Sometimes people say they like Ron Paul, but some of his views are "too extreme."Indeed, Paul is essentially a libertarian. Most Americans have a libertarian streak, but don't take it quite so far as Paul.
Here's the thing to remember. Paul is running on a platform in which he is seeking to actually weaken the presidency. I've compared it to Mississippi's John Ed Ainsworth's run for state land commissioner, where he pledged to abolish the office if elected. He was and he did. Supposedly he ran on a $10,000 bet claiming that he could get elected with virtually no campaigning simply because his name would be at the top of the ballot.
People forget that the president's job is simply to carry out the laws and policies passed by Congress. Obama, unfortunately, has ignored the Congress and acted as if he is a legislature of one. For example, when Congress refused to pass the DREAM Act, which would have granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, Obama instructed the INS to operate as if the law had been passed. That's the act of a dictator, not a president.
Paul wants to weaken the presidency and to return our government to one governed by the Constitution. This means restoring power to the Congress and to the states. His role as president will be little more than a hired hand -- okay, an influential hired hand -- but one who obeys and enforces the laws passed by Congress.
So no matter view Paul may have that you think is too extreme, you don't have to worry because it won't happen unless 51 senators and 218 House members agree with him. And if that happens, by definition it isn't out of the mainstream.
One job that Paul takes seriously is that of commander in chief of the armed forces. He is morally bound not to go to war without Congressional authorization. Likewise, he wants to bring our troops home. No other candidate, in either party, supports peace. They all want more war, more death, and more money thrown down the toilet.
If you don't like Paul, that's another matter; in that case don't vote for him. But if you do like him but have concerns, put those concerns to rest. His whole moral philosophy of governance is based on the duty of the executive to defer to the legislature and to respect the authority of the states. Isn't that what we all want?
12 comments:
I understand your support for Paul, and I certainly understand his appeal to your sense of policy, CRS. I think that of all Republican candidates, he offers the most sincere assessment of where we are and how we got here.
I will quibble with your misdirection on Obama and the DREAM Act. You are trained in the law, CRS. You understand that when Congress passes a law, the executive branch is tasked with enforcing it. Sounds simple but it is quite different in practical, everyday life. As you may have learned in your administrative law class (if you took it), the problems with enforcement by the executive branch centrally are related to two issues: (1) resources available to enforce the law; and (2) interpretation of Congress's language in promulgating regulations.
So, how does INS enforce its obligations in controlling unregistered aliens? INS certainly doesn't have the resources, thanks to Congress, to begin rounding up and deporting the 10 million+ in the country. So, it has to prioritize its focus. Obama's INS was instructed that " ... the agency's priority should be deporting illegal immigrants who are 'a clear risk to national security,' 'serious felons,' 'known gang members' and 'individuals with an egregious record of immigration violations.'" See more here: www.factcheck.org/2011/07/did-obama-enact-dream-act/
A President Paul would be faced with the exact same situation as President Obama, that is, since I don't have the resources to accomplish a mass deportation of 10 million+ people, how do I effectively focus the resources that I have? Funny, but Paul's policies sound very much like what Obama has done in his instructions to the INS. See here: www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/7393-anti-illegal-immigration-group-awards-an-qfq-to-ron-paul
Paul's notable difference is allowing states to enforce immigration laws, which, again, is quite impractical. Allowing the states to do so, beyond being impractical, also interferes with Congress's plenary power under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to "establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization . . . throughout the United States."
I could go on and on. It's a great discussion, one worth having despite disagreeing. I will close with some advice for Paul: if he wants the middle 50%, avoid the hyperbole of his libertarian ideals, avoid broad answers that begin "the federal government shouldn't be in the business of ..." and affirmatively tell us what his instructions to his departments would be.
Colonel~
I agree that a weakened Presidency would be a consequence of a Ron Paul win, and I don't see it as it "hyperbole" or "old school" to talk of returning sovereignty to the States.
As to the illegal alien solution, a consistent Dr. Paul seems to have part of the solution expressed in the link below from comments delivered on the floor of the House back in June, 2001. Extreme poverty in Mexico, US "illegal drug" laws and liberal welfare benefits to undocumented workers drive most of these folks across the border. After Hillary returns form Myanmar,maybe she should take a hike to Mexico and preach to the President of Mexico on the importance of land reform ro the poor.
So, Ignatius may ask, " who will pick those bland-tasting, thick-skinned Florida tomatoes from the Florida plantations?" No problem.
More than likely, a Ron Paul presidency would mean an end to the Cuban trade embargo, and we could import some of the best tasting, chemical-free tomatoes produced in all the world that even those hot-headed, pre-Castro South Florida Cuban would flock to the markets to buy!
You commentor did not address Nobel Peace Price laureate Obama's pre-emptive war foreign policy vs. Dr. Paul's "hyperbole" calling for ending foreign entanglements and proxy wars for the bandit State of Israel?
With the 93-7 passage of Carl Levin's Senate Bill S. 1867, could one stand on a soapbox at Ole Miss and shout "Stand Tall with Paul" without ending up at GITMO?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unmZTYBuTiA
A non-threatening and humanatarian solution to the illegal alien problem was one profferred by Ron Paul in an interview several years ago(I cannot find it on YouTube).
Paul said that the War of Seccession and the deaths of over 600,000 Americans could have been avoided by "buying-off" the "property" of the slaveowners.
At the time, I did not know that Lincoln had, indeed, proposed such a plan;however, the Radical Republicans and their Abolitionist allies wanted war, so the plan was scrapped.
Later, I found a book, Abraham Lincoln and the Union authored by Nathaniel W. Stephenson and copyrighted in in 1918, that corraborated the story. The Pasadena(Texas) Public Library "discarded? book was purchased at the Salvation Army for 50 cents.
So,maybe paying-off the illegal aliens that have been here for a negotiated period of time, could be bought-off?
Seriously, cutting off non-humanitarian foreign aid to the Middle East, forcing Israel to compensate the Palestinians or allow their return from exile, and appropriating these ME aid monies to the illegal aliens in order to encourage voluntary deportation to their native Mexico and Central America, could solve the immigration problem.
The Stauffer Report On the Cost To Americans for Guranteeing Israel's "security"
http://www.rense.com/general41/trill.htm
On President Lincoln's Proposed Compensated Slave Emancipation
http://www.sethkaller.net/catalogs/41-civil-war/296-lincoln-convenes-cabinet-to-discuss-compensated-emancipation-first-presidential-proposal-for-abolition
Ignatius, you make some good points as to allocation of limited enforcement resources, but the fact is that the states are willing to pitch in and help and the Obama administration is trying to do everything it can do to stop the law from being enforced. The Obama administration is not just acting out of a lack of enforcement resources.
It does seem to me that in a time where we talk about the need to "stimulate" the economy we would do so by creating jobs to enforce our country's immigration laws instead of just extending unemployment benefits. Better to pay people to do something constructive than to not work. But that's as much Congress as it is the Obama administration.
Ironically, both Pauls, Ron and Paul B., campaigned against Federal tyranny.
As did General Robert E. Lee:
...I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it....~ General Robert E. Lee in a letter to Lord Acton on why he chose to defend Virginia and the Confederacy.
In spite of the snarky comments over at Tom's playhouse on Alabama's arrest of the German and Japanese citizens "without papers," it proves that the law is working and that "profiling" was not an issue. Neither Germany nor Japan has recalled its respective ambassadors nor have they closed their consulates in Alabama.
Get over it!
Now that Colonel Khaddafi and most of his family/tribal members have been buthered and buried by the NATO juggernauts, I wonder how the influx of jobless sub-Saharan Africans fleeing across Libya's porous borders into their former colonial masters homelands in Europe are being interdicted? More "lost at sea" reports, for sure.
http://news.yahoo.com/alabama-gets-black-eye-over-immigration-crackdown-224630625.html
Humanitarian NATO's solution to illegal alien border crossings into Europe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnUQNBxg2_0&feature=related
Choose an identity, any identity, so I know whether I need to respond to one person or five.
More "hyperbole" from Ron Paul on our despotic government.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cagwTFsDZq8&feature=related
Ignatius~
What's in a name?
Just address your response to the five or more Anonymoi.
No one listened to Charles Lindbergh's message on 11SEPT1941 in Des Moines, Iowa.
Maybe this time tomorrow they'll listen to the message and VOTE FOR RON PAUL for President.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_F48oaOskI
Post a Comment