"Ron Paul's Transition Plan" - Youtube Video

[KramerDSP]

A couple of days ago, I floated an idea of a forum project where we could all work on a script for a YouTube video that features Ron Paul talking about his transition plan. I did not get a lot of feedback, so I just went ahead and created an 8-minute video on YouTube centered around this idea. I hope you enjoy it. The Larry King portion of the video may have audio problems, but I think the rest of the video is satisfactory, and the captions are there as well. If you like this video, please spread it around. Thanks!

YouTube - Ron Paul's Transition Plan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3iK6Hy6xMA)

[KramerDSP]

This just made the front page of the Daily Paul. Awesome.

[low preference guy]

I didn't notice the problems in the Larry King part.

Also, for more details about Ron Paul's presidential plans, check out his article My Plan for a Freedom President (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul647.html).

[low preference guy]

This youtube has a nice response for the liberals who are scared that Ron Paul will eliminate social security:

Ron Paul won't do away with Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security. He will cut money overseas and use that money to support those who became totally dependent on government. "I'm the only one who has a way to pay for them." For the young people, I will allow them to opt out.

[Chester Copperpot]

thats a great video man.. exactly what people need to understand

[tangent4ronpaul]

That was good - thanks!

I see him frequently mention regulation as a problem, usually in passing, and there has been an article or two. I've never seen him say what he wants to do about over-regulation. He obviously believes in some like the FED.

He has mentioned that he would be limited in what he could do as president. I do recall seeing a president (Bush II?) bring out a largish stack of "obsolete" laws and just nullifying them. Was that an executive order or something? How can a president, unilaterally nullify a law - say the Patriot act or the HC bill?

For that matter, what would it take to get rid of an agency or department - say the highway department or department of education?

What could he do as prez to majorly downsize government and get big government out of our lives?

-t

[LibertarianfromGermany]

He has mentioned that he would be limited in what he could do as president. I do recall seeing a president (Bush II?) bring out a largish stack of "obsolete" laws and just nullifying them. Was that an executive order or something? How can a president, unilaterally nullify a law - say the Patriot act or the HC bill?


Well, as the head of the executive, the president could say about a law, if it is not agreeable with the constitution and the constitution is the highest law in the land, that it is no law at all. The question is of course if you want to have the president have that much power as it could obviously be assumed by anyone for whatever purpose under the guise of declaring a law unconstitutional. As it is now, the president can virtually do anything as long as the public lets him get away with it.

[torchbearer]

Well, as the head of the executive, the president could say about a law, if it is not agreeable with the constitution and the constitution is the highest law in the land, that it is no law at all. The question is of course if you want to have the president have that much power as it could obviously be assumed by anyone for whatever purpose under the guise of declaring a law unconstitutional. As it is now, the president can virtually do anything as long as the public lets him get away with it.

its is the president's duty to not follow unconstitutional laws. the power is apart of the checks and balances. if the president goes along with illegal laws, then checks and balances is broken down.
this is what we have today, and it is the party system that makes this possible.

The original idea was to have the 3 branches in opposition with each other. Each ready to clamp down on the other's power. but with parties, these 3 branches work together in partisanship to increase the power of each.

[LibertarianfromGermany]

its is the president's duty to not follow unconstitutional laws. the power is apart of the checks and balances. if the president goes along with illegal laws, then checks and balances is broken down.
this is what we have today, and it is the party system that makes this possible.

The original idea was to have the 3 branches in opposition with each other. Each ready to clamp down on the other's power. but with parties, these 3 branches work together in partisanship to increase the power of each.

Yes, I know what Locke's idea was and agree insofar that it is accepting the premise of democracy of course legitimate for the president to not enact unconstitutional laws, but I think it would be only practical if public opinion on this matter drastically changed. You would have to make sure that RP not enacting unconstitutional laws won't be an excuse for future presidents using this kind of power to justify writing their own laws (like Obama does right now).

I know there is a big difference, the point though is that the voters most likely won't care enough to investigate the matter and would see RP nullifying laws as justification for expanding the executive's power even further. On the other hand, since Obama IS doing it right now, that power (or rather: the power that the public currently associates with it) is being abused anyway, why not use it for good purposes.

[torchbearer]

Yes, I know what Locke's idea was and agree insofar that it is accepting the premise of democracy of course legitimate for the president to not enact unconstitutional laws, but I think it would be only practical if public opinion on this matter drastically changed. You would have to make sure that RP not enacting unconstitutional laws won't be an excuse for future presidents using this kind of power to justify writing their own laws (like Obama does right now).

I know there is a big difference, the point though is that the voters most likely won't care enough to investigate the matter and would see RP nullifying laws as justification for expanding the executive's power even further. On the other hand, since Obama IS doing it right now, that power (or rather: the power that the public currently associates with it) is being abused anyway, why not use it for good purposes.

Not following an unconstitutional law is not the same as the president legislating.
It is a presidential nullfication. The power to not enforce a law falls on the side of liberty.

[LibertarianfromGermany]

Not following an unconstitutional law is not the same as the president legislating.
It is a presidential nullfication. The power to not enforce a law falls on the side of liberty.

Yes and if you read my post above you will find that I agree with that assertion. Nevertheless, the voters might be, i.e. are, too lazy to make the distinction between ignoring a law the congress made (who in my opinion has been given most of its power to the executive already) and ignoring the fact that only congress can make laws.

My objection was therefore raised not on the principle of presidential nullification itself, but on its practicality and the unintended consequences that its use in the particular case of RP might draw with it. But since the public already does not draw that distinction and doesn't care about Obama just writing laws or law-additions, it doesn't matter anyways.

[torchbearer]

Yes and if you read my post above you will find that I agree with that assertion. Nevertheless, the voters might be, i.e. are, too lazy to make the distinction between ignoring a law the congress made (who in my opinion has been given most of its power to the executive already) and ignoring the fact that only congress can make laws.

My objection was therefore raised not on the principle of presidential nullification itself, but on its practicality and the unintended consequences that its use in the particular case of RP might draw with it. But since the public already does not draw that distinction and doesn't care about Obama just writing laws or law-additions, it doesn't matter anyways.

i understand your point. But presidents are legislating, Ron Paul standing up to bad laws is not going to let a genie out of the bottle that isn't already out.
we just have to make sure we always have a "Ron Paul" in office... or have libertarians in government long enough that the culture changes.

[LibertarianfromGermany]

i understand your point. But presidents are legislating, Ron Paul standing up to bad laws is not going to let a genie out of the bottle that isn't already out.
we just have to make sure we always have a "Ron Paul" in office... or have libertarians in government long enough that the culture changes.

...which is precisely what I said:


But since the public already does not draw that distinction and doesn't care about Obama just writing laws or law-additions, it doesn't matter anyways.


Bottom line: I think Ron Paul should make use of presidential nullification if he were to become president.

[torchbearer]

...which is precisely what I said:



Bottom line: I think Ron Paul should make use of presidential nullification if he were to become president.

sorry, i didn't read your post right. we are on the same page.

[eok321]

Nice Video!! This is exactly what is needed for the types of people who say

"Ron Paul wants to take us back to the stone age":rolleyes:

[devil21]

Good video and very informative. Thanks for putting that together and sharing it.

[emazur]

Good video, the only audio problems were with the sync in some of the segments

[bunklocoempire]

Good video and very informative. Thanks for putting that together and sharing it.

+1.




Bunkloco

[VegasPatriot]

A couple of days ago, I floated an idea of a forum project where we could all work on a script for a YouTube video that features Ron Paul talking about his transition plan. I did not get a lot of feedback, so I just went ahead and created an 8-minute video on YouTube centered around this idea. I hope you enjoy it. The Larry King portion of the video may have audio problems, but I think the rest of the video is satisfactory, and the captions are there as well. If you like this video, please spread it around. Thanks!
Well done! If you are referring to the sync in audio... I can help you out with that. Just send me a PM.

[KramerDSP]

Well done! If you are referring to the sync in audio... I can help you out with that. Just send me a PM.

Sent you a PM.

Someone entered a DIGG submission of the video. If you have an account and liked the video, please Digg it here.

http://digg.com/political_opinion/Ron_Paul_s_Transition_Plan

[Vessol]

Wow, awesome video.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Yes, I know what Locke's idea was and agree insofar that it is accepting the premise of democracy of course legitimate for the president to not enact unconstitutional laws, but I think it would be only practical if public opinion on this matter drastically changed. You would have to make sure that RP not enacting unconstitutional laws won't be an excuse for future presidents using this kind of power to justify writing their own laws (like Obama does right now).

I know there is a big difference, the point though is that the voters most likely won't care enough to investigate the matter and would see RP nullifying laws as justification for expanding the executive's power even further. On the other hand, since Obama IS doing it right now, that power (or rather: the power that the public currently associates with it) is being abused anyway, why not use it for good purposes.

The Constitution says only Congress can make laws. I don't think it says anything about nullifying laws. I don't think it's a power grab to nullify an unconstitutional law.

Then there is the issue of regulations - these have the effect of law, but do not go through Congress, so by definition - are unconstitutional.

A possible solution would be to withhold funding for the government unless say, 4 laws are abolished for every new law passed.. No law could be more than 20 pages and if it wants to change a past law, that past law has to be abolished and re-presented. The list of laws to review for repeal could be selected by asking for public feedback on what's the worst ones out there.

-t

[KramerDSP]

Shameless bump in light of the recent buzz about Ron Paul 2012 being a distinct possibility. I really think this video is favorable towards dispelling some of the myths about Paul's policies putting people out on the street and so forth. "In fact, I'm the only one who has a plan to pay for it" is the key quote, IMHO, and I really like the part where he says "We're in a four year presidency" and talks about the elderly and others relying on government assistance not being ignored or neglected. There were comments on HuffPo (I know, I know) following the Frank-Paul article where people wrote that they "finally agreed with Paul on one thing" and I think those folks being exposed to the video would realize they agree with Paul on a lot more than they think they do.

[BuddyRey]

Sent you a PM.

Someone entered a DIGG submission of the video. If you have an account and liked the video, please Digg it here.

http://digg.com/political_opinion/Ron_Paul_s_Transition_Plan

Dugg, Tweeted, and Facebooked!

[thehighwaymanq]

Wow, excellant video! I learned a lot- he speaks so well!

[Wesker1982]

well done! I'll be spreading this video around to anyone who I think will watch it.