The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Please explain this Washington Post headline:

"Ron Paul, a Write-In Candidate"

One thing that very few people in Congress seem to be able to understand is the simple language of Section 8 which outlines the powers of Congress: "Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;" It is very clearly the role of Congress to declare war. Not the President. Not the Vice President. Not the United Nations. The US Congress. We have now been stuck in an undeclared no-win war for several years with Congress looking the other way while the executive branch quite literally gets away with murder. Of course Ron Paul is not the only one who understands the Constitution, but he's the only candidate within reach of actually getting elected who has shown the guts to put principle before party no matter what the cost in order to stop corruption, especially considering he is not dictated by special interests. He has the most financial support from active duty military than any other candidate for a reason - our nations' finest live, breathe, and often die their oath of office. It's WAY more than words to them - and domestic corruption can destroy liberties safeguarded by our Constitution as thoroughly as any foreign foe. In fact, this was the warning given to us by the founders when we embarked on the American experiment, and why people like Thomas Jefferson advised us to chain our leaders with the Constitution. This is exactly what those of us are doing and why we like it when a presidential hopeful honestly says he takes his marching orders from the Constitution in the face of scorn and ridicule. If you're tired of hearing the voice of the average Joe saying that Ron Paul is the only one who understands the Constitution, please ask your alternate preferred candidates why they don't understand Section 8, or if they understand it, why they don't follow it.

Drink LiberTEA at the Teaparty, Dec 16, 2007. Drink it for the first time.

All other candidates DENY LIBERTY.

Ron Paul is the greatest candidate I've ever seen. Consistent for 30 years. No flip flops. We are done with WAR, we want a real currency, we want peace, we want the welfare-state for the military industrial complex to END, we want to fix America and stop policing the world and to stop the authoritarian oppression here NOW.

Here is what the US Government without Ron Paul in charge has done to us:

- 9 trillion in debt
- 850 billion trade deficit
- War in Iraq
- War in Afghanistan
- Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda alive
- Fomenting War with Iran
- 12.25 trillion M3 money supply, and expanding (massive inflation)

Ron Paul's record is crystal clean perfect and consistent. He takes no money from anyone but people and constituents. He is as pure as they come.

One of my favorite quotes about Dr. Paul, "You're working for the most honest man in Congress." That was John McCain speaking to Kent Snyder in 1988.

I know Dr. Ron Paul will be the best President we ever had so do 28 members of my family, all voting for Dr. Ron Paul.
We haven't stopped telling everyone we meet
About him and have started our own Revolution.

The original and copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them:

" A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

What don't you understand about: "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

In a released Senate report on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, and well known gun rights proponent, states:

"They argue that the Second Amendment's words "right of the people" mean "a right of the state" -- apparently overlooking the impact of those same words when used in the First and Fourth Amendments. The "right of the people" to assemble or to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is not contested as an individual guarantee. Still they ignore consistency and claim that the right to "bear arms" relates only to military uses. This not only violates a consistent constitutional reading of "right of the people" but also ignores that the second amendment protects a right to "keep" arms.
"When our ancestors forged a land "conceived in liberty", they did so with musket and rifle. When they reacted to attempts to dissolve their free institutions, and established their identity as a free nation, they did so as a nation of armed freemen. When they sought to record forever a guarantee of their rights, they devoted one full amendment out of ten to nothing but the protection of their right to keep and bear arms against governmental interference. The Subcommittee on the Constitution will concern itself with a proper recognition of, and respect for, this right most valued by free men."

Ron Paul is the greatest candidate I've ever seen. Consistent for 30 years. No flip flops. We are done with WAR, we want a real currency, we want peace, we want the welfare-state for the military industrial complex to END, we want to fix America and stop policing the world and to stop the authoritarian oppression here NOW.

My fellow defenders of the Constitution, you are all gentlemen and scholars. I appreciate the effort you made to prepare your long discourses. I would like to take a less gentlemanly, outraged approach to our discussion:

Over the years, the Preamble has decayed to this: "We the Politicians of the United States, in order to form a more perfect advantage, handicap justice, insure domestic futility, provide for the common pretense, promote the general incumbent, and secure the blessings of power to ourselves and our posterity, do disdain and therefore revise this Constitution for the United States of America whenever we feel like." WHOA, I SAY WHOA NOW, WHATCHYALL THINK YOU'RE DOING (I'm yelling at the top of my voice here).

Time to hire Dr. NO to put a stop to this arrogance and restore it to "WE THE PEOPLE............you all know the rest!

>>The Constitution and Constitutional theory are incredibly complex

As a former law student, I've got to say...not really. It's pretty easy-reading, actually. Check it out -- it's online!

Shane

If anyone thinks that a "well-regulated militia" is the National Guard, you are mistaken. How is the National Guard supposed to protect us from a corrupt government, when the National Guard gets their paychecks from the government? And all their supplies from the government?

uglyamerican, we may not be under the threat of invasion from foreign countries, but we are under threat of invasion from our own government. Which was also a reason our founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment. The patriot act allows the government to invade YOUR living room, and listen in on YOUR phone conversations. It allows our government to SPY on YOU, and to illegally detain YOU! Now I am pretty sure that the American people would like to have guns in order to fight that too. What do you think? I choose Ron Paul because he will protect my rights. And he will do the same for you.

Ron Paul has the largest, most well informed, and most pro-active base of any Republican candidate. You don't see letters written by other supporters because they know that their candidate is a compromise and rarely stands on principle. It's much easier to get excited about a principled honest candidate, Ron Paul.
www.ronpaul2008.com

I checked out Ronald Holland's website and that's nice, but I disagree. I think Ron Paul has a fantastic chance of winning. His supporters are growing every day.

We all need to keep a positive attitude. The only 2 things keeping Ron Paul from winning are 1) people who decide not to vote for him "because he has no chance" and 2) the high probability of rigged-computer vote fraud in the polls.

Envision him winning. Do everything you can to help him. Pray he will win. Donate now or on the big Dec. 16 day. And please, everyone who can, get out to those primaries and watchdog for Vote Fraud!

President Ron Paul 2008

During the period that the Federal Reserve Act was passed, so too was the 16th and 17th Amendment to the Constitution. Of course, many people tend to realize that the 16th Amendment (Progressive Income Tax) and the Federal Reserve Act have not been in the best interest of the People, but few realize that the 17th Amendment has caused major damage to this former Constitutional Republic. It is strange that the same politicians didn't attempt to amend the Constitution to include the Federal Reserve Act and deny Congress the authority to coin money; perhaps they thought themselves lucky to "ratify" the 16th and 17th Amendments.

Section 3 of the Constitution states:

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three classes. The seats of the Senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the second year, of the second class at the expiration of the fourth year, and the third class at the expiration of the sixth year, so that one third may be chosen every second year; and if vacancies happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the recess of the legislature of any state, the executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies."

Now, there was a very good reason why the Founding Fathers placed the Senators outside the direct electoral process and placed them within a framework of indirect elections. By doing this, the Founders knew that they were placing yet another level of checks and balances over the government. They sought to keep the balance of power between the State Republics and the federal branches of the Executive, Legislature and Judicial. In fact, they wanted to be sure that the Rights and Interests of the State Republics were maintained while keeping a very close eye on the federal branches. They also wanted the Senate to be comprised of men who were mature, possessing a higher degree of experience and wisdom then those directly elected to the House of Representatives.

The Senate was to be insolated from influences of direct politics, financial corruption and whims of the public. Senators were to answer indirectly to the People through their respective State Legislatures. It really was a stroke of absolute genius; too bad the same corrupt officials that brought us the Federal Reserve Act and Progressive Income Tax eliminated this extremely valuable check on power and abuse.

In 1787, John Dickerson, delegate to the Constitutional Convention from the State of Delaware spoke about the power of this vital check on governmental power: " The preservation of the States in a certain degree of agency is indispensable, it will produce the collision between the different authorities that should be wished for in order to check each other."

The Senate, appointed by the respective State Legislatures, also provided a very strong barrier to potential mistakes made by the Citizens of each State Republic. James Madison in the Federalist #63, said that indirect elections would be a "defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions and would blend stability with Liberty."

The Power and Rights of the State Republics, through the direction and guidance of each State Legislature, would be the only influence on their respective Senators. The Senate would dutifully represent the best interest of the State Republics and therefore, the Citizens of each State. It was, to say the least, an ideal program to maintain the balance of power and curtail potential usurpations of the federal government over the States and their People.

Of course, the 17th Amendment was touted as a measure to eliminate undue influences on the Senate from special interests yet it had the opposite effect.

With the passage of the 16th, 17th Amendments and the Federal Reserve Act, the government increased its reach and power over the People. There are some who question the validity of the actual ratification of the above-mentioned Amendments, but time and space restrict us from that subject at this time.

At one time, the power of taxation was only on the State Level, with revenues being submitted to the federal government to fund the various limited functions of government, but in 1913 all of that changed, in fact it was all reversed. Each of these pieces of legislations, more than any other, allowed the growth of the federal government beyond the restrictions and limitations of the Constitution.

Now, although the State Republics have been neutered by the overwhelming reach and power of the federal authority, they stand as potentially the only viable medium for the People of this Country to regain control over their government. Within the Halls of the State Legislatures abides the some of the last remaining remnants of Constitutional Power, sitting dormant and un-utilized by those who have either forgotten their power or who have played their respective political party plays far too long.

If We, the People of these United States of America are ever to regain Our Sovereignty, I have a feeling that it will only come when we retake the Halls of Power within the individual State Houses and Governorships. It is not enough to simply support certain run-of-the-mill Republican or Democratic candidates; we must field candidates who are dedicated to the ideals of Constitutionalism and the goal of restoring the Republic to the People.

Most people, especially our politicians have forgotten, or chose to ignore the fact that it is absolutely indispensable to the well-being of a Free People that each person enjoy the full benefits of Liberty, not as would be granted or allowed by government, but that Liberty which is Guaranteed by Providential Right alone! All demands upon us for any part of our Liberty or even our substance, which is not given by our own consent amounts to nothing more than governmental allowance of a measure of contingent freedom.

Freedom which is contingent upon the allowances of the government is no Freedom at all, indeed it amounts to little more than coercive tyranny and should not be allowed to stand. The People of this Nation are neither the property nor the wards of this government; the government is the ward and possession of the People. The correct role of this government should be viewed and maintained as nothing more than a tool, created and used to promote and secure the ability of the People to live their lives in Liberty and Freedom. The primary function and really the only reason for the existence of this government is proclaimed within the philosophy of the Declaration of Independence and explained within the Constitution of the United States.

Any man who values his Freedom, indeed his Life, must demand of the government the full acceptance of his Natural Right, unfettered by governmental intervention or coercion. Without such a demand by the People, government will always gravitate toward an arbitrary will and application of law to the point that neither the law nor the Constitution will remain without being stripped of all vestiges of Liberty. Within the writings of Our Founding Fathers are solutions; embedded within the Founding Documents are principles which provide both wisdom and guidance for the proper role of government, to be used as a tool, an instrument that forms the foundation of Our ability to live Free.

Our ability to live Free is not, nor was it ever intended to relieve the responsibility of each man to determine his own direction in life, nor to provide a safety net for those lives. Our primary Freedom is the Freedom from government intervention and interference. Under the Founding philosophy, the political Sovereignty exists only in and through the People themselves, not in a governmental body. Until that Sovereignty is restored to the People, we will continue to live under a state of existence no different than any other person living under any other state. We will suffer the same fate as all others, differing little from any other person who must play second fiddle to their state ideology and the force of coercion. Currently, this Nation has regressed into a pre-revolutionary state, one where the government is seen as the end all be all, and end all, the final authority to grant or abridge any Right to its Citizens.

In this country, we are experiencing such a shocking change in the manner in which the government sees itself and its positional authority over the People and it appears that it is not an accidental sway of tyranny that grips this land, but an intentional push toward authoritarianism. Government was only instituted to secure the Natural Liberty of the Individual, that qualification for its existence has not changed nor diminished, yet when such a responsibility has been abandoned by government, then it is the Right of the People to seek other arrangements which will ensure the security of their Liberty.

This government has forsaken "Just Power" in favor of "Raw Power". It has lost it sense that the Unalienable Rights of the People are inviolate and that the Protection of those Rights is the primary obligation the government has to the People. No individual, no political party, no class of people, no authority, and no government have the right to deprive the People of Liberty. For government is the trustee of the Common Liberty of the People as long as it remains trustworthy of that post! When a government no longer is willing or able to be entrusted with safeguarding the Liberty of the People then it should no longer be considered as a legitimate authority and ultimately it must be treated as an Enemy of the People.

This government does not have the lawful right to issue any law, arbitrarily, that it pleases, in order to bind us and nullify Our Natural Liberty. Consent is not the same as Representation, for all Representation must come from the directive of the People. Although at one point in our history, the directive of the People was the power and the authority of the vote, it is no longer the case. Now, it appears that those who hold office do so at the will of special interests, corporations, even secret and foreign influences.

We have become nothing more than subjects to the government, and our lives are now regulated and controlled by its will, coerced to comply by penalty of law and governmental decree. It should be beyond all measure of patience that the government should assume such power over us, to impose its will and domination.

If government can assume power over our lives, our properties, indeed over our labor and the fruit of our labor, then it can assume authority for any purpose that it designs, without our consent. "For if government can take away even one penny from us against our wills, then they can indeed take away everything!"

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." --Thomas Jefferson

I think Ron Paul is the only candidate that would be in agreement with good ole Tom Jefferson!

Seventeen specifically enumerated powers. Period. Andrew Napolitano
-watch his FFF conference youtube clips- dispels any doubts on the subject and is crystal clear as to who is 'the Jefferson of our time'. We could really do with a few Ron Pauls right here in Europe.

Every candidate understands The constitution. The difference is do they use that understanding to Defend it or to manipulate it's purity and meaning with wordsmithing.

Only Dr. Paul has the record of following the pure intent of the constitution, which is founded on the PRINCIPLES of the Declaration of Independence. Mans rights come from "the god of nature and natures god" and there are certain things the government or any one else does not have the right to legislate!

Ron Paul is the Peoples Candidate. America Needs a Good Doctor!

I am in total agreement Tom, there was a reason the Founders wrote the Constitution the way they did, very specific in its terms and designed with a specific application.

uglyamerican, the case you present regarding the 2nd Amendment is a reason not to re-examine the 2nd Amendment, but rather for adding a subsequent amendment, changing or repealing the 2nd amendment. As mentioned in a post by another poster, you must consider the intent behind the words, the current events and the culture and conventions of the time. It is a mistake to re-interpret theirs words with current events, unless we are comparing apples to apples.

ManUnitdFan tells us that the U.S. Constitution is complex and that it is a living document. The Constitution is only complex insofar as one needs to understand government and the history, culture and use of the English at the time the Constitution was written. But don't confuse complex with complicated. For example the several States are prohibited from emitting Bills of Credit. Once you understand what this means, you can replace the term with modern day dollar bills such as Federal Reserve Notes or other paper currency without changing the meaning, without re-interpreting the document.

What is it that makes the U.S. Constitution a living document? What exactly is a living document? I submit that the only aspect of the constitution which is 'living' is the ability to amend the Constitution. Beyond that, you cannot rewrite the Constitution giving the Federal Government more power then enumerated in the Constitution. Otherwise we are just playing word games and power games here with someone constantly moving the goalpost

Clearly Mitt Romney hasn't read the Constitution. My guess would be neither has Giuliani.

I want to bring up the superior system of the Republic in respects to the equal application of the Rights of all Citizens. The erosion of this extremely important principle from the governance of this country has been devastating to the cause of the individual, no matter what race, creed or gender.

Those who seek majoritarian rule have transformed us into a national society and that fact has, in essence, crippled the proper and equitable functions of the Republic. The Constitution was not given by the assent of individuals that composed a nation, but as individuals that composed the independent and very distinct States in which they held citizenship. The States, based upon the authority of the People, then assented to the ratification of the Constitution as being federal in nature and not national. There is a very distinct and important difference that directly effects the not only the legislative process, but the application of law relating to the Right of the People and how the government functions.

It is rare that we refer to ourselves as citizens of the individual State Republics; it was once the only reference to citizenship within this country. The reason for that was that this country was not viewed as a nation state, but a nation of States united under a federal system and not a national one. The thought of being a national citizen was contrary to the entire Republican ideal and for good reason; the federal government was only a reflection of the States and the authority the citizens invested, through the States, to the federal government. The People always acted as citizens of their respective States and not as citizens under the auspices of an aggregate national government.

The Founders, well aware of the tendency of majoritarianism, intentionally placed walls of separation within this Republican system and for a very good reason. They knew that if the Constitutional transaction were to work properly, it would not, could not be regarded as forming one nation, but a federal union of States. They knew that if such a national system were to be placed above that of the federal union of States then the will of the majority would gradually bind the minority within society.

Yes, I am aware that there will be those who will relate this to the catch phrase "States Rights", and will dutifully denigrate any suggestion that we return to a system that allowed the States such authority and powers, yet there is nothing more Constitutional then doing just that. I make no apologies whatsoever for such a stance, for I know that it is one of the primary factors in saving this country from the terminal illness it now faces under the increasingly dangerous usurpations of the so-called federal government. While the Founders instituted attributes to the government that are national in nature, such as those relating to foreign relations, treaties, and interstate commerce; those attributes were extremely limited and were delegated to the federal government but not innately expressed.

The Founders never adopted principles that remotely resemble the system that we now allow ourselves to be subjected to in this country. It was clear that the Framers of the Constitution always considered each State to be a sovereign body, composed of sovereign individuals, independent of all other States and bound only by the voluntary act of a reflective union of States. The Constitution established this union of States federally, not nationally. I will not, at this time, delve into the various actions and acts that have transformed this federal union of States into a National Union, but suffice to say, it has had the exact effects foreseen by Our Founders. They pegged the results of such a transition exactly and indeed their fears have become a reality in this country.

The Founders were extremely wise in their delegation of powers, the system of elections that provided for the House of Representatives severed a national attribute because the their powers are derived directly from the People who are proportionally represented. On the other hand, the Senate [although no longer due to the 17th Amendment], served a federal attribute because it derives its powers from the State Republics and indirectly from the People. It was an incredible system that functioned to protect the People not only against the possible abuse of powers by the government, but from the possible threat of majoritarianism.

Federal powers were limited to a defined sphere of influence because the Founders realized the propensity of power to corrupt those who hold power. It is readily easy to see that they were correct in their assumptions and had this country remained a Republic, such corruption would find a rather difficult expression due to all the checks and balances embedded within the system. At the time of the writing and ratification of the Constitution, the Founders placed the dependency of the federal government on the States rather than the States being dependent upon the federal government. Ultimately however, both the federal and the State governments were to be dependent on the People and their consent to be governed.

While the federal government was fitted with a multiple layer of checks and balances, so too the States were placed under an equally powerful system of checks and balances. The interconnectivity of the system balanced the system and kept the respective powers and authorities in check. As the federal government was to reflect the States, so too was the States to reflect the districts, counties and local governments. Each layer of governmental processes reflected the consent and will of the People and in that reflection there was a high degree of restraint placed on each level of government. Those facts are extremely important if the application of law is meted out with justice and equality.

The possibility of ambitious encroachments by either the States or the federal governments would be inhibited by the opposition of either level of government, not to mention the possibility of the vocal opposition of the People. The Constitution did not combine powers in a way that would lead to an accumulation powers that would pose a danger to the Liberty and Rights of the People. They were very precise in purpose to decrease, although not eliminate, the possibility of such consolidation.

The Founders took particular note of the writings of Charles de Secondat, Baron de la Brede et de Montesquieu in the formation of this system of government. Indeed, the Baron stated: "When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body there can be no liberty because apprehensions may arise lest the same monarch or senate enact tyrannical laws to execute them in a tyrannical manner. Were the power of judging joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control, for the judge would then be the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with all the violence of an oppressor." He was, of course, right in his assumptions and we see such combined powers in play today as the various branches of our government either relinquish powers or their powers are usurped by another branch. Likewise, the powers and authorities of the States have been trumped by the increased powers of the federal government.

I will refrain from going into the various delegations of powers found within the Constitution, but suffice to say that the Founders thought of just about everything regarding the proper uses of powers and authorities within the system. Perhaps it is once again time to place our trust in a system that proved far wiser then the fading credibility of our present government; once again we should hearken to the voice of wisdom when it comes to the proper role of government in this country.

Ron Paul understands that there is a wisdom passed down to us that we should give ear to and utilize. Afterall, you just have to look at what has happened since this government quit following that wisdom...which would you rather have?

Yikes. Let me restate my point, in light of the numerous criticisms I received - most of which were very thoughtful and well-taken. The Constitution itself was written for every American to understand; that's not a point I dispute.

What I do dispute is the notion that there is one correct reading of the document, and that Ron Paul is the only one who "understands" it. How to read the Constitution is an issue on which reasonable people disagree, and I take a little exception to people assuming that their reading or interpretation is the "right" one.

I've read enough on Originalist, Strict Constructionalist, and Living Constitutional theories to see the valid points in all of them. I'm not knocking anyone's personal theories; I'm merely suggesting that they don't assume their own views are the correct ones.

uglyamerican:

FYI The second amendment was established not just to protect against invasion, but in fact the main reason it was established was to be a check of power against a "standing Army".

WoW it is great to see all of the patriots on this board !! A true patriot will always question the government. And yes virginia the constitution still lives. Our founding fathers did not bind the constitution with bungee cords so that the government could twist and bend the way they see fit to do so. The founding fathers protected us well. They were very smart men. The constitution binds the governments hands with CHAINS, so as not to subvert it. The constitution stands as long as the people want it to. The government has NOTHING, and the only way they can gain power is by stealing it from you ! The purpose of the constitution is to PROTECT your LIFE, your LIBERTY, AND your PRIVATE PROPERTY. This is what the constitutions purpose is.

Did you know virginia, (manunited) that the ten planks of the communist manifesto are in operation in the United States right now? All because government has been stealing your rights and your liberties bit by bit for years?

The constitution vest the real power in "WE THE PEOPLE" and manunited, if this constitution were not in force then does every single member who works in the senate and in congress take the oath to defend and uphold it?

Because the founding fathers knew that they would not always be around to make sure that they do so. So they had to devise a way to make sure that our elected officials would indeed defend and uphold the power of the people. So they put the preamble in the constitution as like the form of a contract with We The People.

Ron Paul is truly the only one who takes that oath seriously.
Once in a generation we get a man who understands just what the founding fathers stand for. That man is Ron Paul.

The government faces the temptation to steal from the people all the time. The temptation is so great as to not steal from us that they could not stop themselves from doing it and as a result "we the people" have had our constitution subverted.

The government controls everything. That's not freedom. The government right now pays absolutely no attention to appropriations. They ignore it. They spend and spend and print and print money and they do whatever they want to do.

It is up to the people to control the government because virginia, if we don't tell our senators and congressmen and ELECTED officials what we want done, we very much stand to lose this republic which we inherited from our founding fathers. A republic which gives YOU AND ME AND EVERY PERSON individual rights. We don't live in a democracy, or a communist country. We live in a REPUBLIC.

YES VIRGINIA (man united) THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA LIVES !! as you can see by this board. We are your countrymen and we do care what this government does.

All of these government socialist programs are UNCONSTITUIONAL. YOU have the IRS,INCOME TAX, THE FEDERAL RESERVE (which is a PRIVATE band and has nothing whatever to do with government) the FAA, THE FCC, AND NUMEROUS other govt programs which control every aspect of our lives. THIS IS COMMUNIST !

Every single person sitting in washington dc who voted for the patriot act, broke their oath of office and they should be in jail not in the white house. They took that oath and in effect had signed that contract with us, called The Constitution. What do you call it when you lie under oath? PERJURY. So in effect every single person who voted for the patriot act VIOLATED our 4th 5th and 6th amendments and they have indeed committed perjury. All of the laws that they legistlate and pass, should be contained within DC. The states should be running the business of their own states and government has no power to reach its arms within any state and make law. Now do you see government trying to take control of the people? All those government programs. They give them to you because you expect the govt. to take care of you from cradle to grave, but remember, they can also take them away.

Well-stated, ManUnitdFan. I admit that it's tempting to let my enthusiasm for this candidate cause me to get carried away in singing his praises. But it is interesting that so many of Ron Paul's career-long themes centered around the Constitution are now being gradually picked up by other candidates because they see how popular the message is.
I'm grateful for the Paul candidacy because of the simple fact that it is making this presidential campaign focus much more on possible solutions to our nation's concerns and less on being another in a series of celebrity death matches between equally slick-talking politicians.

Oh yeah, we wouldn't have lots of car-jackings, burglaries, home invasions, muggings, rapes, murders, etc if it was common knowledge that everyone was armed as a general rule. Criminals always have weapons. Its time law-abiding peaceful citizens have the right to defend ourselves or at least make the criminals not know if they are messing with the wrong guy (or gal).

@ uglyamerican,

"well-regulated militia" in the time Madison wrote it meant plenty of ammunition for the gun of every able bodied male ages 17-45. "well-regulated" never meant legislated or licensed to any extent. It didn't mean We the People need to be told how to be limited in our ability to bear arms, it meant we were to always be prepared to defend. Defend ourselves, our property, our family, our neighbors, our towns, and our country against all enemies, foreign AND domestic.

It didn't give us the right to lynch people without trial but it did give us the right to protect ourselves against tyrannical government at home as well as invaders from outside.

I disagree that since we have nukes we don't need to have well-armed citizens here. If we had been the armed society we were supposed to be, 9/11 and the Virgina Tech massacre would probably never have happened or if they had they would have been on a much smaller scale because the People would have defended themselves. You could argue the terrorists could have had better weapons than box cutters, too, but since the majority of the planes occupants would have been loyal American citizens with their own personal arms, there's no way a small number of men could have taken over those planes.

MANUNITDFAN said: "I guarantee you that 99.9% of these people developed their opinions about the Constitution based on their person political beliefs, and not the other way around. The Constitution and Constitutional theory are incredibly complex, and it's not as if seas of Constitutional scholars just aren't "understanding" the Constitution because they see it as a living document."
Actually, I don't think the Constitution is complex at all, especially when you consider that it is written in a language that was very specific in context and meaning. The complexity comes from the modern propensity to complicate the plain language of the document. If you read Madison, he makes it extremely plain that if you take the wording of that document away from the historical context in which it is written then you will end up with a bastardized and illegitimate government; that sir is exactly what has happened!

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."--James Madison

Indeed that is exactly what we have seen in this country is a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government. Because of the use of such arbitrary interpretation and therefore application, I think we should not be surprised when someone like Bush overtly trespasses against the Constitution. The Constitution's standing in this country has been neutralized by a variety of political philosophies, the least of these are those who advocate original intent based upon a Christianized view of the founding of this country. Others have simply sought to render it so flexible that it no longer retains the viability of protection that they claim to support. These factions fail to see the meanings behind the principles, those both philosophical and practical. The principles, upon which the Constitution was structured, in a real sense, are neither totally static nor dynamic, but both and are essential to good government and to the pursuit of happiness by the people.

This country has not seen such a critical a time in our political concerns as we now face and it is primarily due to the fact that we have allowed various political ideologies to arbitrarily interpret the Constitution to fit their particular ideological points of view. Today, our country not only stands before a period of extremes, but dangerous extremes that could, with ease, erase what we have always considered as particularly and essentially the American guarantee of the individual's claim to Liberty. Instead of a country filled with free people, who assert their dignity through Liberty, we have become subjected to the will of a government that sets its own parameters of its reach and authority through the arbitrary interpretation and application of law. Principles are no longer considered inviolate, but are subject to the political whims of the day, whether those whims are Liberal, Conservative, Neo-Conservative or any other political ideology. Today we happen to be witness to the "living Constitution" as the Neo-Conservatives view it; tomorrow we might be witness to another group and their interpretation. Therein is the danger of such an arbitrary interpretation.

When any political ideology or philosophy extends an arbitrary utility over a Constitutional principle, it does so at its own peril. I say that because, as we see with the Bush Administration, it is then easy for any group to take liberties with those principles and thus affect one or more sections of an opposing party or interest. Once the door is open to accept and approve the arbitrary interpretation and application of the Constitution, and then it becomes much easier for abuse to ensue. If the principles found within the Constitution are not foundational to both government and the People, then those principles will always be usurped, abused or denied. When the principles of the Constitution are no longer viewed as essential and therefore open to any interpretation, then they provide no protection from potential abuse by those of any political agenda.

One amazing fact is that the various political ideologies always seem to support some degree of Constitutional stretch when it follows their own particular political agenda, but when an opposing agenda stretches beyond the bounds of the Constitution there is an uproar and condemnation. It was easy for the Republicans; for instance, to condemn the Clinton Administration over its Constitutional abuses but not its own abuses now that Bush is in office. Likewise, the cry from the Democrats is equally as adamant when a Republican abuses those powers and reaches beyond the Constitution in one way or another when those breaches are contrary to their own agenda. The government seeks the ease of power and yet the Constitution was created to make it cumbersome to govern, thereby removing the potential for both consolidation of powers and the abuse of such powers. Checks and balances are extremely cumbersome, viewed as outdated and inapplicable in our day and age, is it any wonder that the view of foundational and inviolate principles is looked upon with such disdain? It is symptomatic of all centralized governments to seek power for it eases its ability to rule, a fact that history bears out to be true.

When we allow a very relative interpretation and application of Constitutional principles to prevail then not only will power seek the level of its own expression, but, in every case, the People will end up being the ones to eventually suffer the consequences of such relativity. Government bureaucrat's prize relativity, for it removes restraints regarding the application of government statute over the principles designed to constrain such powers.

This government cannot do anything unless we cede it the power to do so, that includes the abridgement of our Rights. The Bush Administration is only following a path that was already well beaten when it came to power. Granted, it has extended its power beyond anything seen since the Wilson Administration, but never the less, it is far from being an action beyond precedent.

Political decentralization, a key structure found within the Constitution, is interwoven with the ideals of Individual Liberty. While it is the responsibility of the individual to place demands upon government for the appropriate execution of the Rights that foster such Liberty, it is not without precedent for any government, limited or not, to usurp and consolidate power to the bereft of the individual. Today we are witness to a vast number of powerful interests, both social and economic, manipulating government to the benefit of their particular agendas, all done, of course, under the carefully crafted guise of democratic freedom. People have always clamored over the promises of politics rather than the reality of politics and politicians are all too eager to oblige such inclinations of the People thus gaining their allegiance and support. The political reality of the day however, is far too disturbing to be spoken by the majority of politicians today; it is simply not palatable to the electorate.

Currently we are asked to "voluntarily" relinquish a great many of our Rights, in one degree or another, for the sake of security. It is not the first time the government has made such requests, doubtless it will not be the last, but we must remember what we do when we allow such license to government. When extra-Constitutional license is ceded to government, the government will always willingly accept for it is in the nature of government to govern more by force than by consent.

It is easy to see that the decline of Classical Liberalism in our society is mirrored by an increased power and centralization of The State as it takes advantage of the decline of citizen action and influence. The philosophy of Classical Liberalism that once prevailed in this country has been silent for far too long and thankfully it is experiencing a revival of sorts, partly out of necessity and partly out of the utter disgust with the quandary that passes as government in this country.

Until the People openly oppose all attempts to evade Constitutional Order then we will all continue to be in jeopardy from those who have shown no qualms at its usurpation at the expense of the People. Unless we oppose all efforts to abridge our Rights and Liberties by any government, political party or ideology then we will continue down the road where our Rights are totally contingent upon the winds of political expediency. If the People take those vital principles for granted or if we continue to excuse them as outdated or ineffectual for our time, even though they were specifically designed to protect all of us, then why should we be surprised when the government takes advantage of our own complacency as we readily cede such power and grant such license to those are only too willing to accept a power with far less restraint then is ordered by the Constitution.

rozenfeldt: I think that most people would agree. Where people seem to disagree is the part where it can "be ammended". Some believe that this should only be done via the ammendment process spelled out in the Constitution. Others believe that is not necessary since the meaning of the words in the Constitution should 'evolve' over time.

I believe the latter is extremely dangerous because our representatives are the ones deciding what the new interpretatin is. This allows our representatives, whose authority and power we defined in the Constitution, to re-define that authority and power on their own.

President Ron Paul - Could He Really Win?

Learn how outside economic and foreign policy events just might elect Ron Paul.
http://www.ronaldholland.com/presidentronpaul.htm in a two part article on how current events outside the political process could elect Ron Paul as President.

I am not sure if anyone has mentioned this already, but when we say "the Constitution is a Living Document", it doesn't mean that it has no objective meaning and is open to any interpretation. It means that it can change over time and be ammended to handle issues that were not considered or didn't exist when it was written.

ManUnitdFan: I was glad to read that (most of) the responses you received were not "angry".

I believe that Ron Paul is the only candidate (I can't speak to the "seas of Constitutional scholars) who would define "living document" as "in order to keep it relevent, the Constitution can be changed using the ammendment process that is provided". All of the other candidates would define it as "in order to keep it relevent, the words of the Constitution can be re-interpreted to include modern definitions and concepts that may not have been understood at the time of it's ratification".

Problem with the second definition: The Constitution represents "We the People". Thru it, we established the Federal Government and dictated the manner in which it should operate. It makes no sense to me to allow our 545 "representatives" to "reinterpret" (meaning: ammend or change) the very rules by which "we" told them to conduct themselves.

@ uglyamerican;

Appreciate your comment on the wording of the Second Amendment, but you are simply mistaken as to the intent of the amendment. First, recall that the first 10 amendments (the Bill of Rights) was considered by some to be unneccessary, i.e., that Americans (and the states) already posessed those rights and they were implicitly protected by the new Constitution. Second, the amendment says "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", a clearly personal right. Finally, I take issue with your argument that a "militia" is not needed because we have a "professional" military with control centralized in Washington DC - I submit to you that in terms of a purely defensive military capability (necessary to preserve liberty at home and eliminate imperialism abroad) a militia of all the people is essential. Our delegation of our common defense solely to a national military is hugely Empire-enabling. The locus of military power must be local, i.e., the individual. The fact that so many national politicians hate the second amendment and want to institute national laws against individual firearms ownership is clear evidence that they care not about the right of the people, only themselves. A true patriot has nothing to fear from a free, well-armed citizenry.

ManUnitedFan,

You hit the nail on the head when you refer to the Constitution as a "living document". Any living document is in turn a dying document. The Paul supporters view the Constitution as being etched in stone, thus eternal. The unraveling of the Constitution began around the 1890's and the unraveling is quickly accelerating with every new creative interpretation which hands over more power to the Federal Government and denies the common person their unalienable rights.

Like I was saying....the U.S. was in danger of being invaded by a foreign power, so it was important to provide a "well regulated militia" that could be ready to fight at a moments notice. Thus the idea to have muskets in every man's closet. We are sort of not living in that time now. Things have changed a bit. We have nukes that deter foreign powers from invading us so Billy Bob Bozo from Podunk Holler Miss. doesn't really need the arsenal he's been building up in his basement. There is legitimate argument for reexamining the 2nd Amendment.
Still... GO RON PAUL. By the way...things have changed a little. over two hundred years ago that poor ManU guy would have been hung as a traitor for supporting anything British.

Check out a bold prediction based on the election of 1860 at http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=2&subcatid=30&threadid=227812

hey...I didn't finish posting,,,,,it posted on its own!

Look guys,I'm a supporter of Dr. "No" as well, but in all fairness. The ManU guy has a very minor point. He just didn't know enough about what he was talking about to present his point adequately. Fact: Most of the U.S. Constitution is pretty straight forward, there are, however, some gray areas. For me the biggest gray area is the 2nd Amendment. At the time of it's writing, a young U.S. was in a very really danger of being invaded by a forain power

Mr. ManUntdFan,

To grasp the importance of people following the Law of their land, rent an awesome DVD movie from Australia, Ten Canoes.

You will understand why the election is all about adherence to the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the USA.

ManUnitdFan,

I had this same type of question posed to me over several years now and the answer is really simple.

The Constitution is the "Supreme Law" of our land from which all other Law is based on. If those like you say that it is a "Living Document" that changes with the times then you're basically saying that the "Supreme Law" is also constantly changing. If that is the case then the "Supreme Law" is unknowable.

In other words, it's constantly changing. If what you propose is true, then how is any Citizen of this Country to know what the Law is?

If the Supreme Law is constantly changing then all Laws passed will have to be constantly changing so there will be no solid point in time where anyone will no what the Law is.

That's an impossible system for any rational person to try to live under. It may be good for some people who don't want to live under any Law but for the majority of us it's just another lie and an excuse for those who would gladly break any Law.

If you really believe this kind of thinking then I will politely ask you to return to Communist Russia, China, or maybe even Cuba. You don't belong in the United States for you don't want to be Free.

Hey ManUnitdFan,
No disrespect to a man of your level. But, I think you are "alone" on this board.
My views;
1.You've hold such a "strong" position against Dr. Paul.
2.You loved the current system because you've you so much to loose.
3.You've other candidate in mind to be the "Next leader for America".
Do share with us.

"At the risk of angering the sea of Ron Paul supporters out there"
Don't be afraid of the "Truth". We are for truth; we get anointed with misleading, distortions and smears of this honorable man, Dr. Paul.

"I'm getting really tired of people talking about Ron Paul as the only one who understands the Constitution". Why are you tired of the "Nutural Law of the Land"?
Let's just say, currently he's the "Only One" speaking and abiding by it!!!

"I guarantee you that 99.9% of these people developed their opinions about the Constitution based on their person political beliefs, and not the other way around."
You're "entitled" to your opinion. We'd preferred "facts" and you should start your own survey company!

"The Constitution and Constitutional theory are incredibly complex"
As an "Average Joe" and I've no trouble understanding "The Principals" of it.
Although I am no scholar, but if your "Basic and principal rights" which is "Guaranteed" to individual and has been taken away. What would ManUnitdFan do? Go save the Queen?

It's only be a "Living Document" when Dr. Paul of "We the People" to (REINSTATE) this (Nationally Treasured Document).
You're one of "We the People" correct?

Freedom, Prosperity and Peace such a "Universal Message" for the sake of humanity.
"The RP Revolution Army"

I just picked up on two great bumper sticker ideas at
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/12/mainstream-medi.html?cid=93134144#comments

HONEST ABE WON IN 1860, HONEST RON WINS IN 2008
...................VOTE FOR RON PAUL....................................

JULY 4, 1776, AMERICA'S BIRTHDAY
AMERICA'S RE-BIRTHDAY, NOV. 4, 2008
Another Successful Delivery for DR. RON PAUL
..............VOTE FOR RON PAUL..........................

If space is a problem I can go with,

AMERICA'S RE-BIRTHDAY, NOV. 4, 2008.....
Another Successful Delivery for DR. RON PAUL
...........VOTE FOR RON PAUL...........................

My fellow Paulistas, find a local print shop to stamp some out for you.

At the risk of angering Manchester United fans... Ron Paul is the only one who understands the Constitution.

There is no religious test for office allowed, so Romney shouldn't feel compelled to defend Mormonism.

There is no torture allowed, (8th Amendment) so Rudy and the others shouldn't be defending waterboarding. If drowning isn't a cruel and unusual punishment, I don't know what is.

Under the Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war NOT the President.

Listen to what Ron Paul says. He was right about Iraq. He was right about Iran. He is right about the economy. He's right about our borders. He's right on almost everything, and he sticks to his principles no matter what.

Handwritten letters...that sounds like some old-school stuff right there. I know I'd read a handwritten letter for sure. You just don't get them anymore.

I dunno though, if I did it they'd barely be able to read my chicken scratches.

I don't even do cursive at all anymore. Funny, my dad didn't either. Wonder what that means...

Anyway, Scrooge, I hope I never have to argue with you...

So, how about that San Francisco Republican Alliance Straw poll cancellation eh? Ron Paul supporters come, they pay, and then the vote is canceled just to keep Ron Paul from winning.

Didn't hear about that? Gee, I would think that the Washington Post would know about it, don't you? I would think it's front page news!

Even though we certainly didn't need any more proof that freedom and it's defenders are often silenced in the most unfair and underhanded ways, we can throw this incredible event on top of the pile.

The term "Constitutional scholar" needs to be removed from the vocabulary of any normal citizen. The only scholars that exist that would ever use that term are people who want to find new ways to try to make the inelastic document elastic. Most of these scholars either work for, or are funded directly by, the Federal government.

My wife and I have recently been talking about the Constitution to young teenagers and their parents. It is always refreshing to see that the teenagers, uncorrupted by the political scene, "get it" right away. The parents, though, usually seem to try to wiggle their own views into it, even if we can plainly show them specifically where the Constitution disallows the Federal government from overreaching.

I have no doubt that all the candidates on both sides of the political spectrum, save Ron Paul, have not read the Constitution that they want to swear an oath to uphold and protect as their primary responsibility.

Take note, if you are an independant, you must change now to a republican if you want to vote for Ron Paul in the primary's, in some states. I'm in Fl. and did this last week. We finally after all these years have someone worth voting for,
RON PAUL

If you attended government (ie, public) schools in the USA, you probably learned about the Constitution.

As the previous writers have indicated, it was not intended to be complex. However, if you have any difficulty understanding it, I invite you to visit this website:

http://www.civiced.org/index.php?page=constitution_day

This site has downloadable lessons on the Constitution for all age and intelligence levels: Kindergarten, Elementary School, Middle School, and High School.

If you have difficulty reading, there are even AUDIO lessons!

Don't worry...the rest of us promise to help you out. Really.

It's sad that anyone would think that the US Constitution is complicated. It has only been complicated by scores of lawyers looking for verbal loopholes. It was intended to be taken at face value. If you want a better understanding of what the founders had in mind, you can read the text of the debates that lead up to its writing. Those debates are filled with discussions as to EXACTLY what they intended. How many people know that the Bill of Rights was almost not written and was hotly debated? Even back then, detractors knew that eventually someone would come along and interpret it to mean that people only had those specific rights. Boy, were they correct. Now, people talk about Constitutional rights. The founders spoke of God-given rights. The Bill of Rights was intended to PROTECT rights, not to ENUMERATE them. Compromise was only reached by adding the 10th Amendment. READ IT. It's not complicated. The Constitution is barely alive today. It's been stomped down by 200 years of corrupt politicians, greedy corporate interests, and apathetic Americans. It's time to bring it back from the brink of death.

".... it's not as if seas of Constitutional scholars just aren't 'understanding' the Constitution because they see it as a living document."

The Constitution as a "living document" should only mean that the Constitution can be changed by amendment. (If you change it by other means, without amending it, there is no limit to what can be "changed", including basic freedoms.)

"Changing" the Constitution without amending it is called usurpation, and George Washington said usurpation is "the weapon by which free governments are customarily destroyed". If we ignore that, we do so at our own peril. And that is what we are seeing now. We are getting down to basic things, like the erosion of the Bill of Rights and of the separation of powers.

Man, I grew up thinking that "we" or "they" still had to follow out constitution, well as I grew older I realized this wasn't the case. My constitutional rights have been violated before, and all of out constitutional rights are being violated now. We need Ron Paul to straighten all of these things out because I am sick and tired of "my" constitutional rights being compromised. Sick and tired.

A nuclear power plant has an operating license with technical specifications that define the operating limits for the plant. Go outside those limits and the NRC shuts the plant down.

The Constitution defines the legal limits for the federal government. It has come to the attention of We the People who defined those limits, that the government is operating way outside it's authorized limits.

Time to order a plant/government shutdown and put a new operator at the controls to ensure future operation is within prescribed limits.

His name is Ron Paul. It is just that simple.

No complicated discussions about nuances and complexities of the Constitution are necessary.

Hey, Manchester United fan, please read the constitution of the united states of America:

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

If, for any reason, you can't understand something, just stop by and I am sure we will be very happy helping you understanding it. If you visit dailypaul.com or ronpaulforums.com ... you'll find a lot of people who will help you understand ;)

> At the risk of angering the sea of Ron Paul
> supporters out there, I'm getting really
> tired of people talking about Ron Paul as
> the only one who "understands" the
> Constitution.

The Constitution is pretty clear about the limits of the power of Federal government, and what it takes to actually go to war. There's nothing "incredibly complex" about the 10th amendment or Article 1, Section 8 and it doesn't take a course in Constitutional theory to understand them. It just might take a course in Constitutional theory to misunderstand them, though.

I haven't seen any other candidate bring that up, so I don't know what you're so "tired" about.

Our Federal government routinely is in violation of the law, and it has to come to an end immediately.

THe COnstitution is not a complicated document. In fact, it was intentionally simple so that the average person (and Politician) would be able to understand it without ambiguity. The more complicated and obtuse laws and regulations get, the more they are used to hide unconstitutional and freedom-sapping proposals. An shining (or not-so-shiny)example is the Tax Code. While people debate the constitutionality of the income (and actual legality of it's passage), the fact that there are more than 3000 pages (at last count) in the code should throw up red flags to every citizen who doesn't get special exemptions and tax breaks. Perhaps that is because they can't afford an army of lobbyists whose sole purpose is to ADD to the tax code so they can avoid paying it! Their ability to shirk responsibility for paymenty just means the IRS is that more aggressive, unconstitutionally badgering and extorting money from those who are less likely to fight thier unlawful tactics.

There is Freedom in simplicity. There is an attack on Liberty and freedom in every elitist scheme to complicate our laws and skirt the Constitution.

xtrabiggg
++++++++++++++++++=

ManUnitdFan, if the Constitution is a living document, why does our government choose to ignore and write laws that are in conflict with it, e.g. war on drugs. The law makers a century ago had much more respect to the constitution; if they wanted to change federal law then they amended it, e.g. alcohol prohibition. I'm not advocating drugs. This is merely and example. Our founders intended for the power to be with the states and the people. So continuing with the examples, states should have the sole power to regulate drugs. If this is not the will of the people or the states then the constitution should be amended to make it the law of the land instead of ignoring the document completely. Otherwise, you have the federal government trumping state law unconstitutionally.

It's the Constitution, studpid. These words could have been said to King George by Washington and his fellow colonists because that King would not obey his own laws, nor did he respect the rights of the colonists. That is why they succeeded from Great Britain and risked it all for liberty.
The U.S. Constitution is a document anyone can understand as long as they can read and have more than a double didget IQ. If you want further explanatory documantation, try the Federalist Papers.

Don't forget to donate this Sunday for the Ron Paul Tea Party:
http://www.teaparty07.com

Einstein often said that if you can't explain your theory to a man on the street then you probably have it wrong. The notion that government is too complicated for the average citizen to engage and that a special group of elites should be relied upon to interpret our Constitution for us flies in the face of the words of our founders. The Soviets tried to micromanage their economy and government and failed miserably. What makes you think that we can do the same thing and succeed? Einstein also said that to do the same thing repeatedly and expect a different result is the definition of insanity. Sorry for all of the Einstein quotes. I majored in Physics.

At the risk of angering the sea of Ron Paul supporters out there, I'm getting really tired of people talking about Ron Paul as the only one who "understands" the Constitution.

I guarantee you that 99.9% of these people developed their opinions about the Constitution based on their person political beliefs, and not the other way around. The Constitution and Constitutional theory are incredibly complex, and it's not as if seas of Constitutional scholars just aren't "understanding" the Constitution because they see it as a living document.