Some Gingrich statistics:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I think the language of the text makes it very clear that Congress can indeed do so.[/quote]
Article I of the Constitution provides that The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. So, the writ of habeas corpus exists until it is removed under a certain set of circumstances (rebellion, public safety, etc.).
So, under the Exceptions Clause, Congress could simply remove all review of habeas corpus petitions by the Supreme Court of the United States (and any other court) and achieve the same result (suspension of habeas corpus) without meeting any of the clear conditions of Article I?
And, so, Congress can completely immunize itself from scrutiny of its suspension of habeas corpus by removing jursidiction?
Ron Paul the ‘conservative’ on gay ‘marriage:’
Yeah, this guy’s a conservative. Legalise/decriminalise all drugs; pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, open borders, unilateral disengagement, ‘make friends with Iran,’ OBL was ‘unarmed’ and killing Awlaki was unconstitutional. Ron Paul ‘conservative’ - black is the new white.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Ron Paul the ‘conservative’ on gay ‘marriage:’
Yeah, this guy’s a conservative. Legalise/decriminalise all drugs; pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, open borders, unilateral disengagement, ‘make friends with Iran,’ OBL was ‘unarmed’ and killing Awlaki was unconstitutional. Ron Paul ‘conservative’ - black is the new white.[/quote]
Well let’s look at this one by one:
Legalize/decriminalize all drugs: He is not against STATE laws prohibiting the possession of these substances, he is against FEDERAL intervention. His economic position is that without a the Federal law creating a moral hazard, the states will tend towards(not necessarily all of them) a position of less prohibition through the premise of people “voting with their feet”.
His PERSONAL position is that this this the position of “the greatest liberty” and the most “conservative” position because personal liberty and self-ownership which includes the right to do harm to your own body(which you own) are in conflict with prohibition and any Federal law is in conflict with the constitution. This also, in his opinion, represents the most conservative position because it allows for States rights and Federalism to work optimally at the local level where they best represent the position of the local population.
Pro-gay marraige: His position here is almost identical to the one on the prohibition of substances, but in this case it is a prohibition of voluntary contracts between individuals. Further is the concern that the state interferes with church affairs with ALL marriage contracts and that it is not the business of the state to CREATE contracts but to enforce legal contracts created between individuals and that the enforcement of those contracts is an issue left to the states. As to the “faith and credit” clause of the constitution being used to force changes in state laws, his position is that that is clearly not the intent there and that the state has no obligation to change the way in which it enforces contracts made between parties within that state. The state only has the obligation to enforce contracts made in other states as they would be enforced where they were made.
Pro-choice: Ron Paul’s official position is that life begins at conception and therefore abortion is a violent act against a person. His position is that Roe vs. Wade is bunk because it ignores the currently irrefutable fact that a living human exist at conception and that it should be overturned to reflect this fact. His position is that a human being should be defined as a person at conception at the federal level a.k.a.“sanctity of life act”.
However, like any other violent act, the prosecution of such an act is NOT a federal issue and should be resolved like any other homicide at the STATE level. The appropriate crime, and punishment as well as the burden of proof(intent, etc…) should be left to the state.
The “choice” left to the woman as to have an abortion or not is left to her right to “vote with her feet” and find a state in which abortion has no criminal punishment, just as she currently does. However, there would no longer be any official restriction on any state in the prosecution of this type of homicide, and the likely ultimate effect of this policy is that every state adopts some type of criminal statute prohibiting abortion.
I’ll continue on the others later as they require a more nuanced explanation of catallactics.
BTW: in terms of the politics of promoting his position that life begins at conception, the fact that Ron Paul is a professional Obstetrician would help to thwart some of the attacks that would be thrown at him from government bureaucracies and affiliated agencies. Especially considering that as President he would do away with all government sponsorship and affiliation with these “private” agencies like the AMA.
Why do you bother taking so much time talking about a man who will never win the Presidency? Are you a 20 something Paulie who just can’t let go? Even Paul knows he can’t win and he’s said as much.
Come on now man come down to earth.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Why do you bother taking so much time talking about a man who will never win the Presidency? Are you a 20 something Paulie who just can’t let go? Even Paul knows he can’t win and he’s said as much.
Come on now man come down to earth.[/quote]
What do you mean? This is a politics forum on a bodybuilding website. It’s just to enjoy the discussion. While I do acknowledge most of Paul’s views of economics as being accurate, I’m not interested in supporting him(or any other person) as a candidate.
I’d rather focus on my own business and growing my wealth then on the business of politics.
Though I do enjoy discussing Austrian economics, Federalism, etc… if for no other reason to flesh out my own understanding in written form.
A conservative should only be worried about conserving his own legacy.
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
Well let’s look at this one by one:
Legalize/decriminalize all drugs: He is not against STATE laws prohibiting the possession of these substances, he is against FEDERAL intervention. His economic position is that without a the Federal law creating a moral hazard, the states will tend towards(not necessarily all of them) a position of less prohibition through the premise of people “voting with their feet”.
[/quote]
A nonsense position. Would allow the most liberal states to become drug slums - the other states would be flooded with inter-state drugs. And BTW the federal government, under the constitution has the right to regulate inter-state commerce.
See above.
So the most liberal states will allow gay marriage…
You seem to be a bit confused on a few things. But I’ll just stick to this:
How so? How would that be the likely outcome? Allowing each single state to make their own abortion laws - how would that likely lead to all states outlawing abortion? Please explain that one.
[quote]
I’ll continue on the others later as they require a more nuanced explanation of catallactics.
BTW: in terms of the politics of promoting his position that life begins at conception, the fact that Ron Paul is a professional Obstetrician would help to thwart some of the attacks that would be thrown at him from government bureaucracies and affiliated agencies. Especially considering that as President he would do away with all government sponsorship and affiliation with these “private” agencies like the AMA.[/quote]
I know Paul’s ‘official position’ and I’ve heard all his spin before. I’m interested in Paul’s policies and their effects.
In the seven years before Roe v Wade 19 states brought in their own pro-abortion legislation - MS, CO, CA, OR, NC, NY, AK, HI, WA, FL, AL, AR, DE, GA, KS, MD, NM, SC, VA including a number with virtual abortion on demand like New York which allowed abortion through six months. This is Paul’s real position on abortion - allowing states to unconstitutionally violate the 5th and 14th amendments.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
Well let’s look at this one by one:
Legalize/decriminalize all drugs: He is not against STATE laws prohibiting the possession of these substances, he is against FEDERAL intervention. His economic position is that without a the Federal law creating a moral hazard, the states will tend towards(not necessarily all of them) a position of less prohibition through the premise of people “voting with their feet”.
[/quote]
A nonsense position. Would allow the most liberal states to become drug slums - the other states would be flooded with inter-state drugs. And BTW the federal government, under the constitution has the right to regulate inter-state commerce.
[/quote]
As in “make it regular”, i.e. preventing the states from erecting trade barriers between them, not to regulate trade in and of itself.
Which is why, when the Constitution still meant something, an amendment was needed to prohibit the production and sale of alcohol.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
In the seven years before Roe v Wade 19 states brought in their own pro-abortion legislation - MS, CO, CA, OR, NC, NY, AK, HI, WA, FL, AL, AR, DE, GA, KS, MD, NM, SC, VA including a number with virtual abortion on demand like New York which allowed abortion through six months. This is Paul’s real position on abortion - allowing states to unconstitutionally violate the 5th and 14th amendments.[/quote]
No.
[quote]orion wrote:
As in “make it regular”, i.e. preventing the states from erecting trade barriers between them, not to regulate trade in and of itself.
[/quote]
Oh I see! To ‘regulate trade’ means to make it regular? It doesn’t actually mean ‘regulating’ it. Amazing.
Actually no. The reason why an amendment was needed was that the federal government only have the power to regulate interstate commerce not intrastate commerce so it would’ve been unconstitutional for the federal government to ban alcohol without an amendment to the constitution.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
As in “make it regular”, i.e. preventing the states from erecting trade barriers between them, not to regulate trade in and of itself.
[/quote]
Oh I see! To ‘regulate trade’ means to make it regular? It doesn’t actually mean ‘regulating’ it. Amazing.
Actually no. The reason why an amendment was needed was that the federal government only have the power to regulate interstate commerce not intrastate commerce so it would’ve been unconstitutional for the federal government to ban alcohol without an amendment to the constitution.[/quote]
And that differs from marijuanha… how?
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
As in “make it regular”, i.e. preventing the states from erecting trade barriers between them, not to regulate trade in and of itself.
[/quote]
Oh I see! To ‘regulate trade’ means to make it regular? It doesn’t actually mean ‘regulating’ it. Amazing.
Actually no. The reason why an amendment was needed was that the federal government only have the power to regulate interstate commerce not intrastate commerce so it would’ve been unconstitutional for the federal government to ban alcohol without an amendment to the constitution.[/quote]
And that differs from marijuanha… how?[/quote]
It doesn’t. But when Cali legalizes it, people start growing it and then it starts to cross state borders it becomes federal business.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
As in “make it regular”, i.e. preventing the states from erecting trade barriers between them, not to regulate trade in and of itself.
[/quote]
Oh I see! To ‘regulate trade’ means to make it regular? It doesn’t actually mean ‘regulating’ it. Amazing.
Actually no. The reason why an amendment was needed was that the federal government only have the power to regulate interstate commerce not intrastate commerce so it would’ve been unconstitutional for the federal government to ban alcohol without an amendment to the constitution.[/quote]
And that differs from marijuanha… how?[/quote]
It doesn’t. But when Cali legalizes it, people start growing it and then it starts to cross state borders it becomes federal business.[/quote]
The big problem with your point is it doesn’t matter what the Feds do , Marijuana will be around until the end of time , All you can do is create an industry around it one way or another . Right now it is a prison industry
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
As in “make it regular”, i.e. preventing the states from erecting trade barriers between them, not to regulate trade in and of itself.
[/quote]
Oh I see! To ‘regulate trade’ means to make it regular? It doesn’t actually mean ‘regulating’ it. Amazing.
Actually no. The reason why an amendment was needed was that the federal government only have the power to regulate interstate commerce not intrastate commerce so it would’ve been unconstitutional for the federal government to ban alcohol without an amendment to the constitution.[/quote]
And that differs from marijuanha… how?[/quote]
It doesn’t. But when Cali legalizes it, people start growing it and then it starts to cross state borders it becomes federal business.[/quote]
Not really, because they have no authority to interdict trade.
If Texans do not want legal California weed to flood their markets that is their problem.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The big problem with your point is it doesn’t matter what the Feds do , Marijuana will be around until the end of time , All you can do is create an industry around it one way or another . Right now it is a prison industry
[/quote]
For sure. And why stop at marijuana? So many happy and free opium addicts there were in China before their evil government stopped us selling opium - talk about oppressive! Legalising heroin would definitely benefit America in a similar way to how opium benefited China. /sarcasm.
[quote]orion wrote:
Not really, because they have no authority to interdict trade.
[/quote]
Yes they do. So long as it complies with their constitutional jurisdiction.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Not really, because they have no authority to interdict trade.
[/quote]
Yes they do. So long as it complies with their constitutional jurisdiction.[/quote]
Which is essentially zilch.
While it would be amusing to see you try to defend the logic of Wickard v. Filburn, please do not embarrass yourself by trying to do it.
If the Supreme Court could not really do it, you wont either.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The big problem with your point is it doesn’t matter what the Feds do , Marijuana will be around until the end of time , All you can do is create an industry around it one way or another . Right now it is a prison industry
[/quote]
For sure. And why stop at marijuana? So many happy and free opium addicts there were in China before their evil government stopped us selling opium - talk about oppressive! Legalising heroin would definitely benefit America in a similar way to how opium benefited China. /sarcasm.[/quote]
I believe that would be a straw man arguement, I do how ever think we should revisit throwing addicts in Jail. This policy is not working , it creates inflation in the price of drugs and that creates a need for those addicts to generate the money (crime) . It is not a simple argument like Marijuana