PDA

View Full Version : Republican Treatment of Ron Paul at Convention




Change
09-04-2008, 07:48 AM
Sharing a Posting I sent to my Ron Paul Meetup Group in the Constitution State of Connecticut, on the way the GOP Treated Ron Paul.

The greatest figures in American History often were subjected to the harshest treatment. Ron Paul's role is still to be written in the political landscape. Don't be hurt by the treatment, stand tall that Ron Paul has the Courage to be our voices against all odds. Trust me, they respect him. It's great to hear from you as well. I enjoyed Palin's speech last night as well. A real tough cookie, but one thing Ron Paul focused on and we need to strongly support is NO LINE ITEM VETO for any President. Regardless of who wins this Presidential Campaign, the ability as a Liberty PAC and the structure Ron Paul Republicans have built is to hold both candidates feet to the fire. We are very blessed that Ron Paul has not endorsed either candidate, that is POWERFUL. In the end, I believe Ron Paul Republicans will make private choices on who to vote for and support, but what we have built is beyond a Candidate or a Campaign, we have built a foundation and voice.

I couldn't prouder to be a Ron Paul Republican.

Chester Copperpot
09-04-2008, 07:52 AM
Sharing a Posting I sent to my Ron Paul Meetup Group in the Constitution State of Connecticut, on the way the GOP Treated Ron Paul.

The greatest figures in American History often were subjected to the harshest treatment. Ron Paul's role is still to be written in the political landscape. Don't be hurt by the treatment, stand tall that Ron Paul has the Courage to be our voices against all odds. Trust me, they respect him. It's great to hear from you as well. I enjoyed Palin's speech last night as well. A real tough cookie, but one thing Ron Paul focused on and we need to strongly support is NO LINE ITEM VETO for any President. Regardless of who wins this Presidential Campaign, the ability as a Liberty PAC and the structure Ron Paul Republicans have built is to hold both candidates feet to the fire. We are very blessed that Ron Paul has not endorsed either candidate, that is POWERFUL. In the end, I believe Ron Paul Republicans will make private choices on who to vote for and support, but what we have built is beyond a Candidate or a Campaign, we have built a foundation and voice.

I couldn't prouder to be a Ron Paul Republican.

LIne item veto is unconstitutional via SCOTUS. Thank you Rudy Giuliani..

Pauls' Revere
09-06-2008, 12:33 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong:

I thought the line item veto was put in place as a response to the "riders" that were being placed upon bills for passage. I remember hearing about "riders" and how the line item would cure it. I hate the notion of riders. Any way around those? and still get rid of the line item?

However, I would rather have a more constitutional government than an unjust one.

Change
09-06-2008, 08:08 AM
The way I see it. If the People introduce a bill through their Representatives, it goes through a process that includes public hearings where as you can submit information for the record that stays with that bill number all the way through to the Senate, then on to the President for signture .

But if the House and the Senate have different version of that bill or major differences of language, it goes into Conference to Iron out the language. This is where the Politics begin and the People's hard work is subjected to language change. (riders placed on, wording changed - famous quote on the importance of language, "it depends on what the meaning of "is" is").

This currently is really where the process has been weakened. It is one thing to compromise on wording but often today entire new language is added. (riders).

The easier thing to do is restrict Riders rather than give The President the ability to Line Item Veto. The President then would be legislating from the Executive Office, not what the Constitution says. Regardless if you support or oppose the bill everyone should be against LINE ITEM VETOS, this is unconstitutional.

At least this is my understanding of the LINE ITEM VETO

acptulsa
09-06-2008, 08:13 AM
If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Ron Paul is in the very strange company of Barack Obama. Both were flattered to death by the infinitely adaptable McCain & Co. No lobbyists (except the campaign staff)? wtf?

ARealConservative
09-06-2008, 08:17 AM
Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

Line item veto allows the president to essentially veto the bill, and change it.

Let's say the fair tax people get a bill passed that eliminates all income tax while also implementing their consumption tax. Line item veto would allow a president to implement a consumption tax while keeping the income tax in place. Giving him the ability to keep some provisions while eliminating others will allow him to legislate, and poof; our separation of powers are gone.

I am shocked that anybody in this movement would willingly give the president more power.

Matt Collins
09-06-2008, 08:47 AM
If you're not on anyone's shitlist, then you are not doing anything worthwhile.

Change
09-06-2008, 08:56 AM
I don't think they are, but the lack of education on this issue is the problem. I just had a discussion on this very issue with a really smart guy, and he was all for the measure, but didn't realize until I explained to him, what exactly it would do.

Trust me as a person who worked on Informed Consent up against the drug companies, I saw this process up close and personal. Regardless of the side of the issue you sit on, you don't want the President of the United States to have line item veto powers.

This would change our form of government. Many people don't know how a simple bill is processed and have never worked on a bill.

It is better to tackle the Riders rather than give away untold powers to the President regardless of what party that President might be from.

ShowMeLiberty
09-06-2008, 09:04 AM
I don't think they are, but the lack of education on this issue is the problem. I just had a discussion on this very issue with a really smart guy, and he was all for the measure, but didn't realize until I explained to him, what exactly it would do.

Trust me as a person who worked on Informed Consent up against the drug companies, I saw this process up close and personal. Regardless of the side of the issue you sit on, you don't want the President of the United States to have line item veto powers.

This would change our form of government. Many people don't know how a simple bill is processed and have never worked on a bill.

It is better to tackle the Riders rather than give away untold powers to the President regardless of what party that President might be from.

http://www.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/83



Congress routinely passes unpopular laws by combining them with completely unrelated bills that have majority support. For example . . .

The REAL ID Act, which was designed to create a national ID card, had so little support in the Senate that it couldn't even be brought to a vote. A national ID card was opposed by a majority of the Senate, and historically, by the vast majority of the American people, but now it is the law of the land.

How did this happen?

It happened because House and Senate leaders attached the REAL ID Act to legislation the Senate was afraid to oppose, the "Emergency, Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief." (May, 2005)

Senators didn't want to vote against a defense appropriation, or Tsunami relief, so the REAL ID Act became the law of the land.

Sadly, this is far from the only example. Here's another one . . .

When a few moral busy bodies in Congress wanted to stop online gambling, but lacked the votes to get their way, they attached their unwanted legislation to a bill on Port Security. Few in Congress were likely to vote against a measure to strengthen security at our nation's ports, and so the completely unrelated online gambling law was passed too.

DownsizeDC.org's "One Subject at a Time Act" (OSTA) is designed to prevent outrages such as these by requiring that each bill that comes to a vote be about one subject, and one subject only. Any legislation passed in violation of this requirement will be considered null-and-void before the nation's courts. But that's not all . . .

http://www.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/83

Change
09-06-2008, 09:18 AM
We have to re educate the public, Ron Paul has been doing that which is so wonderful. I suggest we start creating some simple PSA (public service annoucements).

Public service announcement
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A public service announcement (PSA) or community service announcement (CSA) is a non-commercial advertisement broadcast on radio or television, ostensibly for the public good. PSAs are intended to modify public attitudes by raising awareness about specific issues.
Contents [hide]
1 In the United States
2 Well-known PSAs
3 See also
4 References
5 External links
[edit]In the United States

The most common topics of PSAs are health and safety. A typical PSA is part of a public awareness campaign to inform or educate the public about an issue such as smoking or compulsive gambling.
Often, a charitable organization releasing a PSA enlists the support of a celebrity; examples include Michael J. Fox's PSAs in the U.S. supporting research into Parkinson's Disease and Crips street gang leader Stanley "Tookie" Williams speaking from prison to urge youth not to join gangs.
Some religious groups produce PSAs on non-religious themes such as family values. Examples include the long-running "Homefront" campaign from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Seventh-day Adventist Church, and more recently the United Methodist Church.
The military produces PSAs to recruit enlistees, in addition to paid advertising and sponsorship efforts.
In the U.S, the role of PSAs was affected by deregulation of the broadcasting industry in the 1980s. Previously, a broadcast license was assigned to a television or radio station that was expected to serve as a "public trustee" by airing PSAs (in addition to meeting other requirements).
Untited States producers distribute traditional PSAs distributed to station directors.