"Extreme Constitutionalist"

[ConvertedRepublican]

Heard this word today from my boss concerning Ron Paul. This is a new one on me, my jaw dropped and was left speechless at this 'Republican' Rick Perry supporting comment.
How do you answer this?

[purplechoe]

extremism is no vice in defense of liberty...

[LibertyEagle]

All quotes by Barry Goldwater, Sr.


I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.


I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.


I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

[Rudeman]

Attack (well maybe not attack) something they view important (Gun Rights, Freedom of Speech etc.) then see how they feel about the Constitution. If you aren't going to follow all of it then what's stopping someone from attacking something you view important.

The Liberals have tried to attack Gun Rights so you would think they would be more sensitive regarding these issues.

[bunklocoempire]

Attack (well maybe not attack) something they view important (Gun Rights, Freedom of Speech etc.) then see how they feel about the Constitution. If you aren't going to follow all of it then what's stopping someone from attacking something you view important.

The Liberals have tried to attack Gun Rights so you would think they would be more sensitive regarding these issues.

+ green thingo for you




Bunkloco

[Acala]

Heard this word today from my boss concerning Ron Paul. This is a new one on me, my jaw dropped and was left speechless at this 'Republican' Rick Perry supporting comment.
How do you answer this?

There are two forms of government: the rule of law and the rule of men.

Under the rule of law, the people establish a procedure by which the rules they will follow are made. They follow those procedures to make the rules. Once the rules are made in accordance with the established procedure, they become law. Then the people follow the laws. If they come to not like the laws, they follow the procedure for changing them and then follow the new laws.

Under the rule of men, the people choose (or more often have chosen for them) a group of men who are allowed total power with regard to the rules. They make the rules they want, ignore the rules they don't want, apply the rules to whom they want, and do it all in an arbitrary manner. The law is what the leader says it is at any given time. And it changes when the leaders change.

There is nothing in between. You either have the rule of law in which the laws are decided by an accepted process, written down in a clear manner for all to understand, and enforced equally against everyone all the time and to the letter, or you have the rule of men in which the laws are whatever the men in power say they are at a given moment in a given situation.

The Founders of this country had a choice of which way to go. They chose the rule of law. If you are to maintain the rule of law handed down to us, you must follow the letter of the Constitution. If you don't like what it says, it has procedures for changing it. If you don't like any of it, then the people can get together and replace it with a new set of laws which then must be followed to the letter.

The one thing you CANNOT do, if you wish to retain the rule of law, is ignore the laws. Thus, the preservation of the rule of law REQUIRES "extreme Constitutionalism". Anything else is the rule of men.

And then you can ask him how he likes the rule of men under men like Obama?