Ron Paul and the Constitutional

Discussion in 'History Forum' started by Salty, Jan 6, 2012.

  1. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,127
    Likes Received:
    221
    Ron Paul claims to be strict when it comes to going by the constitution.

    Do you think he would he have fully supported the original constitutional provisions of slavery and the 3/5 compromise?
     
  2. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Constitution as amended. Discussing the original is not productive.
     
  3. matt wade

    matt wade
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,156
    Likes Received:
    76
    I think he would have done as any law abiding Christan would have done. Obey the law and fight, legally, to change the law.

    The only time we as Christians should disobey the law is if it is in opposition to the commands of God.
     
  4. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,922
    Likes Received:
    295
    If he is as much of a constitutionalist as he claims, he would have supported them at that time as the law of the land.

    If not, then he is simply not what he claims to be.
     
  5. Ruiz

    Ruiz
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is somewhat irrational. Paul is not a major fan aspects of the Constitution; however, he believes they should be changed in accordance to the Constitution's view. I don't agree with the interpretations of the Commerce Clause, but I am not against the Constitution, but for rightly changing the Constitution to reflect a better understanding. Paul would agree.
     
  6. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,127
    Likes Received:
    221
    Interesting sub-topic of the OP.

    Actually, I am not against the commerce clause - but I do believe it has been improperly interpreted.


    A (somewhat) case in point - the Feds have outlawed the incandescent light bulb (which is think is a bunch of hogwash) but South Carolina has passed the "The Incandescent Light Bulb Freedom Act," which will allow companies in SC to produce theses bulbs - but will only allowed to be sold in SC.

    It will be interesting to see if this gets to the courts - and if so - how will the commerce clause affect this?
     
  7. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,922
    Likes Received:
    295
    If he is what he claims to be, he would support them as the law of the land. Disgreeing with it would not alter his support at that time , even though he may be working to change it.

    Seems to me you are the one who is being irrational, or at least, disingenious about who Ron Paul really is.
     
  8. Ruiz

    Ruiz
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, he supports the constitution unless it is rightfully amended. He can still disagree with the Constitution and work to rightfully amend or change the law. Every leader in an organization has been confronted with these same issues, they must obey and support the business rules, while also looking for ways to change the ones they disagree with.

    That is not contradictory, that is real life.
     
    #8 Ruiz, Jan 10, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 10, 2012
  9. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,922
    Likes Received:
    295
    No kidding. :rolleyes:

    You're just being argumentative. We're saying the same things. I guess you just like the sond of your own words better.:wavey:
     
  10. Ruiz

    Ruiz
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    Carpro,

    I disagree, I am not merely picking a debate. The statement you made seems to attack the idea he was a supporter of the Constitution he would have supported the slave amendment at the time. That is exactly the phrase I was attacking. Rather, he supported the Constitution enough to say that some areas should be properly amended, this is not an attack of the Constitution, but an understanding that it is not innerent. A vastly different distinction is being made.
     
  11. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the majority of the states vetoed the Constitution because of the 3/5ths compromise then we would (might be) still under the Articles of Confederation. Would this have been good or bad in the short run?
     
  12. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Adtually this question is moot as it is worded.

    Counting (the census upon which representation was based... ) persons as 3/5's was not intended to count people.... slave or free as less than human..... though it may seem that way in retrospect considering the mistreatment and abuses in our country. ......In reality today...... this law is a good law if one considers the counting of immigrants whether legal or not... who are not yet citizens. When our census is now taken, it counts all persons. It is possible to conceive that one state may have a higher number of representatives although its citizenship numbers may be actually lower than another.... due to the additional numbers of immigrants present in the census count.

    Ron Paul would support the Constitution as it now stands.

    He would more likely distinguish sharply between that legislation which imposes control over the states and reduce the size of federal agencies and their power to create and impose regulations and fines upon businesses and people within the states.... and also confined federal law intrusion to those areas which are truly a concern of the federal government ...... unless specific need and request was made by a state. .....These are my opinion. I'm not active in his campaign but I do and will support him.

    As for the American public believing that any one man can be an answer to the problems in our country..... There will never be an answer to the frailities of human government as long as God allows the god of this world to reign. Likewise.... there will never be peace until the Prince of Peace is on His throne..... and the world, then, will neither be a republic nor a democracy. But this doesn't mean that God might grant us a brief reprieve from the judgment our country is facing.... Provided that those who claim to trust Him truely WILL to trust Him and obey Him and turn from the wickedness in our ways.

    Many peoples of the world are hoping to see our nation and its foundations of liberty to be restored.... but the globalist leadership of the nations of the world and within our own government, media, and political parties leadership (and, sadly, many of our professing evangelical Christian leadership is pandering to) is afraid of a man such as Ron Paul as it would slow the progress towards the NWO which George H. W. Bush so proudly herald into vision.
     
  13. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    >Actually, I am not against the commerce clause - but I do believe it has been improperly interpreted.

    Immaterial because only the Supreme Court has the constitutional right and mandate to interpret the Constitution.
     

Share This Page

Loading...