PDA

View Full Version : Why Ron Paul WILL be able to abolish the IRS and "War on Drugs" INSTANTLY!




SouthernGuy15
10-20-2007, 03:10 AM
It's called PARDON POWER!

The president of the USA has unlimited pardon power to pardon as many people as he sees fit of any crime. Quite frankly, Ron Paul as a true patriot would instantly PARDON anyone guilty of evasion of the federal income tax as long as they had not committed any other crimes!

Additionally, he could QUICKLY end the insane and anti-freedom "War on Drugs" by pardoning every single individual guilty of violating drug laws. As long as a person had not violated the rights of anyone else he would be SET FREE!

Quite frankly, according to the Constitution of the USA NOTHING could be done to stop him from doing this! And if some big government goon tried to impeach him there would be a REVOLUTION when the thousands upon thousands of people pardoned for these VICTIMLESS CRIMES rallied in peaceful protests across the nation!

steph3n
10-20-2007, 03:11 AM
pardoning someone for tax evasion and ending the IRS are two separate issues, you do realize that?

austin356
10-20-2007, 03:12 AM
We plan to win on this platform?

SouthernGuy15
10-20-2007, 03:13 AM
No, it is NOT two separate issues!

If the keeps on pardoning every single person who is guilty of tax evasion then instantly the IRS would become obsolete!

SouthernGuy15
10-20-2007, 03:15 AM
We plan to win on this platform?

Yes! Absolutely!

Don't you think there are countless people who would like to see the IRS abolished immediately?

Don't you think there are countless people who want to see an end to victimless crimes?

Also, as commander and chief he could instantly bring our troops home and PARDON any soldiers that DESERTED to avoid this illegal undeclared war!

Nash
10-20-2007, 03:18 AM
Yes! Absolutely!

Don't you think there are countless people who would like to see the IRS abolished immediately?

Don't you think there are countless people who want to see an end to victimless crimes?

Also, as commander and chief he could instantly bring our troops home and PARDON any soldiers that DESERTED to avoid this illegal undeclared war!

I hope you're not horribly disappointed in him if he starts passing unconstitutional domestic programs bundled with spending cuts that reduce the size of the overall budget.

Or if he just decriminalizes pot. Or if he replaces the income tax with the fair tax instead of nothing.

He's actually pragmatic you know.

steph3n
10-20-2007, 03:18 AM
This isn't the platform that needs to be run right now to be honest. And it is not abolishing to pardon :)

mkrfctr
10-20-2007, 03:19 AM
Also, as commander and chief he could instantly bring our troops home and PARDON any soldiers that DESERTED to avoid this illegal undeclared war!

I think some people would take a major issue with that as it is an all volunteer army and once you have volunteered it is your obligation to fulfill your duties and responsibilities, and to stand and fight when instructed to do so.

mkrfctr
10-20-2007, 03:20 AM
He's actually pragmatic you know.

This.

Esor
10-20-2007, 03:21 AM
It's called PARDON POWER!
Quite frankly, according to the Constitution of the USA NOTHING could be done to stop him from doing this! And if some big government goon tried to impeach him there would be a REVOLUTION when the thousands upon thousands of people pardoned for these VICTIMLESS CRIMES rallied in peaceful protests across the nation!

Sounds like a good movie.

SouthernGuy15
10-20-2007, 03:22 AM
I hope you're not horribly disappointed in him if he starts passing unconstitutional domestic programs bundled with spending cuts that reduce the size of the overall budget.

Or if he just decriminalizes pot. Or if he replaces the income tax with the fair tax instead of nothing.

He's actually pragmatic you know.

He is NOT pragmatic. He would not start passing unconstitutional programs! For goodness sakes, he has boldly stated he doesn't want to start new programs! He wants to ELIMINATE THEM! He wants to ELIMINATE whole AGENCIES!

Also, he would end the war on drugs totally and completely! He has already boldly declared that it is totally offensive for the government to have any control over what you put into your own body! He has declared that the INDIVIDUAL has the power to control their own body and NOT the government!

Quite frankly, this nation will change RADICALLY once Ron Paul becomes president. Just wait and see, this nation will once again be truly free!

SouthernGuy15
10-20-2007, 03:23 AM
I think some people would take a major issue with that as it is an all volunteer army and once you have volunteered it is your obligation to fulfill your duties and responsibilities, and to stand and fight when instructed to do so.

Who cares if people did not like it! The war in Iraq was UNDECLARED and UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

The first duty of a soldier should be to defend the constitution. Fighting in an undeclared illegal war is like contributing to the DEMISE of the constitution!

I think those who defect from the military and refuse to fight in this war are the true patriots!

johngr
10-20-2007, 03:25 AM
Morally, there is nothing else he can do, once he has the power to do so. He doesn't have to play that up while he's campaigning. He can wait until he is in power to mention that.

Once he starts doing that, if the goons try to stop him, it will be time for torches as well as pitchforks, et. al.

Esor
10-20-2007, 03:26 AM
He is NOT pragmatic. He would not start passing unconstitutional programs! For goodness sakes, he has boldly stated he doesn't want to start new programs! He wants to ELIMINATE THEM! He wants to ELIMINATE whole AGENCIES!

Also, he would end the war on drugs totally and completely! He has already boldly declared that it is totally offensive for the government to have any control over what you put into your own body! He has declared that the INDIVIDUAL has the power to control their own body and NOT the government!

Quite frankly, this nation will change RADICALLY once Ron Paul becomes president. Just wait and see, this nation will once again be truly free!

The sad thing is, there is more to being president than just doing what you want. I think that is the whole point behind Dr. Paul. There are compramises to made. Nothing is going to be radically changed, at least not in the sense that you are talking about. Think about how outraged the nation would be if he was to pardon every single person that is in jail because of a drug-related crime. It just is not plausible. Although I agree with about 90% of what Ron Paul advocates, I also believe that you cannot be a good president if you don't consider opposing viewpoints, look at Bush.

steph3n
10-20-2007, 03:29 AM
really need to settle down just a bit and think.
FOr the long term interest of the country, he must work with the house and senate, when he does this he will have MAJOR change, not just during his term, but in the house and senate as bodies, to get real people in. Being a bush-like dictator will not win over hearts and minds. Done properly it could literally change the course of history for the next 50 years!


He is NOT pragmatic. He would not start passing unconstitutional programs! For goodness sakes, he has boldly stated he doesn't want to start new programs! He wants to ELIMINATE THEM! He wants to ELIMINATE whole AGENCIES!

Also, he would end the war on drugs totally and completely! He has already boldly declared that it is totally offensive for the government to have any control over what you put into your own body! He has declared that the INDIVIDUAL has the power to control their own body and NOT the government!

Quite frankly, this nation will change RADICALLY once Ron Paul becomes president. Just wait and see, this nation will once again be truly free!

Nash
10-20-2007, 03:30 AM
He is NOT pragmatic. He would not start passing unconstitutional programs! For goodness sakes, he has boldly stated he doesn't want to start new programs! He wants to ELIMINATE THEM! He wants to ELIMINATE whole AGENCIES!

Quite frankly, this nation will change RADICALLY once Ron Paul becomes president. Just wait and see, this nation will once again be truly free!

He was quoted in an interview with Lew Rockwell as saying that he would pass unconstitutional legislation or social programs IF he was able to pull that money from other programs and the end result was a reduced budget.

He can't just say he's going to veto everything. If he does that he'll never get the size and scope of government reduced. All bills that go through congress are bundled with tons of stuff, sometimes none of it related to one another.

The guy has been in congress for 20 years and passes on earmark requests. He votes no on everything because he knows he can get away with doing what he believes and still get re-elected.

He knows how to play the political game and he knows that if he's President he's going to have to work with the congress to ultimately achieve his goals.

That unfortunately means passing federal spending programs. It's a means to an end.

SouthernGuy15
10-20-2007, 03:30 AM
Esor,

You do NOT consider opposing view points that are contrary to the principles of freedom, liberty, and the constitution! You do NOT consider them for a MOMENT!

For example, every person has the absolute right to put whatever they desire into their own body. Drug laws are an abomination and totally contrary to the principles of freedom and liberty. Obviously, the only principled thing Ron Paul could do is pardon every single person guilty of a drug related crime!

Compromise is NOT an option!

steph3n
10-20-2007, 03:32 AM
SG,

It is a crime at this time, so really, long term change must be sought.

johngr
10-20-2007, 03:33 AM
I think some people would take a major issue with that as it is an all volunteer army and once you have volunteered it is your obligation to fulfill your duties and responsibilities, and to stand and fight when instructed to do so.

Is a contract to be someones slave a valid contract?

SouthernGuy15
10-20-2007, 03:33 AM
really need to settle down just a bit and think.
FOr the long term interest of the country, he must work with the house and senate, when he does this he will have MAJOR change, not just during his term, but in the house and senate as bodies, to get real people in. Being a bush-like dictator will not win over hearts and minds. Done properly it could literally change the course of history for the next 50 years!

What is wrong with you? I'm not talking about him being a dictator! I'm just talking about him pardoning those individuals that have HARMED NO ONE and are guilty of VICTIMLESS CRIMES!

If anything, he would be a LIBERATOR! If other people don't see it that way then TOO FREAKING BAD!

Quite frankly, I'm shocked to hear that you don't want him to take immediate action to defend those people whose rights are being violated.

Maybe you will change your tune if the government throws you in prison for the victimless crime of ordering a extra value meal at McDonalds with too many grams of fat! Then you will be thankful when Ron Paul pardons you from prison!

Seriously, we have the right to live our lives how we see fit as long as we do not violate the rights of others. Ron Paul is the one candidate that realizes this and is not scared to speak up!

Esor
10-20-2007, 03:35 AM
Compromise is NOT an option!

Sounds like a dictatorship to me.
Anyways, can we please stop arguing amongst eachother. This time spent typing back and forth could be better used spreading the message of Liberty, Peace and Freedom and gathering support for Dr. Paul.

steph3n
10-20-2007, 03:35 AM
you need to think practically.
this is not practical right now, focus on getting the nomination and winning the election.


What is wrong with you? I'm not talking about him being a dictator! I'm just talking about him pardoning those individuals that have HARMED NO ONE and are guilty of VICTIMLESS CRIMES!

If anything, he would be a LIBERATOR! If other people don't see it that way then TOO FREAKING BAD!

Quite frankly, I'm shocked to hear that you don't want him to take immediate action to defend those people whose rights are being violated.

Maybe you will change your tune if the government throws you in prison for the victimless crime of ordering a extra value meal at McDonalds with too many grams of fat! Then you will be thankful when Ron Paul pardons you from prison!

Seriously, we have the right to live our lives how we see fit as long as we do not violate the rights of others. Ron Paul is the one candidate that realizes this and is not scared to speak up!

SouthernGuy15
10-20-2007, 03:36 AM
SG,

It is a crime at this time, so really, long term change must be sought.

No! It must be an INSTANT change!

If you think that the government has the right to hold someone in prison for putting a substance into their own body then I hope you don't complain if the government makes a new law banning fast food, your favorite color socks, or coffee!

Quite frankly, our government is a giant criminal organization! Any organization that would imprison people when they have not violated the rights of others is nothing more than a criminal mob!

Ron Paul will FIX this nation by restoring liberty and freedom!

johngr
10-20-2007, 03:36 AM
Being a bush-like dictator will not win over hearts and minds. !

Please explain to me how using his constitutional powers to protect ordinary people from the unconstitutional and/or immoral encroachment of government power is "being a Bush-like dictator".

steph3n
10-20-2007, 03:37 AM
not with the attitude you have right now.
Get some rest, wake up and let people know about Dr Paul :)



No! It must be an INSTANT change!

If you think that the government has the right to hold someone in prison for putting a substance into their own body then I hope you don't complain if the government makes a new law banning fast food, your favorite color socks, or coffee!

Quite frankly, our government is a giant criminal organization! Any organization that would imprison people when they have not violated the rights of others is nothing more than a criminal mob!

Ron Paul will FIX this nation by restoring liberty and freedom!

SouthernGuy15
10-20-2007, 03:37 AM
you need to think practically.
this is not practical right now, focus on getting the nomination and winning the election.

I am thinking practically. I'm trying to make people realize how important it is that he does get the nomination and become president! Because once he does then he can start pardoning people ASAP!

He can eliminate the IRS and laws imprisoning people for victimless crimes ASAP!

Esor
10-20-2007, 03:37 AM
None of this will matter if he doesn't get elected
Let's focus on trying to accomplish that goal for a while.

SouthernGuy15
10-20-2007, 03:38 AM
not with the attitude you have right now.
Get some rest, wake up and let people know about Dr Paul :)

I have a very good attitude.

You have the attitude of simply not caring that people are rotting in prison who have harmed no one else and have not violated anyone else's rights!

Don't you realize that when they violate one person's rights they violate all of our rights?

SouthernGuy15
10-20-2007, 03:39 AM
None of this will matter if he doesn't get elected
Let's focus on trying to accomplish that goal for a while.

He will get elected and we are going to make that happen.

I'm making these posts because I'm trying to wake people up to the fact that Ron Paul will have an amazing PARDON POWER when he becomes president! I want people to know that he will be able to immediately end the IRS, the war on drugs, and end this war!

Ozwest
10-20-2007, 03:43 AM
If Ron Paul is elected it will have been because a Kool-Aid drinking population will have woken from their slumber. Politically aware peoples are likely to be hard taskmasters of their elected Representatives.

johngr
10-20-2007, 03:53 AM
Compromise is NOT an option!


Sounds like a dictatorship to me.

Remember his answer at the South Carolina debate when asked about the IRS? Here's what he didn't say, "well, i'll, have to work with Congress, blah, blah, blah"

I take southern guy's statement as limited to the confines of this debate and therefore say that freeing people en masse who have violated noone's rights is exact opposite of dictatorial.

ValidusCustodiae
10-20-2007, 03:53 AM
A great injustice has been done to non violent drug offenders.

Listen, a lot of you seem to be having a hard time understanding some very fundamental legal principles. The Constitution falls under the category of written law as well as being the supreme written law for this country. Any law that contradicts it is non law, in other words, if a law is unconstitutional then it doesn't exist. That doesn't mean people aren't put in jail for breaking non-laws, it just means that there is no just reason for them to be. Plenty of injustice goes on in this country, that's why they call it the CRIMINAL Justice System. Criminals run it.

Seriously, those of you that love Ron Paul and purport to love the Constitution should watch this series of videos if you have not already. It is absolutely vital information and if you truly love liberty you will find yourself watching it over and over.

In fact, after suggesting it to you now, I'm going to watch it again. And I'm making links to these videos a brand new thread.

(BTW I really hope Ron Paul picks Badnarik for VP! :D)

Michael Badnarik's CONSTITUTION CLASS! (sorry, no youtube, have to live with googlevideo)

PART 1: h ttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8321747074978323622&q
PART 2: h ttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4870224407360952135
PART 3: h ttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8018874590848634400
PART 4: h ttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1980674934527237459
PART 5: h ttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5509747643152392910
PART 6: h ttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3601271545224839349
PART 7: h ttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5824859883322263421

johngr
10-20-2007, 04:01 AM
If you think that the government has the right to hold someone...

Governments do not have any "rights" whatsoever.



Quite frankly, our government is a giant criminal organization! Any organization that would imprison people when they have not violated the rights of others is nothing more than a criminal mob!

Not that I disagree at all but your statement applies to every state government as well.

SouthernGuy15
10-20-2007, 04:03 AM
A great injustice has been done to non violent drug offenders.

Listen, a lot of you seem to be having a hard time understanding some very fundamental legal principles. The Constitution falls under the category of written law as well as being the supreme written law for this country. Any law that contradicts it is non law, in other words, if a law is unconstitutional then it doesn't exist. That doesn't mean people aren't put in jail for breaking non-laws, it just means that there is no just reason for them to be. Plenty of injustice goes on in this country, that's why they call it the CRIMINAL Justice System. Criminals run it.

Seriously, those of you that love Ron Paul and purport to love the Constitution should watch this series of videos if you have not already. It is absolutely vital information and if you truly love liberty you will find yourself watching it over and over.

In fact, after suggesting it to you now, I'm going to watch it again. And I'm making links to these videos a brand new thread.

(BTW I really hope Ron Paul picks Badnarik for VP! :D)

Michael Badnarik's CONSTITUTION CLASS! (sorry, no youtube, have to live with googlevideo)

PART 1: h ttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8321747074978323622&q
PART 2: h ttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4870224407360952135
PART 3: h ttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8018874590848634400
PART 4: h ttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1980674934527237459
PART 5: h ttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5509747643152392910
PART 6: h ttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3601271545224839349
PART 7: h ttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5824859883322263421

I totally agree with you. A lot of people in this thread don't understand the concept of liberty and true freedom. Also, they don't understand that when the government violates an individual's rights the government is no longer legitimate and is only a criminal organization.

Quite frankly, everyone has the right to put whatever they desire into their own bodies. It doesn't matter if it is fatty food, vitamins, animal feces, or drugs! They have the right to control their own bodies and their life!

If the government does anything to punish or imprison them for putting a substance into their own body then the government is the criminal and NOT the individual!

SouthernGuy15
10-20-2007, 04:05 AM
Governments do not have any "rights" whatsoever.




Not that I disagree at all but your statement applies to every state government as well.

The freedoms provided for us in the constitution override any state laws, period.

ValidusCustodiae
10-20-2007, 04:16 AM
I totally agree with you. A lot of people in this thread don't understand the concept of liberty and true freedom. Also, they don't understand that when the government violates an individual's rights the government is no longer legitimate and is only a criminal organization.

Quite frankly, everyone has the right to put whatever they desire into their own bodies. It doesn't matter if it is fatty food, vitamins, animal feces, or drugs! They have the right to control their own bodies and their life!

If the government does anything to punish or imprison them for putting a substance into their own body then the government is the criminal and NOT the individual!

This is fully agreeable with my understanding. I was studying all this stuff when Dr. Ron announced, and I remember instantly knowing he was the guy for me by listening to his explanation and reasons for throwing in his hat.

johngr
10-20-2007, 05:10 AM
The freedoms provided for us in the constitution override any state laws, period.

The 10th amendment is one of those freedoms.

SouthernGuy15
10-20-2007, 05:12 AM
The 10th amendment has nothing to do with our freedoms and liberties!

A state cannot make a law that violates one of our rights!

For example, all gun control laws are invalid due to the second amendment!

Ron Paul Fan
10-20-2007, 05:30 AM
Yeah, but you're talking about drug laws and taxes. I agree that the government shouldn't prevent people from putting whatever they want into their own bodies, but states can make those laws according to the 10th amendment. The right to bear arms is specifically stated in the Constitution, but drugs aren't so the 10th Amendment gives the states the right to make drug laws and impose taxes within its own borders.

johngr
10-20-2007, 05:40 AM
That problem can be addressed with this amendment that I propose: "The right of the people to get baked on some good skunkweed shall not be infringed."

johngr
10-20-2007, 05:44 AM
Yeah, but you're talking about drug laws and taxes. I agree that the government shouldn't prevent people from putting whatever they want into their own bodies, but states can make those laws according to the 10th amendment.

Maybe, but in many cases (specifically Washington State's) they violate their own constitutions in the process.

SouthernGuy15
10-20-2007, 05:52 AM
The 10th amendment does not relate to issues of FREEDOM and LIBERTY!

No state has the right to tell an individual what to put into their own bodies, restrict their right to bare arms, or limit their freedom of speech!

johngr
10-20-2007, 05:59 AM
The 10th amendment does not relate to issues of FREEDOM and LIBERTY!

No state has the right to tell an individual what to put into their own bodies, restrict their right to bare arms, or limit their freedom of speech!

I wish we could make 50 Ron Paul clones to serve as governors.

Ron Paul Fan
10-20-2007, 06:10 AM
The 10th amendment does not relate to issues of FREEDOM and LIBERTY!

No state has the right to tell an individual what to put into their own bodies, restrict their right to bare arms, or limit their freedom of speech!

I agree on all three! But which one is not like the others? Drugs! Congressman Paul says that the states should make their own drug laws. He agrees with me and I agree with me so it must be true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3SYWDkWyXA

SouthernGuy15
10-20-2007, 06:18 AM
I don't believe that at all.

Everyone has a right to put what they desire into their own body.

Quite frankly, if a state has a right to make drug laws they have the right to legislate what type of jelly you can buy at the grocery store!

johngr
10-20-2007, 06:23 AM
It looks like all the status quo advocates have run away, leaving us people who take Ron at his word when he answered the question whether he would get rid of the IRS with one word, "immediately" (and believe any other answer is inconsistent with his moral principles) to argue among ourselves.

That's a good thing, I guess. We won the argument.

Ron Paul Fan
10-20-2007, 06:35 AM
What is wrong with you people? Watch the movie! Congressman Paul and I share the same personal belief as you, but he says that we have to respect the law and the law says that drug laws are left to the states. He never said that he'd get rid of the IRS immediately. The question was, "Would you work to phase out the IRS?" Immediately! Then he went into changing our idea about what the role of government ought to be and that he would be able to start to change, immediately!

SouthernGuy15
10-20-2007, 06:55 AM
What's wrong with YOU Ron Paul Fan?!

I thought you were a principled person who understood the concepts of freedom and liberty.

I don't care what anyone says, the states do NOT have a right to have drug laws or laws against victimless crimes!

johngr
10-20-2007, 07:06 AM
You can interpret "immediately" to refer to the "phasing out" or "working toward". I think Dr. Paul meant the former. It doesn't make as much sense referring to the latter. Would you oppose pardoning "tax evaders"? For what purpose does the President have such power if not to protect citizens from unjust and arbitrary laws? Again, morally, there is nothing Ron Paul can do other than immediately pardoning "tex evaders"

SouthernGuy15
10-20-2007, 07:09 AM
I support Ron Paul pardoning tax evaders!

johngr
10-20-2007, 08:08 AM
I support Ron Paul pardoning tax evaders!

Of course you do. I was asking Ron Paul Fan.

DrNoZone
10-20-2007, 08:35 AM
He is NOT pragmatic. He would not start passing unconstitutional programs! For goodness sakes, he has boldly stated he doesn't want to start new programs! He wants to ELIMINATE THEM! He wants to ELIMINATE whole AGENCIES!


Actually, he is pragmatic. And he would have no problem losing the small battles if it means winning the overall war in the end.

dude58677
10-20-2007, 08:35 AM
I agree that Ron Paul would have the power to pardon tax evaders and should. If Ron Paul doesn't have this power, what is the purpose in having him elected? Otherwise he would be looked upon as a long line of President's who broke promises.

SouthernGuy15
10-20-2007, 08:41 AM
He has the powers because they are HIS according to the constitution. No one can take them away from him or limit them.

dude58677
10-20-2007, 08:44 AM
He has the powers because they are HIS according to the constitution. No one can take them away from him or limit them.

Of course he does. I'm wondering if the people here are real Ron Paul supporters. These same people have said "I support Ron Paul but he doesn't have a chance" and now they are saying "I support Ron Paul but he can't do the things he says he is going to do."

SouthernGuy15
10-20-2007, 08:46 AM
dude,

That is what I'm wondering.

Ron Paul Fan
10-20-2007, 08:57 AM
I can't believe I'm reading this! I don't think anyone is saying that President Paul wouldn't have the pardon power. He'd have that power, but that doesn't mean he would use it. I think some people here think we're electing a dictator! King Paul will come in and eliminate everything with his magic wand and the Congress will stand by and let him. I don't see what pardoning tax evaders has to do with getting rid of the IRS. People have gotten acquitted by juries for tax evasion and don't go to jail, but they do have to pay up! Two separate issues. I'm quite surprised that any Ron Paul supporter would doubt that he's a big supporter of the 10th Amendment and the state's right to make drug laws. I'm also quite surprised that they would believe that he would eliminate the IRS immediately when he has said over and over again that you first have to change our idea about what the role of government should be. I'm starting to question whether these people are real Ron Paul supporters.

SouthernGuy15
10-20-2007, 09:05 AM
Ron Paul Fan,

You are nothing but a big government goon in my opinion from this point on. No state has a right to tell a person what to put into their own body, period. Ron Paul would NOT be making himself a king if he pardoned tax evaders! He would be liberating innocent people!

The income tax is CRIMINAL!

dude58677
10-20-2007, 09:05 AM
I can't believe I'm reading this! I don't think anyone is saying that President Paul wouldn't have the pardon power. He'd have that power, but that doesn't mean he would use it. I think some people here think we're electing a dictator! King Paul will come in and eliminate everything with his magic wand and the Congress will stand by and let him. I don't see what pardoning tax evaders has to do with getting rid of the IRS. People have gotten acquitted by juries for tax evasion and don't go to jail, but they do have to pay up! Two separate issues. I'm quite surprised that any Ron Paul supporter would doubt that he's a big supporter of the 10th Amendment and the state's right to make drug laws. I'm also quite surprised that they would believe that he would eliminate the IRS immediately when he has said over and over again that you first have to change our idea about what the role of government should be. I'm starting to question whether these people are real Ron Paul supporters.

Ron Paul fan, you're real good but not enough to see that we can see through your bullshit. The founding fathers started a war to end tyranny and your worried about Ron Paul issuing pardon's? What your suggesting starts a slippery slope. People thought that George Bush was going to limit government and they thought he was working with Congress and we know that he did the opposite. Harry Browne said he was going to do what Southern Guy is suggesting.

Now let's give you the benefit of the doubt, evil prevails when good people do nothing.

SouthernGuy15
10-20-2007, 09:08 AM
Yep. I see right through Ron Paul Fan. He is terrified of someone becoming President and LIBERATING THIS NATION from tyranny!

Ron Paul Fan
10-20-2007, 09:14 AM
Ron Paul fan, you're real good but not enough to see that we can see through your bullshit. The founding fathers started a war to end tyranny and your worried about Ron Paul issuing pardon's? What your suggesting starts a slippery slope. People thought that George Bush was going to limit government and they thought he was working with Congress and we know that he did the opposite. Harry Browne said he was going to do what Southern Guy is suggesting.

Now let's give you the benefit of the doubt, evil prevails when good people do nothing.

What are you talking about? When did I say I was worried about Ron Paul issuing pardons? I could care less if he pardoned all the drug dealers and tax evaders! I'm just being practical here. If you think Ron Paul is going to take power and immediately end the IRS without first containing our runaway spending go ahead and be that naive. If you think that Ron Paul would use his Presidential power to not allow states to make drug laws go ahead and be that naive. I must have missed the day when a President had the power to overturn Constitutional Amendments. I want liberty as much as you guys and I find it appalling that you would even suggest otherwise. But it has to be done within the law of the land which is the Constitution.

MGreen
10-20-2007, 09:19 AM
It's great that you believe in drug freedom, SouthernGuy. But the fact is that, under the current Constitution, states can ban aspirin if they want. I do not think any government should be able to stop me from injecting whatever I want in my body, but under the current system they can. Don't like it? Work to change that at the state level once Paul's administration, working with Congress, is able to repeal federal drug laws.

This is all Ron Paul Fan has been saying. From what I can see, he hasn't even given his own opinion on drug laws; he's just stating the reality of the situation.

I also don't recall Paul saying he would pardon tax evaders. Therefore he wouldn't be breaking any promises.

Craig_R
10-20-2007, 09:21 AM
This is a pretty good summary as to what is wrong on this forum. Some people get it, some still think inside the box the government has them in.

Sematary
10-20-2007, 09:30 AM
It's called PARDON POWER!

The president of the USA has unlimited pardon power to pardon as many people as he sees fit of any crime. Quite frankly, Ron Paul as a true patriot would instantly PARDON anyone guilty of evasion of the federal income tax as long as they had not committed any other crimes!

Additionally, he could QUICKLY end the insane and anti-freedom "War on Drugs" by pardoning every single individual guilty of violating drug laws. As long as a person had not violated the rights of anyone else he would be SET FREE!

Quite frankly, according to the Constitution of the USA NOTHING could be done to stop him from doing this! And if some big government goon tried to impeach him there would be a REVOLUTION when the thousands upon thousands of people pardoned for these VICTIMLESS CRIMES rallied in peaceful protests across the nation!

WHY would Ron Paul pardon people for crimes they committed? Granted, the reason they are there may be bogus, but they DID break the laws of the land at the time they were incarcerated.

SouthernGuy15
10-20-2007, 09:34 AM
Sematary,

If a law is violating someone's rights and freedoms it is not a valid law! A person who breaks such a law is NOT a criminal!

Under your reasoning a Nazi who refused to slaughter an innocent person during World War II would be a criminal that deserved to rot in Hitlers prison! He was BREAKING THE LAW!

Ron Paul Fan
10-20-2007, 09:37 AM
It's great that you believe in drug freedom, SouthernGuy. But the fact is that, under the current Constitution, states can ban aspirin if they want. I do not think any government should be able to stop me from injecting whatever I want in my body, but under the current system they can. Don't like it? Work to change that at the state level once Paul's administration, working with Congress, is able to repeal federal drug laws.

This is all Ron Paul Fan has been saying. From what I can see, he hasn't even given his own opinion on drug laws; he's just stating the reality of the situation.

I also don't recall Paul saying he would pardon tax evaders. Therefore he wouldn't be breaking any promises.

What? How dare you bring up the Constitution and its limitations on the executive branch! Thinking realistically is not permitted in this thread. You must hate liberties and freedom! You aren't even a real Ron Paul supporter!

Seriously though, my personal opinion is the same as yours and Southern Guy's. Government shouldn't control what we put in our bodies, but there's that little thing called the 10th Amendment standing in the way.

SouthernGuy15
10-20-2007, 09:40 AM
The 10th Amendment does not count when it comes to freedoms and liberties.

Under your thinking, the state government would have every right to ban the eating of chocolate, fast food, and dairy products if they so choose!

Quite frankly, regards what the STATES think, we all have the right to eat all of the above!

The tenth amendment is a good thing when it comes to GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS and AGENCIES! But NOT when it comes to our FREEDOM!

cjhowe
10-20-2007, 09:51 AM
To OP:

What you are suggesting would amount to AMNESTY, which Dr. Paul is positively opposed. Tax and drug criminals broke constitutional laws. Despite whether you view the laws as immoral, they were still constitutional.

Ron Paul Fan
10-20-2007, 09:52 AM
cjhowe brings up a good point Southern Guy. Do you support amnesty for illegal immigrants?

MGreen
10-20-2007, 09:55 AM
The 10th Amendment does not count when it comes to freedoms and liberties.

Under your thinking, the state government would have every right to ban the eating of chocolate, fast food, and dairy products if they so choose!
Yes, they do. The trick is not to let them. We give states their rights, so it is entirely possible that a state government may be given the right to ban chocolate and fast food. It's entirely possible that the federal government is given the right to ban all firearms, through a Constitutional amendment.

Please recognize that what is ideal may not be the truth of the matter. According to the Constitution, the states have the power to ban drugs, certain foods, smoking, etc. The Constitution is a very straightforward document. As it discusses none of the above, laws regarding them are left to the states under the 10th amendment. You don't get to decide what does and does not count as 'freedoms and liberties protected under the Constitution,' just as Bush doesn't get to decide who really gets habeus corpus.

SouthernGuy15
10-20-2007, 09:59 AM
No I do not support amnesty for illegal immigrants. They came here illegally. You will probably say, "Well, I thought you supported freedom and liberty for all people." That is true and I totally support legal immigration along with an end to the welfare state. But I consider illegal immigration a national defense issue!

For example, lets say I had a huge house (I don't). I would want people to come and visit very frequently. I might even let a few friends stay with me. However, my house is my property. The USA is the property of citizens of the USA. If someone ILLEGALLY breaks into my house and refuses to leave I have EVERY right to kick them out. I believe that we in the USA have the duty to remove illegal aliens until they decide to return in a legal manner. If they are willing to break our laws and enter illegally who knows what other laws they will disrespect!

Zeeder
10-20-2007, 10:00 AM
I see nothing wrong with Paul issuing pardons...............but how long would that take? If paul said he would pardon everyone that doesn't pay income tax, that's alot of names to write down. His arm would fall off.

johngr
10-20-2007, 10:01 AM
I can't believe I'm reading this! I don't think anyone is saying that President Paul wouldn't have the pardon power. He'd have that power, but that doesn't mean he would use it. I think some people here think we're electing a dictator! .

Pardoning tax evaders and drug offenders = dictator. I disagree. Once again, protecting citizens from unjust and arbitrary laws is the opposite of dictatorial.


WHY would Ron Paul pardon people for crimes they committed? Granted, the reason they are there may be bogus, but they DID break the laws of the land at the time they were incarcerated.

See above. And pardon power is the law of the land at the time they are pardoned.


I don't see what pardoning tax evaders has to do with getting rid of the IRS.

It forces the issue and completely defangs the "Service". It would also force the Congress to curb spending to within constitutional limits.

Speaking of illegal immigration, the first person Dr. Paul should pardon (after he gets through pardoning the Browns) is border patrol agent Ignacio Ramos http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52545

SouthernGuy15
10-20-2007, 10:02 AM
The states do NOT have those rights! The constitution is a piece of paper, but the PRINCIPLES upon it are inspired in my opinion! Just because someone may add to the constitution and take away our guns, fast food, or Star Trek DVDs does not mean they have the RIGHT to do so!

cjhowe
10-20-2007, 10:05 AM
No I do not support amnesty for illegal immigrants. They came here illegally. You will probably say, "Well, I thought you supported freedom and liberty for all people." That is true and I totally support legal immigration along with an end to the welfare state. But I consider illegal immigration a national defense issue!

For example, lets say I had a huge house (I don't). I would want people to come and visit very frequently. I might even let a few friends stay with me. However, my house is my property. The USA is the property of citizens of the USA. If someone ILLEGALLY breaks into my house and refuses to leave I have EVERY right to kick them out. I believe that we in the USA have the duty to remove illegal aliens until they decide to return in a legal manner. If they are willing to break our laws and enter illegally who knows what other laws they will disrespect!

So if someone ILLEGALLY sells narcotics or someone ILLEGALLY files a false tax claim they should STAY in jail, afterall who knows what other laws they will disrespect!.

jj111
10-20-2007, 10:12 AM
Yes! Absolutely!

Don't you think there are countless people who would like to see the IRS abolished immediately?

Don't you think there are countless people who want to see an end to victimless crimes?

Also, as commander and chief he could instantly bring our troops home and PARDON any soldiers that DESERTED to avoid this illegal undeclared war!

Ron Paul is NOT running on the platform of abolishing the IRS or war on drugs immediately. He has said that he would instead work on using the Presidential bullypulpit to encourage voters to force their Congressmen to end these things.

Ron said he cannot make all of these changes by himself. He would go through proper channels. He would NOT act like a autocrat, changing laws passed by Congress unilaterally by himself. That would be acting like a dictator. In addition, there needs to be a TRANSITION. Every program he talks about involves some transition, and is not turned on or off overnight like pulling a switch or turning a key.

When you say that Ron Paul will abolish something overnight, you are misquoting him, and you are scaring people who think he will act like an autocrat and make massive changes in the government all by himself.

Please confirm these facts, and then stop promoting ideas that Ron does not endorse or talk about.

jj111
10-20-2007, 10:15 AM
NO he would not INSTANTLY bring our troops home. They would not be home the instant he takes office. It takes weeks or months of planning to conduct an orderly and safe withdrawal of troops. What he WOULD do instantly is announce to the world our new foreign policy, and order military ships off the coast of Iran to start backing away from Iran.

SouthernGuy15
10-20-2007, 10:20 AM
Whoa. That was interesting. I've had enough debate for a while. Now back to urging people to donate to Ron Paul's campaign!

coastie
10-20-2007, 10:37 AM
So if someone ILLEGALLY sells narcotics or someone ILLEGALLY files a false tax claim they should STAY in jail, afterall who knows what other laws they will disrespect!.

NO- they should'nt. And what, if anything, your reponse had to do with the comment you quoted will probably bother me all day now, thanks. These types of shallow comparisons seriously scare me:p

johngr
10-20-2007, 10:52 AM
So if someone ILLEGALLY sells narcotics .

I would be in favor of pardoning all who are in prison for possession.



or someone ILLEGALLY files a false tax claim they should STAY in jail, afterall who knows what other laws they will disrespect!.

Extortion is a bigger crime. I say pardon all tax related offenses.

johngr
10-20-2007, 10:53 AM
Ron Paul is NOT running on the platform of abolishing the IRS or war on drugs immediately. He has said that he would instead work on using the Presidential bullypulpit to encourage voters to force their Congressmen to end these things.

Ron said he cannot make all of these changes by himself. He would go through proper channels.

We normally see executive pardon power used to pardon gangsters who are "friends of the family" (or in Bush's case, like-minded people Henry Lee Lucas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Lee_Lucas). What we're suggesting is using it to protect the people from arbitrary government laws.
How is using pardon power this way improper?

dude58677
10-20-2007, 10:57 AM
The notion that someone shouldn't be pardoned for violating an unjust law just baffles me. Thomas Jefferson said that if there is an unjust law, break it. You people are not real libertarians(except johngr and southernguy). I bet you people are really bureacrats or lobbyists pretending to be Ron Paul supporters by trying to discourage us from supporitng Ron Paul because he can't do the things he says he is going to do. The establishment is really trying to be clever.

BTW, in the first debate at the Reagan library Ron Paul did say he was going to get rid of the IRS quickly when he said "In the first week I would have already gotten rid of the income tax and in the second week I would have already gotten rid of inflation tax."

IF RON PAUL CAN'T DO THE THINGS HE SAYS HE IS GOING TO DO, WHY DO YOU SO CALLED RP SUPPORTERS INSIST ON CALLING YOURSELF RP SUPPORTERS?

cjhowe
10-20-2007, 10:57 AM
NO- they should'nt. And what, if anything, your reponse had to do with the comment you quoted will probably bother me all day now, thanks. These types of shallow comparisons seriously scare me:p

It had to do with the thread. I pointed out that Southern was proposing amnesty for violators of drug and tax laws and that Dr. Paul is positively against amnesty. Ron Paul Fan asked Southern if he was in favor of amnesty for illegal immigrants. Southern than gave his reasons for opposing amnesty for illegals. I then pointed out that his reasons for opposing amnesty for illegal immigration should be the same reason for opposing amnesty for drug and tax law violators.

cjhowe
10-20-2007, 11:00 AM
The notion that someone shouldn't be pardoned for violating an unjust law just baffles me. Thomas Jefferson said that if there is an unjust law, break it. You people are not real libertarians(except johngr and southernguy). I bet you people are really bureacrats or lobbyists pretending to be Ron Paul supporters by trying to discourage us from supporitng Ron Paul because he can't do the things he says he is going to do.

BTW, in the first debate at the Reagan library Ron aul did say he was going to get rid of the IRS quickly when he said "In the first week I would have already gotten rid of the income tax and in the second week I would have already gotten rid of inflation tax."

IF RON PAUL CAN'T DO THE THINGS HE SAYS HE IS GOING TO DO, WHY DO YOU SO CALLED RP SUPPORTERS INSIST ON CALLING YOURSELF RP SUPPORTERS?

If you cannot tell the difference between rhetoric and taking someone at their word, how do you function in society?

dude58677
10-20-2007, 11:01 AM
It had to do with the thread. I pointed out that Southern was proposing amnesty for violators of drug and tax laws and that Dr. Paul is positively against amnesty. Ron Paul Fan asked Southern if he was in favor of amnesty for illegal immigrants. Southern than gave his reasons for opposing amnesty for illegals. I then pointed out that his reasons for opposing amnesty for illegal immigration should be the same reason for opposing amnesty for drug and tax law violators.

No it isn't the same because the IRS and the drug war is immoral. You people are really showing your true colors.

johngr
10-20-2007, 11:01 AM
Didn't he in his "neoconned" speech advocate civil disobedience? No one here can answer the moral argument. How can he morally do anything else than use his pardon power?

dude58677
10-20-2007, 11:02 AM
If you cannot tell the difference between rhetoric and taking someone at their word, how do you function in society?

Your a fraudulant RP supporter, you are saying that people shouldn't be pardoned for having their rights violated. No real RP supporter would say such a thing.

dude58677
10-20-2007, 11:04 AM
Didn't he in his "neoconned" speech advocate civil disobedience? No one here can answer the moral argument. How can he morally do anything else than use his pardon power?

Don't waste your time with these people, they are not supporting Ron Paul. They either work for another campaign or they are lobbyists and they are here to try to discourage us.

CAKochenash
10-20-2007, 11:04 AM
anyway we can get lists of non violent drug offenders in our jails and target their families?

Ron Paul Fan
10-20-2007, 11:05 AM
So if someone disagrees with one little thing that Ron Paul says, they are automatically a fradulent Ron Paul supporter? I guess I'm out of here then and so is most of the forum! What a great way to encourage more people to join. Just tell them that they're fraudulent for disagreeing! And we aren't even the ones who are disagreeing with Ron Paul here. He's a Constitutionalist. We bring up the Constitution and suddenly we're the bad guys. Go figure.

dude58677
10-20-2007, 11:06 AM
The tatics being used here are just like the tatics when a communist says they are moderates who say there is nothig wrong with welfare programs. They take their extreme leftist views and claim they are in the middle. It's very subtle.

steph3n
10-20-2007, 11:07 AM
this is just dogma, ignore it. Dr Paul is not running on a platform of immediately pardoning thousands of people, he is running on a platform of CHANGE long term change, that can impact our nation for years to come.

coastie
10-20-2007, 11:07 AM
I would be in favor of pardoning all who are in prison for possession.




Extortion is a bigger crime. I say pardon all tax related offenses.

I agree...Release the dealers, too. Seing as how most in jail for dealing were simply seizing the only viable economic opportunity given to them in their situation.


Shit, one of reasons marijauana was made illegal was because an "expert" testified before Congress that he'd tried the herb and it had "turned him into a bat"...::rolleyes:

The funny thing is...they believed him. And this was in the 20th century.:eek:

johngr
10-20-2007, 11:09 AM
It had to do with the thread. I pointed out that Southern was proposing amnesty for violators of drug and tax laws and that Dr. Paul is positively against amnesty.

Your semantic argument doesn't cut it. You're comparing apples and oranges. A pardon is not "amnesty". Look up the two words. The circumstances are completely different and you wish to broaden the context in which he used the word "amnesty". Are you sure he will pardon noone because it would amount to amnesty. If he wins I bet you an FRN to a donut (wait a minute, by that time a donut will be worth more) an ounce of silver to a donut that Dr. Paul will grant "amnesty" to Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean before the end of his term.

dude58677
10-20-2007, 11:11 AM
So if someone disagrees with one little thing that Ron Paul says, they are automatically a fradulent Ron Paul supporter? I guess I'm out of here then and so is most of the forum! What a great way to encourage more people to join. Just tell them that they're fraudulent for disagreeing! And we aren't even the ones who are disagreeing with Ron Paul here. He's a Constitutionalist. We bring up the Constitution and suddenly we're the bad guys. Go figure.


Ron PAul "fan", very clever indeed but what Ron Paul means by defending the Constitution isn't using it as a power document but to protect people's rights by pardoning them from unconsttutional laws. Harry Browne once said that Federal Employees should be thrown in jail without due process because as they are acting in their official duties they are not people protected under the Constitutution.

johngr
10-20-2007, 11:14 AM
this is just dogma, ignore it. Dr Paul is not running on a platform of immediately pardoning thousands of people, he is running on a platform of CHANGE long term change, that can impact our nation for years to come.

He will have the power to do so and morally, he can do nothing but just exactly that.

steph3n
10-20-2007, 11:15 AM
He will have the power to do so and morally, he can do nothing but just exactly that.

guys that is not the point, the point is this is NOT A PLATFORM HE IS RUNNING ON, so please just stop bumping the topic and getting your agenda out.

/end rant

dude58677
10-20-2007, 11:15 AM
Your semantic argument doesn't cut it. You're comparing apples and oranges. A pardon is not "amnesty". Look up the two words. The circumstances are completely different and you wish to broaden the context in which he used the word "amnesty". Are you sure he will pardon noone because it would amount to amnesty. If he wins I bet you an FRN to a donut (wait a minute, by that time a donut will be worth more) an ounce of silver to a donut that Dr. Paul will grant "amnesty" to Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean before the end of his term.

We've learned alot on who the real Ron Paul supporters are. This is the extreme the establishment will go to continue the tyranny.

cjhowe
10-20-2007, 11:16 AM
Your a fraudulant RP supporter, you are saying that people shouldn't be pardoned for having their rights violated. No real RP supporter would say such a thing.

I understand you're simply trolling. I can't help but feed you just a little more. You're just so cute.

If you break the law and you are fairly convicted in a court of law, criminal penalties are not an injustice. Sure, their rights are being violated. A murderer's rights are being violated through imprisonment as well. If Congress wishes to redact drug and tax laws AND retroactively pardon people, that is the proper place. For a president to do so, is a slap in the face of our Republic.

dude58677
10-20-2007, 11:18 AM
guys that is not the point, the point is this is NOT A PLATFORM HE IS RUNNING ON, so please just stop bumping the topic and getting your agenda out.

/end rant

Thank you for admitting you are part of the establishment. WTF, does "your agenda" mean?

Ron Paul Fan
10-20-2007, 11:18 AM
Ron PAul "fan", very clever indeed but what Ron Paul means by defending the Constitution isn't using it as a power document but to protect people's rights by pardoning them from unconsttutional laws. Harry Browne once said that Federal Employees should be thrown in jail without due process because as they are acting in their official duties they are not people protected under the Constitutution.

I'm not even questioning the pardoning power! I've said in this thread over and over that it is a Presidential power and I wouldn't care if he used it to free the drug dealers and tax evaders. What I took issue with was the states being able to create their own drug laws under the 10th Amendment, something that Ron Paul himself has said is what should happen and is Constitutional. And we're not talking about Harry Browne. We're talking about Ron Paul. Please do not question my loyalty to Ron Paul. I am sad to see that people on here are telling others that they are "frauds" for disagreeing with something that Ron Paul says. Thank you, Rush Limbaugh.

MGreen
10-20-2007, 11:18 AM
But I prefer fair and lovable dictators, cjhowe.

dude58677
10-20-2007, 11:20 AM
I understand you're simply trolling. I can't help but feed you just a little more. You're just so cute.

If you break the law and you are fairly convicted in a court of law, criminal penalties are not an injustice. Sure, their rights are being violated. A murderer's rights are being violated through imprisonment as well. If Congress wishes to redact drug and tax laws AND retroactively pardon people, that is the proper place. For a president to do so, is a slap in the face of our Republic.


So Schindler was wrong to save the jews from being exterminated because he was breaking German law?

dude58677
10-20-2007, 11:22 AM
But I prefer fair and lovable dictators, cjhowe.

:D:D:D:

johngr
10-20-2007, 11:23 AM
I understand you're simply trolling. I can't help but feed you just a little more. You're just so cute.

If you break the law and you are fairly convicted in a court of law, criminal penalties are not an injustice. Sure, their rights are being violated. A murderer's rights are being violated through imprisonment as well. If Congress wishes to redact drug and tax laws AND retroactively pardon people, that is the proper place. For a president to do so, is a slap in the face of our Republic.


What if you're imprísoned for feeding your infant child with a spoon?

cjhowe
10-20-2007, 11:23 AM
So Schindler was wrong to save the jews from being exterminated because he was breaking German law?

Godwin's law. You lose.

cjhowe
10-20-2007, 11:25 AM
What if you're imprísoned for feeding your infant child with a spoon?

Which law is that in violation? I will gladly write my representatives in Congress to repeal that law.

johngr
10-20-2007, 11:26 AM
guys that is not the point, the point is this is NOT A PLATFORM HE IS RUNNING ON, so please just stop bumping the topic and getting your agenda out.

/end rant

Running on such a platform is somewhat akin to turning over aces in a texas holdem hand during the pre-flop betting.

cjhowe
10-20-2007, 11:27 AM
:D:D:D:

Wow, you really don't understand rhetoric.

cjhowe
10-20-2007, 11:29 AM
Running on such a platform is somewhat akin to turns over aces in a texas holdem hand during the pre-flop betting.

I simply love the amount of support that RP garners from people's belief that he is some sort of Trojan Horse.

dude58677
10-20-2007, 11:30 AM
Wow, you really don't understand rhetoric.

According to your logic the Revolutionary War never should have happened because it was breaking British law. YOU ARE THE TROLL!!!!!!

Ron Paul Fan
10-20-2007, 11:31 AM
According to your logic the Revolutionary War never should have happened because it was breaking British law. Get the fuck out of you fake RP supporter and take your taxes with you.

Terrible. This might be a bannable offense. Please don't tell supporters to leave.

cjhowe
10-20-2007, 11:33 AM
According to your logic the Revolutionary War never should have happened because it was breaking British law. YOU ARE THE TROLL!!!!!!

You enacted Godwin's law. You lose. Stop arguing.

dude58677
10-20-2007, 11:35 AM
You enacted Godwin's law. You lose. Stop arguing.

The Revolutionary War analogy is not Godwin's Law, you lose.:D:D:D

cjhowe
10-20-2007, 11:38 AM
The Revolutionary War analogy is not Godwin's Law, you lose.:D:D:D

No, but Schindler sure was. You invoked it, you lose, stop arguing.

dude58677
10-20-2007, 11:43 AM
No, but Schindler sure was. You invoked it, you lose, stop arguing.

You are abusing Godwin's law and so you stop arguing. Your an IRS agent and I have every reason to be suspicious. Your arguments are not libertarian at all. I've seen these same bullshit arguments on quatloos and US Constitution Online(sites that advocate big government). You've shown your true colors and you are not a real libertarian and a fraud.

johngr
10-20-2007, 11:46 AM
I simply love the amount of support that RP garners from people's belief that he is some sort of Trojan Horse.

There is nothing hidden about his agenda to get rid of the income tax. Pardoning IRS victims is one tactic he would have available to him and it's not inconceivable that he would use it. I don't understand your analogy.

He implied that he might pardon people when he answered "immediately" to the question "would you work to phase out the IRS." Working to get rid of the IRS is a process done over time, not something you do immediately. The "phasing out", on the other hand can be done immediately by pardoning people

johngr
10-20-2007, 11:48 AM
You enacted Godwin's law. You lose. Stop arguing.

I didn't. How about answering my question?

steph3n
10-20-2007, 11:49 AM
look everyone, STOP FIGHTING over petty junk.
Nothing will happen unless he is elected. Stop wasting time here. I am printing up fliers now

dude58677
10-20-2007, 11:50 AM
I didn't. How about answering my question?

These are the same bullshit arguments on the website quatloos.com and usconstitutiononline.com This guy is an IRS agent as his arguments by saying that people shouldn't be pardoned for tax evasion becuase it is the law.

Truth is it isn't the law becuase the President legally pardoned them.

steph3n
10-20-2007, 11:52 AM
These are the same bullshit arguments on the website quatloos.com and usconstitutiononline.com This guy is an IRS agent as his arguments by saying that people shouldn't be pardoned for tax evasion becuase it is the law.

Truth is it isn't the law becuase the President legally pardoned them.

you are being a problem calling people names and "irs agent" you don't win over hearts and minds in such manner, learn a little.
that is the exact problem with this whole thread, you don't win people over this way, Dr Paul has to win over people before anything will happen!

cjhowe
10-20-2007, 11:54 AM
Which law is that in violation? I will gladly write my representatives in Congress to repeal that law.


I didn't. How about answering my question?

I didn't say you did...I answered your question with a question.

dude58677
10-20-2007, 11:56 AM
you are being a problem calling people names and "irs agent" you don't win over hearts and minds in such manner, learn a little.
that is the exact problem with this whole thread, you don't win people over this way, Dr Paul has to win over people before anything will happen!

YOU PEOPLE ARE TURNING OFF RP SUPPORTERS BY SAYING HE ISN'T GOING TO DO THE THINGS HE SAYS HE IS GOING TO DO AND MY SUSPICIONS ARE THAT YOU ARE DOING THIS BECASUE YOU ARE IRS AGENTS.

steph3n
10-20-2007, 11:57 AM
YOU PEOPLE ARE TURNING OFF RP SUPPORTERS BY SAYING HE ISN'T GOING TO DO THE THINGS HE SAYS HE IS GOING TO DO AND MY SUSPICIONS ARE THAT YOU ARE DOING THIS BECASUE YOU ARE IRS AGENTS.

you are full of yourself, he did not say this.

dude58677
10-20-2007, 12:02 PM
you are full of yourself, he did not say this.

Yes he did, he said in the first week I'm going to get rid of the income tax and in the second week I'm going to get rid of the inflation tax during the Ronald Reagan library debate.

"Vigilance is the price of liberty" Thomas Jefferson

cjhowe
10-20-2007, 12:08 PM
you are full of yourself, he did not say this.

Please respect forum etiquette and don't reply to individuals who raise Nazi comparisons to make their point.

winston_blade
10-20-2007, 12:45 PM
I think we have more problems than a bunch of drug users in jail. I hope he puts first things first.

Esor
10-20-2007, 12:48 PM
I just read through everything that I missed while I was asleep.

I just have to say, this is ridiculous.
Be realistic guys, do some research and understand that there are other people's opinions to consider. The first thing that must be done if we want to eliminate the drug war, the IRS and taxes (which I believe in fully) would be to convince other people that this is the way to go.

I think this arguement is pointless, so this is my ending statement.

ValidusCustodiae
10-20-2007, 02:17 PM
Why do you need the permission of the populace to release people from jail who didn't do anything to hurt anyone else? THe supposition that the government has any control over what you put into your body is that your body belongs to them! Why do you insist on getting public approval to quit submitting these people to a great injustice?

ValidusCustodiae
10-20-2007, 02:18 PM
The populace or the Congress should have no say over this!

dude58677
10-20-2007, 02:29 PM
Please respect forum etiquette and don't reply to individuals who raise Nazi comparisons to make their point.

Even if they are valid? Besides you calim that King George III is a nazi compaorison which is laughable.

johngr
10-20-2007, 02:50 PM
Chris Matthews in the debate at the Ronald Regan library, asked each candidate to name a tax he would cut Ron Paul answered "In my first week, I already got rid of the income tax..." (He also said that in his 2nd week, he would tackle the fed. I wonder what he could do. Implement e. o. 11110 maybe?)

If using his pardon power were not the only moral option, I might be willing to believe that he meant that figuratively, despite how specific he was.

I believe that President Paul will use every constitutional executive power at his disposal to bring back constitutional government. Nothing he has said so far convinces me otherwise.

ValidusCustodiae
10-20-2007, 03:40 PM
The law would be on his side.

cjhowe
10-20-2007, 10:37 PM
Why do you need the permission of the populace to release people from jail who didn't do anything to hurt anyone else? THe supposition that the government has any control over what you put into your body is that your body belongs to them! Why do you insist on getting public approval to quit submitting these people to a great injustice?

You need the permission of the populace because the populace created a law to regulate such circumstances and the SCOTUS confirmed the constitution gave congress the authority to do so. The federal laws have nothing to do with the consumption of drugs, AFAIK, it's only the sale and possession of them, for which the people gave the government said control.

Revolution9
10-20-2007, 10:57 PM
None of this will matter if he doesn't get elected
Let's focus on trying to accomplish that goal for a while.

Then why fuckng argue with him in all caps.. He is dead flat correct on this issue and you guys thinks we are playing legal games.. It is aganst common law to make statutes crimnslizing what you do with your self.

You clowns with an agenda prete ding to have none always pull the "go out and slim jim somebody" when your rhetorical pants are caught down around yer ankles.



Randy

johngr
10-21-2007, 05:10 AM
You need the permission of the populace because the populace created a law to regulate such circumstances and the SCOTUS confirmed the constitution gave congress the authority to do so. The federal laws have nothing to do with the consumption of drugs, AFAIK, it's only the sale and possession of them, for which the people gave the government said control.

THE HELL YOU DO! WHEN WAS THE PRESIDENT'S AUTHORITY TO PARDON CITIZENS LIMITED OR REPEALED?

Would you care to refute Dr. Paul's words, "In my first week, I already got rid of the income tax..."? I think you might be used to other politicians. Dr. Paul tends to keep his promises, you know

dude58677
10-21-2007, 05:23 AM
THE HELL YOU DO! WHEN WAS THE PRESIDENT'S AUTHORITY TO PARDON CITIZENS LIMITED OR REPEALED?

Would you care to refute Dr. Paul's words, "In my first week, I already got rid of the income tax..."? I think you might be used to other politicians. Dr. Paul tends to keep his promises, you know

The President has the power to pardon and he can pardon anyone he wants to unless it involves his own impeachment. He also has control over the Code of Federal Regulations because it is laws created by the exectutive branch.

johngr
10-21-2007, 05:29 AM
You need the permission of the populace [blah, blah, blah].

What "permission of the populace" did they have when they did the backroom deals that brought us the FED and the IRS in the first place.

He'll have "permission of the populace", all right. The measures he takes (including pardoning IRS victims) will have OVERWHELMING popular support and those congresscritters opposing him will soon be seeking employment elsewhere (hopefully doing something productive).

dude58677
10-21-2007, 05:36 AM
The President already does have permission because he was elected and he does have the power to pardon anyone except in cases of impeachment.

cjhowe
10-21-2007, 10:25 AM
THE HELL YOU DO! WHEN WAS THE PRESIDENT'S AUTHORITY TO PARDON CITIZENS LIMITED OR REPEALED?

Would you care to refute Dr. Paul's words, "In my first week, I already got rid of the income tax..."? I think you might be used to other politicians. Dr. Paul tends to keep his promises, you know

It's not limited by law, but by the response of the people. Bush pardoning Scooter Libby has continued to insight the ire of the American people. That was one person. The president receives great amounts of blowback when he exerts his power to pardon. This is why Clinton waited until his final week in office to pardon people. We are a nation of laws, not a nation of men. When you usurp our laws, you weaken the ability of the government to accept its proper role.


What "permission of the populace" did they have when they did the backroom deals that brought us the FED and the IRS in the first place.

He'll have "permission of the populace", all right. The measures he takes (including pardoning IRS victims) will have OVERWHELMING popular support and those congresscritters opposing him will soon be seeking employment elsewhere (hopefully doing something productive).

Lets not allow the facts of history block our crusade to end the Federal Reserve. There were five arguments being advanced in 1913 in what we should do to thwart our financial crisis.
1) Do nothing, continue to allow the monopolistic practices of the money trusts to cause booms and busts
2) Bimetalism
3) Further anti-trust legislation
4) The Aldrich Plan
5) The Federal Reserve Act

Today, the people of this forum would look at that list and say, "they should have picked number two." The person advancing number 2 back in the day, is the same person who advanced the income tax! William Jennings Bryan was among those who advocated the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act was Constitutional.



The income tax is a just law. It simply intends to put the burdens of government justly upon the backs of the people. I am in favor of an income tax. When I find a man who is not willing to pay his share of the burden of the government which protects him, I find a man who is unworthy to enjoy the blessings of a government like ours. - from William Jennings Bryan "Cross of Gold" speech

dude58677
10-21-2007, 11:06 AM
It's not limited by law, but by the response of the people. Bush pardoning Scooter Libby has continued to insight the ire of the American people. That was one person. The president receives great amounts of blowback when he exerts his power to pardon. This is why Clinton waited until his final week in office to pardon people. We are a nation of laws, not a nation of men. When you usurp our laws, you weaken the ability of the government to accept its proper role.



Lets not allow the facts of history block our crusade to end the Federal Reserve. There were five arguments being advanced in 1913 in what we should do to thwart our financial crisis.
1) Do nothing, continue to allow the monopolistic practices of the money trusts to cause booms and busts
2) Bimetalism
3) Further anti-trust legislation
4) The Aldrich Plan
5) The Federal Reserve Act

Today, the people of this forum would look at that list and say, "they should have picked number two." The person advancing number 2 back in the day, is the same person who advanced the income tax! William Jennings Bryan was among those who advocated the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act was Constitutional.


With Ron Paul getting rid of the income tax, he is doing what the people elected him to do. To get started with ending the income tax is to pardon all tax evaders.

MGreen
10-21-2007, 11:07 AM
No, to end the income tax you have to end the income tax.

johngr
10-21-2007, 11:08 AM
It's not limited by law, but by the response of the people. Bush pardoning Scooter Libby has continued to insight the ire of the American people. That was one person. The president receives great amounts of blowback when he exerts his power to pardon. This is why Clinton waited until his final week in office to pardon people. We are a nation of laws, not a nation of men. When you usurp our laws, you weaken the ability of the government to accept its proper role.



Lets not allow the facts of history block our crusade to end the Federal Reserve. There were five arguments being advanced in 1913 in what we should do to thwart our financial crisis.
1) Do nothing, continue to allow the monopolistic practices of the money trusts to cause booms and busts
2) Bimetalism
3) Further anti-trust legislation
4) The Aldrich Plan
5) The Federal Reserve Act

Today, the people of this forum would look at that list and say, "they should have picked number two." The person advancing number 2 back in the day, is the same person who advanced the income tax! William Jennings Bryan was among those who advocated the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act was Constitutional.

Not an apt comparison at all. Such an action would in no way be anything like pardoning Scooter Libby. It would be more akin to jury nullification during Prohibition and just as popular. Ron Paul endorses civil disobedience of unjust laws (watch his Neconned speech).

Finally, please refute "i already got rid of the irs in my first week."

dude58677
10-21-2007, 11:10 AM
No, to end the income tax you have to end the income tax.

It's a start.

johngr
10-21-2007, 11:10 AM
With Ron Paul getting rid of the income tax, he is doing what the people elected him to do. To get started with ending the income tax is to pardon all tax evaders.

These people are just like Quatloosers. What the hell is wrong with them??

dude58677
10-21-2007, 11:14 AM
These people are just like Quatloosers. What the hell is wrong with them??

I wrote in a post that cjhowe is an IRS agent and I was called a lunatic even by Liberty Eagle. I thought maybe I could be wrong by jumping to conclusions( I then apologized) and this guy just needs a little education, but he can't be this dumb.

I'm surprised this is being heavily debated on ronpaulforums. So you have been to the site Quatloose as well?

The big suspicion is that the way that cjhowe defends the Federal reserve. Usually an ignorant voter wouldn't know the first things about the Federal Reserve and wouldnt even know who Alan Greenspan was. This guy seems to know the whole history behind the federal Reserve and defends it vigorously.

cjhowe
10-21-2007, 11:18 AM
Not an apt comparison at all. Such an action would in no way be anything like pardoning Scooter Libby. It would be more akin to jury nullification during Prohibition and just as popular. Ron Paul endorses civil disobedience of unjust laws (watch his Neconned speech).

Finally, please refute "i already got rid of the irs in my first week."

It would be EXACTLY like pardoning Scooter. It is a mock of our entire form of government.

"I already got rid of the IRS in my first week" was rhetoric and wit.

johngr
10-21-2007, 11:23 AM
I was on Suijuris and lurked there when Heidi Guedel was there. She had a brilliant critique against the Fed and they had a hard time answering her. Their nastiness really came out when they debated her. I think they ended up banning her because she embarrassed them. Then they erased all the threads and pretended she never existed.

I see the same kind of thing (though not nearly as competent sophists as the Quatloosers who debated Heidi were) HERE ON RON PAUL. WTF?

dude58677
10-21-2007, 11:23 AM
It would be EXACTLY like pardoning Scooter. It is a mock of our entire form of government.

"I already got rid of the IRS in my first week" was rhetoric and wit.


His voting record shows that he does want to get rid of the IRS. He never once voted to raise taxes and he has introduced bills to get rid of the IRS.

jaumen
10-21-2007, 11:27 AM
It would be EXACTLY like pardoning Scooter. It is a mock of our entire form of government.

"I already got rid of the IRS in my first week" was rhetoric and wit.

I've got to disagree with you. They are completely different situations. The way you argue it, no President should pardon anyone, ever, because they broke a law, and to pardon them would mean that laws are meaningless. This is clearly not true.

johngr
10-21-2007, 11:30 AM
It would be EXACTLY like pardoning Scooter.

It would be exactly like jury nullification during Prohibition. The mockery of the republican gov't occurred far earlier.

Morally, Ron Paul can do nothing other than pardon everyone for whose "crime" there is no corpus delecti. At the very least that would include "tax evaders". He also agrees with the "show me the law" people.

Another thing he will do is fire all US attorneys and instruct the new ones he appoints to make drug and tax law cases a low priority.

johngr
10-21-2007, 11:35 AM
I've got to disagree with you. They are completely different situations. The way you argue it, no President should pardon anyone, ever, because they broke a law, and to pardon them would mean that laws are meaningless. This is clearly not true.

Good point. And it's not like he will be pardoning murderers (or other class of criminal where there's a corpus delecti.) Did you know, btw, that Bush while he was governor of Texas the only death row inmate whose sentence he commuted out of 148 cases was serial killer Henry Lee Lucas?

dude58677
10-21-2007, 11:37 AM
Good point. And it's not like he will be pardoning murderers (or other class of criminal where there's a corpus delecti.) Did you know, btw, that Bush while he was governor of Texas the only death row inmate whose sentence he commuted out of 148 cases was serial killer Henry Lee Lucas?

These people on these forums are completely clueless.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=27112

TVMH
10-21-2007, 11:37 AM
Esor,

You do NOT consider opposing view points that are contrary to the principles of freedom, liberty, and the constitution! You do NOT consider them for a MOMENT!

For example, every person has the absolute right to put whatever they desire into their own body. Drug laws are an abomination and totally contrary to the principles of freedom and liberty. Obviously, the only principled thing Ron Paul could do is pardon every single person guilty of a drug related crime!

Compromise is NOT an option!

Do you really believe that this rhetoric is helping Dr. Paul?

Besides, as I understand it, most drug crimes are prosecuted at the state level, which IS constitutional.

TVMH
10-21-2007, 11:43 AM
I don't believe that at all.

Everyone has a right to put what they desire into their own body.

Quite frankly, if a state has a right to make drug laws they have the right to legislate what type of jelly you can buy at the grocery store!

And you have the right to live in whichever state you prefer.

angelatc
10-21-2007, 11:59 AM
Yes, but I do not think he can do it without the consent of Congress.

cjhowe
10-21-2007, 12:01 PM
I've got to disagree with you. They are completely different situations. The way you argue it, no President should pardon anyone, ever, because they broke a law, and to pardon them would mean that laws are meaningless. This is clearly not true.

While the president certainly has the power to override a jury verdict, it is a dangerous slope to do so. The same as it is within the power of the Congress to impeach a sitting president, it is a dangerous slope to do so. Might does not mean right. The People created the drug laws. The People created the income tax. If it is not the People's will to have these laws, they are free to repeal them. They have not! Just because the anarchists who support Ron Paul are the most vocal, does not make them the majority. While there is a libertarian wing of the Republican Party, I assure you there is not an anarchist wing.

dude58677
10-21-2007, 12:02 PM
You are saying he needs the consent of Congress to pardon?

cjhowe
10-21-2007, 12:02 PM
Yes, but I do not think he can do it without the consent of Congress.

It's not a matter necessarily of whether or not he can do it, it's a question of whether or not he should.

dude58677
10-21-2007, 12:04 PM
While the president certainly has the power to override a jury verdict, it is a dangerous slope to do so. The same as it is within the power of the Congress to impeach a sitting president, it is a dangerous slope to do so. Might does not mean right. The People created the drug laws. The People created the income tax. If it is not the People's will to have these laws, they are free to repeal them. They have not! Just because the anarchists who support Ron Paul are the most vocal, does not make them the majority. While there is a libertarian wing of the Republican Party, I assure you there is not an anarchist wing.

He was elected president to abolish the tax laws and restore Constitutional govenment by eliminating government programs that are unconstutional so he is acting within his consensual authority. I repeated this I don't know how may times and it seems you just don't get it or you have a hidden agenda.

dude58677
10-21-2007, 12:10 PM
Yes, but I do not think he can do it without the consent of Congress.

You are a real constitutional whiz.:rolleyes:

SouthernGuy15
10-21-2007, 12:11 PM
I'm going to be FRANK!

If you don't think that Ron Paul would have the authority (legal, moral, and ethical) to PARDON you for putting a DRUG into your own body I hope you will not complain ONE TINY LITTLE BIT when your state bans unhealthy foods and you are thrown into prison for eating a BIG MAC or an order of CHILLI FRIES! That's right, when you are taken away into prison for a VICTIMLESS CRIME in which no one's rights were violated I hope you don't fuss or cry. To be blunt, if you are thrown in prison for drinking a cup of outlawed coffee I hope you never get out!

The fact of the matter is that when it comes to issues of FREEDOM and LIBERTY the 10th amendment does NOT APPLY!

Ron Paul has the FULL AUTHORITY (moral, ethical, and legal) to pardon anyone who is in prison when they are being punished by exercising THEIR RIGHTS!

dude58677
10-21-2007, 12:13 PM
I'm going to be FRANK!

If you don't think that Ron Paul would have the authority (legal, moral, and ethical) to PARDON you for putting a DRUG into your own body I hope you will not complain ONE TINY LITTLE BIT when your state bans unhealthy foods and you are thrown into prison for eating a BIG MAC or an order of CHILLI FRIES! That's right, when you are taken away into prison for a VICTIMLESS CRIME in which no one's rights were violated I hope you don't fuss or cry. To be blunt, if you are thrown in prison for drinking a cup of outlawed coffee I hope you never get out!

The fact of the matter is that when it comes to issues of FREEDOM and LIBERTY the 10th amendment does NOT APPLY!

Ron Paul has the FULL AUTHORITY (moral, ethical, and legal) to pardon anyone who is in prison when they are being punished by exercising THEIR RIGHTS!

You and Johngr and the only ones on this forum who's brain is working today.

johngr
10-21-2007, 12:20 PM
Even full-on gov't agents/ gov't agent power apologists are brainwashed and/or rewarded like rats for their servile and/or petit tyrannical behavior. It is amazing to me to see the glazed-over look many people get when you talk to them about gov't agent power but one would at least hope that the Ron Paul forum would be a haven from that kind of thing. Is it really so infiltrated or do people carry over to this movement the same pernicious ideas that fucked everything in the US up?

Hook
10-21-2007, 12:22 PM
To OP:

What you are suggesting would amount to AMNESTY, which Dr. Paul is positively opposed. Tax and drug criminals broke constitutional laws. Despite whether you view the laws as immoral, they were still constitutional.

The drug laws are not constitutional. There is no specific authorization for Congress to pass laws on drugs anywhere in the Constitution.

From your posts I gather that you are a beliver in direct democracy. That is, the rights of individuals are only granted by the will of the majority. And whatever the majority wants, the majority gets. In this system, there is no need for a Constitution, because rights are granted or removed day by day by simple majority.

This is why our founders did not belive in a democracy. They called it "The tyranny of the majority". It is why it takes a super-majority to change the Constitution, because it needs to be very difficult to do something that may compromise peoples rights. It is also why the Supreme Court can strike down laws created "by the majority" when they violate the Constitution.

The president swears to protect and uphold the Constitution when he is sworn in to office. So just like the Supreme Court, if he sees people punished for laws which are clearly unconstitutional, he has the obligation to pardon those people. It is just another check on the power of the majority to violate the rights of the minority.

The rights of individuals are non-negotiable and supersede the will of any group, organization, or government.

dude58677
10-21-2007, 12:23 PM
Even full-on gov't agents/ gov't agent power apologists are brainwashed and/or rewarded like rats for their servile and/or petit tyrannical behavior. It is amazing to me to see the glazed-over look many people get when you talk to them about gov't agent power but one would at least hope that the Ron Paul forum would be a haven from that kind of thing. Is it really so infiltrated or do people carry over to this movement the same pernicious ideas that fucked everything in the US up?

I have been trying to point this out in another post on this forum and people are calling me a lunatic.:mad::mad::mad:

cjhowe
10-21-2007, 12:23 PM
I'm going to be FRANK!

If you don't think that Ron Paul would have the authority (legal, moral, and ethical) to PARDON you for putting a DRUG into your own body I hope you will not complain ONE TINY LITTLE BIT when your state bans unhealthy foods and you are thrown into prison for eating a BIG MAC or an order of CHILLI FRIES! That's right, when you are taken away into prison for a VICTIMLESS CRIME in which no one's rights were violated I hope you don't fuss or cry. To be blunt, if you are thrown in prison for drinking a cup of outlawed coffee I hope you never get out!

The fact of the matter is that when it comes to issues of FREEDOM and LIBERTY the 10th amendment does NOT APPLY!

Ron Paul has the FULL AUTHORITY (moral, ethical, and legal) to pardon anyone who is in prison when they are being punished by exercising THEIR RIGHTS!

Amnesty is a dangerous thing in a nation of laws. It's not about which law was broken, but that THE law was broken. Should the IRS be abolished? Yes. Should federal drug laws be repealed? Yes. Should those who were convicted of those crimes while they were valid laws be pardoned? NO! The individuals who broke these laws decided to violate our laws. We must honor or jury verdicts and hold these individuals responsible.

cjhowe
10-21-2007, 12:26 PM
The drug laws are not constitutional. There is no specific authorization for Congress to pass laws on drugs anywhere in the Constitution.

From your posts I gather that you are a beliver in direct democracy. That is, the rights of individuals are only granted by the will of the majority. And whatever the majority wants, the majority gets. In this system, there is no need for a Constitution, because rights are granted or removed day by day by simple majority.

This is why our founders did not belive in a democracy. They called it "The tyranny of the majority". It is why it takes a super-majority to change the Constitution, because it needs to be very difficult to do something that may compromise peoples rights. It is also why the Supreme Court can strike down laws created "by the majority" when they violate the Constitution.

The president swears to protect and uphold the Constitution when he is sworn in to office. So just like the Supreme Court, if he sees people punished for laws which are clearly unconstitutional, he has the obligation to pardon those people. It is just another check on the power of the majority to violate the rights of the minority.


You misunderstand. The People created the federal drug laws and the SCOTUS deemed they had the authority under the interstate commerce clause. Until you can replace enough justices on the SCOTUS, the drug laws are constitutional.

TVMH
10-21-2007, 12:26 PM
You and Johngr and the only ones on this forum who's brain is working today.

This is the kind of inciteful rhetoric I would expect from the majority of people at Free Republic.

I don't see that anyone is explicitly disagreeing with you, however, I do believe that your arguments are misplaced at this time.

The first step in reducing the size and scope of government is to start "playing by the rules" vis-a-vis the Constitution.

Do you not agree?

Hook
10-21-2007, 12:29 PM
You misunderstand. The People created the federal drug laws and the SCOTUS deemed they had the authority under the interstate commerce clause. Until you can replace enough justices on the SCOTUS, the drug laws are constitutional.

And just like the SCOTUS can override the will of the majority to protect individual rights, so can the President.
Actually, so MUST the president if he is to uphold the Constitution.

dude58677
10-21-2007, 12:30 PM
This is the kind of inciteful rhetoric I would expect from the majority of people at Free Republic.

I don't see that anyone is explicitly disagreeing with you, however, I do believe that your arguments are misplaced at this time.

The first step in reducing the size and scope of government is to start "playing by the rules" vis-a-vis the Constitution.

Do you not agree?

Pardoning is playing within the rules. Besides even if it wasn't playing by the rules it is far worse what the people did to put these unjust and unconstitutional programs into action.

TVMH
10-21-2007, 12:30 PM
You misunderstand. The People created the federal drug laws and the SCOTUS deemed they had the authority under the interstate commerce clause. Until you can replace enough justices on the SCOTUS, the drug laws are constitutional.

I would tend to believe that a decision by SCOTUS does not necessarily preclude the President's ability to modify, via his cabinet, the Code of Federal Regulations should there be an question of constitutionality.

TVMH
10-21-2007, 12:33 PM
Pardoning is playing within the rules. Besides even if it wasn't playing by the rules it is far worse what the people did to put these unjust and unconstitutional programs into action.

You did not answer my question.

Whatever change in the size and scope of government that occurs will likely have to happen sequentially.

I maintain that abiding by the constitution is the first step in this sequence.

Do you agree?

cjhowe
10-21-2007, 12:34 PM
And just like the SCOTUS can override the will of the majority to protect individual rights, so can the President.
Actually, so MUST the president if he is to uphold the Constitution.


I would tend to believe that a decision by SCOTUS does not necessarily preclude the President's ability to modify, via his cabinet, the Code of Federal Regulations should there be an question of constitutionality.

You're both correct. I'm am not suggesting that the President does not have the power to do so. I am merely suggesting that it is a dangerous thing to do and WILL have tremendous repercussions without having the Congress repeal the laws and have Congress declare retroactive immunity.

dude58677
10-21-2007, 12:36 PM
You're both correct. I'm am not suggesting that the President does not have the power to do so. I am merely suggesting that it is a dangerous thing to do and WILL have tremendous repercussions without having the Congress repeal the laws and have Congress declare retroactive immunity.

You are not stating why.

TVMH
10-21-2007, 12:36 PM
Amnesty is a dangerous thing in a nation of laws. It's not about which law was broken, but that THE law was broken. Should the IRS be abolished? Yes. Should federal drug laws be repealed? Yes. Should those who were convicted of those crimes while they were valid laws be pardoned? NO! The individuals who broke these laws decided to violate our laws. We must honor or jury verdicts and hold these individuals responsible.

You neglected to mention the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause in the Constitution which could be used as justification for pardoning non-violent drug offenders.

You MUST be an IRS agent. :D

dude58677
10-21-2007, 12:37 PM
You did not answer my question.

Whatever change in the size and scope of government that occurs will likely have to happen sequentially.

I maintain that abiding by the constitution is the first step in this sequence.

Do you agree?

I did answer your question, I can't help it if it wasn't the answer you wanted to hear.

Hook
10-21-2007, 12:37 PM
You're both correct. I'm am not suggesting that the President does not have the power to do so. I am merely suggesting that it is a dangerous thing to do and WILL have tremendous repercussions without having the Congress repeal the laws and have Congress declare retroactive immunity.

I guess we are vehement agreement then.
I think the reprecussions would be fun to watch myself. It couldn't be worse than being sent to Iraq :D
I'll be the families of all the people pardoned would become instant RP supporters.

cjhowe
10-21-2007, 12:40 PM
I guess we are vehement agreement then.
I think the reprecussions would be fun to watch myself. It couldn't be worse than being sent to Iraq :D
I'll be the families of all the people pardoned would become instant RP supporters.

And those who have watched the negative repercussions of drugs on loved ones would be instant opposition.

dude58677
10-21-2007, 12:41 PM
And those who have watched the negative repercussions of drugs on loved ones would be instant opposition.

What about all the prisons being filled with drug offenders and not being filled with violent criminals?

TVMH
10-21-2007, 12:42 PM
I did answer your question, I can't help it if it wasn't the answer you wanted to hear.

No, you gave an answer to a question that I did not ask...I did not ask you if pardoning is "playing by the rules"; I know full well that pardoning is, indeed, playing by the rules.

I asked you if you agree that the first step in reducing the size and scope of government is to abide by the constitution.

I'll ask it again in a slightly different manner: Do you agree that the first step in reducing the size and scope of government is to abide by a strict interpretation of the constitution?

This is a "yes or no" question.

dude58677
10-21-2007, 12:42 PM
No, you gave an answer to a question that I did not ask...I did not ask you if pardoning is "playing by the rules"; I know full well that pardoning is, indeed, playing by the rules.

I asked you if you agree that the first step in reducing the size and scope of government is to abide by the constitution.

I'll ask it again in a slightly different manner: Do you agree that the first step in reducing the size and scope of government is to abide by a strict interpretation of the constitution?

This is a "yes or no" question.

Yes.

TVMH
10-21-2007, 12:44 PM
And those who have watched the negative repercussions of drugs on loved ones would be instant opposition.

I don't think this is necessarily true.

People have ruined their lives with drugs IN SPITE of the drug laws.

If a person is bound and determined to use drugs, no drug law in the world is going to keep that person from doing so.

Remember, laws are not preventive...they are punitive.

cjhowe
10-21-2007, 12:47 PM
I don't think this is necessarily true.

People have ruined their lives with drugs IN SPITE of the drug laws.

If a person is bound and determined to use drugs, no drug law in the world is going to keep that person from doing so.

Remember, laws are not preventive...they are punitive.

That's not the way the people who enacted these laws see it.

johngr
10-21-2007, 12:58 PM
That's not the way the people who enacted these laws see it.

Not everyone whose family member's life has been ruined by drugs is so devoid of logic and many of them can further see that the drug laws made the problem much worse (forcing them to associate with criminals if they want to use, for example). My guess is that a slight majority of us citizens sees through the "war on drugs" and would welcome a president who has the balls to end it and to set things right those who comprise its chief casualties.

Another thing, in the President Paul justice department, drug prosecution will be an extremely low priority. Somehow I don't think there will be any raids on the homes of cancer patients.

cjhowe
10-21-2007, 01:03 PM
Not everyone whose family member's life has been ruined by drugs is so devoid of logic and many of them can further see that the drug laws made the problem much worse (forcing them to associate with criminals if they want to use, for example). My guess is that a slight majority of us citizens sees through the "war on drugs" and would welcome a president who has the balls to end it and to set things right those who comprise its chief casualties.

Another thing, in the President Paul justice department, drug prosecution will be an extremely low priority. Somehow I don't think there will be any raids on the homes of cancer patients.

If a majority of people saw through the war on drugs, why are there still federal drug laws?

freedominnumbers
10-21-2007, 01:06 PM
Let's play a game.

Every time you are about to say 'government' replace the word with 'me' or 'I' because the government is in fact you.

Every time you are about to say 'society' or a similar word replace it with 'everyone else'.

If you do this you quickly come to realize how insane it is to believe in big government and government control.

This is because whenever you are asking the government to do something you are asking on your behalf. Whenever you say somebody has a responsibility or duty to society you are saying they must act in the interest of everyone else.

To imply the government should or must do anything is to imply that YOU have the right or responsibility to do that thing. To imply that someone should be good for society is to imply that they must act in the interests of everyone but themselves. This is a direct contradiction of the three basic principles.

You have no right to dictate anything regarding another person so long as they don't violate your Life, Liberty or Property, therefore the government has no right either. This includes such things as drug usage.

The trouble is that these rights were not properly protected in our constitution. We need an amendment to clarify these things.

It is vital to understand that government should have no greater privilege than any individual man. Government is only a mechanism for a group of men to exercise their limited rights. Anything greater is inevitably a violation of someone's three principles.

TVMH
10-21-2007, 01:09 PM
That's not the way the people who enacted these laws see it.

That doesn't change the truth of the matter, though.

The main thing I like about Dr. Paul is he brings an honest, logical, and rational viewpoint to the table.

johngr
10-21-2007, 01:10 PM
If a majority of people saw through the war on drugs, why are there still federal drug laws?

Don't be so obtuse.

TVMH
10-21-2007, 01:11 PM
If a majority of people saw through the war on drugs, why are there still federal drug laws?

Fear? Demagoguery? Apathy? (think 25% voter turnout)

I would guess that a lot of people don't think the WOD is working, just like I would guess that the people that do think the WOD is working have a vested interest in the status quo.

johngr
10-21-2007, 01:15 PM
If a majority of people saw through the war on drugs, why are there still federal drug laws?

I have a question for you. Assuming you accept the premise that the vast majority of didn't support the war at the time, WHY WAS THERE A "SURGE"? (I could understand keeping the status quo for awhile while they figured out how to start winding the war down, but a freaking surge?)

Hook
10-21-2007, 01:19 PM
If a majority of people saw through the war on drugs, why are there still federal drug laws?

I would guess for the same reason we are still in Iraq even though 70% of americans want out.

jaumen
10-21-2007, 01:19 PM
While the president certainly has the power to override a jury verdict, it is a dangerous slope to do so. The same as it is within the power of the Congress to impeach a sitting president, it is a dangerous slope to do so. Might does not mean right. The People created the drug laws. The People created the income tax. If it is not the People's will to have these laws, they are free to repeal them. They have not! Just because the anarchists who support Ron Paul are the most vocal, does not make them the majority. While there is a libertarian wing of the Republican Party, I assure you there is not an anarchist wing.

How is getting rid of a federal income tax and the war on drugs anarchy again?

I didn't say that pardoning someone who commits a crime is always right, as you implied, but it is SOMETIMES right, or else you would have to argue that the President SHOULDN'T have the power to pardon, and I don't think many people would agree with you on that. Personally, I see the federal income tax as unconstitutional... and therefore any tax evaders should be pardoned.

cjhowe
10-21-2007, 01:21 PM
I have a question for you. Assuming you accept the premise that the vast majority of didn't support the war at the time, WHY WAS THERE A "SURGE"? (I could understand keeping the status quo for awhile while they figured out how to start winding the war down, but a freaking surge?)

If you want to start another thread about the war in Iraq, please do. It's been difficult enough to carry on an exchange of ideas with the ad hominem attacks.

jaumen
10-21-2007, 01:23 PM
And those who have watched the negative repercussions of drugs on loved ones would be instant opposition.

Because they want their loved ones behind bars instead of just in rehab?

cjhowe
10-21-2007, 01:26 PM
How is getting rid of a federal income tax and the war on drugs anarchy again?

I didn't say that pardoning someone who commits a crime is always right, as you implied, but it is SOMETIMES right, or else you would have to argue that the President SHOULDN'T have the power to pardon, and I don't think many people would agree with you on that. Personally, I see the federal income tax as unconstitutional... and therefore any tax evaders should be pardoned.

Everyone wants to look at laws and policy they don't agree with as being "unconstitutional". We have a branch of the government that is the sole decider on what is constitutional, that is the judiciary. If you disagree with the conclusion of the judiciary, change the constitution! It's pretty funny that it rested on one vote in the SCOTUS on whether the income tax was constitutional even before the 16th amendment. To continue to hold that view after the 16th amendment is uneducated.

cjhowe
10-21-2007, 01:28 PM
Because they want their loved ones behind bars instead of just in rehab?

I can't speak for those people. I personally want the federal drug laws repealed. You can't simply ignore the will of those in the majority when it's an area that the SCOTUS has determined the federal government has jurisdiction.

TVMH
10-21-2007, 01:49 PM
Everyone wants to look at laws and policy they don't agree with as being "unconstitutional". We have a branch of the government that is the sole decider on what is constitutional, that is the judiciary. If you disagree with the conclusion of the judiciary, change the constitution! It's pretty funny that it rested on one vote in the SCOTUS on whether the income tax was constitutional even before the 16th amendment. To continue to hold that view after the 16th amendment is uneducated.

Technically, the Secretary of the Treasury, in agreement with the Supreme Court of the United States, has stated that “…the provisions of the sixteenth amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited [Congress’ original power to tax incomes] from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation, to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment.” [Treasury Decision 2303]

Also, the Supreme Court has stated that the income tax "...cannot be applied to any income which Congress has no power to tax." [William E. Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918)].

It is my considered and educated opinion that the statutes and regulations dealing with the federal income tax are not unconstitutional in and of themselves, rather, the manner in which the federal income tax statutes and regulations are enforced is what appears to be unconstitutional, specifically with regard to the denial of the right to due process of law.

johngr
10-21-2007, 02:02 PM
If you want to start another thread about the war in Iraq, please do. It's been difficult enough to carry on an exchange of ideas with the ad hominem attacks.

My musing about your motivation and psychological underpinnings is not part of my argument and requires no answer. I would not answer any such statements on your part (calling me a lawless anarchist who wants chaos and riots in the streets would just roll right off my back).

Gov't agents do things all the time that the bovine majority opposes or would oppose. I'll take your non-answer as conceding that point.

cjhowe
10-21-2007, 02:07 PM
My musing about your motivation and psychological underpinnings part of my argument and requires no answer. I would not answer any such statements on your part (calling me a lawless anarchist who wants chaos and riots in the streets would just roll right off my back).

Gov't agents do things all the time that the bovine majority opposes or would oppose. I'll take your non-answer as conceding that point.

There is no concession. If laws be enacted against the will of the apathetic, through their apathy, the will of the people is to enact the laws.

johngr
10-21-2007, 02:21 PM
There is a disturbing trend in constutitional law, particularly since the wars on poverty and drugs were declared, ramping up exponentially with the war on terror which is to broadly construe gov't agents' power and narrowly construe the people's rights and protection against such power. I take Ron Paul's being so popular as a good sign that people, especially young people, might be getting tired of that trend.

johngr
10-21-2007, 02:32 PM
There is no concession. If laws be enacted against the will of the apathetic, through their apathy, the will of the people is to enact the laws.

I don't agree that the system of "voting" is valid and would do away with it but I won't argue that point here and we'll assume it is valid.

The people can't vote up or down for the drug war. Of course they're apathetic about it. They can vote for one drug warrior or the other. They don't get to set the agenda in the current system. Fine.

Were the 2006 voters who turned out above average and put the power back in the democrats' in a referendum against the war "apathetic" or did their vote not count?

cjhowe
10-21-2007, 03:31 PM
I don't agree that the system of "voting" is valid and would do away with it but I won't argue that point here and we'll assume it is valid.

The people can't vote up or down for the drug war. Of course they're apathetic about it. They can vote for one drug warrior or the other. They don't get to set the agenda in the current system. Fine.

Were the 2006 voters who turned out above average and put the power back in the democrats' in a referendum against the war "apathetic" or did their vote not count?

Then go stump for Gravel, he's the only one who wants to change that system.

johngr
10-22-2007, 07:43 AM
There is no concession. If laws be enacted against the will of the apathetic, through their apathy, the will of the people is to enact the laws.

When the apathetic people elect a non-apathetic leader who is morally certain and quite likely to through his constitutional powers render those laws a nullity, that is also the will of the people.

cjhowe
10-22-2007, 08:35 AM
When the apathetic people elect a non-apathetic leader who is morally certain and quite likely to through his constitutional powers render those laws a nullity, that is also the will of the people.

That is correct. However, to grant amnesty to drug dealers and tax cheats, you will hear the roar of those who have not been apathetic over the last 40 years.