*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, January 9th, 2012 12:30pm PST - promote requested by original submitter Grimm.

lol

Out of interest, what was the answer (both Romneys and the correct one if different)?

Are earmarks in the constitution?

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Ron-Paul-s-Earmarks

http://www.americanindependent.com/160697/ron-paul-one-of-only-four-house-republicans-to-request-earmarks-for-2011-budget

>> ^ChaosEngine:

Out of interest, what was the answer (both Romneys and the correct one if different)?


There's nothing in the Constitution about contraception.

That said, the controlling SCTOUS decision (Griswold v. Connecticut) says that people have a right to privacy, which bars states from trying to enforce legislation against contraceptives.

The Romney answer was essentially "I have no fucking clue, why don't you tell me what the SCOTUS said?"

And I forget if Paul weighed in, but I'm sure he'd have said "The tenth amendment says states can do whatever they fucking want to anyone," if he said anything at all.

If he wants to give Paul the name "Constitutionalist" I'm hoping Paul will take it.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Are earmarks in the constitution?
http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Ron-Paul-s-Earmarks
http://www.americanin
dependent.com/160697/ron-paul-one-of-only-four-house-republicans-to-request-earmarks-for-2011-budget


Article One, Section 9:
"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law."

So, yes. Actually following the Constitution, all spending should be earmarked.

And I forget if Paul weighed in, but I'm sure he'd have said "The tenth amendment says states can do whatever they fucking want to anyone," if he said anything at all.

The giant federal mafia that ALREADY does whatever it wants to anyone is WAY better.



>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Out of interest, what was the answer (both Romneys and the correct one if different)?

There's nothing in the Constitution about contraception.
That said, the controlling SCTOUS decision (Griswold v. Connecticut) says that people have a right to privacy, which bars states from trying to enforce legislation against contraceptives.
The Romney answer was essentially "I have no fucking clue, why don't you tell me what the SCOTUS said?"
And I forget if Paul weighed in, but I'm sure he'd have said "The tenth amendment says states can do whatever they fucking want to anyone," if he said anything at all.

@quantumushroom so you're not a tenther? You believe people have a Constitutional right to privacy?

They all will swear to uphold the Constitution and will fail. Paul is the only one who shows any track record to obeying the Constitution. That is the highest ruling principle of being elected.

Since other elected officials fail to uphold the Constitution does not that make them domestic terrorist or at least and enemy of the state?

The only other Constitutional stickler was Democrat Senator Byrd of WVA (RIP) but he was a Klansman. Who would have thunk, a raciest Democrat. Nah that doesn't exist.

I like how he calls him a Constitutionalist like that's supposed to be a bad thing. I bet Romney has never even read it before.

At the 25 second mark RP's expression says it all. >> ^TheJehosephat:

If he wants to give Paul the name "Constitutionalist" I'm hoping Paul will take it.

He basically refused to answer the question. He's response was something like "No state would ever want to ban contraception, so the question doesn't make sense". He was asked about 4 times and gave the same response each time.>> ^ChaosEngine:

Out of interest, what was the answer (both Romneys and the correct one if different)?

>> ^bobknight33:

Since other elected officials fail to uphold the Constitution does not that make them domestic terrorist or at least and enemy of the state?
No.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Out of interest, what was the answer (both Romneys and the correct one if different)?

There's nothing in the Constitution about contraception.
That said, the controlling SCTOUS decision (Griswold v. Connecticut) says that people have a right to privacy, which bars states from trying to enforce legislation against contraceptives.
The Romney answer was essentially "I have no fucking clue, why don't you tell me what the SCOTUS said?"
And I forget if Paul weighed in, but I'm sure he'd have said "The tenth amendment says states can do whatever they fucking want to anyone," if he said anything at all.


First we need to ask "what" the constitution is in the first place before we say what is "in" the constitution...nobody seems to know what it truly is. It is a document that limits the government's ability to impose force upon people (Or impose its will--however you want to look at it...)

You cannot take our free press; you cannot take our guns; you cannot allow us to be enslaved; you cannot torture or search without warrant. You cannot arrest or seize without due process. Etc.

If it is not prohibited, then it is allowed. Think of it like, oh, the Law, but in reverse. You cannot speed on the roads. You cannot rape or burn houses. You cannot commit fraud. However, you can swindle people if you are good and lawful about it. You can defend yourself against aggression.

In other words--Universal Health Care is just fine because it is not prohibited.

But this is a double edged sword because it leaves much not covered completely to the Federal Government and States with only the people to balance them out with their morality.

If the federal and state government both said Pot was legal--pot is legal. If they say alcohol is banned, it is banned. If they say contraceptives are prohibited, they are prohibited. Period. If they made rape legal, RAPE is LEGAL. We may not like that scary thought--but that's the power, that's the force of government, even in a democracy (Adolph Hitler and his followers would have agreed, so would Rome and many other democracies.)

Sadly, dumb fucks even say the constitution only applies to citizens...even though it really has nothing to do with "The people." It cannot apply to anyone because it only applies to the State...

Now, and this is where I detach and am not a blind fanboy of Ron Paul's, he get's the constitution ass-backwards... Still, I would take his broken views and make honest men out of politicians than to propagate the election of spineless bad-guys-finish-first shit bags.

@NetRunner

My response was long so I am breaking it into two points.

The SCTOUS is a big joke so who cares? They were meant to be a balance of power but have since become a body of their own doing what they want. State V. Constitution has all but been thrown off the bus.

One day they will overturn Roe V Wade when the President who replaces a few judges is conservative. I am sure certain people won't be quoting them then, even against Ron Paul.

Moving on. There are already bigger violations against privacy than contraceptives anyways, which no one seems to take note of...what sane person expects privacy nowadays anyways? I surely don't.

That is not true. You are effectively saying that so long as a law doesn't contradict an identified right, then it is constitutional. That's absolutely not the case.

The Constitution does two things as far as defining what government can and cannot do. First off, it lists what kinds of laws the federal government can pass, which are then enforced and interpretted by the other branches. Article I Section 8 lists those powers:

Taxing
Borrow money
Regulation of foreign and interstate commerce
Paths to citizenship
Coin money
Punish counterfeiting
Post offices and roads
Copyrights and patents
etc.

However, regulation of foreign and interstate commerce can be stretched, and the last of the Powers of Congress contains the necessary and proper clause, aka the elastic clause:

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Then there's the Bill of Rights that says what the gov't can't do. For a law to be constitutional, it must:

1. Show where the law is allowed in Article I, Section 8 or other Amendments.
2. Not contradict something in the Bill of Rights.

The crux of most problems that go to the Supreme Court is the language of Article I, Section 8 is vague, particularly interstate commerce clause and the elastic clause, and some laws, even if they fall under those listed powers, may violate the Bill of Rights or other amendments. Also, the Bill of Rights is vague as well. For example, when debating abortion laws, who have rights - the unborn fetus, the mother, or both? Where does it say the gov't can regulate this? Does the elastic clause or regulation of foreign or interstate commerce cover this?

It's not so simple, and the ruling for a specific issue has consequences for other rulings. Regulation of interstate commerce was the legal justification for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prevented public segregation by race, but that also has the consequence of saying the federal gov't could regulate pretty much any business because goods, services, and/or customers cross state lines in just about any business. But if that's not how it's constitutional, then the federal gov't couldn't end racial segregation in public businesses.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

It is a document that limits the government's ability to impose force upon people (Or impose its will--however you want to look at it...)
You cannot take our free press; you cannot take our guns; you cannot allow us to be enslaved; you cannot torture or search without warrant. You cannot arrest or seize without due process. Etc.

If it is not prohibited, then it is allowed. Think of it like, oh, the Law, but in reverse. You cannot speed on the roads. You cannot rape or burn houses. You cannot commit fraud. However, you can swindle people if you are good and lawful about it. You can defend yourself against aggression.
In other words--Universal Health Care is just fine because it is not prohibited.

@heropsycho ahh, but you do need to be careful with the whole "enumerated powers" malarkey. After all, there's nothing in Article I, Section 8 about Congress being able to create an Air Force -- just an Army and a Navy. The Air Force is unconstitutional.

Also too, it doesn't say the government is allowed to build roads, just "Post roads" for the post office's use! Don't even get us started on things like power lines or telephone cable.

According to the likes of Ron Paul, the Constitution isn't open to even a little bit of reinterpretation, but instead that it's a straightjacket that should constrain the Federal government from doing anything that isn't explicitly listed in Section 8.

Hell, he's even implied that since the Constitution uses the verb "coin" to describe Congress's authority to create money, that paper currency (backed by gold or otherwise) is also unconstitutional.

IMO, I'd be fine with that interpretation, as long as people stopped pretending that the constitution was some holy scripture filled with infinite wisdom passed down to us by messiahs. We should be rewriting and re-ratifying the Constitution to fit with our modern ideals of how things should function.

For example, there should be something in the constitution about the nexus of money and politics, but there isn't.

There should be something more about the legal definition of "people" -- do fetuses or corporations count?

There should be something in there about the Air Force, and the Marines too, for good measure.

Do we have a right to privacy, or don't we?

Right now we mostly let the Supreme Court decide these things by letting them "interpret" a 200 year-old document based on their supposed ability to divine the mental state of the long-dead authors of the sections they feel are relevant.

Why shouldn't those questions be put to a vote?

Oh, and @Lawdeedaw, you might be interested in the above rant as well.

*comedy

Adding video to channels (Comedy) - requested by xxovercastxx.

For the record, I'm not a strict constructionist. However, I do recognize the danger of looser interpretations, even though I'm politically moderate person. I don't have a good answer for example about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because that law was sorely needed, but it sure does open Pandora's box about what the gov't can and can't regulate. Regulation of interstate commerce allowed for things like environmental regulation, the formation of the EPA, etc. But it sure can cause the gov't to regulate things it shouldn't, too.

The formation of an Air Force though is an easier argument constitutionally, and it's a useful thing to review because it illustrates the thought process of the Supreme Court. When something isn't outright said in Article I, Section 8, those powers in combination with interpretting other sections such as the Preamble ("provide for the common defense..."), or sometimes other documents the forefathers wrote such as the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, etc., provide ideas about their intent. It's clearly implied that since they could form an Army and Navy for defense, once flight was possible, it's implied we need an Air Force.

As to the things below you're saying should be put to a vote, they are, but not directly by the people. That's how the Amendment process works. Should it be a direct vote by the people? In my opinion, that would be a horrible idea. The people simply for the most part do not understand the ramifications of amending the Constitution.

>> ^NetRunner:

@heropsycho ahh, but you do need to be careful with the whole "enumerated powers" malarkey. After all, there's nothing in Article I, Section 8 about Congress being able to create an Air Force -- just an Army and a Navy. The Air Force is unconstitutional.
Also too, it doesn't say the government is allowed to build roads, just "Post roads" for the post office's use! Don't even get us started on things like power lines or telephone cable.
According to the likes of Ron Paul, the Constitution isn't open to even a little bit of reinterpretation, but instead that it's a straightjacket that should constrain the Federal government from doing anything that isn't explicitly listed in Section 8.
Hell, he's even implied that since the Constitution uses the verb "coin" to describe Congress's authority to create money, that paper currency (backed by gold or otherwise) is also unconstitutional.
IMO, I'd be fine with that interpretation, as long as people stopped pretending that the constitution was some holy scripture filled with infinite wisdom passed down to us by messiahs. We should be rewriting and re-ratifying the Constitution to fit with our modern ideals of how things should function.
For example, there should be something in the constitution about the nexus of money and politics, but there isn't.
There should be something more about the legal definition of "people" -- do fetuses or corporations count?
There should be something in there about the Air Force, and the Marines too, for good measure.
Do we have a right to privacy, or don't we?
Right now we mostly let the Supreme Court decide these things by letting them "interpret" a 200 year-old document based on their supposed ability to divine the mental state of the long-dead authors of the sections they feel are relevant.
Why shouldn't those questions be put to a vote?

The Constitution says nothing about a right to privacy. That doesn't mean a right to privacy couldn't be created (good luck enforcing it). AFAIK, legal flapdoodle during Roe v. Wade 'created' a right to privacy.

Am improved balance of power between the States and the federal mafia should exist.

>> ^NetRunner:

@quantumushroom so you're not a tenther? You believe people have a Constitutional right to privacy?

Lol. We will fight them on land, sea but not air, that's unconstitutional.
>> ^NetRunner:

@heropsycho ahh, but you do need to be careful with the whole "enumerated powers" malarkey. After all, there's nothing in Article I, Section 8 about Congress being able to create an Air Force -- just an Army and a Navy. The Air Force is unconstitutional.

Constiwaahhhhh??

>> ^heropsycho:

For the record, I'm not a strict constructionist. However, I do recognize the danger of looser interpretations, even though I'm politically moderate person. I don't have a good answer for example about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because that law was sorely needed, but it sure does open Pandora's box about what the gov't can and can't regulate.

I didn't think you were, I was just pointing out that the Ron Paulite theory of Constitutional interpretation reads Article I Section 8 as ruling out the possibility of the federal government doing anything, and makes the argument that even the first Congress violated the Constitution on a regular basis.

Personally I don't see "government" as having any real constraints on its power as-is. The Constitution allows for 1st amendment rights, but saying fuck on TV will get you fined, while bribing public officials is a protected exercise of free expression.

The problem here isn't government as a concept, the problem is that people have stopped demanding better from their government. As a result, they never get a better government.

It's not an iron law of politics, it's just a self-fulfilling prophecy stuck in a feedback loop of masochism.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The Constitution says nothing about a right to privacy. That doesn't mean a right to privacy couldn't be created (good luck enforcing it). AFAIK, legal flapdoodle during Roe v. Wade 'created' a right to privacy.
Am improved balance of power between the States and the federal mafia should exist.
>> ^NetRunner:
@quantumushroom so you're not a tenther? You believe people have a Constitutional right to privacy?



I believe it is a human right.

Nobody takes you seriously in a discussion if you say "federal mafia". Just a heads up.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The Constitution says nothing about a right to privacy. That doesn't mean a right to privacy couldn't be created (good luck enforcing it). AFAIK, legal flapdoodle during Roe v. Wade 'created' a right to privacy.
Am improved balance of power between the States and the federal mafia should exist.
>> ^NetRunner:
@quantumushroom so you're not a tenther? You believe people have a Constitutional right to privacy?

The 4th amendment to the constitution (part of the bill of rights) could be used as a law for privacy.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

While originally the amendments applied only to the federal government, most of their provisions have since been held to apply to the states by way of the Fourteenth Amendment.

>> ^NetRunner:

Oh, and @Lawdeedaw, you might be interested in the above rant as well.


I always love a good tirade

I meant that the constitution limits the government, not the people. That is not to say that it doesn't spell out a few rules it should enforce. And besides, "limits" is not saying that it cannot punish at all. I specify that in the bill of rights because it favors my context well...

When I say "If it is not prohibited, it is allowed," I mean that in a very broad sense. Making laws for one...unless otherwise noted...

>> ^heropsycho:

That is not true. You are effectively saying that so long as a law doesn't contradict an identified right, then it is constitutional. That's absolutely not the case.
The Constitution does two things as far as defining what government can and cannot do. First off, it lists what kinds of laws the federal government can pass, which are then enforced and interpretted by the other branches. Article I Section 8 lists those powers:
Taxing
Borrow money
Regulation of foreign and interstate commerce
Paths to citizenship
Coin money
Punish counterfeiting
Post offices and roads
Copyrights and patents
etc.
However, regulation of foreign and interstate commerce can be stretched, and the last of the Powers of Congress contains the necessary and proper clause, aka the elastic clause:
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Then there's the Bill of Rights that says what the gov't can't do. For a law to be constitutional, it must:
1. Show where the law is allowed in Article I, Section 8 or other Amendments.
2. Not contradict something in the Bill of Rights.
The crux of most problems that go to the Supreme Court is the language of Article I, Section 8 is vague, particularly interstate commerce clause and the elastic clause, and some laws, even if they fall under those listed powers, may violate the Bill of Rights or other amendments. Also, the Bill of Rights is vague as well. For example, when debating abortion laws, who have rights - the unborn fetus, the mother, or both? Where does it say the gov't can regulate this? Does the elastic clause or regulation of foreign or interstate commerce cover this?
It's not so simple, and the ruling for a specific issue has consequences for other rulings. Regulation of interstate commerce was the legal justification for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prevented public segregation by race, but that also has the consequence of saying the federal gov't could regulate pretty much any business because goods, services, and/or customers cross state lines in just about any business. But if that's not how it's constitutional, then the federal gov't couldn't end racial segregation in public businesses.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
It is a document that limits the government's ability to impose force upon people (Or impose its will--however you want to look at it...)
You cannot take our free press; you cannot take our guns; you cannot allow us to be enslaved; you cannot torture or search without warrant. You cannot arrest or seize without due process. Etc.

If it is not prohibited, then it is allowed. Think of it like, oh, the Law, but in reverse. You cannot speed on the roads. You cannot rape or burn houses. You cannot commit fraud. However, you can swindle people if you are good and lawful about it. You can defend yourself against aggression.
In other words--Universal Health Care is just fine because it is not prohibited.

>> ^marinara:

The 4th amendment to the constitution (part of the bill of rights) could be used as a law for privacy.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Hrm, interesting since I am drunk... But you said, "Also too," which makes all that you wrote moot! Ha, also can mean "too!" I win!

All jokes aside...the constitution, as I said, is understood backwards by Paul. If it isn't wrote, the government has the ability to do (At least the State.)

Universal healthcare is legal, not because of the commerce clause...but because it is.

>> ^NetRunner:

@heropsycho ahh, but you do need to be careful with the whole "enumerated powers" malarkey. After all, there's nothing in Article I, Section 8 about Congress being able to create an Air Force -- just an Army and a Navy. The Air Force is unconstitutional.
Also too, it doesn't say the government is allowed to build roads, just "Post roads" for the post office's use! Don't even get us started on things like power lines or telephone cable.
According to the likes of Ron Paul, the Constitution isn't open to even a little bit of reinterpretation, but instead that it's a straightjacket that should constrain the Federal government from doing anything that isn't explicitly listed in Section 8.
Hell, he's even implied that since the Constitution uses the verb "coin" to describe Congress's authority to create money, that paper currency (backed by gold or otherwise) is also unconstitutional.
IMO, I'd be fine with that interpretation, as long as people stopped pretending that the constitution was some holy scripture filled with infinite wisdom passed down to us by messiahs. We should be rewriting and re-ratifying the Constitution to fit with our modern ideals of how things should function.
For example, there should be something in the constitution about the nexus of money and politics, but there isn't.
There should be something more about the legal definition of "people" -- do fetuses or corporations count?
There should be something in there about the Air Force, and the Marines too, for good measure.
Do we have a right to privacy, or don't we?
Right now we mostly let the Supreme Court decide these things by letting them "interpret" a 200 year-old document based on their supposed ability to divine the mental state of the long-dead authors of the sections they feel are relevant.
Why shouldn't those questions be put to a vote?

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Hrm, interesting since I am drunk... But you said, "Also too," which makes all that you wrote moot! Ha, also can mean "too!" I win!

I intentionally do that as a snarky homage to Sarah Palin.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
All jokes aside...the constitution, as I said, is understood backwards by Paul. If it isn't wrote, the government has the ability to do (At least the State.)
Universal healthcare is legal, not because of the commerce clause...but because it is.

I think of it the same way. I read Article I, Section 8 as being something along the lines of "Congress's powers include, but are not limited to..." rather than the Paulite "This is the comprehensive and limited list of Congress's powers, and Congress has no authority to do anything that isn't explicitly defined in this list..."

Essentially I think the Constitutional authority of Congress is more defined by "necessary and proper" and "promoting the General Welfare". People's conception of what policies meet those standards may shift over time, but those overall goals are essentially permanent.

IMO, indefinite detention of terrorists is neither necessary nor proper, so it should be unconstitutional. Health insurance mandates are both, and promote the General Welfare as well, so they are.

People might disagree with me on those evaluations, but that's why we have elections.