PDA

View Full Version : President Paul's first day in office?




ronpaulitician
11-15-2007, 02:31 PM
The late Harry Browne's The president's first day in office (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=13247) (December 1, 2000)


On Wednesday, Joseph Farah told us what he would do if he were the new president. (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15097) He focused mainly on whom he'd appoint to his cabinet, but I'd like to tell you what actions I'd take if I'd been elected president.

After my inaugural day, I'd probably spend little more than an hour a day in the Oval Office, because a busy president is a dangerous president. But for the very first day, I'd have an extremely long agenda.

On that first day in office, by executive order I would:

Pardon everyone who had been convicted on a federal, non-violent drug charge, order their immediate release, reunite them with their families, and restore all their civil rights. (Anyone convicted of using violence against someone else in a drug case would not qualify as "non-violent.")

Pardon everyone who had been convicted on any federal gun-control charge, tax-evasion charge, or any other victimless crime, order their immediate release, and restore all their civil rights.

I would empty the prisons of those who haven't harmed anyone else and make room for the violent criminals who are currently getting out on plea bargains and early release.

Following the issuance of the pardons:

I would announce a policy to penalize, dismiss, or even prosecute any federal employee who violated the Bill of Rights by treating you as guilty until proven innocent, by searching or seizing your property without due process of law, by treating you as a servant, or in any other way violating your rights as a sovereign American citizen.

I would immediately order that no federal asset forfeiture could occur unless the property's owner had been convicted by full due process. And I would initiate steps to make restitution to anyone whose property had been impounded, frozen, or seized by the federal government without a legal conviction. (Over 80 percent of such seizures occur when no one has even been charged with a crime.)

As commander in chief of the Armed Forces, I would immediately remove all American troops from foreign soil. Europe and Asia can pay for their own defense, and they can risk their own lives in their eternal squabbles. This would save billions of dollars a year in taxes, but -- more important -- it would make sure your sons and daughters never fight or die in someone else's war.

I would order everyone in the executive branch to stop harassing smokers, tobacco companies, successful computer companies, gun owners, gun manufacturers, alternative medicine suppliers, religious groups (whether respected or labeled as "cults"), investment companies, health-care providers, businessmen, or anyone else who's conducting his affairs peaceably.

I would end federal affirmative action, federal quotas, set-asides, preferential treatments, and other discriminatory practices of the federal government. Any previous president could have done this with a stroke of the pen. Do you wonder why none of them did?

And then I would break for lunch.

There's more ...
After lunch, I would begin the process of removing from the Federal Register the thousands and thousands of regulations and executive orders inserted there by previous presidents. In most cases these regulations give federal employees powers for which there is no constitutional authority.

I would call Office Depot and order a carload of pens -- to use to veto congressional bills that violate the Constitution or that spend more money than necessary for the constitutional functions of government.

I would send to Congress a budget that immediately cuts federal spending in half -- on its way to reducing the government to no larger than its constitutional size.

Congress would undoubtedly pass a larger budget and expect me to sign it. I wouldn't. I'd veto it.

Would Congress override my veto?

Maybe it would and maybe it wouldn't.

Even if Congress succeeded in passing bills over my veto, the battle finally would be joined. We finally would have something we haven't had in my lifetime -- a president standing up to Congress.

At long last, there would be two sides arguing in Washington -- one to increase government and one to cut it sharply -- instead of the current trivial debate over whether government should grow 5 percent a year or "only" 3 percent.

Just say no
No president in the past several decades has had the will, the determination, the courage to "just say no" to Congress.

No president in the past several decades has even tried to reduce the size of government. Any president who wanted to do so could have managed it -- even in the face of a hostile Congress.

No president since the 1950s has proposed a single budget that would reduce the size of the federal government. And when Congress has come back with even larger budgets, no president has vetoed them.

Every president who claimed to be against big government has had that veto at his disposal, but none thought enough of your freedom to use it.

As president, I would -- for the first time -- use that office on your behalf. I would say no to Congress. Whatever new program it wanted to spend money on, I would veto. Whatever new tax it wanted to impose, I would veto. Whatever new intrusion it wanted to make in your life, I would veto.

No deals. No excuses. No apologies. No regrets.

But I would do more than just defend what little freedom you have left today. I would go on the offensive. I wouldn't rest until the income tax was repealed, the federal government was so small you wouldn't worry about who was elected president, and you had control over your own money, your own freedom, your own life.

And when we achieved this, we'd have a celebration. Do you remember the German youths who tore down the Berlin Wall and sold pieces of it to us?

Well, we would tear down the IRS building and sell the pieces -- and use the proceeds to help IRS agents find honest work.

Do you think any of my plans would appeal to George W. Bush or Al Gore?

Not likely, is it?

So why are we worrying over which one of them will win the current legal mud-wrestling?

ronpaulitician
11-15-2007, 02:35 PM
I still hope Paul will write a similar article.

In the debates, forced to stick to sound bites, the message that viewers take away is that Paul would get rid of the IRS and many of the federal departments on day one.

When he's given more time, Paul always makes sure to mention that he realizes that he doesn't have the power to enact many/most of those plans. His focus is always on (drastically) changing foreign policy.

Detractors are quick to claim that Paul is unrealistic. "He thinks he can just get rid of the Department of Education?" An article like the one written by Harry Browne would stop that kind of criticism in its tracks.

ronpaulitician
12-04-2007, 07:50 PM
Shameless bump.
(was digging up this post so I can copy/paste it into another forum)

mmink15
12-04-2007, 07:53 PM
great post

ronpaulitician
12-04-2007, 07:57 PM
great post
Do you think it would give his opponents to much ammo if Paul were to write a similar "on my first day in office I would..." article?

cayton
12-04-2007, 08:11 PM
Pardoning all federal drug users is a bad idea. That is the only part I dont really agree with.

I agree with that idea in principle but it is not the move to make right away. They broke the existing law (good idea or not) and the public would crucify you for it. I would, however, do whatever is necessary to get any non-violent drug offenders another trail, or appoint a group to deal with it on a case by case basis. A move like pardoning every drug user on the first day regardless of the particularities of the case would torpedo any leverage you had. Very small amounts of the population would accept it.

Sign a statement saying that there will be no further prosecution federally. This is a much smarter move.

On the whole this is a very good outline, however.

ronpaulitician
12-04-2007, 10:35 PM
Pardoning all federal drug users is a bad idea. That is the only part I dont really agree with.

I agree with that idea in principle but it is not the move to make right away. They broke the existing law (good idea or not) and the public would crucify you for it. I would, however, do whatever is necessary to get any non-violent drug offenders another trail, or appoint a group to deal with it on a case by case basis. A move like pardoning every drug user on the first day regardless of the particularities of the case would torpedo any leverage you had. Very small amounts of the population would accept it.

Sign a statement saying that there will be no further prosecution federally. This is a much smarter move.

On the whole this is a very good outline, however.
Would Paul pardon them all, you think?

I recently heard of a case of a young guy (teen; not sure of his age, but I think the girl was only one or two years younger than him) who was arrested for raping a girl even though the girl consented, where he got a ton of years in jail, and where after the verdict and sentencing the law on which the teen was convicted was changed. Under the new law, the guy would not have been charged with anything. Should he not be released on the spot?

I believe Paul, being principled and believing that federal drug laws are unconstitutional, might indeed pardon al Americans sentenced under federal drug laws. I also think, for the very same reasons, that he might not shy away from saying just that IF he gets a critical amount of support, in the polls, in campaign donations, in people on the streets, people at his events, positive news in the media, after debates, and soon in the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary.

For me personally, a letter like the one above but carrying Paul's message, would be the number one tool available to make some very reasonable people who are still on the fence to inch closer towards supporting Paul. And I think these are the kind of people that have the ability to convince a lot of others to do the same: the one's that are skeptical at first. Paul's publication of a similar letter, perhaps focusing on foreign policy, could just create the kind of snowball effect to get Paul to 16% in the New Hampshire polling data in the week following December 16th.

DealzOnWheelz
12-04-2007, 11:15 PM
As long as they were non violent victimless crimes then he would.

But if they violently assaulted a man while on drugs he would probably drop the drug charges but not the violent crime charges

smtwngrl
12-05-2007, 12:40 AM
I still hope Paul will write a similar article.
.

Well, he didn't write such an article. But he was asked the question (in Iowa, Oct. 27) what his first action would be as president. Here was his response: :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDM8US25xXg

runderwo
12-05-2007, 01:08 AM
I believe Paul, being principled and believing that federal drug laws are unconstitutional, might indeed pardon al Americans sentenced under federal drug laws. I also think, for the very same reasons, that he might not shy away from saying just that IF he gets a critical amount of support, in the polls, in campaign donations, in people on the streets, people at his events, positive news in the media, after debates, and soon in the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary.

That cat's out of the bag:

http://politics.propeller.com/story/2007/09/22/i-would-pardon-non-violent-cannabis-related-prisoners-even-mandatory-lifers-dr-ron-paul


If elected president, Texas congressman Ron Paul said he would change drug laws to free non-violent offenders from prison. "Mandated lifetime sentences are insane," he said during an interview Friday with the Free Press editorial board. "I'd release them. I'd pardon them."

The only question is whether he has the brass ones to keep his promise or not. Is that really in question, though?

Aratus
03-30-2018, 02:52 PM
GOTO the initial posting in this thread that links to an old article from the year 2000
and give me a feedback over what you think of it, now that more than a full year has
distanced us from a January swearing in ceremony. Is DJT wrong or right or worse?

Aratus
03-30-2018, 02:53 PM
The late Harry Browne's The president's first day in office (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=13247) (December 1, 2000)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^this^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

angelatc
03-30-2018, 07:13 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^this^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

He passed the omnibus, didn't make Congress veto it. So....not really a change.

Jan2017
03-30-2018, 09:45 PM
Well, he didn't write such an article. But he was asked the question (in Iowa, Oct. 27) what his first action would be as president. Here was his response: :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDM8US25xXg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDM8US25xXg

as for Rand in 2020 or 2024 . . . think of the possibilities . . . hmmmm.

Jan2017
04-01-2018, 01:58 PM
as for Rand in 2020 or 2024 . . . think of the possibilities . . . hmmmm.

Maybe sometin' like this guy . . .


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DQ1R4difLw