Ron Paul needs to emphasize presidential pardoning power

[dude58677]

When Ron Paul talks about cutting programs such as the IRS, etc alot of people say this cannot happen with a hostile Congress and they also think that pardoning is just a way for a President to let their cronies off the hook. They do not see that it is to be used to eliminate programs by pardoning everyone for unconstitutional crimes even if they do not commit them. The only limitation is impeachment.

[dannno]

Yes, he could pardon non-violent drug offenders. If the people elect him to do this, then the congress can go fuck themselves if they try and impeach him.

[dude58677]

Yes, he could pardon non-violent drug offenders. If the people elect him to do this, then the congress can go fuck themselves if they try and impeach him.

He can also pardon all tax evaders as well as all gun users without criminal records. A pardon as intended is an executive order not to enforce a certain law that is unconstitutional.

Someone on here said he debates too much like a congressman and not as an executive. People need to see how the IRS should be abolished.

[MelissaCato]

I hope he pardons all the disorderly conducts the police issue after they call Ron Paulers terrorists after searching the vehicle and finding RP paraphernalia. LOL

[dude58677]

I hope he pardons all the disorderly conducts the police issue after they call Ron Paulers terrorists after searching the vehicle and finding RP paraphernalia. LOL

If he were to emphasizing pardoning power, it would further show how phony past presidents such as Ronald Reagan and the Bushes were.

[Cutlerzzz]

Haven't they decided that it is ok for presidents to arrest(and kill people who leave the country) innocent people and put them in gitmo with no trial? If they decided to impeach president Paul he could ship them to guantanamo.

Not a serious post.

[dude58677]

Haven't they decided that it is ok for presidents to arrest(and kill people who leave the country) innocent people and put them in gitmo with no trial? If they decided to impeach president Paul he could ship them to guantanamo.

Not a serious post.

What are you implying?

[Cutlerzzz]

What are you implying?

Nothing. The post was a joke.

[sailingaway]

I don't think he'd get elected in the primary by GOP primary voters if he was going for wholesale pardons. If that were to come up, it would be an issue for the general, wouldn't it? I could see him pardoning everyone arrested for using medical marijuana in states where it is legal, but if they have committed state crimes, it would go against his feelings of federalism to pardon them even if he could, wouldn't it?

[libertybrewcity]

Bad, bad, bad idea. Republicans would attack RP on this issue, and he may lose votes because of it. It is a bad idea to discuss the war on drugs around conservatives, especially during the Republican Primary. It is best to stick to the main issues conservatives can relate to like economics, social issues, and even foreign policy.

[sailingaway]

Bad, bad, bad idea. Republicans would attack RP on this issue, and he may lose votes because of it. It is a bad idea to discuss the war on drugs around conservatives, especially during the Republican Primary. It is best to stick to the main issues conservatives can relate to like economics, social issues, and even foreign policy.


Which is PRECISELY why Fox brought up the war on drugs.

[dude58677]

Nothing. The post was a joke.

You don't know what the term pardon means. Arresting someone for sending them to gitmo doesn't get an innocent person out of gitmo.

[Cutlerzzz]

You don't know what the term pardon means. Arresting someone for sending them to gitmo doesn't get an innocent person out of gitmo.

I know what pardon means. You should reread my post.

[NYgs23]

I fear if he got elected president and actually started issuing blanket amnesty to tax evaders and such, they might very well amend the Constitution to prevent that.

[torchbearer]

I fear if he got elected president and actually started issuing blanket amnesty to tax evaders and such, they might very well amend the Constitution to prevent that.

with freedom so close to people at the point, their would be uprisings against the authoritarians.
the closer Ron gets to the white house, the more distinct the enemy of freedom becomes.

[dude58677]

I know what pardon means. You should reread my post.

Apperently you don't want an honest discussion.

[Cutlerzzz]

Apperently you don't want an honest discussion.

I said in my first post that I was not making a serious post, and in my second post I stated I was kidding. I don't see anything dishonest about that...

[dude58677]

I said in my first post that I was not making a serious post, and in my second post I stated I was kidding. I don't see anything dishonest about that...
Ok, I thought you meant that I wasn't making a serious post and that you were a statist who was trolling. My apology.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I really hope Irwin Schiff, Ed & Elaine Brown, and all the rest (Wesley Snipes, etc.) would see immediate pardons.

[Teaser Rate]

I really hope Irwin Schiff, Ed & Elaine Brown, and all the rest (Wesley Snipes, etc.) would see immediate pardons.

Would should tax evaders get presidential pardons?

I can see the idea behind pardoning some non-violent drug offenders who are serving unnecessarily long sentences due to mandatory minimums, but why should tax cheats get them?

[South Park Fan]

Would should tax evaders get presidential pardons?

I can see the idea behind pardoning some non-violent drug offenders who are serving unnecessarily long sentences due to mandatory minimums, but why should tax cheats get them?

Neither drug users nor tax evaders harm anyone. If there's no victim, there should be no crime.

[pcosmar]

We know about it. Ron knows about it.
I don't think it needs to be a topic of debate or discussion in the media.

I would rather see it come as a pleasant surprise.

[low preference guy]

I would rather see it come as a pleasant surprise.

haha, the shock of the media will make it even more pleasant.

[Teaser Rate]

Neither drug users nor tax evaders harm anyone. If there's no victim, there should be no crime.

Tax evaders are free riders, they force others to pay for their government services.

I don't see how imposing costs on others is a libertarian virtue.

[low preference guy]

I don't see how imposing costs on others is a libertarian virtue.

how do they impose costs on anyone when they don't move one finger to start or implement those programs? dude, you are crazy.

you're an example of the utter disgrace of the indoctrination centers schools in this country.

[dude58677]

Tax evaders are free riders, they force others to pay for their government services.

I don't see how imposing costs on others is a libertarian virtue.

When the goverrnment is so small there is no need for a income tax. :collins:

[Teaser Rate]

how do they impose costs on anyone when they don't move one finger to start or implement those programs? dude, you are crazy.

you're an example of the utter disgrace of the indoctrination centers schools in this country.

If you really feel that way, then you should probably get off the Internet, since, as you probably know, it couldn't have existed without government investment.


When the goverrnment is so small there is no need for a income tax. :collins:

Until we get to that point, I believe each person has a duty to pay his fair share.

[South Park Fan]

Tax evaders are free riders, they force others to pay for their government services.

I don't see how imposing costs on others is a libertarian virtue.

http://arthropoda.southernfriedscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/facepalm-300x240.jpg
The government forces others to pay for their own "services". I don't see how one can possibly justify blaming the victim of theft for said theft.

[dude58677]

http://arthropoda.southernfriedscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/facepalm-300x240.jpg
The government forces others to pay for their own "services". I don't see how one can possibly justify blaming the victim of theft for said theft.

:collins:

[South Park Fan]

If you really feel that way, then you should probably get off the Internet, since, as you probably know, it couldn't have existed without government investment. Hah! The internet was an undeveloped wasteland before private industry was allowed to open websites commercially.


Until we get to that point, I believe each person has a duty to pay his fair share. So I suppose that Gandhi and Thoreau should have been imprisoned for "failing to pay their fair share"? Also, how is the "fair share" defined as "what the government forces me to pay"?

</feeding the troll>

[Carehn]

When Ron Paul talks about cutting programs such as the IRS, etc alot of people say this cannot happen with a hostile Congress and they also think that pardoning is just a way for a President to let their cronies off the hook. They do not see that it is to be used to eliminate programs by pardoning everyone for unconstitutional crimes even if they do not commit them. The only limitation is impeachment.

He may pardon some extreme example but he has stated and i'm looking for some one to be president and not king. I do not expect Paul to use any presidential power in a way that could be considered outside executive constitutional power.

Even if he expanded his power for good reasons that we may like it would be the same thing we don't like and his 'Force' would have 'Unintended Consequences'.

Down with tyrant king Ron!!!!

[low preference guy]

Until we get to that point, I believe each person has a duty to pay his fair share.

your believes impose no duty or obligation on anyone else you psycho

[dude58677]

He may pardon some extreme example but he has stated and i'm looking for some one to be president and not king. I do not expect Paul to use any presidential power in a way that could be considered outside executive constitutional power.

Even if he expanded his power for good reasons that we may like it would be the same thing we don't like and his 'Force' would have 'Unintended Consequences'.

Down with tyrant king Ron!!!!


LOL, limiting government power by freeing everyone is a dicatorship? YOU ARE CRAZY! :collins:

[low preference guy]

He may pardon some extreme example but he has stated and i'm looking for some one to be president and not king. I do not expect Paul to use any presidential power in a way that could be considered outside executive constitutional power.

Even if he expanded his power for good reasons that we may like it would be the same thing we don't like and his 'Force' would have 'Unintended Consequences'.

Down with tyrant king Ron!!!!

using the power a person have to the maximum extent possible to free innocent people doesn't really sound dictatorial to me. and if it is dictatorial, i'm cool with it.

[Teaser Rate]

http://arthropoda.southernfriedscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/facepalm-300x240.jpg
The government forces others to pay for their own "services". I don't see how one can possibly justify blaming the victim of theft for said theft.

Societies choose own and run certain institutions collectively because the market can't provide everything their people need. The people are the government and decide how much "force" is needed to be used to everyone's benefit. Your so-called victims are free to either agree to its rules or move out.


Hah! The internet was an undeveloped wasteland before private industry was allowed to open websites commercially.

Doesn't change the fact that it could have never existed without the government's original investment in it.


So I suppose that Gandhi and Thoreau should have been imprisoned for "failing to pay their fair share"? Also, how is the "fair share" defined as "what the government forces me to pay"?

Apples and oranges, modern-day tax evaders aren't fighting for a cause other than wanting free stuff from others without having to pay for it.

[libertybrewcity]

Which is PRECISELY why Fox brought up the war on drugs.

yup, and they gave soft balls to the other guys.

[low preference guy]

Doesn't change the fact that it could have never existed without the government's original investment in it.

LOL!

if the government haven't spent the money, the physical laws that allow transfer of information would've refused to work. and those physical laws are so stubborn that they would've NEVER worked without the intervention of the government.

how can someone be so ignorant? the fact that something occurred after the government took action doesn't show that it wouldn't have occurred without the government. without government intervention, all those resources would've been in the hands of private individuals, and thus used more efficiently, which would've caused technology to develop even faster.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Societies choose own and run certain institutions collectively because the market can't provide everything their people need. The people are the government and decide how much "force" is needed to be used to everyone's benefit. Your so-called victims are free to either agree to its rules or move out.



Doesn't change the fact that it could have never existed without the government's original investment in it.



Apples and oranges, modern-day tax evaders aren't fighting for a cause other than wanting free stuff from others without having to pay for it.

The 'people' are not the Government. You should really read Anthony de Jasay's The State here: http://www.econlib.org/library/LFBooks/Jasay/jsyStt.html

[dude58677]

Societies choose own and run certain institutions collectively because the market can't provide everything their people need. The people are the government and decide how much "force" is needed to be used to everyone's benefit. Your so-called victims are free to either agree to its rules or move out.

Doesn't change the fact that it could have never existed without the government's original investment in it.



Apples and oranges, modern-day tax evaders aren't fighting for a cause other than wanting free stuff from others without having to pay for it.

Complete BS, it is more like you forcing services on everyone or a mob rule forcing services on everyone and forcing everyone even ones that do not want them or that violate the Constitution to pay for them. Why don't you move to a foreign country? They don't like freedom either.

Anyway, you are just a troll.

PS, what if I were to order magazines under your name and address (I'm not seriously going to). Of course you would refuse to pay for them but what if I said that you ordered them? You wouldn't like that.

[Peace&Freedom]

It would be great if Paul began pardoning non violent drug offenders, tax honesty advocates etc. at the START of his term, which would show he was willing to face accountability for his pardons. This would contrast heavily with the tradition of Presidents waiting until they reach lame duck status and have nothing to lose politically before doing so.

[dude58677]

It would be great if Paul began pardoning non violent drug offenders, tax honesty advocates etc. at the START of his term, which would show he was willing to face accountability for his pardons. This would contrast heavily with the tradition of Presidents waiting until they reach lame duck status and have nothing to lose politically before doing so.

:collins:

[lx43]

The power to pardon in my mind is the equilavant of jury nullification. I would hang a jury on tax cases, drug cases, and others I thought the govt has no businesses meddling; the same for the Presidents power to pardon.


Could you imagine Ron Paul in the debates saying I have started a website where if elected I will use my constitutional power to pardon to allow you to opt-out of paying FICA taxes in exchange for you forgoing recieving any Social Security and Medicare benefits; or allowing you to opt-out of paying income taxes. I would be the first to sign up. lol

[Mini-Me]

I should obtain a coercive monopoly on the water supply in Teaser Rate's city, prohibit competition, and charge him for use. He'll thank me for doing him a service that nobody else could have possibly done. ;) Just because government spends money on services you use - after extorting your money and prohibiting competition (making their services your only choice) - does not mean you are indebted to government, nor does it mean you owe it to the government to continue letting it extort money from you.

Besides, the federal government isn't even spending its money on services we use, for the most part. It's squandering the money on an obscene and violent empire, a horrific surveillance dragnet, authoritarian law enforcement, and entitlement ponzi schemes. The longer they go on, the more people will suffer and the uglier things will be when they finally come to an end (one way or another). Forgive me if I'm not falling all over myself to make sure the government gets its "fair share." :rolleyes: Fair share of taxes? Hell, I'm more concerned about doing my fair share to avoid feeding this monstrosity. It's not just that I want to keep my money, and it's not just that I think everyone should be able to keep theirs; it's that I specifically do not want the government to have any of it. No matter how much I made, I'd much rather pay someone else (the magical government erasure fairy perhaps) the money I pay in taxes instead, just to see the beast starved to death.

As far as the Internet is concerned, it was inevitable from the very first moment that two computers were hooked up to communicate with each other. It may not have happened as soon without government investment, but it would have happened eventually. Then again, it might have happened sooner without government, since all the money wasted on Social Security (and "borrowed" again for the general fund) and empire (etc.) would have been freed up for the market. Opportunity cost is a fundamental economic concept, but it seems so many forget all about it where government is concerned.

[anaconda]

Yes, he could pardon non-violent drug offenders. If the people elect him to do this, then the congress can go fuck themselves if they try and impeach him.

I believe the Congress is so beholden to special interests that they might likely unite across the aisle and impeach President Paul. Voter blowback is the question mark for me. Having said this, I wonder what the ramifications of Paul pardoning all nonviolent drug convictions and all IRS convictions might be? People underestimate the power a President could wield when he/she is not answerable to the elite special interests.