HR3543 Bill

[VoteForRonPaul]

Did anybody hear about this bill lately? Is this something good bad, share your thoughts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tpXUFnr8uk

[LittleLightShining]

What a weird video. I don't know how I feel about the bill but I'm sorta freaked out by the bagpipes and the Lincoln reference and the clearly uncomfortable teenagers and the guy's shirt. All in all that was very odd and surreal and left me more baffled than supportive.

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

Read this: http://www.juntosociety.com/patriotism/inytg.html

[VoteForRonPaul]

What a weird video. I don't know how I feel about the bill but I'm sorta freaked out by the bagpipes and the Lincoln reference and the clearly uncomfortable teenagers and the guy's shirt. All in all that was very odd and surreal and left me more baffled than supportive.

Who cares about the video?
I just came through it and I was surprised by this bill which I never heard about. The most important thing, are the victims of 9/11 worthy of issuing a bill or not? and what is Ron Paul's position regarding it if it was real?

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

Who cares about the video?
I just came through it and I was surprised by this bill which I never heard about. The most important thing, are the victims of 9/11 worthy of issuing a bill or not? and what is Ron Paul's position regarding it if it was real?

Read this: http://www.juntosociety.com/patriotism/inytg.html

It has nothing to do with how "worthy" victims are of getting free money. It has everything to do with the fact that the US Congress does not have the authority to forcibly take money from one group of Americans and give it to another group of Americans, any more than the divorce court of Hong Kong has the authority to forcibly take money from one group of Americans and give it to another group of Americans.

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

As for Ron Paul, I'm about 99.999999% sure he would oppose this bill. Not that it should really matter, since we should be able to think about these issues for ourselves, but Ron is a good role model for those wanting to know how constitutional government is supposed to be run.

[VoteForRonPaul]

Read this: http://www.juntosociety.com/patriotism/inytg.html

It has nothing to do with how "worthy" victims are of getting free money. It has everything to do with the fact that the US Congress does not have the authority to forcibly take money from one group of Americans and give it to another group of Americans, any more than the divorce court of Hong Kong has the authority to forcibly take money from one group of Americans and give it to another group of Americans.

Sorry to say it but you are talking fiction and not real. The money which Congress holds now and for years to come have to be distributed whether we liked it or not.

I understand the philosophy which you brought but this philosophy is fiction when you deal with a current situation.
You got to be real. Those victims have been victims of the fraud of the income tax like everybody else for years and years. And the government owes them money like it owes you and me. You are not making them a favor!

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

Sorry to say it but you are talking fiction and not real. The money which Congress holds now and for years to come have to be distributed whether we liked it or not.

I understand the philosophy which you brought but this philosophy is fiction when you deal with a current situation.
You got to be real. Those victims have been victims of the fraud of the income tax like everybody else for years and years. And the government owes them money like it owes you and me. You are not making them a favor!

The government owes these people money. The politicians who have been defrauding these people (and us, equally) owe them. Not you or I.

Besides, there are millions of other Americans who have suffered way more than 9/11 survivors. Are we going to give the same kind of benefits to THEM too? More likely than not, we're going to forcibly take money from those people to give it to 9/11 survivors, because the 9/11 survivors happen to be victims of something that was a bigger media event.

EDIT: Also, how is my philosophy "only fiction"? The Constitution doesn't give the authority to Congress to pass this legislation. Period. Like I said the Congress doesn't have the authority to do this any more than the divorce court of Hong Kong. If you think it does, show me where in the Constitution.

[VoteForRonPaul]

As for Ron Paul, I'm about 99.999999% sure he would oppose this bill. Not that it should really matter, since we should be able to think about these issues for ourselves, but Ron is a good role model for those wanting to know how constitutional government is supposed to be run.

If you think you talking real then please let me know which bills of spending would Ron Paul approve.

If what you just said is true then this means that Ron Paul has to oppose every damn spending bill. That is simply because the money in first place was taken from the people against their will.

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

If you think you talking real then please let me know which bills of spending would Ron Paul approve.

Any bills that would do these things: http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html


If what you just said is true then this means that Ron Paul has to oppose every damn spending bill.

Just about. Have you ever looked at his voting record? He's called "Dr. No" for a reason. http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=296

[KenInMontiMN]

The Federal gov't has no money. You can't be generous with what you don't have even if it were constitutionally sound. They don't call Congressman Paul Dr. No for no reason.

[Standing Like A Rock]

NO

That is not the federal government's job. If the State of New York wants to do something, FINE; if the City of New York wants to do something, FINE; it is not, however, any place for the government to reward people for being brave. There are MANY other people out there who have done just as brave, if not braver, deeds and are not rewarded by the federal government. What makes these rescue workers so special?

Not to mention, this bill/law would NOT BE NECESSARY AND PROPER, and therefore is unconstitutional.

[VoteForRonPaul]

EDIT: Also, how is my philosophy "only fiction"? The Constitution doesn't give the authority to Congress to pass this legislation. Period.


Any bills that would do these things: http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

Just about. Have you ever looked at his voting record? He's called "Dr. No" for a reason. http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=296


Please do not talk to me about the constitution like if it is the word of the mighty God. The source of money which the government collects is a fraud in first place therefore whether the constitution approve the nature of the bill or not the bill is fraud because the source of money was also a fraud. Ron Paul voted YES on military bills which exceeded hundred BILLION dollars. From where the money is coming from??? While he knows that department of defense is a tool for the establishment. Sorry to say that your philosophy is contradicting your constitution!

You got to be straight when you say "do not take money from a group and give it to another group". So be it.
If you truly mean it then you would oppose every single spending bill until you make sure that the source of money is totally purified. PERIOD!

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

The source of money which the government collects is a fraud in first place therefore whether the constitution approve the nature of the bill or not the bill is fraud because the source of money was also a fraud. Ron Paul voted YES on military bills which exceeded hundred BILLION dollars. From where the money is coming from??? While he knows that department of defense is a tool for the establishment. Sorry to say that your philosophy is contradicting your constitution!

You got to be straight when you say "do not take money from a group and give it to another group". So be it.
If you truly mean it then you would oppose every single spending bill until you make sure that the source of money is totally purified. PERIOD!

So... your logic is, since the money was taken fraudulently, it should be redistributed fraudulently?


Please do not talk to me about the constitution like if it is the word of the mighty God.

Sorry for throwing the Constitution in your face. Sometimes I forget it's just a godd*mned piece of paper.

[VoteForRonPaul]

So... your logic is, since the money was taken fraudulently, it should be redistributed fraudulently?
Since the money was taken fraudulently, it should be redistributed for the benefit of the people which were victims of the fraud act.
And since it is impossible to distribute all the money for this noble cause, any money would come out of the fraud government and goes into the hands of people who are worthy of money is a good thing even if this group of people was a minority.



Sorry for throwing the Constitution in your face. Sometimes I forget it's just a godd*mned piece of paper. Unfortunately you are totally right here. I started a topic regarding this piece of paper and the results were shocking, at least to me.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=129418

[driller80545]

The constitution is valid only so long as the people are willing to defend it. That no longer seems to be the case.

[Raditude]

http://www.govit.com/HR_3543/To_amend_the_Public_Health_Service_Act_to_extend_a nd_improve/


9/17/2007--Introduced.

James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2007 - Amends the Public Health Service Act to establish within the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health the World Trade Center Health Program (WTC program) to provide medical monitoring and treatment benefits to: (1) eligible emergency responders and recovery and cleanup workers who responded to the New York City terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001; and (2) residents and other building occupants and area workers who were directly impacted and adversely affected by such attacks.

Requires the WTC program administrator to: (1) establish the WTC Health Program Steering Committee and the WTC Health Program Scientific/Technical Advisory Committee; (2) institute a program that provides education and outreach on the existence and availability of services under the WTC program; and (3) provide for the uniform collection of data related to WTC-related health conditions.

Authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish similar programs with respect to the terrorist attack at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

Requires the administrator to conduct or support research on: (1) physical and mental health conditions that may be related to the September 11 terrorist attacks; and (2) diagnosing and treating WTC-related health conditions.

Requires the administrator to extend and expand arrangements with the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to provide for the World Trade Center Health Registry.

Authorizes the administrator to make grants to the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to address mental health needs relating to the terrorist attacks.

Amends the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act to provide, under certain circumstances, for an extension of time for filing claims under the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund of 2001.

I don't see Ron Paul's name in the list of co-sponsors, so I don't know if he supports it. I support it however.

[VoteForRonPaul]

http://www.govit.com/HR_3543/To_amend_the_Public_Health_Service_Act_to_extend_a nd_improve/

I don't see Ron Paul's name in the list of co-sponsors, so I don't know if he supports it. I support it however.

Very interesting website, thanks for sharing!

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

Since the money was taken fraudulently, it should be redistributed for the benefit of the people which were victims of the fraud act.

EVERYONE is a victim of the fraudulent income tax. Why should tax money be redistributed to 9/11 survivors over everyone else? Besides, like I said before, there are tons of people who have suffered from disaster and fraud way more than 9/11 survivors. Why should money be taken from those people and given to 9/11 survivors? Just because 9/11 was a bigger media event?

As for the Constitution, the fact that respect for the Constitution is at an all time low does not mean the government should not abide by the Constitution. Every elected official has taken a SOLEMN OATH to abide by the Constitution, and they have a sacred obligation to obey that oath.

[VoteForRonPaul]

EVERYONE is a victim of the fraudulent income tax. Why should tax money be redistributed to 9/11 survivors over everyone else? Besides, like I said before, there are tons of people who have suffered from disaster and fraud way more than 9/11 survivors.
Like who? Give me an example please!



As for the Constitution, the fact that respect for the Constitution is at an all time low does not mean the government should not abide by the Constitution. Every elected official has taken a SOLEMN OATH to abide by the Constitution, and they have a sacred obligation to obey that oath.
KEEP DREAMING!
The Constitution is no more than a piece of paper like you mentioned before and therefor it is not a law. PERIOD! Until you pass it as a law, then later we can discuss your so called SOLEMN OATH!

[VoteForRonPaul]

NO
There are MANY other people out there who have done just as brave, if not braver, deeds and are not rewarded by the federal government. What makes these rescue workers so special?



EVERYONE is a victim of the fraudulent income tax. Why should tax money be redistributed to 9/11 survivors over everyone else? Besides, like I said before, there are tons of people who have suffered from disaster and fraud way more than 9/11 survivors.
If nor you nor me should get this money so who else will get it? :confused:

The Pentagon or the ministry of defense? :rolleyes:

Watch this video and please step out of your fiction world for a moment, any penny does not go in the hands of the people is most likely to end in the hands of the Atlantic Mafia and cost innocent people their lives http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kpWqdPMjmo

[RSLudlum]

Is this something good bad, share your thoughts.




I'm at the point with the current Congress that almost any bill proposed and all bills passed are bad. :(

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

Like who? Give me an example please!

What do you mean like who? There are people who have lost everything they own to disasters and theft. Fire, flood, accidents, earthquakes, identity theft, burglary, etc. etc. etc. Why should those people be taxed to give welfare payments to people who lost their WTC job or now have respiratory problems because they breathed in too much dust after 9/11?


The Constitution is no more than a piece of paper like you mentioned before and therefor it is not a law. PERIOD! Until you pass it as a law, then later we can discuss your so called SOLEMN OATH!

What I said earlier (about the "Constitution being just a godd*mned piece of paper") was a quote from George W. Bush. I was being sarcastic. Thanks for making my point, however, that you and other people like you are totally complicit in the despotism of tyrants like George W. Bush. Why even bother to call yourself a Ron Paul supporter...? It's people like you with your reckless disregard for the Constitution that have allowed this government to become the beast that it is today.

The oath that Congresspeople take when they enter office is as follows: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

This is specified in the Constitution itself, in Article VI, section 3: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

See also the quotes of the Founders:

"A Constitution is a thing antecedent to a Government, and a Government is only the creature of a Constitution. It is the body of elements, to which you can refer, and quote article by article; and which contains the principles on which the Government shall be established, the manner in which it shall be organized, the powers it shall have, the mode of elections, everything that relates to the complete organization of a civil Government, and the principles on which it shall act, and by which it shall be bound. Courts do not make the laws, neither can they alter them. A Court only acts in conformity to the laws made: and the Government is in like manner governed by the Constitution." -- Thomas Paine

"The Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way, which the constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." -- George Washington

[VoteForRonPaul]

What do you mean like who? There are people who have lost everything they own to disasters and theft. Fire, flood, accidents, earthquakes, identity theft, burglary, etc. etc. etc. Why should those people be taxed to give welfare payments to people who lost their WTC job or now have respiratory problems because they breathed in too much dust after 9/11?
You did not ask yourself and why those people do not get any money?And if they do not get then where the money goes?
Second: I am not saying those people should be taxed but what I am saying is that the victims of 9/11 were already taxed and still being taxed so why you are opposing giving part of their money back while you support Ron Paul's decision to pass a bill that exceeds a HUNDERED BILLIONS DOLLARS to the minisitry of defense. PERIOD! And guess what the 9/11 victims are not asking for even a one percent of that number! Please step out of your fiction world and get down to the level of the main stream people instead of you are talking greed without a bit of sense. Those people are not asking you a favor those people are asking for their money back like you. If they get it that would be good and if you get it that would be also good. But if they get it and you do not that is still good and better than both of you do not get anything and better than if all the money goes in the hands of the establishment or the big corporations.




What I said earlier (about the "Constitution being just a godd*mned piece of paper") was a quote from George W. Bush. I was being sarcastic. Thanks for making my point, however, that you and other people like you are totally complicit in the despotism of tyrants like George W. Bush. Why even bother to call yourself a Ron Paul supporter...? It's people like you with your reckless disregard for the Constitution that have allowed this government to become the beast that it is today.
I have to disagree with you sir and say that people like you who represent the corporate greed in its simplest fashion and people like who have hearts of stones that have allowed this government to become the beast that it is today and not only allowed but also shared in the crime. I am asking you to wake up before you become one of them one day.



Why even bother to call yourself a Ron Paul supporter...?
The only difference between you and me regarding Ron Paul is that I do not support Ron Paul blindly.



The oath that Congresspeople take when they enter office is as follows: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
Let me clarify my view here, I am not debating if the constitution is good poetry or a bad one. What I am saying is that the constitution is not obligatory. I mean can you take somebody to court just because he did not follow the Constitution? And if you got him in court can you put him jail because of that? If yes that would be great and if not so what do you expect? I have a high regard for the constitution but while I do, I also can see its limitations. Until the constitution is protected by laws it will never be respected by the devils!



This is specified in the Constitution itself, in Article VI, section 3: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Is this the law or the constitution? It is the Constitution so it is not the law!
The Constitution cannot be accounted as a witness on its own self!



See also the quotes of the Founders:

"A Constitution is a thing antecedent to a Government, and a Government is only the creature of a Constitution. It is the body of elements, to which you can refer, and quote article by article; and which contains the principles on which the Government shall be established, the manner in which it shall be organized, the powers it shall have, the mode of elections, everything that relates to the complete organization of a civil Government, and the principles on which it shall act, and by which it shall be bound. Courts do not make the laws, neither can they alter them. A Court only acts in conformity to the laws made: and the Government is in like manner governed by the Constitution." -- Thomas Paine

"The Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way, which the constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." -- George Washington

Who are those people? Great people? I agree, yes they are! But also their words are not obligatory.
As example: quote from George Bush the president of the United States of America "The Constitution is a God damn piece of paper"
Is this an obligation? ofcourse not regardless what he was saying is right or wrong.

[VoteForRonPaul]

..... and RP always said "if we're going to take the tax money, we'll try our best to get it back".........
This saying for Ron just caught my attention while I was in this thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1632270&postcount=1), but if I understand it right I got to say that Ron Paul is not a fundamental constitutionalist but instead he is an open minded consitutionalist. Yes he believes that the income tax is fraud and it is taken under force but at the same time this statement explains that if the taxes is going to be collected no matter what then he will fight to get it back. And depending on this philosophy Ron Paul would not oppose the HR3543 for the victims of 9/11 because this way he is giving them part of their money back.

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

VoteForRonPaul, you do not understand anything that you're talking about. HR 3543 would not give people's tax money back to them. Their tax money has already been spent (probably just on paying the interest on our national debt). The money that would be handed out to 9/11 survivors will not come from a lockbox of income tax payments. That money will have to be created by the Federal Reserve through inflation. The only way the Federal Reserve can create new money is by stealing purchasing power out of the pockets of all Americans and giving it to 9/11 survivors.

Furthermore, the article you referred to has nothing to do with this. When Congress earmarks certain funds, it does not increase federal spending. It merely diverts spending away from the executive branch. HR 3543 would INCREASE spending. HR 3543 does not take take out a chunk of money from the batch of funds that's already on its way to the executive branch, as earmarking does. HR 3543 would have to create new spending, new money, and give it to these 9/11 survivors. It is theft.

The only legitimate powers a government has are those that the people delegate to it. Do you have the right to steal money from me and give it to 9/11 survivors? No! You do not have that right, nor does anyone else! How can you delegate a right that you don't have, to someone else--to government? The government does not have the right to steal money from me or anyone else, and give it to 9/11 survivors (or anyone else). The government's only legitimate rights are those rights that are delegated to it by the people, but no people have that right, and therefore no people can delegate that right to government.

You seem to have a misunderstanding of the American constitutional republic (I'm getting the feeling that you are a foreigner, based on your strange English grammar and referral to the Defense Department as the "ministry of defense"). The Constitution is the base from which laws come. The Constitution doesn't need laws to hold it up. Laws need the Constitution to hold them up. The legislature wouldn't even be able to pass laws if the Constitution did not authorize it to.

The people who are in elected office in the American government have all taken a solemn oath to support and uphold the Constitution. Regardless of their, or your, feelings toward the Constitution, they should be bound to keep their oath. Violating the Constitution in any way is a form of fraud, because when Americans vote other Americans into elective office, they are contracting with each other in a way. Some Americans are giving their tax money and their votes to another American in exchange for them to carry out the constitutional functions of government. When that elected American takes their oath of office, they are making a contract with the people. To break that contract is to commit fraud. Politicians MUST abide strictly by the Constitution.

I agree, the words of Thomas Paine and George Washington are not obligatory in and of themselves, but no one disputes that they were very wise people whose time-tested and historically-verified good advice should not be thrown out cavalierly in favor of George W. Bush's vulgar, off-the-cuff blathering.

[Kade]

As for Ron Paul, I'm about 99.999999% sure he would oppose this bill. Not that it should really matter, since we should be able to think about these issues for ourselves, but Ron is a good role model for those wanting to know how constitutional government is supposed to be run.

Oh really?


Voted to authorize NASA.
Voted to Celebrate Martin Luther King's Birthday.
Voted to Recognize Ellis Island Library as the “Bob Hope Memorial Library.”
Voted Federal law to make the American Flag flown on Father's Day.
Voted to change Federal law to making it easier to obtain Organ Transplants.





For the record... I agree with his votes on these things.

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

Oh really?


Voted to authorize NASA.
Voted to Celebrate Martin Luther King's Birthday.
Voted to Recognize Ellis Island Library as the “Bob Hope Memorial Library.”
Voted Federal law to make the American Flag flown on Father's Day.
Voted to change Federal law to making it easier to obtain Organ Transplants.





For the record... I agree with his votes on these things.

If you could give the sources (roll call votes and the text of the legislation) for these, that'd be great. It wouldn't surprise me if a few unconstitutional votes slipped through the cracks for Ron Paul over his 30 years in the Congress, but I never said Ron Paul was infallible or had a perfect voting record. I said he's a "good role model" for constitutionalism.

[SLSteven]

Oh really?


Voted to authorize NASA.
Voted to Celebrate Martin Luther King's Birthday.
Voted to Recognize Ellis Island Library as the “Bob Hope Memorial Library.”
Voted Federal law to make the American Flag flown on Father's Day.
Voted to change Federal law to making it easier to obtain Organ Transplants.





For the record... I agree with his votes on these things.


If these are the worst extravagances after 30 years, I would say Ron Paul should be our hero!

[Kade]

If you could give the sources (roll call votes and the text of the legislation) for these, that'd be great. It wouldn't surprise me if a few unconstitutional votes slipped through the cracks for Ron Paul over his 30 years in the Congress, but I never said Ron Paul was infallible or had a perfect voting record. I said he's a "good role model" for constitutionalism.

Mandatory Background Checks for Weapons:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:H.R.2122:

NASA authorization: 1979 HR 1786 v. 59

Give Medal to Ronald and Nancy Reagan:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2000/roll097.xml

Redesignate the Ellis Island Library on Ellis Island, NY as the “Bob Hope Memorial Library”.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll162.xml

Flag Display on Father's Day:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR02356:@@@R

Give Medal to Rosa Parks:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/roll092.xml

Banning Juveniles from owning assault weapons:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/roll238.xml

DC Gun Ban:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll477.xml


Want more?

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

Mandatory Background Checks for Weapons:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:H.R.2122:

Where's the roll call vote on this?


NASA authorization: 1979 HR 1786 v. 59

As I understand it, NASA was started during the Cold War for military defense reasons, which is authorized in Article 1 Section 8. This one is kind of iffy though.


Give Medal to Ronald and Nancy Reagan:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2000/roll097.xml

The roll call vote says Paul voted Nay on this one. What are you talking about?


Redesignate the Ellis Island Library on Ellis Island, NY as the “Bob Hope Memorial Library”.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll162.xml

Yeah, I'm not sure how that's authorized by the Constitution. A pretty benign mistake on Ron's part, though. Lol.


Flag Display on Father's Day:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR02356:@@@R

Sounds like this was just a statement recommending the display of the flag on Father's Day.


Give Medal to Rosa Parks:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/roll092.xml

Like the Reagan medal, Paul voted Nay on this one. Don't know what you're talking about.


Banning Juveniles from owning assault weapons:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/roll238.xml

Uhhh... Paul voted Nay on this one too. ??????


DC Gun Ban:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll477.xml

Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have power...to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district...as may...become the Seat of the Government of the United States."

Got anything else...?

[Kade]

Got anything else...?

Indeed. Mixed lists. They are minor, in my opinion... I use the medal votes for other posts.. (on anti-Paul sites in which I'm called a troll also...)

*sigh*

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

Indeed. Mixed lists. They are minor, in my opinion... I use the medal votes for other posts.. (on anti-Paul sites in which I'm called a troll also...)

*sigh*

??? I didn't call you a troll, nor did I mean to imply that.

[VoteForRonPaul]

VoteForRonPaul, you do not understand anything that you're talking about. HR 3543 would not give people's tax money back to them.
It was obvious to me that you agreed from the beginning that it is going to be a tax money, here is what you said earlier: "EVERYONE is a victim of the fraudulent income tax. Why should tax money be redistributed to 9/11 survivors over everyone else?"



Their tax money has already been spent (probably just on paying the interest on our national debt). The money that would be handed out to 9/11 survivors will not come from a lockbox of income tax payments.
Okay, I have some questions for you.
What probably refers to? :confused:
Second: Is there anyway to determine how taxes will be distributed or spent?



Furthermore, the article you referred to has nothing to do with this. When Congress earmarks certain funds, it does not increase federal spending. It merely diverts spending away from the executive branch. HR 3543 would INCREASE spending. HR 3543 does not take take out a chunk of money from the batch of funds that's already on its way to the executive branch, as earmarking does. HR 3543 would have to create new spending, new money, and give it to these 9/11 survivors. It is theft.
Now that you obviously have done your research around the HR3543 Bill which I failed to do. Could you please tell me from where the Congress earmarked certain funds come from??? And does this mean if we imagine that the HR3543 is coming from the so called Congress earmarked certain funds, you would agree with it?

Sorry if I would dismiss the second half of your post because it was nothing but fiction and silly argument. Probably I need to bring a native American to engage in the discussion. :rolleyes: