[POLL] Do you consider yourself a Constitutionalist?

[realtonygoodwin]

Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist. Are you one?
Why, or why not?

 

[AlexMerced]

I think the constitution is a good start, but even the enumerated powers are too much government powers... I'm pretty damn voluntarist

 

[t0rnado]

The Constitution gives the central government too much power. Given the choice, Ron Paul would probably prefer the Articles of Confederation.

 

[Brett85]

Yeah. That's what I put for my political philosophy on my Facebook page.

 

[Brett85]

I think the constitution is a good start, but even the enumerated powers are too much government powers... I'm pretty damn voluntarist

Which enumerated powers are too much? The commerce clause wouldn't be too much of a power if it was understood in it's original intent.

 

[realtonygoodwin]

I consider myself a Constitutionalist, but I don't like some of the amendments (I am looking at you 16)

 

[Vessol]

Which enumerated powers are too much? The commerce clause wouldn't be too much of a power if it was understood in it's original intent.

What about the "necessary and proper" clause and the "take care" clause?

There's massive holes in the Constitution that allow government to massively grow. That was the intent.

Who drafted the Constitution? The Federalists. They were definitely NOT for small government. Especially Hamilton who was the main person behind pushing for the Constitution and actually writing it. It's hard for me to understand that so many here hold up a document that was mainly written by a man we all despise for his involvement in the creation of the first central bank.

Thomas Jefferson, a man that many of you all rightfully admire, was strongly against the ratification of the Constitution because he feared it would give too much power to the central government. And he was right.

I understand why many people support Constitutionalism, and I am deeply empathetic and am willing to work to restore the Constitution as it is a much better alternative to what we have now. But when it comes down to it, I have many deep doubts in the Constitutions ability to prevent uncontrolled growth of government.

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."-Lysander Spooner

 

[muzzled dogg]

yeah, at my republican city committee

 

[Brett85]

What about the "necessary and proper" clause and the "take care" clause?

Those clauses have been distorted from their original intent. I'm just saying that if we actually followed a literal version of the Constitution, the federal government would be limited. The problem isn't with the Constitution, it's with the people who have distorted it.

 

[Vessol]

Those clauses have been distorted from their original intent. I'm just saying that if we actually followed a literal version of the Constitution, the federal government would be limited. The problem isn't with the Constitution, it's with the people who have distorted it.

But what was the original intent?

I'm sorry, but I'm having a really hard time imagining that Hamilton and the Federalists loved small government and state rights.

 

[Pericles]

The Constitution is a tool for the citizens to use to keep control of the government. If the citizens fail to use that tool properly, it is not the fault of the tool for what results. If my roof leaks, and I leave my hammer in the tool box, and the leak continues, is not the fault of my hammer.

 

[Flash]

I was thinking about this earlier and came to the conclusion that Ron Paul is NOT a Constitutionalist. Rather he uses the Constitution as a general guide as to how government should function. Hypothetically, what if a Congressman introduces a bill that would eliminate the Post Office and forbid the State from creating postal roads? Would Ron Paul vote for such a bill, despite the Constitution giving government authority to create the Post Office? I doubt it. Ron would change the Constitution dramatically at the first chance he got. He would plrobably increase the amount of power of states and offer the choice of secession in order to keep the federal government in check.

I'm not a Constitutionalist because I don't like the idea of a government and believe society can function in the absence of one. Actually, I fundamentally believe it would function BETTER without one. With any Constitution that exists, you have the problem of a monopoly. As it is Socialists, Communists, Anarchists, & Venus Project members can't move to a place in America and test their ideas out in the real world. Rather, we ALL must go through the government to impose our will on others. Which leads to Socialists, or statists in general, acquiring positions of power and taxing us heavily.

 

[South Park Fan]

The definition of insanity is doing to same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

 

[Brett85]

But what was the original intent?

I'm sorry, but I'm having a really hard time imagining that Hamilton and the Federalists loved small government and state rights.

The original intent of the necessary and proper clause was simply to give Congress the authority to carry out all of the enumerated powers stated in Article 1, Section 8. It was never really intended to be an additional power that the Congress had.

 

[Vessol]

The original intent of the necessary and proper clause was simply to give Congress the authority to carry out all of the enumerated powers stated in Article 1, Section 8. It was never really intended to be an additional power that the Congress had.

It specifically says
"The Congress shall have Power - 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."

Yes it gives them the authority to carry out those powers, but in doing so they can create more and more laws.

The first use of the Neccessary and Proper Clause was by Hamilton to create the first central bank, The National Bank of the United States.

Again, look at who wrote the Constitution, Hamilton and the Federalists. They did not write it in the intent to limit the size and power of the government. That's why Thomas Jefferson opposed it.

Was Thomas Jefferson wrong in opposing the drafting of the Constitution?

 

[sl7yz0r]

I was thinking about this earlier and came to the conclusion that Ron Paul is NOT a Constitutionalist. Rather he uses the Constitution as a general guide as to how government should function. Hypothetically, what if a Congressman introduces a bill that would eliminate the Post Office and forbid the State from creating postal roads? Would Ron Paul vote for such a bill, despite the Constitution giving government authority to create the Post Office? I doubt it. Ron would change the Constitution dramatically at the first chance he got. He would plrobably increase the amount of power of states and offer the choice of secession in order to keep the federal government in check.

Umm the constitution only gives the gov authority to do these things, it does not require it to. Ron paul supporting free market solutions to problems where the constitution allows (but does not require) gov intervention doesn't make him any less of a constitutionalist.

 

[Flash]

Umm the constitution only gives the gov authority to do these things, it does not require it to. Ron paul supporting free market solutions to problems where the constitution allows (but does not require) gov intervention doesn't make him any less of a constitutionalist.

One could say that. It would've been proper to say:

I believe Ron Paul would erase the Post Office from the Constitution so the government would be denied the ability to create one. Still, I believe if Ron Paul could WRITE the Constitution he would make a system where states had an increased power in order to keep the federal government in check.

 

[AZKing]

The Constitution is still a rather flawed document. It's quite unfortunate that the Supreme Court has interpreted just about every clause to mean anything.

I'd still like to see the 21st Amendment interpreted for other substances.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I'm more of an Articles of Confederation guy myself.

The united States in congress assembled shall never engage in a war, nor grant letters of marque or reprisal in time of peace, nor enter into any treaties or alliances, nor coin money, nor regulate the value thereof, nor ascertain the sums and expenses necessary for the defense and welfare of the United States, or any of them, nor emit bills, nor borrow money on the credit of the united States, nor appropriate money, nor agree upon the number of vessels of war, to be built or purchased, or the number of land or sea forces to be raised, nor appoint a commander in chief of the army or navy, unless nine States assent to the same: nor shall a question on any other point, except for adjourning from day to day be determined, unless by the votes of the majority of the united States in congress assembled.

 

[Matt Collins]

Yes, but only when it is a subset of libertarianism. The post office is an example of an exception to when the Constitution is not a subset of libertarianism.