LL 2008 Presidential Election Straw Poll v2

[redwards]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

I understand the definition of a good. Like I said, it's an economic term. But you were right, I got it mixed up with public good.

General welfare is synonymous with common good, not public good. So, rivalrous and non-excludable. Common good regulation is necessary for societal sustenance.

Argh! The thing I'm trying to point out is that 'welfare', in this context, cannot translate to 'good' in an economic context.

[redwards]

Originally Posted by Publius

The President is not in any way involved, legally speaking, in the amendment process of the Constitution (see Article V). As President, Paul would uphold the Constitution and veto any bills that go against the Constitution. He would not, however, have any veto power over amendments to the Constitution. While he may oppose an amendment, if it passes he has to uphold it as President. And I never said anything about what HE deemed necessary, I said he supports the idea of amending the Constitution if it (amending) is deemed necessary through the proper channels.

Refusing to consider solutions that go against the Constitution is completely different from and entirely unrelated to consideration of amendments to the Constitution.

First, if you think the President, in this day and age of partisan politics, does not ever dabble in the legislation process, you're kidding yourself. Plenty of legislation is written by the white house and submitted to congress through a willing puppet (see: Patriot Act). The president may not have the power to veto an amendment, but he certainly has the power to force the consideration of one.

Refusal to consider a solution which went against to constitution would basically eliminate the possibility of amendment (because why would anyone amend it except to provide a solution to a problem?)

Lastly, I consider the necessity to amend the constitution a rarity. It's not this particular issue that bothers me about Paul, it's that he demonstrates the characteristics of someone who has absolute beliefs. It's impressive that he can stick to his guns, but it's also dogmatic. That is ultimately my problem with him.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by redwards

First, if you think the President, in this day and age of partisan politics, does not ever dabble in the legislation process, you're kidding yourself. Plenty of legislation is written by the white house and submitted to congress through a willing puppet (see: Patriot Act). The president may not have the power to veto an amendment, but he certainly has the power to force the consideration of one.

I agree, hence why I added the caveat LEGALLY SPEAKING to my post. Politically the president does try to influence it, but legally he has no part in the process. Considering that Paul is a Constitutionalist first and foremost, he would therefor be more than likely to stay out of any amendment talk.

Refusal to consider a solution which went against to constitution would basically eliminate the possibility of amendment (because why would anyone amend it except to provide a solution to a problem?)

Lastly, I consider the necessity to amend the constitution a rarity.

Hence why it isn't likely that an amendment would have specific text to a problem, like (as an example), "We amend the Constitution to provide Medicare to the general public of all ages, regardless of age, sex, income, etc" but rather would be something more open and vague like "It is the responsibility of the United States government to provide universal services to residents of the United States."

If enough people see a problem they feel an amendment should address, it doesn't matter WHAT the President thinks about it. I'm curious, based on what you're saying in this thread, if you even know the Constitution's amendment process?

It's not this particular issue that bothers me about Paul, it's that he demonstrates the characteristics of someone who has absolute beliefs. It's impressive that he can stick to his guns, but it's also dogmatic. That is ultimately my problem with him.

I don't see a problem with Paul sticking absolutely to the Constitution. That is what the President is supposed to do. The only reason is seems "dogmatic" and "outside the norm" is because in the last hundred years there hasn't been a single president, and a rare few elected officials anywhere in the Federal government, that actually wants to follow the Constitution.

[thomez]

OH MY GOD..... he might VETO something that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

that's some crazy dogma right there

he sounds like some kind of whacko or something.... a loon... I can't believe anyone takes that piece of paper so seriously.... wow

[redwards]

Originally Posted by thomez

OH MY GOD..... he might VETO something that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

that's some crazy dogma right there

he sounds like some kind of whacko or something.... a loon... I can't believe anyone takes that piece of paper so seriously.... wow

When I referred to him as dogmatic, I was talking more about his stance on institutions such as public healthcare and welfare. Publius took on the issue of the constitution and I figured that was also a point worth making, though a smaller one.

My overall point is that Paul is someone who has drawn certain hard lines that he refuses to cross. Constitutionality is a small aspect of that.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by redwards

When I referred to him as dogmatic, I was talking more about his stance on institutions such as public healthcare and welfare. Publius took on the issue of the constitution and I figured that was also a point worth making, though a smaller one.

My overall point is that Paul is someone who has drawn certain hard lines that he refuses to cross. Constitutionality is a small aspect of that.

Every member of Congress, every judge, every President, etc. have all SWORN to draw that "certain hard line" that you call "Constitutionality." Any member of the aforementioned that isn't sticking to their oath should be guilty of treason for violating that document they swore to uphold.

[redwards]

Originally Posted by Publius

I agree, hence why I added the caveat LEGALLY SPEAKING to my post. Politically the president does try to influence it, but legally he has no part in the process. Considering that Paul is a Constitutionalist first and foremost, he would therefor be more than likely to stay out of any amendment talk.

I would tend to agree with that. My area of contention would be if there were a case in which I would want him to champion an issue and he refused based on dogmatic loyalty to the current document.

I'll readily grant that this is probably not a common situation, though I can only assume that if it came up it would be an important one.

Hence why it isn't likely that an amendment would have specific text to a problem, like (as an example), "We amend the Constitution to provide Medicare to the general public of all ages, regardless of age, sex, income, etc" but rather would be something more open and vague like "It is the responsibility of the United States government to provide universal services to residents of the United States."

It's true that the text of any amendment should be overarching, but there are generally a few specific cases which are in the mind when drafting the text. My contention was only that the idea of adding such an overarching amendment would probably first be raised as the result of a specific issue.

If enough people see a problem they feel an amendment should address, it doesn't matter WHAT the President thinks about it. I'm curious, based on what you're saying in this thread, if you even know the Constitution's amendment process?

And if enough people don't see a problem, then it does matter what the president thinks, as discussed with the point that it's entirely possible for the whitehouse to draft legislation.

I don't see a problem with Paul sticking absolutely to the Constitution. That is what the President is supposed to do. The only reason is seems "dogmatic" and "outside the norm" is because in the last hundred years there hasn't been a single president, and a rare few elected officials anywhere in the Federal government, that actually wants to follow the Constitution.

True, true. Again, my point is merely that Paul seems to have uncommon conviction to ideals. I think that that can be a wonderful thing, but it can also be a double-edged sword, if you'll pardon the tired metaphor. I don't side with voters who think that a politician who can change his mind is a bad politician. I think that a politician should absolutely be able to change his mind, given the right circumstances, and I fear that Paul might be unwilling to.

[redwards]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Every member of Congress, every judge, every President, etc. have all SWORN to draw that "certain hard line" that you call "Constitutionality." Any member of the aforementioned that isn't sticking to their oath should be guilty of treason for violating that document they swore to uphold.

We've been over this. You see a solution that requires amendment, you push for amendment, THEN you uphold. We're talking about the willingness to push for amendment in cases where it may be necessary as an aspect of uncommon conviction to an ideal.

succinctly: is too much conviction a bad thing?

[redwards]

I'll tell you one thing about Paul's conviction: it certainly marks him as someone who is not swayed simply by political expedience, and THAT is what makes him refreshing. The difficulty is identifying someone who is not swayed by expedience but can be swayed for other, far more important reasons.

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by redwards

I'll tell you one thing about Paul's conviction: it certainly marks him as someone who is not swayed simply by political expedience, and THAT is what makes him refreshing. The difficulty is identifying someone who is not swayed by expedience but can be swayed for other, far more important reasons.

Good point. Good work on the thread. Publius too.

It's interesting that this thread has turned into a RP thread. Not much discussion of the other candidates. And where's Kucinich in the list? I went for Mike Gravel anyways, because I like anyone with the guts to buck the establishment of their party.

RP seems like a reasonable fellow, and Publius' point about all the others simply flaunting the Constitution is true. Which side would you rather err on: One candidate guided by the Constitution, or one who disregards it at will. For the latter candidate, if they won't follow the Constitution, what legal concepts and laws would they follow?

Basically, I think that a certain amount of inflexibility in regards to following the Constitution is a mildly negative trait at worst, and far outweighed in importance by the other negative traits exhibited by the other candidates both past and present.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

It's interesting that this thread has turned into a RP thread. Not much discussion of the other candidates.

It's interesting that only Ron Paul supporters seem to be interested in engaging in discussion about their candidate.

And where's Kucinich in the list?

See first post. I even put Al Gore there just for you.

[Donkey®]

I have not been impressed with Obama as time has passed. Vote goes to Clinton...could change as we get closer.



What a surprise, Paul is leading...

[jimeigh]

i voted for Ron Paul because he's the only one who's name consists of two first names

[trevxenemy]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

My one big question on RP is where is we will stand on abortion and gay rights. His supporters says he doesn't support federal restrictions on any liberties, but thats not the impression I get from what I hear from him. I'd have a hard time supporting someone who doesn't support cross state recognition of gay marraige for example, as defined by the constitution actually, so hopefully he would.

He's personally pro-life and anti-gay marriage, although he doesn't believe it should be federally illegal. He voted against the banning of gay marriages at the federal level while in the House.

I'm with you.. I think the federal government shouldn't really do much of anything besides regulate trade & commerce, and a very small army for defense. States should decide the rest.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by jimeigh

i voted for Ron Paul because he's the only one who's name consists of two first names

I have 3, I'll PM you my name so you can write me in

[redwards]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

RP seems like a reasonable fellow, and Publius' point about all the others simply flaunting the Constitution is true. Which side would you rather err on: One candidate guided by the Constitution, or one who disregards it at will. For the latter candidate, if they won't follow the Constitution, what legal concepts and laws would they follow?

Basically, I think that a certain amount of inflexibility in regards to following the Constitution is a mildly negative trait at worst, and far outweighed in importance by the other negative traits exhibited by the other candidates both past and present.

Oh, no doubt, I agree with all of this. My point was simply that if Paul has a character flaw anywhere, this may be it. Not inflexibility with regards to the constitution in particular, but inflexibility in general.

[lew]

It's nice to see the names of JaJae, motivez, and Scrum up there under Paul.


Not that you guys are diehard liberals or anything like that, but it's nice to actually know some moderate progressives that like Paul