Yesterday on CNN I heard Ron Paul say he would pardon all those convicted of non-violent drug crimes. But at the debate when illegal immigration came up he said "The law is the law and it should be enforced".
Which is it? Why should some laws be enforced and others be gutted by pardon?
Please point to the Constitutional authority for the Federal government to determine what chemicals may be ingested? An amendment was required to make Prohibition pass Constitutional muster. Federal drug crimes are therefore non-crimes. He wouldn't be able to affect State laws or pardon people convicted in State courts.
The Federal lack of authority for controlling the borders isn't as clear.
Also, this is similar to the problem of Social Security. It ought not to be, but the social chaos caused by removing it is considered to be too great without transition (some argue that cutting the chord suddenly is a better solution quite convincingly, but this is Dr. Paul's position) to allow social structures to resume their functions.
I don't speak for Ron Paul.
Why wouldn't a president be able to pardon a person convicted of a state crime?Originally Posted by Brutus
If a person's rights are being violated they are being violated.
The purpose of a government is to protect the rights of the people.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" - Benjamin Franklin
"Every member of the State ought diligently to read and to study the constitution of his country ... by knowing their rights, they will sooner perceive when they are violated and be the better prepared to defend and assert them."
~Chief-Justice John Jay, 1777
U.S. Constitution
Immigration is an issue that the federal government has authority to deal with, as provided by Article I. Section 8:
"[Congress shall have the power] To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."
You mention non-violent drug criminals. The federal government has no authority to pass any laws regarding an individual's chemical choices, therefore federal law is not "the law" here, but is rather null and void.
Hope this clears things up.
---"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere."
- Voltaire
Immigration and nationalization are not the same thing.
Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.
What he said.
I'm a Canadian but think that in this case, our systems work similarly. Immigration is partly a defense issue, in which case, it makes sense to be under federal authority. But social issues such as education and health are under provincial (state) authority.
Canada also has its War on Drugs, not quite as bad as you have up there, but nearly so. Our neanderthal government is trying to take us backwards from where we had progressed in terms of how we view marijuana. It had been the case that, while possession of marijuana was still considered as a crime in the courts, our police forces would look the other way if they found someone in possession of the dreaded weed. Now, thanks to our Harper government, there has been a concerted crackdown. Not coincidentally, this crackdown has come largely at the behest of the U.S., which has been in a tizzy over the export of marijuana seeds to its fair shores.
First take back the Republican Party: Join the GOP Rising!
Next become a Precinct Leader
Then donate to RP's presidential or congressional campaign
From what I gather, the President only has the power to pardon those who have committed crimes against the laws of the United States (i.e. Federal Laws).Why wouldn't a president be able to pardon a person convicted of a state crime?
If a person's rights are being violated they are being violated.
The purpose of a government is to protect the rights of the people.
Normally, when "United States" is written in the constitution, it refers to the federal government. Usually, if individual states are included within the definition, the words "or each individual state" are added.Article II. Section 2.
"and he [the President] shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
This is merely my hypothesis. More research into the corresponding federalist papers would be helpful here. I'll look into this later, because I'm interested, too.
---"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere."
- Voltaire
Much of the Federalist was written by Alexander Hamilton who wanted strong "national" government versus a strong "federal" government. This fact causes confussion when reading the Federalist because the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably.
What gives the constitution legitimate authority?
"We The People."
---"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere."
- Voltaire
Who would that refer to? At the time of ratification only a very small fraction of Americans were even allowed to vote, and not all who had the vote supported the Constitution. Women, slaves, native Americans and even most men without property had no say in the document. Hard to see how it could be binding on them. And even among voters there were plenty of dissenters; why would it be binding on them?
And what would their agreement have to do with us today anyway?
Who is "We The People"?
Your response is the exact reason why I said "We The People." There's really no authority behind the constitution other than the value a society decides to place upon it. If we give it authority, it has it. If we don't, it doesn't. "We The People" applies to the original drafters and signers of the constitution, but also us if we choose to acknowledge it.Who would that refer to? At the time of ratification only a very small fraction of Americans were even allowed to vote, and not all who had the vote supported the Constitution. Women, slaves, native Americans and even most men without property had no say in the document. Hard to see how it could be binding on them. And even among voters there were plenty of dissenters; why would it be binding on them?
And what would their agreement have to do with us today anyway?
Who is "We The People"?
This starts entering into the very interesting realm of social contract theory. Read Locke or Rosseau. This is not so much a matter of law as it is individual convictions. The constitution doesn't seem to take a stand on it either way.If the Confederates were free to withdraw from this supposed agreement, as Dr. Paul holds, then isn't any American equally free to do the same?
---"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere."
- Voltaire
If the Confederates were free to withdraw from this supposed agreement, as Dr. Paul holds, then isn't any American equally free to do the same?
Nothing.
The original American patriots were those individuals brave enough to resist with force the oppressive power of King George. I accept the definition of patriotism as that effort to resist oppressive state power. The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility, and out of self interest -- for himself, his family, and the future of his country -- to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state.
Congressman Ron Paul 5/22/07
I am not an American but I believe the answer to your question is God and the People as expressed in the founding documents of the nation of the United States of America.
According to the Declaration of Independence, individual human beings, the People, receive unalienable rights among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of virtue (happiness) which are endowed by their Creator, and the government is instituted to protect these rights. From this Declaration, which established the United States of America as a nation amongst the other nations of the world, flows the Constitution which was the legal foundation and structure of the new nation. (If you wish to Amend the Constitution then there is a proper procedure to do so requiring the consent of the People.) Following on from the Constitution is the Bill of Rights which are the first ten Amendments to the Constitution further elucidating the natural rights of the individual members of the nation. Other amendments followed over the years to enunciate and clarify the application of the principles of the Declaration and the Constitution in the historical life of the nation.
This is my understanding of the source of the legitimacy of the Constitution. I am not a lawyer or a judge but I can read and understand plain English. This was the intent of the men who established the United States of America, that ordinary citizens could understand and apply their founding principles and thereby hold the officials of their government to account. This is also the purpose of the Ron Paul Revolution, to restore these documents and these principles to the People.
Last edited by Jeremiah; 01-12-2008 at 05:52 AM.
"The solution to our problems is not more paternalism, laws, decrees, and controls, but the restoration of liberty and free enterprise, the restoration of incentives, to let loose the tremendous constructive energies of 300 million Americans." Henry Hazlitt
This guy is a troll. Stop feeding him.
Note the thread title. This is evolving into an interesting discussion.
Follow my blog at http://tirelessagorist.blogspot.com/
Current commentary from a libertarian/voluntaryist/agorist perspective.
Consistent Candidate - with Chainspell
2007
Ron Paul Landslide by Jake Kellen - Constitution Mix
The vision of the helpful and protective state is the most pervasive and counter-productive ideology in the world today.
I find trolling threads to be good opportunities to educate through calm logical debate.
rewritten history with armies of their crooks - invented memories, did burn all the books... Mark Knopfler
I can't believe you asked that but since you did, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
The method of answering your question, I suppose, depends on where you are headed with this.
Your end goal may be to say that the Constitution has no legitimate authority, therefore the federal government is not bound by it. If so, then my response would be that the Constitution is what gives the federal government its legitimate authority. Without the Constitution, there is no federal government.
Or you may be heading towards the other side, which is that the Constitution, like other contracts, can only bind those that have voluntarily taken part in it, and that the "limits" implied on the people by the Constitution (powers that the federal government has) do not apply to those of us living today. If this is where you're headed, then the answer is a bit more complex.
But the short answer is this. The original 13 states agreed to the Constitution, and each new state entering into the union thereafter has agreed to it, so the Constitution is binding upon the states to give the federal government the powers that are specifically enumerated.
Starting from a clean slate, anarchy (which doesn't mean chaos, it simply means no government), the people endow the states with certain powers, and the states use some of that authority to endow the federal government with far fewer powers. This last process manifest itself in the form of the Constitution.
Bravo!
Cliff's Notes even. I love it. I want to publish it!
rewritten history with armies of their crooks - invented memories, did burn all the books... Mark Knopfler
Because some (read most) federal laws are unconstitutional... in other words, federal drug laws are unconstitutional, while the federal governement has jurisdiction over immigration,
Good point, but still, why not leave it up to the states to decide on immigration. This is a stupid argument, of course, but i still am curious what arguments may be made for or against it.
Well, the best argument IS that it's a stupid argument, but if you can't use that one, point out that the Constitution guarantees us free passage between states, so allowing states to set immigration policy would allow one state to effectively set the policy for all states.
Follow my blog at http://tirelessagorist.blogspot.com/
Current commentary from a libertarian/voluntaryist/agorist perspective.
Consistent Candidate - with Chainspell
2007
Ron Paul Landslide by Jake Kellen - Constitution Mix
The vision of the helpful and protective state is the most pervasive and counter-productive ideology in the world today.
Because that would have the effect of militarizing the borders between the states, something of forefathers sought to avoid. Besides, it is the duty of the national gov't to defend the national border, even if that border also happens to be a state border.
Alright, no Confederates are to be pardoned for the drug crimes. Oh waitaminute... that batch of lies bundled as a Drug War wasn't inflicted on "We the People" back then.
I suppose - if you want to be a dick about it - your argument might preclude President Paul from pardoning women, blacks, and Indians along with white men. But don't you think it's better for our candidate to exonerate all victims of this ridiculous farce equally?
Troll alert, don't bump, search all his posts, all anti-paul. he's trying to stir the pot.
Anti-Paul? I thnk Paul's obviously the best candidate by far, and all the other candidates are monsters. I'm not pro-constitution though, so naturally I have some questions.
Dr. Paul is running as the champion of the Constitution. Surely it's fair to ask why he thinks it should have authority, no?
I can't believe none of you legal experts in 5 pages has come up with the right answer.
The Presidental pardon power outlined in Article II, Section 2 is virtually unlimited. Two ways it is limited are the he can't pardon people who have been impeached and he can only pardon US citizens.
By the way presidents can pardon people wholesale. The pardons by President Washington of the Whiskey Rebels were challenged to the supreme court and they upheld the power of the president to pardon classes of people in US v. Klein.
Ok I read them all and there was some great replies but I would have to bet this is the best answer so far.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us