Is it acceptable to vote for someone who doesn't support the constitution?

[AggieforPaul]

Well?

[newyearsrevolution08]

Well?

Vote for whoever you want.

If someone however goes into office I believe they actually have to say they promise to uphold the constitution SO odds are if they don't they will start their jobs as liars.

[AggieforPaul]

Vote for whoever you want.

If someone however goes into office I believe they actually have to say they promise to uphold the constitution SO odds are if they don't they will start their jobs as liars.

I want to vote for Chuck Baldwin.

My question is aimed at people voting for Nader. I don't believe Nader supports the constitution.

[Flash]

Depends. Do they support the Articles of Confederation?

[AggieforPaul]

Depends. Do they support the Articles of Confederation?

Touche, but you and I both know we'll never see an "articles of confederation" republic. A Constitutional Republic would be such a vast improvement over what we have, that I think we'd be better off focusing our energies on achieving that.

[Kotin]

NO!

[Knut Schreiber]

Only if you read Chapter 1 of the Manifesto aloud 5 times and ask Paul for forgiveness.

[Truth Warrior]

Well?

It's irrelevant and DOES NOT MATTER.<IMHO>

The Federal Constitution Is Dead (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gutzman/gutzman17.html)
Kevin Gutzman on who killed it.

[revolutionary8]

If you are an Aggie, this is a trick question. :D

[Bman]

I want to vote for Chuck Baldwin.

My question is aimed at people voting for Nader. I don't believe Nader supports the constitution.

Believe and know are two different things. I tend to believe that their are differences in interpretaion to the constitution. Some are rather looser than others. I am a pretty strict constitutionalist but there is some wiggle room, so we have to be careful between interpretaion over flat refusal to support the constitution.

[kojirodensetsu]

I'd rather someone vote for Nadar than Obama. bones

[JohnMeridith]

Believe and know are two different things. I tend to believe that their are differences in interpretaion to the constitution. Some are rather looser than others. I am a pretty strict constitutionalist but there is some wiggle room, so we have to be careful between interpretaion over flat refusal to support the constitution.
I'm curious as to which parts of the Constitution you believe aren't straightforward enough to be read exactly like a set of instructions.

[Bman]

I'm curious as to which parts of the Constitution you believe aren't straightforward enough to be read exactly like a set of instructions.

The 4th. What clarifies Probable cause?

The 14th. "nor shall any State deprive any person of life" This is what the left would say they interpret to be reason for universal health care. A bit of a stretch but proper health care is an effect on life. I'll reserve my right to disagree but I could see this topic as ill defined.

I'm not a lawyer, but especially in those 2 cases I see wiggle room.

[AggieforPaul]

The 4th. What clarifies Probable cause?

The 14th. "nor shall any State deprive any person of life" This is what the left would say they interpret to be reason for universal health care. A bit of a stretch but proper health care is an effect on life. I'll reserve my right to disagree but I could see this topic as ill defined.

I'm not a lawyer, but especially in those 2 cases I see wiggle room.

Nice sig Obama troll.

[Bman]

Nice sig Obama troll.

My sig is anti McCain. Not pro Obama. Get to know someone before you stick your foot in your mouth. How better than to make a person voting for McCain because of Palin realize just how foolish they are. I am many things but a supporter of Obama would not be one of them.

Considering that their are legitmate debates within the constitution isn't unreasonable. How about rather than making idiotic stabs in the dark correct my statement. Or just realize that not every two people will agree on what something means. In those cases you must debate and present facts. Look I'm here because I support most of what Dr. Paul stands for. Understanding that not everyone agrees with me is part of life. Trying to point that fact out doesn't make someone an Obama troll. It just shows that some of us in the liberty movement don't think we should tell other people what to think. However, I think you may miss that point. And that is sad.

[enjoiskaterguy]

Is it acceptable....well it's only that way to someone only because they have manipulated their own thinking process into convincing themselves that it IS ok to vote that way.

Me personally, I can't stand it....Hopefully I'll be able to vote for Chuck Baldwin here in CA.

[Bman]

Sorry mis read post

[Knightskye]

No!

[mediahasyou]

http://members.aol.com/vlntryst/wn103.html

[AJ Antimony]

Fuck no! :)

[Swmorgan77]

My answer is in my sig line.

[trey4sports]

absolutely.
if your voting for an anarcho-capitalist who would get rid of the constitution for a competely free market then i would definetly say yes

[Time for Change]

NO

[mport1]

Yeah, if they are pro-liberty candidates. I think it would be much better if they didn't support the document that gives government all of its power.

[Gigaplex]

The 14th. "nor shall any State deprive any person of life" This is what the left would say they interpret to be reason for universal health care. A bit of a stretch but proper health care is an effect on life. I'll reserve my right to disagree but I could see this topic as ill defined.

I'm not a lawyer, but especially in those 2 cases I see wiggle room.

You don't have to be a lawyer, you just have to use your head bone.

The 14th says that the state can not take actions that deprive a person of life. It does not say the state must take actions to improve a person's health.

If a person interprets this to mean the government can take over healthcare then their interpretation is incorrect. No they don't just have "a different viewpoint" - they have misunderstood the amendment. They are in error.

[Oyate]

well?

duuuuuuuuuuuuuuh yeah i wuz thinking of voting for duh devil.