Does RP claim he has never voted for an unconstitutional bill?

[joshdvm]

Just wondering, has he in the past made this specific claim in speeches or official campaign literature?

"He has never voted for an unconstitutional bill"

I've seen this attributed to others with no official connection, but does RP himself make it, either in speeches, or campaign literature?

[McDermit]

I've never heard him say it.

[fj45lvr]

I'm not positive about voting for any but he does admit to spending a few!! unconstitutional bills

[kylebrotherton]

I'm not positive about voting for any but he does admit to spending a few!! unconstitutional bills

I get it. That's funny.

His official campaign materials say that he never voted for any legislation that he believed was a violation of the Constitution. And he mentioned on Colbert (I think) that other members of Congress think that they follow the Constitution as well, but their interpretation is different.

[libertarianguy]

test

[noxagol]

yes... 'different'

More like, horror for freedom.

[joshdvm]

I found it on the website:

"Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution."


This a horrible statement, IMO, that needs to be seriously edited or removed. Never means NEVER. As much as I like RP, he has voted for unconstitutional legislation. This is an utterly dishonest statement in its present form, IMO. Note, I'm trying to be consructive.

[LibertyEagle]

Yeah, but it doesn't say he never VOTED for unconstitutional legislation.

[joshdvm]

What supposedly sets RP apart is he's not just another tricky politician. How the f*** does that technicality absolve the inherent dishonesty of the statement in question? To ask the question is to answer it.

Someone needs to contact the campaign about this.

[joshdvm]

Also on the Tri Fold Flyer Pdf (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/files/ImprovedRonPaulTrifoldFlyer_150dpi.pdf): "He has voted... against every bill contrary or prohibited by the U.S. Constitution"

It doesn't say MOST bills, it says EVERY bill. Every means EVERY.

So even ONE instance of RP having voted for an unconstitutional bill would render this a false, dishonest statement.

This type of statement needs to be edited/removed everywhere it is found.

Does anyone know how to contact the campaign?

[IowaSupport]

Find the bill that he's voted for that's contrary to this please?

[Ron Paul Fan]

Find the bill that he's voted for that's contrary to this please?

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=635

You can argue that the partial birth abortion ban was unconstitutional and Ron Paul even sort of says in in his speech. It seems he was torn between his pro life stance and his constitutional stance and in this case went with trying to save lives. He certainly upholds the Constitution way more so than any other Congressman, but I don't think it's correct to use ALWAYS or EVERY. Also, he argues that the Iraq war authorization to use force to the President is unconstitutional, but he voted for the Afghanistan authorization to use force. So I guess those would be two examples someone could use to negate his claim.

But on the Iraq/Afghanistan bills I will add that he did propose Constitutional means of going about the wars. He introduced the Letters of Marquee for Afghanistan and a Declaration of War in Iraq, but no one wanted to do those things so he voted for the authorization to use force in Afghanistan and who can really blame him when it was in self defense?

[IowaSupport]

Feel free to call the campaign, but these could probably be easily disputed by anyone who knows there stuff constitution-wise. You can call the campaign at 1800 RON PAUL or e-mail them at mail@ronpaul2008.com

My guess is that you wont get a response if you go the e-mail route - too low of a priorety and too much of a work-load.

[joshdvm]

He voted against every federal ban on partial birth abortion as far as I can see. Even if it's murder, I don't see how that's one of the fed gov's "expressly authorized" enumerated powers.

HR4844 mandates goverment-issued photo voter id cards. Whether this is a good idea is irrelevant; is this one of the "expressly authorized" enumerated powers?

I'm sure many more such instances could be found; I'll look when I have more time. Here's his voting record (http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V1170&can_id=296).

And in case anyone is tempted to say I'm nitpicking, remember there only has to be ONE instance of legislation not "expressly authorized" by the US Constitution to render the statements in question false.

[libertarianguy]

test

[joshdvm]

By that logic he'd support a federal ban on abortion as well. But he states this is for the states to decide and not a federal matter.

[Kregener]

If you find that he HAS voted on one unconstitutional bill, will he lose your support?

Sheez...

[joshdvm]

Please read my previous posts-I never even suggested that. This is out of my concern for the campaign.

I'm trying to be constructive and point out that the language of these statements urgently needs to be reconsidered and changed.

[libertarianguy]

test

[joshdvm]

I don't think a 700 mile border fence is expressly authorized by the constitution.

[libertarianguy]

test

[joshdvm]

Which part of the Constitution authorizes the border fence?

[Zeeder]

I don't think a 700 mile border fence is expressly authorized by the constitution.

Section 8
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"


Article IV

Section. 4.
"
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence."

If anything illegal immigrants are invaders. And they are violating a Federal Law.

The Constitution also gives the Federal government the power of Naturalization.

[ThePieSwindler]

Which part of the Constitution authorizes the border fence?

This is a common sentiment i hear about the constitution and many people have misconceptions about the nature of it. Of course, the constitution authorizes the government to have certain duties and responsibilities, but it does not have specific authorizations on the matters. It is the duty of the federal government to provide for the common defense, whatever that may mean to the generational needs. The constitution enumerates specific powers, meaning anything not enumerated should defer to the 10th amendment (this is the simplest way to fix most of the problems in the country, but the 10th is largely ignored) but the powers that the federal government does indeed have, are broadly defined are the constitution leaves it up to the people and the congress to decide what shall be done within the means the constitution allows. Defense, of course, means DEFENSE, so it does not mean "defense spending" on preemptive war. But initiatives like a border fence are arguably constitutional because they are arguably a means with which to defend the nation, and the congress is left with the power to provide for the common defense. Now, i do not believe it cuts to the root of the problem, and is unnecessary, but that is a different component of debate about the bill.

Personally, i think every congressman should be held to a standard of logical progression in the weighing of a bill. The first qualifier should of course be whether or not it is constitutional. If it passes that qualifier, then the next question should be is whether its intended goal (to accomplish X by authorizing spending or initiative on issue Y) is necessary, and then if it is, is this specific bill the best way to implement the initiative, or is it counterproductive? A bill to build a border fence passes both the first and second test, but fails the third test because it does not cut to the heart of the problem and will only serve to increase violence and corruption on the border, i believe (the welfare state incentives for illegals is, of course, the root of the issue, which Ron Paul is spot on about). At least, this is the standard i would use in evaluating every measure if i were a congressman.