Ron Paul : Stop Dreaming

[HoleInTheVoid]

Why would the President be discussing troop movements with the press in the first place?

You're an idiot.

 

[pegwinn]

3. I have heard this argument before. If I may...

Yes, it was a debate, but the federalists were expounding as to why they wrote what they wrote, a document already produced. They were not seeking Gov George Clinton's (who through some bizarrely frakish teleporter accident would later split into George Bush and Bill Clinton...think about it, man!) advice on its final form.

I am unaware of anything in Fed 23 that contradicts our Constitution and as such will treat it as representative of their thoughts on the extent of executive power.

Furthermore, if we cannot rely on the FP than surely the body of all other founding commentary must equally be jeopardized. We cannot chance such things as the RKBA to the unanchored opinion of judicial fads. Rather, we have a duty to call upon the extra-constitutional writings of the founders that comport with the Constitution to act as bulwarks.

4. Sen Kerry was at least guilty of the Logan Act.

I understand your reasoning and really don't have a problem with it. But I believe we will simply agree to disagree. My issue is that when the judiciary uses documents that are not legally binding such as the FP, the AFP, and the Danbury Letter to justify a decision we are no longer creating constitutionally based law. Simply look at the the effect of the DL on something as benign as prayer or the words "under god".

I do understand the value of correct intent and interpretation. If one of the founders were alive today then direct questioning would be alright I think. For example we can still ask some of the drafters of the 27th Amendment for "intent" currently if we feel a need. If I can get my old oujia board working then we might get a shot at the rest. I will trust Captain Kirk and Spock to fix the transporter malfunction ASAP [shudder].

As to JFKerry, I offer this for light reading.