Oh, I wasn't trying to go into the theory of the thing at all, simply
pointing out that the effect of having a national army w/o the state
militias finished off the already in progress assimilation of the states
into an essentially amorphous blob that it is now... :)
Maybe they would have, but...just maybe, the worded it exactly as they
did with the expectation that at some point, the new republic would
have a majority of people who had brains enough to wipe their own
The Republic was hardly "new" when the 14th was added. The authors
had a specific problem to deal with and I doubt that it ever occurred
to them that anybody would come up with some of the interpretations
that the courts have applied.
I like all of our American history but most of my ineterst is in the
War Between the States and the surrounding years. Before that time it
wouldn't have really matter much what the federal government did about
religon or most other issues. Of course after that time we were no
longer "A" united states government but "THE" United States.
Regardless of who the candidates are going to be, this election is going
to be bad for the country. There isn't a single candidate, Republican
or Democrat, that is even worth a glance. They ALL suck. The guy
that could lose the election for Republicans. IMHO, this question is
not who to vote FOR, but who to vote AGAINST. That is a pretty sad.
To those who want to vote for Ron Paul, he is just the Ross Perot of
2008. Not a chance in hell of winning, but every chance of insuring a
True. Unless Hilary is the Dem candidate. Of all the candidates she is
the one that I just cannot stand to look at, or listen to.
I am just thinking that anyone that votes for Ron Paul would be
politically far right. They would vote for Paul because the Rep
candidate (call him center for the sake of THIS argument) is bad and the
Dem candidate (far left) is probably worse. So by voting for Ron Paul
they are, for all practical purposes, voting for the very person they
want the least.
Paul is not remotely "far right". He is a strict Constitutionalist -
as *all* political creatures who swear "to defend and uphold the
Constitution" ought to be. Most of his arguments - the Iraq war
aside - rest on the fact that the Federal government does not have
Constitutional permission to do all things it is doing, regardless
of how good they might otherwise be. I support Paul because -
even though I disagree with him in particular areas - he is the ONLY
candidate that has bothered to read and actually understand the
Constitution. He would be a breath of fresh air in the Executive
branch - assuming he would behave as he promises to - by making
the office *smaller*, vetoing the endless parade of swine entrails
being passed by the Legislature, eliminating non-Constitutional
government agencies (Dept. Of Education for starters) and generally
returning power to the States and the individual as the Constitution
mandates. You don't have to be Right or Left to support this -
just someone who gets what the Framers had in mind in the first place.
Tim Daneliuk email@example.com
I agree with everything you say except your very first sentence. So if
you exclude that first sentence, that just leaves me with two things to
say. One - In this day and age, it seems as though your description of
Ron Paul is exactly what the "left" would call a card carrying "far
right wing" nut case. Heck, I'll bet that even a lot of Republicans
think he is a far right-wing nutter.
It really sounds like you and I have very similar political views. I
too like a lot of what Ron Paul has to say. And if he had a shot at
winning I would most likely vote for him. But at this point he is still
not a viable candidate, and so I say again (and this is the second thing
I had to say), he doesn't have a chance of winning, but he as every
chance of securing a Democrat win.
I don't like either the R's or D's nowadays. As someone said, different
dogs, same fleas. Hillary is disgusting to me, but so is McCain.
Hussein Obama, Giullani, Huckabee, Romney, etc. are all just bau. They
are all just establishment politicians and not one of them will turn
this country around. Just the opposite. But those are the only
candidates that have any chance of winning. It all comes down to which
is the lesser of two evils and by a red hair margin that would be R for
me. Voting for Paul will hurt the Republicans more than the Democrats,
and that could lead to what I want the least in the Whitehouse.
P.S. During one of the early Republican debates the question of
Socialized Medicine came up (they called it National Health Care but
what's in a name?). Only one other candidate stated that the FEDERAL
government did not have the Constitutional authority to do it.
Unfortunately, I don't remember if it was Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo,
but that seems moot now.
You can really say that with a straight face? You honestly don't believe
that a Hillary, Obama, or Edwards would be a bigger disaster to this
country's freedoms and underpinnings than a win by Gulianni, Romney,
Huckabee, or Thompson?
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
No - they would be different kinds of disasters, but similar in size
and scale. All these people believe that the Federal should *do* things -
things which it has no enumerated power to do. The Republicans have
become the Big Spenders in the last 7 years passing abominations like
the drug bills for retirees. It was a Republican - in part - who
helped further undermine our right to free expression by passing
the McCain-Feingold act. Both Rs and Ds happily cooperated in
passing one of the most bloated, useless, ineffective laws
ever devised - Sarbanes-Oxley (aka "The Auditor Full Employment Act").
It was the Rs that got their panties in a wad when gay citizens
asked to be treated equally before the law. It was a Republican
President that decided to use tax money to fund private charities,
including religious charities. (Oh how that one is going to
come down around the ears of the snakehandling religious right
when the Wiccan charities apply for money and a court upholds
The list is just endless. Neither party respects the Constitution.
Neither party is fiscally responsible. Neither party respects
civil rights. Both parties want government in the doing "good"
business differing only in the details of what "good" actually
means. The Democrats are stupid and dangerous, the Republicans are
incompetent and dangerous. Take your your pick. They all - with very
few exceptions like Ron Paul - make me ill.
I will vote for Paul in the primary and possibly write him in in
the general (assuming the Rs aren't smart enough to make them
their candidate). It may be a "wasted" vote, but it will not
be a malignant one like voting for any of the rest of these people.
P.S. Apart from Ron Paul, there is only one other candidate that appears
to even have a shadow of personal integrity - Barak Obama. His
ideas are lousy and dangerous, but he has been clear from the
beginning what they are, has not wavered or pandered to the polls
and stuck to his story. Like I said, it's a bad story, but at
least it's honestly told.
Tim Daneliuk firstname.lastname@example.org
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.