Single Issue Voters vs. The Constitution
Posted by Anthony Martin Sun, 23 Sep 2007 23:16:00 GMT
How can we put any single issue above The Constitution? Even if the issue is as huge as the War Waged in Iraq II, how can that overshadow how we approach The Constitution?
We don’t recognize US government officials who swear on a stack Bibles to uphold UN resolutions. Only The Constitution gets that distinction. That’s because it’s the only binding document between US Citizens and the government. The UN has no jurisdiction.
Yet, we have a Congress that has no problem ignoring The Constitution by going to war without a declaration. So what makes us think that same Congress won’t ignore the first and second amendments? If Congress thinks nothing of ignoring one part of The Constitution, why not others? We have words for people who do that to the Bible (they’re called hypocrites).
So we cannot look at this election myopically through one issue like the War Waged in Iraq II. If you disagree with The Constitution, if you think The Constitution is anachronistic to require Congress to declare war, then you should advocate change to The Constitution. First things first. We have a mechanism for that. It’s called an amendment. After the amendment, you can have your fancy no-declare-war. Until then, it’s unconstitutional.
Are we trying to build The American Empire? Is that our goal? Can we be so blind not to see that every war since WWII has been part of The American Empire? If we are trying to build The American Empire, we have some dire problems. The money supply for one. The IRS can only collect about one third of the money we spend. I don’t want The American Empire, ever. It’s unconstitutional.
We depend on this unconstitutional government far too much. It was this unconstitutional government that opened holes in our airline industry that contributed to 9/11. If we had more respect for the 2nd amendment, planes would not have flown into buildings.
By that, I mean if the airlines were able to secure themselves rather than rely upon an unconstitutional federal ban on firearms, the airlines would have had the means to protect their customers. The airlines could still legally require customers to relinquish their firearms before boarding their aircraft. Then, it would be incumbent on the airlines to protect the planes, not the customers, nor the government. That’s constitutional.
For more information, get off your high one-issue horse, set aside an hour, go get a cup of coffee, sit back, relax, and watch:
Being an expert at saying things that make one sound like an ars, I can testify that the phrase, "For more information, get off your high one-issue horse, set aside an hour, go get a cup of coffee, sit back, relax, and watch:" qualifies as one of these things--in spades. It occurs to me that one must be sitting fairly high up themselves in order to make a comment like that, but perhaps I'm only increasing the length of the chain of high horses? If I were on my high one-issue horse of say, fair tax vs. the current tax code, then perhaps it would be as easy as climbing down and voting for Ron Paul, but since we find ourselves already entrenched in the Middle East the solution cannot be, and indeed is not, as simple as electing a non-interventionist President while we have a sitting congress with liberal leanings and hope that our higher ideals will simply make terrorism and the threat of nuclear weapons from Iran disappear.
The way I see it, the entrenchment is a result of Congress giving The Constitution and Founding Fathers The Finger.
Electing a non-interventionist President while we have a sitting Congress with liberal leanings will get the ball rolling in the right direction.
The only thing we do by voting for a conservative who doesn't respect The Constitution is maybe put on the breaks to slow down (which I doubt, if history is any indication), but even if that happens, it won't get the ball rolling in the right direction.
"Electing a non-interventionist President while we have a sitting Congress with liberal leanings will get the ball rolling in the right direction."
You have to admit it is not to consider you liberal when you make statements like that.
It might get the ball rolling "in the right" direction from a non-interventionist point of view, but only by the coincidence that liberals and non-interventionists agree that we should pull out of Iraq. Considering the normal operations of liberal minded politicians you can count on as much rape of the constitution as possible in every other area.
Reality check: 1) we are entrenched in the Middle East 2) Ron Paul has no chance in hell of being elected 3) The best possible solution given 1 and 2 is to elect the most conservative delegate available.
Love it. RON PAUL REVOLUTION!!!!!
Wow, the Loafs are going at it big time...I like it! Go Aaron, Go Aaron, it's your birthday...
Aaron, taking things I say like paragraph 2 of my previous comment out of context and classifying them as "liberal" is not helpful. I wrote that in the middle of talking about The Constitution. Do I really have to connect all of the dots, or can you give me the benefit of the doubt that I'm not thinking in liberal ways when I make a point?
As for your reality check...see.
Anthony, I don't believe it is out of context. If you believe that a non-interventionist and a liberal leaning congress are a step in the right direction (even if the right direction is moving toward a more constitutionally driven government) you are thinking like a liberal...and someone that's been pulling on a pipe full of something strong.
I'm not sure where you are going with the video clip of Ron Paul getting side-lined by someone who realizes he has no chance to be the next President of the United States. Ron Paul didn't think he would be elected to congress...well, there is some conclusive proof that he will win the Presidential election.
Ron Paul has no chance, and a vote for him is a wasted vote.
I like what Ron Paul says and I think he deserves the oppertunity to be heard by the people of the United States.