Publicani
01-14-2012, 06:18 PM
I think Ron Paul should occasionally throw in "the rule of law" instead of "the Constitution." Conservatives, tea-party, old folks, and actually all patriotic Americans are strongly for the rule of law. None of his opponents can make this call.
For example, in the next debate when he is asked about, say, Santorum, he can answer this way: "The main distinction between me and Santorum (and frankly all other candidates, as well as liberals) is in our position with regard to the rule of law. I firmly believe in the rule of law. My opponents believe that if they want something very strongly, the law doesn't have to be obeyed. Santorum thinks that advocating braking the law, the Constitution, with regard to abortion, makes him pro-life. I don't think it makes him pro-life, it just makes him against the law. According to the Constitution this issue should be left to the states. I don't mind the federal law against abortion, but the only way it can be done is by convincing 3/4 of states and making an amendment to the Constitution, which I personally would support. Not by electing a dictator who single handedly will make anti-abortion a federal law. Or make abortion a federal law.
We have the same difference on the foreign policy. Santorum is for illegal acts of terror, killing foreign scientists without trial and starting wars without declaration, just because he feels passionate about these issues. This makes him not pro Israel, but pro dictatorship. If the people through the Congress declare the war, I'll follow the law. Because of such disregard to the rule of law, as Santorum and others advocate, we have wars and bailouts, and Patriot acts, indefinite detention of Americans, and killing American citizens without trial. If any of my opponents is elected as the republican nominee, we will continue on this unlawful road to killing millions of people all the time arguing that we are pro-life."
For example, in the next debate when he is asked about, say, Santorum, he can answer this way: "The main distinction between me and Santorum (and frankly all other candidates, as well as liberals) is in our position with regard to the rule of law. I firmly believe in the rule of law. My opponents believe that if they want something very strongly, the law doesn't have to be obeyed. Santorum thinks that advocating braking the law, the Constitution, with regard to abortion, makes him pro-life. I don't think it makes him pro-life, it just makes him against the law. According to the Constitution this issue should be left to the states. I don't mind the federal law against abortion, but the only way it can be done is by convincing 3/4 of states and making an amendment to the Constitution, which I personally would support. Not by electing a dictator who single handedly will make anti-abortion a federal law. Or make abortion a federal law.
We have the same difference on the foreign policy. Santorum is for illegal acts of terror, killing foreign scientists without trial and starting wars without declaration, just because he feels passionate about these issues. This makes him not pro Israel, but pro dictatorship. If the people through the Congress declare the war, I'll follow the law. Because of such disregard to the rule of law, as Santorum and others advocate, we have wars and bailouts, and Patriot acts, indefinite detention of Americans, and killing American citizens without trial. If any of my opponents is elected as the republican nominee, we will continue on this unlawful road to killing millions of people all the time arguing that we are pro-life."