Here’s my advise: stop thinking your going to find Mr. Perfect and look for who the true conservatives are saying stands for true conservatism.

The fact is the only "controversy" about Ron Paul is something some small minded fool did….in an attempt to smear him.

The fact that Ron Paul has never once done anything ON RECORD to make me think he is anything but what he says he is – is a breath of fresh air in politics… You know it, I know it and so does everyone who really looks into it.

Looking into it does not mean parroting what some other blogger seems to think either.

You want to show real journalistic skill grow a backbone and look at Ron Pauls real record and you will find its nothing but pure, perfect, classic, beautiful conservatism and all the liberty and free market genius that brings with it.
85% of those that study in depth what Ron Paul stands for become supporters – I don’t mean "Ya I’ll vote for him" I mean friggen supporters.

Jim.

Dang, Christine beat me to it.

It will be fun to see if one of the Paulistas will actually defend one of their claims or whether this is just another in the LONG line of hit-and-run spam comments.

Jim, there is nothing in either link you post that says that 85% of people who investigate what Ron Paul says become “supporters”. Neither link includes any methodology that even remotely addresses such a question at all.

Okay you win – I found this 85% quote – but it’s from a Blog lmao.. So the comeback would be to use my backbone argument against me in terms of parroting other blogers… I bow to you on that one.

Regardless the point I was trying to make was he is a true conservative.

Thanks for keeping me honest by the way.

Am I one of those spammer tin foil hat Paulistas?

You bet..One of the ways I show my support is throwing my two cents in on blogs and the like…

Why do some Paulistas seem angry?

It’s heartbreaking to see a good man get smeared time and time again so we get a little kneejerk about things. At any rate I’ll go "spam" elseware now

admin: name-calling and personal attacks = instaban

Jason, I’d like to take you up on a little challenge..

And the point I am making in response is that the term "true conservative" is a subjective opinion on your part, not an objective fact. Not everyone shares your (or Paul’s) opinion of what constitutes a "true conservative" nor does everyone share the Paulistas’ definitions of "liberty" or their interpretation of the Constitution.

Tell me how other traditional conservatives have a different interpretation of the Constitution by citing exact examples.

What I find so troubling is the resistance to Paul, but the lack of reason to that resistance.  So, let’s see your reasoning.

Specific talking point:
Ron Paul on CAFTA:
"He opposes CAFTA (Central America Free Trade Agreement) for a very simple reason: it is unconstitutional.  Do you agree or disagree with his stance and or reason? In either case, please give specific examples to support your argument.
Statement by Ron Paul:
"The Constitution clearly grants Congress alone the authority to regulate international trade.   Neither Congress nor the President can give this authority away by treaty, any more than they can repeal the First Amendment by treaty.
 

The Constitution grants the power to make treaties and to regulate international trade. At no point does the text say that the treaty power cannot be used in service of the trade power. In short, Paul’s Constitutional interpretation is an imputation of his beliefs on to the text, it does not arise from anything in the text itself.

There is no limitation in the text on the treaty power. The text does not state that the treaty power may not be used in certain areas or in regards to certain issues. Paul’s interpretation in effect ADDS such a restriction to the text.

Most importantly, the Constitution empowers the courts to interpret its text. And no court has ever ruled in support of Ron Paul’s interpretation that I am aware of. Thus, his interpretation of the Constitutional text is in conflict with the branch of government that the Constitution itself empowers to do the interpretation. Does that mean that Paul’s interpretation is absolutely wrong? No. But it does mean that others who disagree with Paul deserve more respect for their conflicting views than Paul and his supporters ever grant to them, such as when they accuse anyone who disagrees with Paul of being “traitors” or “anti-liberty” or “hating the Constitution” (all direct quotes from recent comments from Paul supporters on this site).

At a minimum, there is no legitimacy to Paul’s claims to have identified a Constitutional principle from which dissent is impossible without being hostile to the Constitution. Accordingly, there is no basis for Paul supporters’ frequent claim that all who disagree with Paul are hostile to the Constitution. (And that is the direction from which the VAST majority of name-calling has come. We’ve even had to delete death threats from Paul’s supporters. So don’t act like the “belittling” and “name-calling” is unfairly directed at Paul’s innocent poor supporters. That’s just not true.)

Good point, Christine.  Paul’s interpretation would essentially make the treaty power a meaningless dead letter, since Congress would be prohibited from actually using it in regard to any issue mentioned anywhere else in the Constitution.  And since that would mean that treaties regarding national security AND trade AND even human rights (these are mentioned in the Bill of Rights) would be "unconstitutional", very little would remain to be the legitimate topic of treaties at all.

It seems odd that the genius Founders would include a treaty power that was prohibited from use in regard to any issue important enough to mention elsewhere.  Even more odd that they would not make such a prohibition explicit in the text.

Ok, I concede that that it doesn’t say that it "can’t" be used that way.  Let me fame it this way:I’m no constituional law expert, and I’m probable sticking my neck out, but does it say the treaty power can be used in service of the trade power?  If not, then for that reason, you are correct, he is not wrong.  Would you agree that it is logical that clarification should first be obtained to determine if the treaty power should be used in service of a specific use, before a vote is passed on its usage? Thanks Jason. Being a Paul supporter, I am granting those that do not agree with Paul’s stance their view. I’m not a "Ron Paul hater-hater".
Christine, I’m confused? Wouldn’t you need to ask Ron Paul an open ended question like that? How am I to know his answer to that?

Jason, thanks for the examples.  We can, as you stated break these "promises", but we need to break these promises not on the fact that it makes sense for Big Business, but that it makes sense for the country (you need a leader in place that will do what is right, and a congress that is not afraid to act / pressured for the wrong reasons not to act) Yes, we did withdraw from ABM treaty (Because that was with the USSR) and as of the 2001 withdrawal the USSR didn’t exist. The entity they were "breaking a promise" with, no longer existed.  You cannot break a promise with an entity that no longer exists.   Also, although a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, the US has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the Protocol. The signature alone is symbolic, as the Kyoto Protocol is non-binding on the United States unless ratified.

Sorry, I should have added that not only is the USSR disolved, Russia is not an enemy of ours, since 2001.

Jay, you seem to have conceded the point that trade treaties are within Constitutional boundaries. Your concerns about whether they are good public policy are a different debate. I think that they are (that is another area where I disagree with Ron Paul’s approach on both style and substance), but the central debate here on this thread was whether Paul’s supporters were speaking appropriately when they claimed that Paul spoke inerrantly in regards to Constitutional interpretation and that his was the only "true conservative" voice on such matters. I don’t need to prove that trade treaties are good to prove that they are within Constitutional boundaries. That proposition has now been refuted in at least the first attempt.

To Michael v.d. Galien and friends …

Michael, as you may have noticed, I stopped posting to PoliGazette some days ago. I did so because I find that, at least when it comes to the US Presidential race in general and to Dr. Paul’s campaign in particular, far too many of the postings on both sides never even come remotely close to honest reviews or opinions on specific philosophical or political issues. Instead, they remain at the level of name calling and rigid abuse of half truths to drive home a particular message in support of or in resistance to a particular candidate. Much of this is understandable, because by its very nature, the campaign for the US presidency is about the people running for the office. I simply had to conclude that I have better thing to do with my time than to engage in endless rounds of debate with people who are by their conduct clearly showing that they are interested only in promoting their particular agenda and/or set of beliefs.  Nevertheless, I continued to follow the “show”, albeit a little more from the sidelines. In recent days a lot has been written by various authors (including you) about Dr. Paul’s purported racism and bigotry, most of it as one would expect, written clearly with a pre-conceived mindset “for” or “against”.  Today I finally stumbled onto an in depth review of the whole sordid mess, which strikes me as particularly well balanced. So I decided to briefly crawl out from underneath my rock to share it with you.  Here it is.

Does it say the treaty power can be used in service of the trade power?

No. Then again, it does not specify ANY specific use for the treaty power. Are you arguing that the Congress and the President are therefore not allowed to actually use the treaty power for any specific issue because ZERO such issues are enumerated in the text? That doesn’t strike me as a reasonable interpretation, especially since such an interpretive doctrine would also completely destroy most of the other powers granted to the branches of government and, in effect, make the Constitution a practical nullity that defines various powers but denies them any practical purpose. For example, the power to declare war does not enumerate what are considered acceptable REASONS for the war. Should we therefore conclude that there is no reason for which Congress can declare a war, absent an enumerated valid reason in the text? Of course not. Similarly, even though the Constitutional text does not enumerate trade as a valid reason to use the treaty power, we should not conclude that it is “unconstitutional” to use it that way as Paul explicitly claims.

But either way, even if I were to concede purely for the sake of argument that such an interpretation is possible or reasonable, it is certainly in no way the only possible or reasonable interpretation. Thus, it is improper for Paul’s supporters to contend (as they do quite often) that anyone who disagrees with Paul about what is Constitutional is, by definition, hostile to the Constitution itself.

And it was THAT claim that provoked this whole discussion. I’m not going to let you change the subject until you explicitly concede my point in that regard.

I also notice that you dropped (failed to respond to) several of my additional arguments about why Paul’s interpretation falls short of the status he and his supporters claim of absolute inerrency. For example, you failed to respond to my point about the lack of judicial support for Paul’s rather unusual view of the treaty power.

In a debate, an argument that is dropped is considered to be conceded.

Nope,  specifically, I am not arguing that the Congress and the President are not allowed to actually use the treaty power for any specific issue because ZERO such issues are enumerated in the text? It is used for specific uses (such, as you indicated, to declare war.  Maybe I am being naïve, but I am only saying that clarification should first be obtained (by discussions in Congress, to determine if the treaty power should be used in service of a specific use.  In other words, don’t just use the treaty power because it is there to use and nobody says you can’t use it.  Is the use in the best interest of the Country as a whole?   Here is a scenario: Treaty X says the US will trade with YX is not in the best interest of the country (say the result is jobs in the US are lost)President or members of Congress have personal incentive or pressure to pass X (via foreign investors, lobbyists, and Domestic Big business)Sure they, can abolish X, but if they are not ethical, stand to gain personally, or are otherwise biased, why would they?  Hopefully that make sense?

I said this was not in my mind, a debate, so debate rules do not apply.  I will look at your other points if a when I  have a free minute. 

The unconstituionality comes in to play in my scenario, where the rules (that the treaty can be voided at anytime by the US or Congress) are not applied fairly.   If nobody who has the power to enforce the rules ( abolish  treaty if its not in the best interest of the Country) , the result is unconstitutional none the less.  Again, I am not an expert on the subject, so if I am wrong please let me know, and why.  (there may be better examples to stess my point rather than lost jobs, but I thing you can glean my logic train none the less)  I am trying to learn here, so thanks for the follow up!

“Fairness” is not a Constitutional or legal criteria in the exercise of Article 1 powers, Jay C. Congress can and does do many things under their Article 1 powers that are not remotely “fair” and arguably not in the best interests of the nation, but that doesn’t even remotely make their actions either illegal or unconstitutional.

In re: the treaty power, Paul is conflating. Treaty power cannot be used to supersede the Constitution itself, from which its own power derives (it can’t be used to overturn the First Amendment, to use Paul’s example) but that’s not the same at all as using it in furtherance of other enumerated powers of Congress. Using that same example, the claim by Paul that using one enumerated power in furtherance of another enumerated power is giving away that other power is completely nonsensical. The two are different things, and the conflating of them a false comparison.

Yes, sorry I did misspeak in that regard, thanks!  I still need to read up on this more.  I guess my concern is that this all boils down to can the result of using the treaty power be really constitutional, (end result, in my scenario, lost jobs) if the result is that a self serving congress or president is not allowing complete control over an area of governance (in this case US jobs)  Even if I did hypothetically concede that you are correct, (You very well might be) but even then, we should lose jobs in the US and send them overseas because it says we can, and so big business and the lobbyists can make a few bucks?  That doesn’t sit well with me.  CAFTA was such a close vote (yes, it passed, but what coercion went on? What promises, who personally benefited on the Backs of Americans were made to pass it) shouldn’t the end result be our focus, rather than pointing to a technicality in the system?  I would think that if Americans suffer (jobs shipped out of the US, or what have you) because something is passed in Congress it is not Constitutional.  To was C_Stanley’s point, I was only taking what Jason was saying and treating it as fact.  Again, Jason would know more than I about the technicalities in regard to the subject.  I am just trying to figure out the logic of it all.  In light of what I am being told by Jason, I think Paul’s point is that unless we vote for someone that isn’t just another “talking head” and is going to actually think of the best interests of the people, we aren’t going to get anyone in power anytime soon that isn’t going to breach our trust.  When was the last time we the opportunity to elect anyone that wasn’t part of the “status quo” of their party line? The status quo doesn’t seem to be working for my point of view. Reagan is the last Republican that I remember liking, and he was started out as a  “long shot maverick” if I remember)

Tully: wouldn’t you agree though that Paul’s argument to that would probably be that the Constitution provides for the federal govt to have certain powers that trump the states’, and that the federal govt then doesn’t have the Constitutional authority to outsource the decisions to third party international groups that aren’t accountable to the voters?

I don’t agree with that because as Jason said, treaties aren’t permanent and so they don’t represent an abdication of OUR elected leaders’ power to make changes or withdraw from the agreements, and again, we can vote the leaders out of office who support the treaty and replace them with people who’d make the changes- so the people still control the levers. But I do see some logic to Paul’s position in that way, and my guess is that’s the argument that he and his supporters are making.