I came across this through one of Rick's Facebook pages and was wondering about the opinions of my Ron Paul supporter friends here. I would have liked to see more concrete quotes from Ron Paul given by Rick. I would like to further research this but just don't have the time now since I'll be gone for the rest of the day and this evening. I appreciate and thank you for your comments ahead of time. Note: The article continues below the large mid-page ad.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/santorum-constitution-and-declaration_617157.html
Rick Santorum, The Constitution, and the Declaration
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by PamelaK, Jan 18, 2012.
-
-
Opinions on what? There are no facts about any thing specific in this entire article. I'd be happy to comment on something, but need something to comment on.
-
>The Constitution has to be read in the context of another founding document, and that’s the Declaration of Independence.
100% wrong if the the USA is "a country ruled by law, not men." This is the same goofy argument used by the people who think we should be governed by British Common Law and Black's Dictionary. We are governed by case law because the Constitution requires it. -
Further, Santorum's statement is "insider speak" for "The Constitution has to be read in the context of another founding document, and that’s the King James Bible."
The Constitution as amended is not "a founding document." It is the law of the land. -
-
-
All case law is based on the Constitution.
-
-
The Primary Source Documents of the United States of America were The Declaration of Independence (July 1776), The Articles of Confederation (passed by Congress in 1777 and ratified by the 13 States in 1781), and the Federalist Papers of 1787.
The Constitution, on the other hand, started out to be a revision/amending of the Articles of Confederation, but after meeting all summer it was decided to draft an entirely new document, the Constitution.
The new Constitution was completed in late 1787 and Congress submitted the new Constitution to the States for ratification. In January of 1791 the last of the States ratified the new Constitution and in February of 1791 Congress met and affirmed it to be the law of the land. -
And, at least Ron Paul is an Evangelical (Baptist) while the "religious right" supports a practicing Roman Catholic. :) -
Currently he attends First Baptist Church in Lake Jackson (but not a member - Hmm - I wonder why) -
Ron Paul, from what I understand, is a regular church attender, tither, and supports the church.
And, FYI he stated why he, AND his children, left the Episcopal church...
" All of our children were raised in the Episcopal Church. Some [places] were fairly conservative but my wife and I thought the Episcopal Church advocated a position that we didn’t endorse, so we left. And our children did not stay in the Episcopal Church either.
I think it was the abortion issue. I imagine they had some other issues. But I think the abortion issue was the real big thing. And I think also some of the money was going to some of the international organizations that were more political—they weren’t missionaries. So it was an objection over the way some of the money was being spent."
So he left because their views didn't square with the Bible on abortion, and because the money wasn't being spent on missionary work. I would hope we would all appreciate those views... -
-
Has he been immersed? Again, why has he not joined? -
As far as your statement...well, that is just ridiculous. The idea of the "letter" in the local church, is a modern invention. The early church gathered together...they didn't have membership rolls. Some Baptists, even today, still advocate this.
Regardless, Paul says he is a Southern Baptist, as does his pastor. So I tend to believe them. If you want to imagine objections, which you do not have proof of one way or the other, be my guest. But it doesn't change the facts.
There are two evangelicals (Paul and Perry) running for office. There are two Catholics running for office. Gingrich isn't so bad...he is not a devout Catholic. This cannot be said of Santorum, who is extremely devout. And considering that the Catholic church issued a "infallible" papal decree in the late 1800's, condemning the U.S.A. for, among other things, the lack of submission to the Roman Catholic church, it is particularly scary to hear Santorum talk of needing a large government for social enforcement... -
It would be interesting to know if Paul has been immersed? -
Seems to me that 1) Santorum is desparate for something to stick to Paul (and this doesn't), 2) Santorum is revealing his anti-personal-liberty view of the constitution, which is at the heart of the neocon philosophy. Bill Kristol revealed the same love of nannygov during his dispicable rant against Paul the other night.