Quick, help

[CMoore]

Today I feel like I almost witnessed a miracle. A very close friend who has always been very liberal expressed some interest in Dr. Paul. I could not believe she would even be open to him AT ALL. Anyway, the question came up of what exactly he could DO as president. I know there was an earlier thread about what he could do, but I don't remember when and it is probably buried so I will never find it. I can pull out my pocket Constitution and read her the part about the Executive branch, but I need more specifics. I know he can get rid of executive orders signed by past presidents, he can veto bills, as commander-in-chief he can start pulling out of Iraq, he can send a budget to Congress. By what authority can he cut taxes and get rid of the IRS? As the Executive can he simply refuse to enforce unconstitutional legislation? Help me out here. I will see my friend tomorrow at church.

[lucius]

Ask what her three most important presidental issues are and speak too them, I bet one of them is stopping this inane war...

[nullvalu]

yeah, and i bet the other two will be socialized healthcare and being compassionate to the illegals..

[lucius]

Ouch!

[Trance Dance Master]

Miracles happen. Use your education about the issues to convince them of Ron Paul's superiority as a candidate.

[ronpaulhawaii]

I turned my very liberal brother with the freeme.TV roll. While watching we had a few different discussions. For one, RP's foreign policy stance is very inviting to any anti-war person. For two, his stance on individual liberty is at the heart of the concept of Liberalism

From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal



Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism) liberty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty) to be the most important political goal.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal#_note-0) Liberalism has its roots in the Western Age of Enlightenment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment).
Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_rights) and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_thought) and speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech), limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law), the free exchange of ideas, a market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_economy) or mixed economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy), and a transparent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparency_%28humanities%29) system of government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_of_government).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal#_note-1) All liberals – as well as some adherents of other political ideologies – support the form of government known as liberal democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy), with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal#_note-2)


Thirdly, my main counter to any argument I was weak on was the fact that, "as much as Hillary and Cheney would like you to believe differently, the presidency is not all that powerful and nothing would drastically change without the consent of congress"

The bottom line is that an RP presidency would set us on a new and better direction than we have been travelling for the past few decades.

He is honest; he is experianced; he would not overstep his bounds.

His pro-life stance may be a turn-off on the surface, but the truth is that his State's Rights stance is correct and more important to the issue

HTH

mkauai

[nullvalu]

Ouch!

LOL it hurts cuz you know its true.

[nullvalu]

From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal

Unforunately most liberals today (from the hippy era-on) are what should be referred to as Neoliberals. I'm talking about environmental extremists and so forth..

[nist7]

What I'm afraid of is that the new converts are only drawn to RP because of his foreign policy stance. They'll have issues with things like national healthcare, immigration, education reform, poverty, etc.

I mean, the public really doesn't have a good exposure from the MSM about RP's domestic policies.

But one way of solving that may be to say that the states should be the one to decide about whether or not to allow vouchers to private schools or a state-run healthcare system.

[quickmike]

One thing I always hear when people hear about Ron wanting to get rid of all these federal department is "Geez, he just wants to do away with everything.......... that would ruin this country wouldnt it?" something to that effect.

What I tell them is although he wants to get rid of them, he knows that he cant just do it all at once. It would be a gradual thing. I then ask "Ok, do you want a president that wants to do 50 things and can only get 10 of them done, or would you rather have someone who only wants to get 5 things changed and succeeds in 1 of them?" If you want to get to the moon, you have to shoot for the stars. Nothing wrong with wanting to do things you know cant be done in a short period of time. Its better than someone who has no great goals because someone like that doesnt aim very high and gets nothing done but the same old stuff that weve been handed for the last 30 years.

[CMoore]

The issues were (1) the war (2) the environment (3) healthcare (4) government regulation.

It is really hard for people who are used to "Government is the answer" to get used to the idea of the private sector doing things. They believe we need govenrnment to protect us from pollution, bad food, bad drugs, etc.

I did OK with these things, but I could not explain exactly WHAT the president could do about them. The concern was about all the power that has been given to the Executive over the past years. How do you roll that back to the original intent. Does it have to be done by legislation? Of course, the president could simply strike the executive orders of former presidents, but what about all the legislation that is in place?

[nist7]

On a similar point to quickmike, I think it's better to tell them that Ron is more about significantly REDUCING federal powers rather than completely eliminating them. And giving those powers to the states.

Since the powers are now in the states' hands, the local people will have a more direct process in participating in their own law-making. Thereby increasing personal liberty and freedom and making the process more democratic/practical.

[ronpaulhawaii]

Unforunately most liberals today (from the hippy era-on) are what should be referred to as Neoliberals. I'm talking about environmental extremists and so forth..

Yes, but my brother falls under that catagory. He dropped out of college in his senior year when he found out his Chemical Engineering degree was attracting bomb builders. He went back and is now an Environmental Engineer. He is a MoveOn Activist and a Green Party campaigner (he spoke onstage at Woodstock2). By reminding him of the true tenets of Liberalism and how closely RP resembles that, he could not deny the value of supporting RP in this election. No-one that knows him can believe he is now a registered Republican. He just explains that RP is worth any sacrifice/humiliation;)

[bbachtung]

The President can do the following specific things in lessening federal power and authority over our everyday lives:

Cancel all Executive Orders;

Appoint Cabinet officers who are friends of liberty to positions like Attorney General and Secretary of Defense (and, more importantly, refuse to appoint Cabinet officers for those departments that he wants to eliminate, i.e., the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, etc.);

Veto any unconstitutional legislation and refuse to sign any unbalanced budgets;

Pardon those accused and / or convicted of violating unconstitutional criminal laws (including tax evasion); and

MOST IMPORTANTLY -- repeal federal regulations (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/chap1.html) (fair warning: link goes to a White House webpage), especially the regulations regarding Internal Revenue (which have the force of law, even though they are merely executive branch "interpretations" of laws passed by Congress).