you had a real discussion on it. Ron Paul is the self-proclaimed expert on the constitution, yet his background is in the medical field, not the legal field. Right there is a fault for the anarchist Messiah!

The idea of secession was settled during the Civil War (a war THAT NEEDED TO BE FAUGHT and WAS NECESSARY), end of story! This is a moot point probably less than 1% of 1% of Americans would even pick up on this anarchist argument!

And do note as I have stated many many times, there is much to like about Ron Paul. The man has great idea about smaller government, spending, the border, free trade agreements, taxation etc., but he also has too radical of ideas to just follow blindly! It is not an accident that Ron Paul as attracted a very large following amongst the anarchist, 9/11 truther and self-hating Americans. I think Ron Paul is none of these things, but the people who follow him is telling!
 
Last edited:
You would do well to quote the relevant section of the Constitution that you believe forbids the states from seceding, I've found that there are few that will simply go look something up on their own. Luckily for our discussion I am familiar with both clauses that you've cited.

We've already concluded that the Constitution does not forbid secession, therefore the states may engage that particular right. However, you contend that these two clauses in some way restrict their right to secede. I disagree. Once a state secedes from the Union it takes the powers that it ceded to the federal government back, and becomes its own independent nation once again. The Constitution of the United States no longer applies. It means that the state no longer gives any powers to the federal government and it is no longer prohibited to do anything under the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Congress will no longer be able to regulate any part of its commerce, and it will no longer be bound by the laws of the United States government.

I have agreed that the Constitution does not forbid secession outright? However, it does not forbid rape, murder or theft, so does that mean I can go out an start killing, raping and stealing? NO! Other things shape our laws than just the constitutions, but you would need an education before you had a real discussion on it. Ron Paul is the self-proclaimed expert on the constitution, yet his background is in the medical field, not the legal field. Right there is a fault for the anarchist Messiah!

The idea of secession was settled during the Civil War (a war THAT NEEDED TO BE FAUGHT and WAS NECESSARY), end of story! This is a moot point probably less than 1% of 1% of Americans would even pick up on this anarchist argument!

And do note as I have stated many many times, there is much to like about Ron Paul. The man has great idea about smaller government, spending, the border, free trade agreements, taxation etc., but he also has too radical of ideas to just follow blindly! It is not an accident that Ron Paul as attracted a very large following amongst the anarchist, 9/11 truther and self-hating Americans. I think Ron Paul is none of these things, but the people who follow him is telling!

Whether or not you've agreed to it you haven't disproved it whatsoever. No, the Constitution does not forbid rape, murder, or theft. But as I stated before, the powers of the federal government and prohibitions to the states must, under the 10th amendment, be explicitly stated. The rights of the people, under the 9th amendment, don't necessarily have to be stated at all. So we retain the right to not be raped, murdered, or robbed despite the fact that the Constitution doesn't state that explicitly. One doesn't have to have a background in the legal field to be able to read the Constitution.

Secession was not settled during the unnecessary Civil War because the Constitution was not amended to make secession illegal.

Yes, there are some strange folks who like Ron Paul, but you get that in any kind of large group so its not surprising.
 
"Without the right to secede, state’s rights are meaningless"

that's from his yesterday's myspace blog.

as always Ron Paul is right.

I have ZERO problem with Texas seceding, I just hope they take Arkansas with them

I hope they take the WHOLE of America that is the HEART LAND, which in fact makes up about 95% OF IT! You can keep your liberal shit holes like NYC and LA, then we'll see who can win the next Civil War. Hell, we'll just starve you fools out and take our country back without so much as a shot fired.
 
I hope they take the WHOLE of America that is the HEART LAND, which in fact makes up about 95% OF IT! You can keep your liberal shit holes like NYC and LA, then we'll see who can win the next Civil War. Hell, we'll just starve you fools out and take our country back without so much as a shot fired.

Will be hard to starve em out if you let them have California.
 
I hope they take the WHOLE of America that is the HEART LAND, which in fact makes up about 95% OF IT! You can keep your liberal shit holes like NYC and LA, then we'll see who can win the next Civil War. Hell, we'll just starve you fools out and take our country back without so much as a shot fired.

Will be hard to starve em out if you let them have California.

Bull. You've never driven across America have you? They don't call the middle of America and the great plains "the bread basket" for nothing.

But just to add, not all of Cal is liberal. There's a lot of good people in California outside of the cess pools like LA and San Franqueerco. The conservatives in California could take the state back without help from anyone. They control the farms, the crop land, the live stock, the food, the water, the mountains. How are the city slickers going to fight that? They can't.
 
Last edited:
Bull. You've never driven across America have you? But just to add, not all of Cal is liberal. There's a lot of good people in California outside of the cess pools like LA and San Franqueerco. The conservatives in California could take the state back without help from anyone. They control the farms, the crop land, the water, the mountains. How are the city slickers going to fight that? They can't.

You don't know much about agriculture in California. They grow a lot of food there, and could grow more if they had to. If you divide the State up, that's one thing, but if the State was left intact they could provide for themselves.
 
Bull. You've never driven across America have you? But just to add, not all of Cal is liberal. There's a lot of good people in California outside of the cess pools like LA and San Franqueerco. The conservatives in California could take the state back without help from anyone. They control the farms, the crop land, the water, the mountains. How are the city slickers going to fight that? They can't.

You don't know much about agriculture in California. They grow a lot of food there, and could grow more if they had to. If you divide the State up, that's one thing, but if the State was left intact they could provide for themselves.


I'm so shocked that Pale Rider is completely full of shit:cuckoo:
 
To provide further info:

CDFA Stats

As you can see, about half of the fruits, nuts, and vegetables grown in the entire country are grown in California.

California’s agricultural sector gained a record 15 percent in the sales value of its products in 2007. Milk remained the No. 1 farm commodity, with a major recovery in 2007 compared to the depressed milk prices from a year earlier. The Golden State retained its ranking as the nation’s leading dairy producer by a wide margin, producing 22 percent of the U.S. milk supply.

California’s agricultural abundance includes 400 different commodities. Among these, the state produces about half of U.S.-grown fruits, nuts and vegetables.

California has 75,000 farms and ranches –– less than 4 percent of the nation’s total. Yet, the Golden State’s agricultural production represents 12.8 percent of the nation’s total value. California’s top 20 crop and livestock commodities accounted for more than $30 billion in value. Each of the top 10 commodities exceeded $1 billion in value. A combination of stronger prices and higher production resulted in nine of the 10 commodities registering an increase in value over 2006.

California’s agricultural exports reached an all-time high of $10.9 billion in 2007. This represents an 11 percent increase from 2006. In addition, 28 percent of California’s agricultural production was shipped to overseas markets.

California exported agricultural products to more than 156 countries worldwide. The 10 top export destinations accounted for 83 percent of the 2007 export value. Three destinations — Canada, European Union (EU-27) and Japan — accounted for nearly 57 percent of the export total.

Even though the primary market for California agricultural production is still the rest of the nation, foreign markets have become more important in recent years. For instance, in 1999 only 16 percent of the state’s production was being shipped to overseas markets compared with export gains made during this decade.

It is the quality, freshness and unparalleled flavor of California’s food products that makes California’s agricultural exports enjoyed around the world. With key international markets in Europe, Asia and North America, California agriculture is a “taste of sunshine” enjoyed by millions.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top