PDA

View Full Version : Thank You, Dr. Ron Paul By Chuck Baldwin




FrankRep
09-23-2008, 07:32 PM
Thank You, Dr. Ron Paul
By Chuck Baldwin
September 23, 2008


This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080923_2.html


Yesterday, September 22, Congressman Ron Paul publicly gave me his
endorsement for the office of President of the United States. In his blog at
the Campaign for Liberty web site, he said, "I'm supporting Chuck Baldwin,
the Constitution Party candidate." (See the complete statement at:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=582 )

Obviously, I could not be more delighted and honored to have Dr. Paul's
endorsement. I called him last evening and thanked him personally. And now I
want to thank him publicly.

I am fully aware that Dr. Paul was under considerable pressure from various
groups that were actively soliciting his support. I can honestly say that I
never lobbied Dr. Paul for his endorsement. He knew I would be thrilled to
have it, but I have too much respect for Ron Paul to be so presumptuous as
to expect him to endorse me. I completely understood his neutrality. He has
strong ties to both the Libertarian and Constitution parties--not to mention
the obvious fact that he is a ten-term Republican Congressman with much
support from the Republican Party in his home district.

I was happy to support Ron Paul during the Republican primaries, because I
believe in the same principles. I personally campaigned for him in several
states and in this column. And I asked (or expected) nothing in return. In
fact, I have stated this publicly, time and again: if Ron Paul had won the
Republican nomination for President, I would not be running. I would still
be supporting Ron Paul.

I am running for President because the Republican Party rejected Ron's
Paul's message of constitutional government, fiscal responsibility, and
non-interventionism. Therefore, someone had to pick up the mantle and carry
this message into the general election. The Constitution Party asked me to
be their standard-bearer in order to bring this message to the American
people in November. So, here I am. And now, Ron Paul's endorsement is
further substantiation that the message of constitutional government will
not die in 2008. The American people still have a real choice instead of the
big-government, globalist, interventionist, "big box" party candidates, John
McCain and Barack Obama.

Ron Paul's message is my message; Ron Paul's fight is my fight.

I want to return America to constitutional government. "The powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to
the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
(Amendment X) I believe that, and will govern the Executive branch of the
federal government accordingly.

My sworn oath to the Tenth Amendment means I would dismantle the Patriot Act
and restore law enforcement to the states and local governments, where it
rightly belongs. Yes, this includes the so-called "war on drugs" and the
so-called "war on terror." No more warrantless searches and seizures. No
more eavesdropping on Americans' phone calls, or collecting Americans'
emails, or spying on American citizens without court order and oversight. No
more stripping Americans of their constitutional rights in the name of
"national security." In addition, I would use every power and authority
vested to my office to preserve and protect the right of the people to keep
and bear arms. And, yes, I will immediately restore Posse Comitatus. As
President, I want to protect America from Washington, D.C., as much I want
to protect it from foreign powers.

I will also take the words of the Declaration of Independence seriously,
where it states, "That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be
Free and Independent States." This means the day I am sworn in as President
of the United States, the New World Order comes crashing down! The NAFTA
superhighway is dead. The North American Union is dead. I will work to
eliminate NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, and the WTO. The FTAA is DOA. I will not
expend tax dollars for the support of the United Nations.

Furthermore, I will take my oath to the Constitution seriously, when it
states that one of the express purposes of the federal government is to
"repel Invasions." This means we will secure America's borders, because the
illegal immigration crisis is more than mere immigration: it is an invasion,
and I will stop it! Even if I have to send the U.S. Army to the borders, we
will put a stop to this invasion of illegal aliens. I will also aggressively
prosecute those employers who knowingly hire illegals. And did I mention
that my first day in office is Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean's last
day in prison? I will personally open the prison doors and restore to these
men their freedom. I will also give them their jobs back (with pay), if they
want them. And one more item on this point: my first day of office is also
U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton's last day on the job.

I also share Ron Paul's concerns for the way the two major parties have
allowed the United States to become a meddlesome, interventionist,
nation-building empire for the sake of satisfying the greedy machinations of
international bankers and power-hungry politicians. I will not only bring
our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, but also from most of the other
130 nations that currently house U.S. forces. I will end foreign aid. I will
get the U.S. out of NATO. It is past time for the European states to defend
themselves. It is time for us to stop sticking our nose in every other
nation's business and start taking care of the United States. The Warfare
State will kill us. Global empires are not sustainable. I repeat: global
empires are not sustainable. If history teaches anything, it teaches that.

Furthermore, the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war is over, when I become
President. Because I will take my oath to the Constitution seriously, I
would never send troops to invade and occupy a foreign country without a
Declaration of War by Congress. In dealing with rogue terrorist
organizations such as al Qaeda, I will seek letters of Marque and Reprisal
from Congress, which would give me the authority to use whatever special
and/or private forces are necessary to seek out and destroy those who desire
our hurt.

And even though I am a born again Christian (as is Ron Paul), I would take
my responsibility to protect the religious liberty of every American
seriously. People have the right to worship God (or not worship God)
according to the dictates of their own conscience. Whether one is Baptist,
Catholic, Mormon, or agnostic, people have the right to practice their faith
as they see fit. I am absolutely dedicated to preserving religious liberty.
Religious tyranny is as evil as political or social tyranny. And, as I will
be no man's slave, neither will I be any man's master.

I also share Ron Paul's commitment to the sanctity of life. When I become
President, I will use the bully pulpit of the White House to press Congress
to pass Dr. Paul's Sanctity of Life Act, which would overturn Roe v. Wade
and end abortion-on-demand. On this topic, the GOP is especially
hypocritical. The Republican Party controlled the entire federal government
for six years and did nothing to save the life of a single unborn child.
Saving unborn babies from the abortionists' scalpel is more than rhetoric
with me, however.

Another area of agreement with Ron Paul is my philosophy of economics. Dr.
Paul has been predicting the current financial meltdown in this country for
years. And when all is done, the current bailout being proposed will do more
harm than good. The problem is, America's leaders have rejected sound money
policies for years, and the chickens are coming home to roost.

As President, I would seek to overturn the 16th Amendment, eliminate the
Internal Revenue Service, and disband the Federal Reserve. I would lead the
charge to return America to sound money principles. I would seek to reduce
federal spending to constitutional levels by eliminating those same federal
departments that Newt Gingrich promised to eliminate in his Contract with
America back in 1994 (and then failed to do). I would seek to eliminate the
Departments of Education, Commerce, Energy, etc. I would demand that
Congress pass a balanced budget and that we stop deficit spending.

Neither John McCain nor Barack Obama will do any of the above. If he were
President, Dr. Paul would do it, however, and so would I.

Needless to say, I am both humbled and honored that Ron Paul would place
enough faith in me that he would endorse me for President. I can think of no
higher compliment to my candidacy. I here and now publicly thank him for
this vote of confidence. I know my Vice Presidential running mate, Darrell
Castle (a former Marine Corps officer and Vietnam veteran), joins me in
inviting all of Dr. Paul's supporters to help us take the message of
constitutional government into the general election on November 4. Thank
you.

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these
editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by
credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

*Disclaimer: I am currently a candidate for President of the United States
on the Constitution Party ticket. My official campaign web site is located
at:
http://www.baldwin08.com/


(c) Chuck Baldwin

NOTE TO THE READER:

This email editorial cannot be considered Spam as long as the sender
includes contact information and a method of removal.

To subscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/subscribe.php

To unsubscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/unsubscribe.php

Chuck Baldwin's commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished,
reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not
charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column is copied intact
and that full credit is given and that Chuck's web site address is included.

Editors or Publishers of publications charging for subscriptions or
advertising who want to run these columns must contact Chuck Baldwin for
permission. Radio or television Talk Show Hosts interested in scheduling an
interview with Chuck should contact chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com

Readers may also respond to this column via snail mail. The postal address
is P.O. Box 37070, Pensacola, Florida. When responding, please include your
name, city and state. And, unless otherwise requested, all respondents will
be added to the Chuck Wagon address list.

Please visit Chuck's web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com

JRegs85
09-23-2008, 07:45 PM
Chuck Baldwin,

you have my vote.

CasualApathy
09-23-2008, 07:48 PM
Oh Chuck, you had me at "the day I am sworn in as President
of the United States, the New World Order comes crashing down!" :D

RickyJ
09-23-2008, 07:50 PM
Chuck Baldwin would make a great president. I am not going to feel bad about voting for him. If we can't have Ron Paul he is the next best thing.

Hamer
09-23-2008, 07:53 PM
Chuck Baldwin money bomb this Friday September 26 www.buckforchuck.com

RickyJ
09-23-2008, 07:54 PM
Chuck Baldwin money bomb this Friday September 26 www.buckforchuck.com

OK, but that sounds kind of gay.

How about calling it "donations for freedom."

ProBlue33
09-23-2008, 08:02 PM
"I was happy to support Ron Paul during the Republican primaries, because I
believe in the same principles. I personally campaigned for him in several
states and in this column. And I asked (or expected) nothing in return. In
fact, I have stated this publicly, time and again: if Ron Paul had won the
Republican nomination for President, I would not be running. I would still
be supporting Ron Paul.

I am running for President because the Republican Party rejected Ron's
Paul's message of constitutional government, fiscal responsibility, and
non-interventionism. Therefore, someone had to pick up the mantle and carry
this message into the general election. The Constitution Party asked me to
be their standard-bearer in order to bring this message to the American
people in November. So, here I am. And now, Ron Paul's endorsement is
further substantiation that the message of constitutional government will
not die in 2008. The American people still have a real choice instead of the
big-government, globalist, interventionist, "big box" party candidates, John
McCain and Barack Obama.

Ron Paul's message is my message; Ron Paul's fight is my fight."

I liked this part

voytechs
09-23-2008, 08:06 PM
Chuck Baldwin would make a great president. I am not going to feel bad about voting for him. If we can't have Ron Paul he is the next best thing.

+1

Nice letter Chuck!

RonPaulVolunteer
09-23-2008, 08:10 PM
So respectful. Unlike someone else we know...

ARealConservative
09-23-2008, 08:12 PM
here is an example of the fallout this endorsement will produce:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-elections/36710-ron-paul-endorses-chuck-baldwin.html

Lovecraftian4Paul
09-23-2008, 08:20 PM
Chuck Baldwin is so polite and takes time to write directly to the freedom movement. I can't see Nader or Barr doing the same thing if Ron Paul had endorsed one of them for some reason.

Malakai
09-23-2008, 08:22 PM
I was voting for him anyway, now I'll really work to get family and friends to go as well.

I've seen and heard him before and liked what I heard (way way way more than anything Barr has ever said). That was a really great piece

MGreen
09-23-2008, 08:23 PM
here is an example of the fallout this endorsement will produce:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-elections/36710-ron-paul-endorses-chuck-baldwin.html

Oh God, people that made fun of Ron Paul are making more fun of Ron Paul!

We're DOOOOOOOMED!

Regarding Baldwin, that's a pretty attractive letter. He's not the perfect candidate, but he's mountains above the big two and seems honest. Maybe he does support tariffs, and his illegal immigration rhetoric is pretty strong, but I could live with 4-8 years of that considering everything else he would work to do.

ARealConservative
09-23-2008, 08:24 PM
Oh God, people that made fun of Ron Paul are making more fun of Ron Paul!

We're DOOOOOOOMED!

Regarding Baldwin, that's a pretty attractive letter. He's not the perfect candidate, but he's mountains above the big two and seems honest. Maybe he does support tariffs, and his illegal immigration rhetoric is pretty strong, but I could live with 4-8 years of that considering everything else he would work to do.

notice how people that like Ron Paul have no interest in defending Baldwin.

And you notice how quick and easy it is to dig up true dirt on Baldwin?

This was a stupid move by the C4L.

Magsec
09-23-2008, 08:26 PM
The ginormous liberal wing of the Internet is pretty much rejecting Baldwin as a candidate because he "is a theocrat." I've never seen anything from Baldwin that would suggest that. Since the Internet can be so single-minded at times the odd man out gets slammed hard.

I guess they don't realize this endorsement really means. Democrat-leaning RP supporters would vote for Barr, Repub-leaning RP supporters would vote Baldwin. With RP's endorsement behind Baldwin the Repubs would head into Baldwin's camp and hurt McCain. If it was Barr, the Dems would've flooded to Barr and hurt Obama. Since most of RP's supporters are more inclined to Obama to begin with....

RP was damned if he chose either candidate because now his Dem supporters reject him and Baldwin for shallow reasons now. Either way, Baldwin convinces me, and I'll be sure to throw him some $$$ on Friday as well as a vote in November.

Razorback Fan
09-23-2008, 08:31 PM
Dr. Paul never said he endorses Chuck Baldwin, only that he supports him. I think he probably avoided the word endorse intentionally.

By the way, someone on another forum said something like, "It's only a matter of time before Baldwin turns up in a crack den getting serviced by a tranny." In other words, moralists have a way of falling fast and hard from their high places. I have no knowledge of Chuck Baldwin's personal life, but we've seen enough Christian leaders turn out to be hypocrites that caution is in order. Don't automatically throw your support behind this guy until you've done your research. He has said some pretty questionable things in the past. (And if you can forgive those things, then you ought to cut Bob Barr a little more slack for his past transgressions, too.)

SeanEdwards
09-23-2008, 08:33 PM
That was a nice letter and I think fairly effective at reaching out to godless libertarian types like myself.

Kevin_Kennedy
09-23-2008, 08:36 PM
I'll still be voting for Bob Barr come November.

rprprs
09-23-2008, 08:41 PM
That was a nice letter and I think fairly effective at reaching out to godless libertarian types like myself.

Yes. As another godless libertarian, I agree.

RoyalShock
09-23-2008, 09:14 PM
He has said some pretty questionable things in the past. (And if you can forgive those things, then you ought to cut Bob Barr a little more slack for his past transgressions, too.)

Altering one's political positions philosophically (and until proven otherwise, is my position) is quite different than a calculated strategy move like what Barr did. I can accept the former much more than the latter, as it represents a very poor decision on Barr's part, and one whose consequences were predictable.

But that's just me.

Bern
09-23-2008, 09:20 PM
I liked Chuck's response.

Original_Intent
09-23-2008, 09:58 PM
Frankly, the Christian leaders that have been caught with hookers, or other stuff have not surprised me in the least, dang televagelists that care more about $$$ than anything else.

From what I have seen of Chuck, I am confident he won't be in that type of predicament.

ceakins
09-23-2008, 10:01 PM
Another anti-gay marriage idiot running for president, that will probably turn out to be an in the closet self hating gay.

Theocrat
09-23-2008, 10:09 PM
Another anti-gay marriage idiot running for president, that will probably turn out to be an in the closet self hating gay.

Another anti-Christian voter who can't help but to rant out loud his hatred for Christians' stance against homosexuality, all the while claiming neutrality in accepting freedom of expression and religion for everyone. :rolleyes:

Bman
09-23-2008, 10:11 PM
I've been highly critical of Chuck and especially the CP. I will retain my right at this moment to remain highly skeptical.

However, with that being said.

It was a good letter, except for the Sanctity of Life stuff(before you say anything I disagree with Ron here also). I may not stop teasing Christians in general. But I'll lay off of Chuck for the moment.

Captain America
09-23-2008, 10:18 PM
Where can i get a yard sign?

Theocrat
09-23-2008, 10:24 PM
Where can i get a yard sign?

Click here (https://secure.giftwrapplus.org/b08/EU/cart/default.aspx?).

ceakins
09-23-2008, 11:19 PM
Another anti-Christian voter who can't help but to rant out loud his hatred for Christians' stance against homosexuality, all the while claiming neutrality in accepting freedom of expression and religion for everyone. :rolleyes:


No dumbshit, it's happened twice in my state. Two republican anti-gay homophobes got caught sucking cock.

Theocrat
09-23-2008, 11:30 PM
No dumbshit, it's happened twice in my state. Two republican anti-gay homophobes got caught sucking cock.

Well it's obvious they weren't "homophobes" if they were caught doing that. Do you even think before you type, or are you so eager to post the slightest insult you can get in before you form a cogent thought?

Anyway, what does that have to do with Congressman Paul endorsing Dr. Baldwin, the most principled and moral man in this Presidential race?

H Roark
09-23-2008, 11:46 PM
Wow! Thank You Chuck Baldwin! Ron Paul could have not thrown his support to any candidate more deserving this election cycle. I have full confidence in Ron Paul's judgment and I am sure that Baldwin's character has much to do with his selection as well.

(Don't pay no mind to that gimp Theo, apparently he doesn't even read the posts he replies to. Just another knee-jerk atheist full of contempt for anything Christian. Go back to eating your Slim Jim ceaskins.)

Kotin
09-23-2008, 11:47 PM
No dumbshit, it's happened twice in my state. Two republican anti-gay homophobes got caught sucking cock.

wtf ...


Don't talk to Theocrat like that..


(Troll)

RonPaulVolunteer
09-24-2008, 12:03 AM
No dumbshit, it's happened twice in my state. Two republican anti-gay homophobes got caught sucking cock.

OMG... LOL... you flat out didn't comprehend his comment to you in the slightest hey.

ROTFLMAO... :D :confused: :D :confused: :D :confused:

merrimac
09-24-2008, 01:38 AM
"I am fully aware that Dr. Paul was under considerable pressure from various
groups that were actively soliciting his support. I can honestly say that I
never lobbied Dr. Paul for his endorsement. He knew I would be thrilled to
have it, but I have too much respect for Ron Paul to be so presumptuous as
to expect him to endorse me. I completely understood his neutrality. He has
strong ties to both the Libertarian and Constitution parties--not to mention
the obvious fact that he is a ten-term Republican Congressman with much
support from the Republican Party in his home district."


I read Ron Paul's endorsement and Ron Paul sure sounded mad at Barr. I've never thought of Ron Paul as someone who could get angry but I stand corrected. Ron Paul is not someone who can be pushed around.

TGautier421
09-24-2008, 01:55 AM
Bob Barr was on The Colbert Report a few months ago. Didn't strike me as someone I could get behind. I will be voting Baldwin and the Constitution Party this November. Our voice will be heard!

RonPaulVolunteer
09-24-2008, 01:56 AM
I read Ron Paul's endorsement and Ron Paul sure sounded mad at Barr. I've never thought of Ron Paul as someone who could get angry but I stand corrected. Ron Paul is not someone who can be pushed around.

Friends I have in the campaign say they have never seen him angry, and he was angry!

CasualApathy
09-24-2008, 02:05 AM
Friends I have in the campaign say they have never seen him angry, and he was angry!

http://robdamanii.com/macros/oh-noes-gold-fish.jpg

Orgoonian
09-24-2008, 02:22 AM
I was going to vote for Nader simply as a protest vote.I do respect the man even though some of his policy idea's scare me.

I spent most of the day studying pastor Baldwins positions,and the only disagreement i have with him is abortion,and homosexuality.
However just like Dr.Paul,it seems if(correct me if i am wrong)that he would leave it to the states to decide.I have no problem with people having opinions,i just dont like opinions legislated from a federal level.

The acceptance letter to Dr.Pauls endorsement really put the fire back in me.
It looks like i get to vote for somebody without having to "hold my nose".
Go Baldwin!

LibertyEagle
09-24-2008, 03:20 AM
Dr. Paul never said he endorses Chuck Baldwin, only that he supports him. I think he probably avoided the word endorse intentionally.

Yeah, he only clearly stated he was VOTING FOR HIM.

How exactly does that differ from an endorsement?

FrankRep
09-24-2008, 10:51 AM
http://robdamanii.com/macros/oh-noes-gold-fish.jpg

lol. great pic.

ceakins
09-24-2008, 11:41 AM
I was going to vote for Nader simply as a protest vote.I do respect the man even though some of his policy idea's scare me.

I spent most of the day studying pastor Baldwins positions,and the only disagreement i have with him is abortion,and homosexuality.
However just like Dr.Paul,it seems if(correct me if i am wrong)that he would leave it to the states to decide.I have no problem with people having opinions,i just dont like opinions legislated from a federal level.

The acceptance letter to Dr.Pauls endorsement really put the fire back in me.
It looks like i get to vote for somebody without having to "hold my nose".
Go Baldwin!

But he's for DOMA so that is trying to legislate federally.

Cowlesy
09-24-2008, 11:42 AM
Wow, a very nice letter. Personally I thought he disarmed the "Theocrat!" screechers pretty well too.

dannno
09-24-2008, 12:11 PM
Ya I'm with Ron Paul, I don't think marriage should have anything to do with government.. it is a religious matter.

Some people need to realize that Chuck is both a preacher and a politician. Just because he is against gay marriage and thinks homosexuality is wrong doesn't mean he wants to make anti-sodomy laws and ban gay marriage.

Ron Paul is probably against gay marriage just as much as Chuck, he just isn't the kind of person to push his lifestyle on others.. but that is what Preachers do for a living, so I can understand why Chuck comes out and says the things he does.

ceakins
09-24-2008, 12:18 PM
Ya I'm with Ron Paul, I don't think marriage should have anything to do with government.. it is a religious matter.

Some people need to realize that Chuck is both a preacher and a politician. Just because he is against gay marriage and thinks homosexuality is wrong doesn't mean he wants to make anti-sodomy laws and ban gay marriage.

Ron Paul is probably against gay marriage just as much as Chuck, he just isn't the kind of person to push his lifestyle on others.. but that is what Preachers do for a living, so I can understand why Chuck comes out and says the things he does.


Great then why did he say he supported DOMA?

LibertyCzar
09-24-2008, 12:27 PM
I also share Ron Paul's concerns for the way the two major parties have
allowed the United States to become a meddlesome, interventionist,
nation-building empire for the sake of satisfying the greedy machinations of
international bankers and power-hungry politicians. I will not only bring
our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, but also from most of the other
130 nations that currently house U.S. forces. I will end foreign aid. I will
get the U.S. out of NATO. It is past time for the European states to defend
themselves. It is time for us to stop sticking our nose in every other
nation's business and start taking care of the United States. The Warfare
State will kill us. Global empires are not sustainable. I repeat: global
empires are not sustainable. If history teaches anything, it teaches that.
...
And even though I am a born again Christian (as is Ron Paul), I would take
my responsibility to protect the religious liberty of every American
seriously. People have the right to worship God (or not worship God)
according to the dictates of their own conscience. Whether one is Baptist,
Catholic, Mormon, or agnostic, people have the right to practice their faith
as they see fit. I am absolutely dedicated to preserving religious liberty.
Religious tyranny is as evil as political or social tyranny. And, as I will
be no man's slave, neither will I be any man's master.


This is why I am coming to realize how important it is to support Chuck Baldwin. It is more than just a political decision.

Scotso
09-24-2008, 01:01 PM
Great article from Baldwin.

aspiringconstitutionalist
09-24-2008, 01:24 PM
Chuck Baldwin has proven himself a humble servant of the people, a man of his word, and a true libertarian. You have my vote, sir.

aspiringconstitutionalist
09-24-2008, 01:29 PM
Great then why did he say he supported DOMA?

Because DOMA is constitutional. All DOMA does is say that one state can't force another state to recognize a marriage license granted in the first state. If a state were able to do that, that would totally negate the whole republican system of government in the other states. Laws would be able to be set in one state by politicians in an entirely different state, unelected and unaccountable to the people of the affected state. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to pass DOMA when in Article 4 Section 4, it charges Congress with the duty of guaranteeing to each state in the Union a republican form of government. DOMA doesn't prevent any state from legalizing gay marriage if they want to. The act really should have been called the Defense of States' Rights Act.

Scotso
09-24-2008, 03:05 PM
Wow, a very nice letter. Personally I thought he disarmed the "Theocrat!" screechers pretty well too.

I agree. The more I see of him, the more I think I might actually vote for him. I really, really hate the Constitution Party's preamble, though. I think any real libertarian should be concerned with it. And he is a pastor, so I'm sure that his strong religious stances would influence some positions that are not compatible with being pro-Constitution.

I do disagree on some issues, especially on his seeming support of protectionism and his aggressive anti-abortion stance. I mean, I think abortion is morally repugnant, but as a libertarian I feel it's not really my place to tell other people what to do in situations like that. I don't know, I go back and forth between protecting the rights of women and protecting the rights of the unborn child. I struggle with which denial is the greater evil.

Scotso
09-24-2008, 03:12 PM
Because DOMA is constitutional. All DOMA does is say that one state can't force another state to recognize a marriage license granted in the first state. If a state were able to do that, that would totally negate the whole republican system of government in the other states. Laws would be able to be set in one state by politicians in an entirely different state, unelected and unaccountable to the people of the affected state. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to pass DOMA when in Article 4 Section 4, it charges Congress with the duty of guaranteeing to each state in the Union a republican form of government. DOMA doesn't prevent any state from legalizing gay marriage if they want to. The act really should have been called the Defense of States' Rights Act.

I disagree. I also think that the constitution guarantees the right for gay people to get married in the equal protection clause. The Federal government recognizes marriages in tax laws and other issues, and if they're going to give those benefits to people who are married then they MUST allow ALL people to marry. It seems completely logical to me. If you don't want gay people to get married through your church, that's fine. But as long as the Federal government recognizes marriage and gives benefits for it, denying someone that right is completely unconstitutional.

Also, DOMA itself seems unconstitutional to me.

Article IV, Section 1:


Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

mconder
09-24-2008, 03:17 PM
I think he answered the drug question in this pretty clearly. He will not use ferderal state power against those who use drugs. You'll have to take that issue up with the state you live in.