Everything Is Unconstitutional!

Submitted by: kitteh9lives 5 years ago in

According to Ron Paul, Medicare, paper money and nearly everything else is unconstitutional.
There are 98 comments:
Male 21
Crakr wiki or google `federal reserve note`. Learn the difference between a gold certificate,or silver. The. Tell me I`m wrong..... :)
0
Reply
Male 21
@carkr you are smoking some good ass dope man... :) you need to learn more.
0
Reply
Male 871
its scary thats hes running for president!
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Aisle indeed.
0
Reply
Male 3,631
Aisle madest, Aisle! I would have never pegged you for a Ron Paul supporter though - Kudos!
0
Reply
Male 7,378
[quote]Addendum: I`m arguing that Paul is insane and if ever in a governing capacity would shock even his most ardent defenders.[/quote] ------------
You give a Paul Presidency too much power. He`ll merely be 1/3 of co-equal branches of government. Abortion will remain legal. Board of education won`t go away but our war mongering ways will end. This is huge seller to all the anti-war people on both sides of the isle.
0
Reply
Male 3,631
Zira, I`m sorry for having to chime in here but have you ever tried looking at it this way - instead of mega-corporations bribing politicians behind closed doors you`ll have them contributing on Public record, and at the same time enable smaller incorporated entities that may not have had a voice before to contribute their opinion in a more powerful way on issues that may have to do with things like, you know, preserving small business in America? Or how `bout the impact of progressive tax brackets on the "rich," who many Americans don`t realize also encompasses earners in the meager 6-figure range (an income level most Americans should be encouraged to aspire to in a genuinely entrepreneurial society). Sounds pretty transparent to me, doesn`t it? In fact, it sounds pretty becoming of this sacred trust you call America`s democracy.

Not every corporation has an animated mascot, you know.
0
Reply
Female 2,228
The Michelin Man is an entity that has no physical existence and apparently Wendy does, but Wendy is also a single human. A single human with a single vote.

You cannot take a single human`s vote and incorporate it, you can`t give a single human`s vote to a group who already have individual enfranchisement and who hide behind a for profit abstraction to do it.

I`m aware of the proper use of the term Democracy, I use it here in the colloquial sense. Just as it is not necessary to always say "Parliamentary Democracy" whenever speaking of Britain, it is not necessary to always say "Democratic Republic" when speaking of the US.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
QueenZira: I can`t prove that the Michelin man is real, But Wendy Thomas is a real life person, Link

But I don`t get were you accuse me of supporting any effort to "subvert the 1 man 1 vote principle at the heart of our system", as you put it.

We aren`t a pure democracy, we are a constitutional republic. The term democracy is very loosely interpreted these days, even North Korea calls itself a `democracy`, but we all know that`s very far from the truth.
0
Reply
Female 2,228
Crakr I do get the warm fuzzies whenever we agree on something, no matter how rarely that is. However *corporations are not people,* we can`t subvert the 1 man 1 vote principle at the heart of our system. Entities that are born in a patent office, exist only on paper, have deeper pockets equaling a louder megaphone than anyone else and never die, are not good stewards of a democracy. Prove to me that the Michelin Man and the Wendy`s girl are as flesh and blood as you and I and then we`ll talk.

In fact we`ve been through this particular dark stretch of road before, it was called the Gilded Age and it sucked.
0
Reply
Male 3,631
After watching the video - I`m not sure about Commerce and Labor, and might even go so far as to consider the dept of Energy, depending entirely of course on its parameters and scope of influence. But honest to goodness, who in their right mind would go to all the trouble of defending those numerous other remaining drains on our self-determination and prosperity? Who`s that much in love with their income tax?
0
Reply
Male 3,631
Yep - nothing shocking about those two headline examples, they easily fit the `bill.` Just wanted to get that out of my system before I watch the video.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
i05fr3d: The Federal Reserve does NOT print money, they buy money that is printed by The Bureau of Engraving and Printing and The US Mint.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
QueenZira: [quote]I`m arguing that Paul is insane and if ever in a governing capacity would shock even his most ardent defenders.[/quote]

That is THE smartest thing I`ve ever heard you say, and i agree with you on that.

But as for your fear of the people and trust of the government, both are misplaced and unwise.
0
Reply
Male 526
he reminds of of Perdue - the chicken guy
0
Reply
Male 21
Federal Reserve notes according to the constitution is unconstitutional. Money was supposed to be only printed by the US Government, not the Federal Reserve. Plus with the massive amount of loans, $10 is like only having $1 :D
0
Reply
Female 2,228
Tomato tomatoe, I`m just interested in keeping it from becoming a Democrazy. (The founders did see ancient Greek style direct democracy as mob rule though, good eye AJ).
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"Our Democracy is a sacred trust."

This is not a democracy. It is a Democratic Republic. If it were a true Democracy, human rights would be meaningless if the majority deemed it so. (See California and their gay marriage votes. All 3 of them.)
0
Reply
Male 303
A wolf in sheep`s clothing? Have you seen his voting record? Is it bad that he consistently does what he says and says what he does?

If you think he is a wolf, he is at least a wolf in wolf`s clothing.

Oh and I hope your right, but I believe you are not.
0
Reply
Female 2,228
I won`t call you crazy, it`s true, we`ve seen a great grabbing of power as of late. Ever since 9/11. But these things have a tendency to happen in American history, and in every struggle previous we`ve emerged victorious with our Democracy intact. We can do it again today. (Plutocrats being what resulted from Citizens United).

And again, Paul is not as he seems, not that he has any real chance at the nomination but still, there goes a wolf in sheep`s clothing.
0
Reply
Male 303
Zira: I like your attitude. As a "tinfoil hat paranoid" person, I believe that power has been taken slowly for years. Legislation has been passed and not necessarily used openly (even stuff that didn`t pass, it`s freaky that our "representatives" think this stuff up.) When the economic reset happens, lots of people will lose money. There may be civil unrest and that would be the perfect opportunity to start using these acquired powers and executive orders. (I have read enough primary sources to convince me of this.)

go ahead. call me crazy

And what do you mean give away to a plutocrat? The plutocrats already have much of the power... Ron Paul would cripple them.
0
Reply
Female 2,228
Addendum: I`m arguing that Paul is insane and if ever in a governing capacity would shock even his most ardent defenders.

There is so much more to a complicated document like the Constitution that can`t be sloganeered in a minute and a half.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
The Supreme Court is doing what the Supreme Court does. None of which is unconstitutional. Your parroting Newt Gingrich and I wonder what laws specifically Newt wants overturned. I doubt he has a problem with the Citizens United decision which we the people will eventually change. In the mean time abortion is legal, and you have to deal.
0
Reply
Female 2,228
Conservatives have, for a generation cultivated a distrust in government that goes way beyond anything the founders respected.

I believe in Government`s ability to work for the people and not against the people because #1. of the truly wonderful heritage our founders left for us in the Constitution, (it really is a great system) and #2. Because in this country the government is US. We The People. Why would you ever want to give that responsibility away to some shadowy plutocrat not accountable to The People?

Our Democracy is a sacred trust.
0
Reply
Male 303
Also, what are you arguing? That Ron Paul is wrong?

Previous post:The constitution grants powers of government, not rights. Rights are intrinsic. The principal of enumerated powers is what our country was founded on.

That is why Ron Paul says all this stuff is unconstitutional. The constitution does not grant the government the power to do those things.
0
Reply
Male 303
Ok. Well drat. Keep it all original except slavery.

Zira, you seem smart/educated. Why do you trust government so much? One thing I DO know about the founders, is that they DID NOT trust gov. and for good reason. The more power you give them, the worse it gets. History proves this.
0
Reply
Female 2,228
In other words Illegal my cat`s saggy fat rear-the first Constitutional delegates turned themselves inside out to ensure that the southern states wouldn`t freak out over the Feds coming for their slaves.
0
Reply
Female 2,228
Slavery was a way of life in the time of the founders and the Constitution reflects that, going so far as to define black people as 3/5ths of a Human Being.
0
Reply
Male 303
Queen Zira: Slavery is an easy one. All people are endowed with the same inalienable rights. Black people are people, thus slavery is illegal.

In fact, slavery was illegal in the first place. They just had a different definition of "people".

Kinda like there are different definitions of "infringement"
0
Reply
Male 303
QueenZira: Everyone always goes to the nukes... IDK what to say about that. I wish they didn`t exist.

But despite how it has been interpreted. It says, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Infringe: to limit or reduce someone’s legal rights or freedom

Pretty black and white. Despite the Supreme Court`s decision to allow infringement.
0
Reply
Female 2,228
Furthermore, I *still* haven`t yet received a decent accounting of how all you originalist folks would tackle the issue of Slavery.

I kinda figured that one would be a biggie, but I suppose everyone here is just totally OK with lines and lines of chained suffering humanity. My bad.
0
Reply
Male 546
Of Course! I must be uninformed. But now feel that I have permission to have my opinion.
0
Reply
Female 2,228
Aj, the Constitution`s amendments *are* voted on by the people ala Congress.

And there is little danger of "enslaving our politics to the concerns of the day" because the founders made so many nifty tricks and traps for aspiring kings it`s not even funny. Actually, this concern coming from the mouth of an Originalist is pretty funny really, considering you want to turn the Constitution into a 18th century anachronism.

Qualityjay, once again see "unenumerated powers". Civics people, Civics.
0
Reply
Female 2,228
Crakr, *that* is an idiosyncratic view of American jurisprudence.

I`m consistently surprised to see "conservatives," people who claim to love history and tradition so much, consistently show so much contempt toward it when it comes to American laws and traditions.

Or to put in modern phraseology- I`m surprised to see all the constant "Butthurt" about American ways of doing things all the time.

0
Reply
Female 2,228
Qualityjay, what you proffer is a modern, rather idiosyncratic interpretation of the 2nd amendment. In the past it has been interpreted differently.

Interpreting it thusly today reveals some thorny issues like those mini nukes I mentioned earlier-if every Tom, Dick and Harry is to be armed pound for pound to keep up with the US government, then are mini nukes acceptable?

Personally I kinda like the idea of not being vaporized by Jeddidiah Q. Hillbilly living in some remote log cabin somewhere.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
madest: Amendments don`t make the constitution a `living document`, sometimes judicial decisions do make it seem so.

The supreme court granted itself powers it didn`t have in 1803 with Marbury vs. Madison, namely the power of invalidating laws, which some would say supersedes it`s original mandate. But even revered decisions like the one above can be overturned. Court decisions are not law, they are interpretations, the law making should be left to the congress.
0
Reply
Male 1,397
Ha HAAA! That`ll show that `commonsense-talking` piece of poo! God, but I orgasm over the concept of Government taking over EVERYTHING....oh my god! Imagine getting drated from here to eternity!?
0
Reply
Male 303
madest: The constitution grants powers of government, not rights. Rights are intrinsic. The principal of enumerated powers is what our country was founded on.

That is why Ron Paul says all this stuff is unconstitutional. The constitution does not grant the government the power to do those things.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
The basic framework of the constitution is what matters. The amendments are the interpretations of that framework. Some of them should be repealed, because they were put in place by people who were not seeking the best interest of this country.

Amendments should be voted on by the people.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
OutWest, You must not be aware that your rights were added to the constitution through amendments. So your love of the term "living document" is justified.
0
Reply
Male 546
I love the term, "Living Document". Isn`t that really code for we can interpret it to suit our ideas and opinions regardless.

I thought the Constitution was meant to protect our rights and freedom? Am I wrong? Or was it really meant to enslave us in the popular politics of the day?
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Yep. If we don`t like our government officials, we are supposed to be able to say "drat YOU! GET OUT!" and replace their asses.

I guess that changed.
0
Reply
Male 303
QueenZira. The founders intended the population to have every weapon the military has. This was so the people could keep their government in check. I remember seeing ads from some old 1930s magazine in which you could literally buy a military grade artillery cannon. Now people freak if you`re seen with an AK :/

Ad for 20MM anti-tank rifle 1960.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Amendments make the constitution a living document. If amendments to the constitution were unconstitutional then CJ and AJ would be right.
0
Reply
Male 438
Ron Paul is definitely correct in his assertions that a vast majority of the things the modern federal government does are unconstitutional.

For example the vast majority of the Federal government is established because of something called the commerce clause.

What this means is that for example the federal government can enact a law that says that killing endangered species is wrong. The constitutional authority for making this law would be that by killing endangered species you will somehow effect interstate commerce. Such as by making people sad which deeply affects their desire to buy playstations. This is quite literally the authority for many laws.

In fact the authority behind a large number of the things the government does can be literally summarized by adding X is the law "because it will make people sad and want to buy fewer playstations".

The problem is that this authority is insane and nobody would agree it is in any way relat
0
Reply
Male 1,045
And the sad thing is, people are taking him seriously.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Maybe not unconstitutional, but definitely counterproductive and a drain on the economy, and should be abolished nonetheless.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
QZ, when the 2nd Amendment was adopted, the standard-issue weapon for the infantry was a musket, while the typical citizen-farmer owned a long rifle which was more accurate and had a longer effective range and a faster rate of fire. In other words, the people were actually BETTER armed than the military!
0
Reply
Male 400
Ron Paul thinks the government should stay out of people`s lives. I couldn`t possibly agree more. He`s got my vote
0
Reply
Female 2,228
Originalists, being gifted with psychic abilities and therefore able to read the founder`s long dead minds, *know* what it means. Obviously, the original arms, you see the world does emphatically *not* change in an originalist`s mind.

And just for future reference, we *do* have limits on what kinds of arms you can legally have believe it or not, among those prohibited are Cannons, Mortars, and mini nukes.
0
Reply
Female 2,228
Aj an amendment prohibited slavery, black people being worth 3/5ths of a person is in the articles of the Constitution.

Civics. It`s not hard.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Also, as far as the gun reference, do you really believe that they didn`t think the world would advance technologically? If they intended it to be 18th century muskets, they would have said so. Instead, they said "right to bear arms". Arms can mean a gun, or a slingshot, or a knife, etc.....
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Slavery and lessening a black man`s social worth are AMENDMENTS. i.e. NOT in the original document.
0
Reply
Female 2,228
Arguments for an Originialist interpretation of the Constitution are ridiculous for a couple reasons, most notably:

1. American jurisprudence is not (gaspeth) set up in the same way a fundie reads the bible. See AMENDMENTS.

2. An Originalist interpretation leads you to some truly dubious beliefs for example, Slavery being legal and black people being equal to exactly 3/5ths of a person. (Not that those ideas don`t titillate the Rep. base). And I`d just love to see all those 2nd amendment nuts reaction when you tell them the only kind of gun they`re allowed to own is an 18th century smoothbore rifle/ single shot pistol, since after all those are the only guns the founders intended it for...
0
Reply
Male 645
destroy the federal reserve!
0
Reply
Male 15,184
If he looks like he`s getting elected, I can see the CIA and SS taking him out.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
AJ is correct, The constitution is not a "Living document", and was never intended to be.
0
Reply
Male 6,737
Americans.
0
Reply
Male 1,010
When you are saying that something is "unconstitutional" you are not really saying much. People use phrases like "in breach of" or "in violation" - of certain constitutional rights or rules, but when you say that something is "unconstitutional", you are just saying that you enterpret the constitution in a certain way, and how you feel about it. Pretty pointless thing to say, really - but on the other hand, Paul has an image to take care of i guess :-)
0
Reply
Male 303
gerry: he is. He has even said that the only way for him to possibly be elected is to get the republican nomination. People are too dumb to look past the two candidates the media chooses.
0
Reply
Male 303
Ron Paul is definitely electable. The corporate media / government alliance wants you to believe he is not. Even if he wasn`t: vote for who you want, not against who you don`t want.
0
Reply
Male 39,558

Ron Paul is a libertarian. Yes, he sais he`s Republican, but everything out of his mouth is the Libertarian Party schpeel.
0
Reply
Male 662
@auburnjunky Amendments...look them up.
0
Reply
Male 662
I hate when people hate things they don`t know. They call it a "living document" cause you can change it. It is not the same it was 200 years ago. When we talk about the Constitution we mean the Amendments as well. As far as taxes, they are constitutional. Xpekt, you part right. This is not the first government that they US had. For about 10 years we had a different government with no taxes. The 16th amendment gave us federal income tax. Thank you for playing.
0
Reply
Male 303
auburnjunky: lillian is right. and by national defense I think you mean national offense. Why keep bombing these dirt poor 3rd world countries? Our military is built to stop armys, not to hunt individuals.
0
Reply
Male 303
"All powers not delegated to the Federal Government (by the constitution) are retained by the states."
Article 1 Section 8 lists the powers delegated to the Federal government.

All of these programs have not been delegated to the Federal government. He is right that those things are unconstitutional. A state could possibly legally implement them, but not the Fed gov. We did not have any of these 100 years ago.

0
Reply
Male 10,338
Living Document = "Hey. I am a leader who has a tyrannical agenda. I will change the constitution to meet my political needs, and drating rule this bitch!

US Constitution (Written as is. It means what it says) = "Well I wish I could change this country, and turn it into a socialist mecca, squashing all liberty and human rights, but I can`t, because the US CONSTITUTION IS AWESOME!"
0
Reply
Male 10,440
I take back the first thing I said there, I didn`t catch him saying the list of departments was unconstitutional. I still think your constitution should be changed though...
0
Reply
Male 10,440
[quote]I HATE it when retarded people call the constitution a "Living Document". Every time I hear that I want to punch them in the head.[/quote]
Sounds like you`re describing the bible, zealot.

IMO the simple fact that it`s old is enough reason to have it rewritten. Good thing I don`t live in the states.
0
Reply
Female 4,359
and?
0
Reply
Male 260
Ron Paul is SPOT ON RonPaul 2012
This guy is a genius. He is the reason I am voting for the first time in 20 yrs
0
Reply
Male 10,440
That last bit was wrong. He wants to get rid of those departments, he didn`t outright say those departments were unconstitutional.

That bit of inaccuracy taints the message. Not only that but maybe he`s right. Maybe you need to change your constitution... join the rest of us here in the 21st century.
0
Reply
Female 2,228



1,2,3 FREE BANANAS FREE BANANAS FREE BANANAS!!!
0
Reply
Male 197
If you dont vote for Ron Paul, I will find you.
0
Reply
Male 272
spot on.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
No Lillian. He is hated by the conservatives because he is weak on national defense. If he were president, a bad case of the crabs could kill us all.
0
Reply
Female 2,674
Ron Paul is hated by the right because he doesn`t bend over for corporations.
0
Reply
Male 4,593
auburnjunky, I`m with you 100%. I HATE it when retarded people call the constitution a "Living Document". Every time I hear that I want to punch them in the head.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
The United States Constitution is not a living document. It means what it says. We do have a supreme court though, who is responsible for interpreting it for us.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Ron Paul is loved by the left because they know he is unelectable.
0
Reply
Male 373
@Lillian: You are correct, the constitution was designed to progress with society. What you don`t appear to appreciate is that there are specific rules for altering the constitution -- none of which were followed when FDR set up Social Security and LBJ Medicare.
0
Reply
Male 282
The elite must really be $hitting themselves. Their hand picked morons can`t even put a sentence together. Ron doesn`t flip flop on issues and is still talking about the stuff he did when he ran back in 08`. People are waking up!
0
Reply
Male 13
Well , he is right . Our government is too big , governs in ways that is actually against the law . We say nothing about it . He has my support .
0
Reply
Male 1,510
He`s correct. All those items are technically unconstitutional. But this video is supposed to make him look bad? It just solidified my vote for him. Ron Paul 2012! I just donated $20.12. Reset button!
0
Reply
Male 134
Just because he doesn`t believe in conventional government doesn`t make him an anarchist. Income tax didn`t even exist when the United States were founded. It was supposed to be a temporary measure to help with the war, and even then it was 1%.

So sick of modern day politicians who talk about garbage instead of real issues. Ron Paul is a breath of fresh air.
0
Reply
Male 4,593
I`m starting to like this guy.
0
Reply
Male 878
Would he, as president, have the authority to abolish these institutions? If it weren`t for the fact that he would have a briefcase with a big red button in it, I`d be tempted to vote for him just to see what would happen.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Ron Paul is our reset button.
0
Reply
Male 1,526
15 tings are everything?
Also the music sucked.
0
Reply
Male 94
I`m not even a republican/conservative and i still think that video was unfair to him
0
Reply
Male 1,064
unconstitutional=/=evil, he`s just justifying that we have the authority to abolish the stated institutions
0
Reply
Male 17,512
I told you all, that he`s an anarchist. If you still don`t believe me after seeing this video, than shame on you.
0
Reply
Female 2,674
Ron Paul is the type of conservative that doesn`t seem to understand that the constitution was made with the ability to progress with society. IDK about anyone else but I don`t really want to go back to how things were in 1788 o.o

Still my favorite current Republican candidate because at least he isn`t bought by corporations, but he`s got some crazy ideas :x
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Neither is Ron Paul.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
He also locks up during debates, and makes himself look stupid.

I feel the same way you do Jamie, but the problem is, he is no electable.
0
Reply
Male 2,345
ohhh Ronnie, you make me smile!

so um why does everyone ignore the only sane person on the GOP mash-up of crazy, Hunstman? Seriously, I voted for Obama but will vote Huntsman is the GOP can get off their butts and nominate this guy. he is smart, reasonable, great with foreign policy...oh wait, never mind those are all reason the GOP won`t nominate him.
0
Reply
Male 1,399
Just because you`ve been living with a lie, and have grown to love the lie...doesn`t make it less of a lie.
0
Reply
Female 8,043
Link: Everything Is Unconstitutional! [Rate Link] - According to Ron Paul, Medicare, paper money and nearly everything else is unconstitutional.
0
Reply