Tried to post this over at Ron Paul Sucks Myspace group but it was censored. I wrote it in response to everyone saying they could never support Ron Paul because he voted against the federalized Amber Alert bill. One woman said that a bill is not constitutional until Congress voted to make it law. This was my reply.
I think the whole point you are missing is that a bill, even if passed Federally, can be unconstitutional. It is not the act of passing a bill Federally that makes a bill Constitutional. A bill is Constitutioanl if it resides within the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution. A bill is unconstitutional if it creates powers not given to Congress explicitly in the Constitution. The Constitution is what protects our nation from a tyranny of the majority. Our leaders must legislate within the bounds of the Constitution to the best of their abilities. They swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. Congressman Paul has admitted before that there were good bills he would have voted for if they had not been unconstitutional. He may be one of the only members of Congress that truly tries to uphold his sworn duty to the American people, to defend the Constitution.
Anyway, I read in a Wired.com article that Ron Paul voted against S 151 because it would have the potential effect of law enforcement shifting limited resources from fighting real child pornographers to fighting virtual child pornographers (virtual in this case meaning child pornography created on a computer with no children). There are other reasons to vote against a bill other than not supporting the main issue. Perhaps the wording of the bill is bad, perhaps the bill would create unintended consequences. Perhaps bad amendments were added to the bill before it was voted on. It's not a simple black and white matter of "If you don't support bill X, you must be against the general concept bill X was trying to fix/implement/change". In a way, I don't think a voting record can mean much aside from analyzing the context within that vote was made. I have given this a lot of thought over the last 2 days. I don't think it would be fair to judge a vote, regardless of the politician, without knowing the reason he or she voted yes or no. It's only intellectually honest and fair to do that.
Mitt Romney said a few days ago that his team of businessmen, when looking to acquire a new business, never went on their opinions alone. He said they gathered all the data first and then made the best judgement possible. In a similar manner, I think it is wise for everyone to look at as much data as realistically possible before passing judgement. For the first time in human history we have the ability to have vast amounts of information at our fingertips and we'd all be better off if we used it fully so we can make fair and accurate judgements. I try to hold myself to this standard as much as possible. So, in regard to what I just vote, I ask that people don't rashly make decisions about anything or anyone without asking themselves, is this a fair/honest judgement.
Thanks for your time.
I think the whole point you are missing is that a bill, even if passed Federally, can be unconstitutional. It is not the act of passing a bill Federally that makes a bill Constitutional. A bill is Constitutioanl if it resides within the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution. A bill is unconstitutional if it creates powers not given to Congress explicitly in the Constitution. The Constitution is what protects our nation from a tyranny of the majority. Our leaders must legislate within the bounds of the Constitution to the best of their abilities. They swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. Congressman Paul has admitted before that there were good bills he would have voted for if they had not been unconstitutional. He may be one of the only members of Congress that truly tries to uphold his sworn duty to the American people, to defend the Constitution.
Anyway, I read in a Wired.com article that Ron Paul voted against S 151 because it would have the potential effect of law enforcement shifting limited resources from fighting real child pornographers to fighting virtual child pornographers (virtual in this case meaning child pornography created on a computer with no children). There are other reasons to vote against a bill other than not supporting the main issue. Perhaps the wording of the bill is bad, perhaps the bill would create unintended consequences. Perhaps bad amendments were added to the bill before it was voted on. It's not a simple black and white matter of "If you don't support bill X, you must be against the general concept bill X was trying to fix/implement/change". In a way, I don't think a voting record can mean much aside from analyzing the context within that vote was made. I have given this a lot of thought over the last 2 days. I don't think it would be fair to judge a vote, regardless of the politician, without knowing the reason he or she voted yes or no. It's only intellectually honest and fair to do that.
Mitt Romney said a few days ago that his team of businessmen, when looking to acquire a new business, never went on their opinions alone. He said they gathered all the data first and then made the best judgement possible. In a similar manner, I think it is wise for everyone to look at as much data as realistically possible before passing judgement. For the first time in human history we have the ability to have vast amounts of information at our fingertips and we'd all be better off if we used it fully so we can make fair and accurate judgements. I try to hold myself to this standard as much as possible. So, in regard to what I just vote, I ask that people don't rashly make decisions about anything or anyone without asking themselves, is this a fair/honest judgement.
Thanks for your time.
