The Daily Caller - Why Rand Paul Won

[sailingaway]

http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/04/why-rand-paul-won/

[Galileo Galilei]

If Rand follows the ideas and strategy of James Madison, rather than Thomas Jefferson as this article suggests, Rand will become far more successful at securing liberty.

[MyLibertyStuff]

Pretty good article. I would have to agree, his actually knowing what he is talking about and being logical might have been a factor in his win.

[TheeJoeGlass]

If Rand follows the ideas and strategy of James Madison, rather than Thomas Jefferson as this article suggests, Rand will become far more successful at securing liberty.

Why you say that?

[CheezItsRule]

Thoughtful beyond the normal party-generated talking points used by other pols, Rand Paul is what we call in politics a “true believer.” He is someone who believes that he will, in the words of Madison, use his wisdom in the best interests of this country and will not be swayed by temporary considerations.

This is the most comforting paragraph written about Rand since he won. Anyone who had any doubts about Rand should have to copy it 100x on the blackboard! LOL!

[Galileo Galilei]

Why you say that?

James Madison was much more practical in getting things done. He used Jefferson as a front man for most of a 40 year period. For example, when Jefferson was president, Madison was making almost all of the major decisions. Madison also orchestrated both of Jefferson's elections.

Likewise, Ron does a lot of great speeches but has not accomplished mush in comparison with the Founding Fathers. Rand seems more like someone who can work behind the scenes to make things happen.

[sailingaway]

James Madison was much more practical in getting things done. He used Jefferson as a front man for most of a 40 year period. For example, when Jefferson was president, Madison was making almost all of the major decisions. Madison also orchestrated both of Jefferson's elections.

Likewise, Ron does a lot of great speeches but has not accomplished mush in comparison with the Founding Fathers. Rand seems more like someone who can work behind the scenes to make things happen.

So we should hold Madison accountable for the Louisiana purchase?

[Galileo Galilei]

So we should hold Madison accountable for the Louisiana purchase?

Madison masterminded that. He is not usually given enough credit for it. He did have help from Monroe, Robert Livingston, and Jefferson.

The Louisiana Purchase was one of the greatest antiwar and anti-empire events of all time. Never before had so much territory been gained via peace, rather than war. And the land was made into states, not provinces. Empires have provinces, republics have states.

[sailingaway]

Madison masterminded that. He is not usually given enough credit for it. He did have help from Monroe, Robert Livingston, and Jefferson.

The Louisiana Purchase was one of the greatest antiwar and anti-empire events of all time. Never before had so much territory been gained via peace, rather than war. And the land was made into states, not provinces. Empires have provinces, republics have states.

But just maybe he should have gotten a Constitutional amendment for it?

[Galileo Galilei]

But just maybe he should have gotten a Constitutional amendment for it?

For making a treaty? That is already in the Constitution. The Senate ratified the treaty. James Madison explained this to Thomas Jefferson at the time.

[sailingaway]

For making a treaty? That is already in the Constitution. The Senate ratified the treaty. James Madison explained this to Thomas Jefferson at the time.

Just the way Obama and Hillary like to change our Constitution, you mean? Agree with others outside the country, ratify it in the Senate and pretend the Constitutional requirements for amendment have been met?

[Galileo Galilei]

Just the way Obama and Hillary like to change our Constitution, you mean? Agree with others outside the country, ratify it in the Senate and pretend the Constitutional requirements for amendment have been met?

No, the Founding Fathers put treaty making powers into the Constitution. A treaty must be agreed to by the president and the Senate to be valid. I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Galileo Galilei]

Incidentally, today, 95% of all treaties are never ratified by the Senate. The president just signs them and calls them executive agreements". This is an area where I am expecting Rand Paul to stand up and make some noise.

[sailingaway]

No, the Founding Fathers put treaty making powers into the Constitution. A treaty must be agreed to by the president and the Senate to be valid. I have no idea what you are talking about.

I am saying there are those taking the idea that if we make a treaty with the UN, say, that says all member countries must do away with handguns, it will amend our Constitution so that becomes law. Etc. I don't think you are allowed to enter into a treaty that is unConstitutional without an amendment. I'm not sure increasing territory really is unconstitutional, since we surely (back then) could do it through war. I don't like that idea in its modern day use. The 'international banking regulations' over our banks are based on the IMF and WTO, no where in our Constitution, for example. I think they are unConstitutional.

[Galileo Galilei]

I am saying there are those taking the idea that if we make a treaty with the UN, say, that says all member countries must do away with handguns, it will amend our Constitution so that becomes law. Etc. I don't think you are allowed to enter into a treaty that is unConstitutional without an amendment. I'm not sure increasing territory really is unconstitutional, since we surely (back then) could do it through war. I don't like that idea in its modern day use. The 'international banking regulations' over our banks are based on the IMF and WTO, no where in our Constitution, for example. I think they are unConstitutional.

I agree with that, but the LA purchase just added new territory. Treaties have been used for thousands of years to add new territory, usually at the conclusion of a war or to settle border disputes.

[sailingaway]

I agree with that, but the LA purchase just added new territory. Treaties have been used for thousands of years to add new territory, usually at the conclusion of a war or to settle border disputes.

I'm ok with that.

[wormyguy]

Madison masterminded that. He is not usually given enough credit for it. He did have help from Monroe, Robert Livingston, and Jefferson.

The Louisiana Purchase was one of the greatest antiwar and anti-empire events of all time. Never before had so much territory been gained via peace, rather than war. And the land was made into states, not provinces. Empires have provinces, republics have states.

What about all the people living there before? Does it only count as a "war" when it doesn't involve browns?

[sailingaway]

What about all the people living there before? Does it only count as a "war" when it doesn't involve browns?

The French thought it belonged to them. The browns (your word) would have been no differently treated and weren't, likely, a consideration for either side. The Louisiana purchase is no different from the rest of the USA, it was a conquest, as most got their land. As the various 'browns' got it from each other. Under today's ideas, its all wrong, but no current country is innocent of that, and that element is no different from all the rest of the land in the US.

[wormyguy]

Your argument is no different than "the Iraq war isn't bad because Saddam Hussein was bad."

[sailingaway]

Your argument is no different than "the Iraq war isn't bad because Saddam Hussein was bad."

My argument is totally different. My argument is that your argument simply wasn't the topic of my objection, which was Constitutional law. There are other reasons to oppose the Louisiana purchase, but they weren't the ones I was discussing. I was thinking of modern day precedent.

[Galileo Galilei]

What about all the people living there before? Does it only count as a "war" when it doesn't involve browns?

Before it was obtained by our republic, it was under control of the French empire and before that the Spanish empire. Prior to that, the Indians had their own empires, not republics.

[Galileo Galilei]

My argument is totally different. My argument is that your argument simply wasn't the topic of my objection, which was Constitutional law. There are other reasons to oppose the Louisiana purchase, but they weren't the ones I was discussing. I was thinking of modern day precedent.

The only other Constitutional issue I see beyond the simple treaty is whether the House must concur will an allocation of funds, or can the money be spent from existing funds. I believe also that a portion of the payment was made by forgiving debt as well.

The debate over whether the House must concur in some treaty situations had just been debated by Madison and Hamilton in 1793 during the Helvidius-Pacificus Debate:

PACIFICUS-HELVIDIUS DEBATES OF 1793-1794
http://www.amazon.com/PACIFICUS-HELVIDIUS-DEBATES-1793-1794-Alexander-Hamilton/dp/0865976899

[sailingaway]

The only other Constitutional issue I see beyond the simple treaty is whether the House must concur will an allocation of funds, or can the money be spent from existing funds. I believe also that a portion of the payment was made by forgiving debt as well.

The debate over whether the House must concur in some treaty situations had just been debated by Madison and Hamilton in 1793 during the Helvidius-Pacificus Debate:

PACIFICUS-HELVIDIUS DEBATES OF 1793-1794
http://www.amazon.com/PACIFICUS-HELVIDIUS-DEBATES-1793-1794-Alexander-Hamilton/dp/0865976899

Thanks.