Letters to the Editor
-
Paul, among other sick hangups
Mostly dealing with the sex lives of women and people NOT him, has a thing with treaties. He appears to think they are somehow unconstitutional or anti-constitutional...as a "strict constructionist" how does he explain his issue with treaties which were thought of well enough to be specifically mentioned in the Constitution (while not a word was said about Jaysus! or abortion or sex) such that they are the supreme law of the land when signed. Does he wish to pass an amendment stating that treaties are forever banned?
-
RE: power words and phrases, again
@ DcLaw1
Thank you for your concise, yet extraordinarily articulate dissection of the "Strict Constitutionalist" homunculus*.
Your closing line was simply too good not to blockquote:
There certainly are more and less consistent or principled applications of constitutional law, but people who hide behind the banner of "strict constructionist" or "originalist" have simply found a very fashionable way of foisting their own biases on the less informed.
* (metaphorically, dig?)
-
Stuff like that
Stuff like what? Like the EU? Like the NAU? Because the EU was a "conspiracy" at one time too.
When I was 16 years old my friend's older brother was working for, and was high up, in the campaign of my district's rep. He showed me a typical four color map of the world with all of the different countries on it, and he told me how in the near future that map will only have a handful of colors, and they will be in large blocks. He told me about the coming EU, NAU, etc. I listened to everything he told me.
Everything he has ever told me, all the "conspiracy stuff" you try to ignore because the consequences are so dire, has come true. All of it. It is only called conspiracy until it is called history.
-
Ron Paul DOES NOT take the Constitution literally
He is against the separation of church and state. The Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Ron Paul does not interpret this as making sure that no person in a governmental position of power should not lead prayers or recognition of a specific religion. Look up Paul's stance on the Pledge of Allegiance.
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2002/pr062702.htm
No, the Constitution does not bar the free expression of religion. But, having a teacher or government official lead a pray or other observation is the government respecting a specific religion over all others. But, Paul is wrong to assert there is no separation of church and state.
"The tired assertion of a separation of church and state has no historical or constitutional basis," Paul continued. "Neither the language of the Constitution itself nor the legislative history reveals any mention of such separation." And, the Pledge of Allegiance didn't make mention of God until Congress changed it. It is ironic that the Pledge was written by a minister who obviously didn't think God needed to be in his poem.
If Paul strictly interpreted the Constitution, then he would be for the separation of church and state. The fact that he isn't shows that HE IS NOT A STRICT CONSTITUTIONALIST. And, this is just one example. Another example can be derived from his opposition to the UN (see mention of treaties ratified by the Congress) and another to his desire to dismantle the IRS (income tax is part of the Constitution). And, there is the issue of the gold standard as if it were not just a different fiat system.
I dislike Ron Paul because he is a kook. He is crazy. If he were elected, we would be no better off than we are now. And, I think we would be far worse off.
-
a welcome corrective
thank you glenn. imo, the blogosphere needed a post like this - and probably no one could pull it off as you have done.
i've tried engaging with david neiwart in his comments and been completely frustrated by his lack of a response (and i am a big fan otherwise) - my complaints have been 1) guilt by association and 2) judging paul on a double standard.
the best i can explanation (which may be totally wrong - i'm really just guessin) is that some of paul positions, when seen as social signifiers, set off alarm bells with dave because they are social signifiers that are shared by the dangerous supremist groups he studies. i don't see it that way because i've known people who shared some of paul's ideas - who wouldn't hurt a fly (seriously - one of them would take insects from inside the house and release them outside).
i don't share paul's politics... but i admire his principles. and i think if conservatives had more people like fein and paul - and progressives had more people like kucinich, our politics would be much improved. at least we'd agree that we wouldn't torture people, or attack other counties without cause, no warrantless spying. we'd all agree to respect habeas, due process and fair trials and fair elections. i'm sure the arguments over health care and taxes everything else would be intense - but at lease we'd agree to follow the rules which govern how political decisions get made. somehow i think we'd find our way.
p.s. don't know if you've seen this - but here's a clip of ron paul talking about dennis kucinich. worth seeing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJcnoDfFWhM
-
allrighty then
So there was a conspiracy to create the EU? The "global elites" foisted it on member nations?
-
"I'm not trying to be Ron Paul's advocate but…" Fine. Why not?
"I'm not trying to be Ron Paul's advocate but…"
Fine, don’t be coy, Glenn, why can’t you cite a couple of areas of disagreement with Ron Paul? If you have, I’m sorry, but I’ve missed it.
You’ve stated repeatedly that you don’t agree with anyone on all issues and neither do I. That’s to be expected.
You’re very explicit in where you agree with Ron Paul, but when it comes to areas and issues where you might disagree with him, your normally forceful denunciations just aren’t there.
You’re happy to take on David Neiwert on a very specific point where you disagree with him, but when it comes to Ron Paul, I seem to encounter generic disclaimers and stilted language that obfuscates rather than delineates.
In short, when it comes to the subject of Ron Paul, Glenn Greenwald begins to sound more like a politician than a polemicist, which is rather out of character for him, to say the least.
Dave Neiwert cited numerous bills and issues about Ron Paul’s record in Congress. If Glenn doesn’t want to at least sound like Ron Paul advocate, it wouldn’t be all that hard for him to pick a couple of those stances and say just where and why he disagrees with Ron Paul on this topic.
I don’t blame Glenn for not endorsing any particular candidate. He isn’t shy about saying where he disagrees with other politicians or in criticizing them when they take a position that Glenn disagrees with -- it’d sure be nice if he’d do the same with Ron Paul.