PDA

View Full Version : Why does Ron Paul support the DoJ but says DoE/Homeland Sec. is unconstitutional?




socialize_me
11-17-2008, 04:52 PM
Interesting...Ron Paul said the Department of Justice is necessary and he supports it, yet why is that the Department of Homeland Security and Education both considered unconstitutional?? I forgot where it said the Department of Justice was an enumerated power by Congress to create...

tggroo7
11-17-2008, 05:05 PM
Probably because it has the Attorney General and should stop unconstitutional or illegal government actions. It's probably not nearly as expensive as the DoHS or DoE either. Both of those two departments are actually bad and counterproductive, while the DoJ is just presently ineffective (but only because it is not run properly. i.e. no one there gives a shit).


EDIT: Well, on second thought, the Attorney General has always existed anyway, he was just made the head of the DoJ when it was formed. So I don't really know why he says it's constitutional and the others not.

EDIT2: wikipedia has a little bit of info that might help explain. The attorney general's job became nearly impossible to do as America grew. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice#History

The main difference IMO is that it just seems necessary to keep, and the same cannot be said for the DoE and DoHS. I'm sure Dr. Paul would still make cuts to the department, however.

AJ Antimony
11-17-2008, 05:13 PM
The Constitution authorizes a federal Judicial system. It does not authorize a federal Education system, and we already have the Department of Defense. The Department of Homeland Security is just redundant.

socialize_me
11-17-2008, 05:18 PM
The Constitution authorizes a federal Judicial system. It does not authorize a federal Education system, and we already have the Department of Defense. The Department of Homeland Security is just redundant.

That's a pretty good loose interpretation of the Constitution to stretch Article III to encompass the Department of Justice. For one, the federal court system is independent of the Department of Justice and is in fact an executive department, not a judicial, so it would have no business in Article III which is where you're getting your interesting interpretation.

I know it doesn't say anything about education or homeland security in the Constitution. It doesn't mention the Department of Justice either so my question is how can you call one or two "unconstitutional", yet the other to be fine because you seem to think federal courts are synonymous with an executive department?

AJ Antimony
11-17-2008, 05:23 PM
That's a pretty good loose interpretation of the Constitution to stretch Article III to encompass the Department of Justice. For one, the federal court system is independent of the Department of Justice and is in fact an executive department, not a judicial, so it would have no business in Article III which is where you're getting your interesting interpretation.

I know it doesn't say anything about education or homeland security in the Constitution. It doesn't mention the Department of Justice either so my question is how can you call one or two "unconstitutional", yet the other to be fine because you seem to think federal courts are synonymous with an executive department?

I wasn't referring to any Article and was intentionally keeping my comment loose. I suppose I could have written it better, but the point I was making is that the Constitution does mention federal justice/law enforcement/defense, but nowhere does it mention federal education. Any then DHS is just redundant.

gls
11-17-2008, 05:30 PM
Justice was one of the four original Cabinet level departments along with State, Treasury, and Defense.

pacelli
11-17-2008, 05:38 PM
I've never heard Ron Paul say he supports the DoJ. Didn't he support an amendment in 2005 to pull DoJ funding?

tggroo7
11-17-2008, 05:41 PM
Justice was one of the four original Cabinet level departments along with State, Treasury, and Defense.

I don't believe so. It was just State, Treasury, and War.

nate895
11-17-2008, 05:44 PM
Justice was one of the four original Cabinet level departments along with State, Treasury, and Defense.

It wasn't originally cabinet-level, but it was by the end of the Washington Administration. The DoJ is OK, and should be there to prosecute cases of treason and the few other crimes that the Federal government has jurisdiction over. It need not be very big, I bet 300 people could run and work for it.

AJ Antimony
11-17-2008, 06:30 PM
I don't believe so. It was just State, Treasury, and War.

+Attorney General, I believe

torchbearer
11-17-2008, 06:37 PM
YUp. and remember, the feds weren't given a policing power, thus were not expected to have a myriad of laws that were to be enforced upon the citizens of the states.
No one ever talks about this, but its a very important fact.

1000-points-of-fright
11-17-2008, 06:56 PM
Ron Paul said the Department of Justice is necessary and he supports it

Source? Before we continue with this discussion, we should establish that your premise is in fact factual.

Imperial
11-17-2008, 07:30 PM
Cabinet positions were established by Washington. He took the initiative to make the system. Really, there is nothing unconstitutional about forming different cabinet levels. The question is if the power to act in certain areas is permitted.

The Constitution gives the Executive power over certain areas, but it doesn't mandate exactly how such powers will be executed.

torchbearer
11-17-2008, 07:33 PM
Cabinet positions were established by Washington. He took the initiative to make the system. Really, there is nothing unconstitutional about forming different cabinet levels. The question is if the power to act in certain areas is permitted.

The Constitution gives the Executive power over certain areas, but it doesn't mandate exactly how such powers will be executed.

I thought that was congress' job.. to mandate what is to be executed.. within their powers.
Then the president will decide how its executed.

melissa22
11-17-2008, 08:10 PM
Source? Before we continue with this discussion, we should establish that your premise is in fact factual.

He has no source, it's the socialist bozo again.

powerofreason
11-17-2008, 08:13 PM
So I see the commie gave up on the other thread. The truth bitch slapped you in the face didn't it?