Ron Paul is making noise!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually, it was CHPs that disarmed the gramma in Nawlins, not National Guard, at least as I remember it.

"your electoral votes will be going to the Democrat, no matter what you do."

This is why I hate living in Washington state. That and the no-title-II BS.
 
Busines=Commerce, Commerce=Business. There are very few business that do not involve some sort of interstate commerce.
Click to expand...

Let's see what the guy who wrote the commerce clause says about it...

13 Feb. 1829
Letters 4:14--15 James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell


For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.
Click to expand...

Hmm... doesn't look like his intent was to create a federal government with the power to regulate anything and everything associated with interstate commerce. Let's see what else he says about it...

Federalist 45: The Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered - For the Independent Journal. Author: James Madison
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_45.html


"It is true, that the Confederacy is to possess, and may exercise, the power of collecting internal as well as external taxes throughout the States; but it is probable that this power will not be resorted to, except for supplemental purposes of revenue; that an option will then be given to the States to supply their quotas by previous collections of their own; and that the eventual collection, under the immediate authority of the Union, will generally be made by the officers, and according to the rules, appointed by the several States

....

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security.... The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained."
Click to expand...
Gee, it looks like Madison didn't envision an IRS at all, but thought that State officers would collect any federal taxes. I think that if he had any idea that one day the regulation of interstate commerce would extend to homegrown cannabis plants or machine guns for personal use, a few more apprehensions might have been entertained about that new power.
 
Actually, it was CHPs that disarmed the gramma in Nawlins, not National Guard, at least as I remember it.
Click to expand...
You may be correct. No guardsmen tried to disarm me after hurricane Andrew in Miami nor after Charlie here in Punta Gorda. I don't believe the ones I know would follow an order to do so, but I could be wrong.
 
A standing army is counter to original intent, but I'm not sure it's illegal. There is a provision, as stated above (powers of Congress), against funding a standing army, but I thought that had since been amended. I'm looking for it tho' and can't find it...
Can anybody show me where it's authorized?

Also, "interstate commerce" <> "business", but rather providing a medium through which disputes, levies, etc. can be coordinated between states.

I'm personally of the opinion that there's no such thing as a situation that's so grave, dire, or important that it gives us license to ignore the restrictions on government set forth in the Constitution. If there's something wrong with it, we should fix it and not sweep it under the rug. I'm always amazed and puzzled that so many people believe otherwise.
 
Even if the had they were under state, not federal, control.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, I thought you had asked whether the army had been used as a tool of oppression, not which level of government was wielding the tool at the time.

A quick search over on The Firing Line did reveal a couple of reports of guards confiscating guns. There may be more, but I have to go to work.

Percy Taplet, 73, said the National Guard and state police confiscated his shotgun when they arrived to tell him to leave his house.
Click to expand...

One Associated Press report noted that "in the city's well-to-do Lower Garden District, a neighborhood with many antebellum mansions, members of the Oklahoma National Guard seized weapons from the inhabitants of one home. Those who were armed were handcuffed and briefly detained before being let go."
Click to expand...
 
Let us cut to the chase since we are so OT. ''The why do we need a military argument?'' is the same as the ''Why do we need guns arguement?''
Click to expand...
They're related, but they're opposites: anyone on this site who supports reducing or eliminating the standing army, also supports arming the entire populace. So their position is, "Why do we need an army? What we need is to arm 100% of the population."

--Len.
 
So what? It was a debate not an answer or a prohibition as you claimed. The last 200 years have proved one is needed.
Click to expand...
How did they prove it was "needed"? The last defensive war fought by the United States was the revolution.

--Len.
 
There are many things the founders thought were bad, that today we are embracing. Entanglement in the domestic affairs of other nations is one example. Concentration of power in the hands of the executive branch is another.
Click to expand...
Right. It seems that we're going to have to learn the hard way that the founders were right.

--Len.
 
Even if the had they were under state, not federal, control.
Click to expand...

And it would still be the Army being used to oppress the people. State control, federal control, who cares? You wanted examples of the Army being used as a tool of oppression.
 
Speaking as a Canadian who lives under the "iron fist in a velvet glove" theory of government, I'm all in favour of many of Ron Paul's libertarian principles; however, on some things, he is simply too far out on the ragged edge of reality to take seriously. This guy allies himself with the same fruitcakes who believe that the US ATTACKED ITSELF on Sept. 11, as a pretext for the Iraq war, the same way Rosie O'Donut and the rest of the "truthers" do. He may very well be a fine representative who works hard for his constituents, but he's one of the LAST people who should be anywhere around the "football".
 
Kent State? Come on the National Guard is hardly a standing Army. Those guys still have day jobs. Several of your comments do not jive with the facts either. The troops were not under federal control for example. The govenor of Ohio was fully in charge of that mess. Get your facts straight if you want to debate me.
Click to expand...

If so, the governor was in violation of Art 1, Sec 10, Para 3.

The ONLY ammo the Guard is allowed unless under federal control is training quantities, and ammo for MPs to enforce military law over military personnel or persons on military property.

And if the Guard are subordinated to the police power in a local disaster, their orders are civil, not military. Doesn't make the confiscation right, but it's not "the Guard" doing it. It's the police.

Though as I've always been taught, every year, I AM NOT to deal with civilians in any police capacity and may only shoot in defense. Unless I have specifically been told to stop looting, the most I can do if I see a car of stolen property is ASK them to stop and call the police.

Perhaps some of these units have been a bit slack in their training.

And the "no standing Army" theory was dead long before 1812.

I'd call WWII defensive...you don't think Japan and Germany wanted global control?

Glad to see a bunch of half-trained internet commandos think they can do my job better than I can. Any range, any time. My course of fire.;)
 
This guy allies himself with the same fruitcakes who believe that the US ATTACKED ITSELF on Sept. 11...
Click to expand...
He does no such thing. He certainly neither believes nor advocates any such conspiracy theory.

There are posters on LewRockwell.com who seem to believe that 9/11 was a plot, but that has nothing to do with Ron Paul.

--Len.
 
This guy allies himself with the same fruitcakes who believe that the US ATTACKED ITSELF on Sept. 11
Click to expand...

Allies himself with whom exactly, and on what issues?

I have found myself allied with Dick Gephardt and Bernie Sanders on certain issues, and those are two of my least favorite Congresscritters of all time.
 
The point was federal prohibition against a standing Army because it could be used as a tool of oppression. A force that is not (a)- under control of the fed nor (b)- a standing army does not meet the bill.

You can say that the NG does belong to the fed as it can be called by the fed but that is no more true than the milita which can also be called up by the fed. If the fed is not controlling it at the time it is a state issue.

So the answer is -the Federal standing Army has not been used as a tool of oppression-
 
Madmike- The governor broke many laws that day. If he had declared a state of emergency he may have been justified in deployment, but he never did.
 
The point was federal prohibition against a standing Army because it could be used as a tool of oppression. A force that is not (a)- under control of the fed nor (b)- a standing army does not meet the bill.
Click to expand...

Article 1, Section 8, which has been quoted here previously.

And I agree Kent State was a serious criminal issue. But if they didn't arrest the relevant parties then, they sure as hell ain't going to now.

Considering the guys in my unit buy ammo by the case, own lots of AR accessories for deployment, and in a couple of cases have Class III at home, don't look for us to be taking anyone's guns any time soon. 1SG and ops officer are pretty clear on that subject. "Only with written orders citing the authority and signature of the issuing party."
 
Allies himself with whom exactly, and on what issues?
Click to expand...

That wingnut Alex Jones, for one; there are also plenty of video clips floating around showing Ron Paul saying that he believes the US will engineer a "Gulf of Tonkin"-style incident in the Middle East specifically to allow an invasion of Iran. I don't have a vote either way, but this guy scares me MORE than many of the Democrats similarly-fringe candidates.
 
I also notice a lot of the people who don't like the Guard at Katrina would be real happy to involuntarily mobilize it on the border.:scrutiny:

I guess it's okay to have repression if it's people you don't like.

Now, can we get back to Ron Paul, our next president?
 
Ron Paul saying that he believes the US will engineer a "Gulf of Tonkin"-style incident in the Middle East specifically to allow an invasion of Iran.
Click to expand...

Was it shown in full context or a cut?

And the US HAS done so on at least 3 occasions previously. So the possibility is not outrageous.

I don't have a vote either way, but this guy scares me MORE than many of the Democrats similarly-fringe candidates.
Click to expand...

Yes, because a smaller government with less authority would be so dangerous to our rights:rolleyes:
 
Was it shown in full context or a cut?

And the US HAS done so on at least 3 occasions previously. So the possibility is not outrageous.
Click to expand...

The clip I saw was a good three minutes, during which he spoke on several issues, so I don't believe it COULD'VE been taken "out of context". Anything is certainly POSSIBLE, but I can't see a loose cannon like this guy (sincere though he may be) being trustworthy or responsible with the amount of power some are willing to put in his hands.

Yes, because a smaller government with less authority would be so dangerous to our rights
Click to expand...

Not at all; I'm a libertarian, remember? ;-)
 
I can't see a loose cannon like this guy (sincere though he may be) being trustworthy or responsible with the amount of power some are willing to put in his hands.
Click to expand...
He has a proven track record of never abusing--or even using--power. His lobby is dusty and full of the sound of crickets chirping: lobbyists know it's pointless even to talk to him. The whole idea of giving him "power" is that, for the first time in American history, the power will go basically unused for four straight years.

--Len.
 
Now, Budney, you know that ANYONE you don't agree with 130% is a criminal, an abuser, incompetent to hold office and a threat to America.

The only recourse is to vote for someone who has an 80% chance of winning, or to vote for someone so obscure they can't possibly win as a protest.

Picking a candidate based on him having merits you generally agree with with some reservations is just a dream of fools.;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Ron Paul's speech, "Why Americans are Angry"
Replies
0
Views
488
DualBerettas
D
D
  • Locked
Ron Paul fundraising in NH update
Replies
1
Views
2K
308nato
3
A
  • Locked
Ron Paul MoneyBomb 01/21/2008
Replies
17
Views
1K
ArfinGreebly
ArfinGreebly
B
  • Locked
The New Ron Paul Thread
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
133
Views
5K
Art Eatman
A
J
  • Locked
Ron Paul Question...?
Replies
10
Views
498
budney
B
Back
Top