Ron Paul's Legislative Record Must Be Considered

We all have a hierarchy of issues.

I disagree with his stance on abortion and immigration but very, very strongly agree with him about ending empire NOW.

For me, I'll trade empire for a repeal of RvW (and a state to state discussion of abortion). There are no perfect canditates or platforms.

This gawddamed empire has got to end.

I'm a Paul supporter and a libertarian, and I've known about lots of these stances for a while.

The thing that I keep hearing where many libertarians seem to be taking issue with, and this is definitely reflected in that record of legislation, is his insistance on federalism. Many libertarians seem to take issue with the idea of "states' rights," which they see as de facto allowing states to implement authoritarian legislation on individual liberty. However, remember what the alternative to this is: a situation in which more power and authority is granted to the FEDERAL government. I don't see this as an acceptable alternative.

Furthermore, he has stated clearly that he doesn't endorse authoritarian policies by states. He has called anti-sodomy laws "rediculous," he has stated quite clearly he believes that marijuana should be legalized, and believes everyone should have freedom of expression. He has furthermore stated that his goal is maximum liberty, and he views that adhering to the Constitution is the "best means of achieving this." (I.E., his view is that federalism is the best way to achieve this, as the power of the federal government would be restrained.)

On the Flag Burning issue... remember, there are other issues involved here that are relevant to state and local concerns. (Arson, disturbing the peace, etc.) I don't think that Ron would necessarily be against people having the right to burn the flag (more on this below), in general, but there are local concerns here unrelated to the freedom of speech vs. extreme nationalism of those who want to ban flag burning at the federal level. Furthemore, he has NEVER called for a federal ban on flag burning, and he has voted against this every single time that it has come up. You can see for yourself:

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=296

Look for the "Flag Desecration" bills under the category of "Civil Liberties."

Well, here's what the official record says:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HJ00080:

Interesting... So in 1980 he wanted to roll back integration and allow private schools to discriminate against minorities without losing their tax-exempt status. I'd like to hear his views on this today, and whether he thinks he was wrong in this.

What we all have to think about is simply this:

If the dollar crashes, housing prices crash and our titanically huge national debt is called, none of the issues that Americans love to bicker about will matter in the least.

The Soviet Union came to an abrupt end when it's central banks refused to continue it's deficit spending/hyper inflation policy.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who fully understands our monetary policy and what it's doing to America...period.

While not a Ron Paul supporter, I am also not a Ron Paul detractor, just a detractor of his policy choices based on his political beliefs. I was talking to a RP supporter and he was telling me how RP would get rid of things like the NEA, get out of federal spending on public works, get out of the way of business, etc. When I told him that this kind of total hands off policy was 1) not what the original founding fathers envisioned (he did not buy that but also was not much for reading history) and 2) would hurt those who are especially vulnerable to corporation profit motives, he asked me how I could believe that. I then pointed out how the Rural Electrification Program had made it possible for places that were not 'profitable' to the corporations to get electricity. He looked at me as if I had uttered a great truth and said that he could support something like that. Unfortunately, he did not see the irony of his remark as a Ron Paul supporter.

I dont think the min wage should be abolished, disparity is already at a high.

I dont think repealing gun laws in/around schools is a good thing given the gang problems today.

The flag thing is just lame.

I do support Ron Pauls latest Freedom Agenda act that would reinstate habea corpus and posse comitatus.

You got it, Cap.

GOP through and through.

Supports the elimination of laws against prostitution and consensual sexual relations NOT involving minors.

Voted against two proposals to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage.

Supports repeal of the USA Patriot ACT, warrantless spying, and the National ID Card.

Opposed the invasion of Iraq from the moment the subject came up, and opposes military campaigns against any country that hasn't directly attacked us, and even then says wars shouldn't be waged on the whim of the President, but ONLY with an official declaration of war from Congress.

Another typical GOP candidate.

SHIT, Cap'n, those positions make Hillary look like the tool of the Religious Right she may actually be.
They're Far 'to the left' of ANYBODY the Democrats are fielding with the possible exception of Kucinich.

You've nailed it Cap'n.
GOP. Period.
IF all that means is he's a member of the Republican Party, and you're willing to ignore at least half of the positions he's consistently taken and votes he's cast (which you obviously are).

It is not the duty of the president to make laws. Only Congress may do this. As an executive one of the primary responsibilities of the president is to protect the laws and interests of The People. No president has ever changed laws without the support of congress. The only power RP would have would be to veto or not to veto.

The flag thing is idiotic, but it's at least worth noting that Paul's proposal was for an amendment to the Constitution--and not an attempt to pass unconstitutional federal legislation.

Social Security? Privatize it. Medicare? Dismantle it - it's not in the Constitution.

Regulation? None. No FDA, no CDC, no CPSC, no FEMA, no MSHA -- kinda like Bush but instead of appointing inept cronies just get rid of 'em all together.

Kids poisoned by lead laced paint on toys? Well, buy another brand next time. No lawsuits.

Health care? Eat cake. IRS? A thing of the past.

Anything that would get in the way of a rich man's god given right to make money off the poor man? Obsolete.

Vote Ron Paul in 2008 if this is the America you want.

What's all this bullshit about Ron Paul's integrity and honesty? How can anyone really know how honest he is? Because that's become the buzz word of his campaign? Now it's written in the Rosetta Stone? I feel like I'm watching a bunch of sheep. Are you people so anti-democrat that you're just desperate to find a republican you can stomach? I think the voting record for Paul is valuable information and should not be taken lightly. However, if you must bury your heads in the sand, have at it...

Here's the Greenwald link:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/12/paul/

Revolution and change are the right ideas; Ron Paul is the wrong man. Get behind someone who will stick it to the rich instead, as they're the ones really ruining this country's government, economy, society, morals, standard of living, etc.

The government in essence is not our problem because it is just a non-living system, like a machine. It can be controlled and altered to suit any varying number of purposes. It is those relatively few who have used their money and influence to have more sway than the rest of us.

We don't need a libertarian, we need a socialist. Call me some kind of moonbat, sure, but if that's how you feel, why are you reading a publication named after a socialist?

Funny how Ron Pauls voting record and history becomes a smear in the eyes of his blind supporters.

That says more about the Paulites than anything any reasonable person can post, eh?

We have to fix the mess the GOP go us into by voting GOP?

That makes no sense to me.

Actually...that is great list. If you think that the rich are not running the government now - you are wrong. They are. The solution is not let the poors have the power (e.g. untitrust laws, all too often exploited by competition against successful companies). The solution is to let NOBODY have the power. And Ron Paul has stated this openly. Study economics, then you will know better.

"H.J.RES.80: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the States to prohibit the physical destruction of the flag of the United States and authorizing Congress to prohibit destruction of federally owned flags."

He also proposed to congress a declaration of war on Iraq. In both cases he was vehemently opposed to the actual issue at hand but was making a point to the rest of Congress about the proper procedural way to do things.

When he proposed H.J.Res 80, Congress was debating a bill, not an amendment, to do the same thing. Dr. Paul's position was that the bill was fundamentally unconstitutional; if they wanted to change that, they'd have to amend the constitution first.

Be absolutely positive he would have voted against this amendment. He has many times voted against his own bills, which he only proposes out of a respect for the proper procedure and rule of law.

Ron Paul opposed his own flag-burning amendment. He was making a point.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2005/cr062205b.htm

"Mr. Speaker, we have some misfits who on occasion burn the flag. We all despise this behavior, but the offensive conduct of a few does not justify making an exception to the First Amendment protections of political speech the majority finds offensive."

Also: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/12/paul/index.html

I have acquired a pretty good understanding of Ron Paul's governing philosophy from reviewing the list of votes he has cast and reading his writings about issues in general.
His priority when casting votes is to first consider whether the Constitution allows the federal government to legislate by way of the bill before the House. Often, the Constitution does not give Congress the authority to legislate, so he votes "no". Sometimes, he is the only one voting "no". The current prevailing attitude of Congress to casually ignore the Constitution makes his lone dissenting votes appear at first glance to be eccentric contrarianism, but in the light of closer review they are very courageous, principled acts.
Further, when he would know that there was a "vital" issue at stake - such as one that involved abortion - he'd reason that although his conviction was that, constitutionally, abortion is supposed to be addressed at the states level, he would cast what he considered to be mitigating votes giving the unborn the benefit of the doubt.
I think that we will be very much surprised when the primaries begin. The major polling organizations' "likely voter" sampling methods have become obsolete, as the mid-tiered candidates' unrealistically low poll numbers indicate. I doubt that it's due as much to sinister bias as to the rapid changes in information and communication technologies that are outpacing the election cycle period. Regardless, Dr. Paul's campaign seems to be building up a formidable head of steam.
Even though many who are considering support of Ron Paul's platform take issue with one or more of his stated positions, the overriding appeal of a Paul presidency is that it will a) send a powerful signal to both of the major parties that we seriously want a leaner, more constitutional federal government, b) create a more realistic check and balance between the presidency and Congress, and c) encourage young people who aspire to politics to want to follow Paul's very principled, incorruptible governing philosophy.

Ahem,

I misspoke, the Supreme Court ruled that the Gun-Free School Zones Act was unconstitutional in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).

So, I will have to admit that Dr. Paul was only 5 years early in condemning the act as an unconstitutional grab for power be the gun-control happy feds.

"Even though he claims to be a "libertarian", he opposes people's freedom to burn or destroy their own copies of the design of the U.S. flag"

"Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the States to prohibit the physical destruction of the flag of the United States and authorizing Congress to prohibit destruction of federally owned flags. "

Ron Paul has always been about leaving these laws up to the states. Burning Federal flags would be a waste of federal money. I know this is hair-splitting, but come on - that is a totally libertarian view, and the view he has held throughout. Pro-life? You have to be kidding me. The man is a gynecologist!

"To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception."

Most rational people would say something that is growing is alive.

["I dont think repealing gun laws in/around schools is a good thing given the gang problems today."]

Oh, I wasn't aware that the gangs Gave a Shit about gun laws! (or drug laws, or anti-extortion laws, or assault & battery laws, or the RICO law, or conspiracy laws...)

It's been said many times, all the way back to Thomas Jefferson and probably beyond, but it seems worth repeating at this point:
Gun laws only affect those who are inclined to obey laws.

["..a lemming like rank and file that bow down to the father figurehead."]

Hmmmm.... Now where have I heard that before..?

Excuse me for a minute, I've got to go the the JOHN!!

READ THIS ABOUT THE FLAG BILL!!

The author is intentionally decontextualizing these issues.

Ron Paul was opposed to the flag bill. He introduced it into Congress to demonstrate the appropriate, constitutional way of promoting such a bill. He swore he would also vote against it. He did the same thing with the Iraq War. He introduced a bill which declared war on Iraq because he was opposed to a unilateral act by the executive. Then he voted against it.

I suspect a lot of these are mistaken. This article clears it up. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/12/paul/index.html

Hey Stein, you want to "get it on"? I'm game. Give me privileges to post on this blog. But I have a feeling you'll shut me out now that I made you look stupid.