Thread: Educate Me, Ron Paul Fanatics

Educate Me, Ron Paul Fanatics


Supporters of GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul seem not to want to hear any assessment of their hero. Their anger must be addressed once more.



Ron Paul supporters seem to have the thinnest of skins about any critique of their hero by anyone who is not a fellow fanatic, as I learned from their reactions to a post I made recently. Hopefully, this article will toughen their skin just a tad.

I never wrote in my post "Ron Paul is no Savior" that Paul didn't make any statements about the constitutional fiasco surrounding the 2000 presidential election.
When he did make a statement Dec. 4, 2000, he only attacked Florida Supreme Court judges for making a recount decision he didn't like, raising the false canard that judges "legislate from the bench" when they rule for an argument conservatives dislike. The great SCOTUS Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said (will paraphrase here since I haven't seen the quote in several years) that "an untrained mind will assume a concept it doesn't like is unconstitutional, while a concept it does like is automatically deemed constitutional." In his statement, Paul claimed the Bush v Gore decision violated state election law and the Constitution, but never said how. Incidentally, since the case is titled "Bush v. Gore" not "Gore v. Bush" it proves Bush was the one pushing the issue to the US Supreme Court, not Gore, as righties falsely claim.

I wrote that, "I don't recall Paul coming out to oppose George Bush's ascendancy to the presidency over the rightful winner in 2000 nor do I remember him siding with John Kerry in the 2004 election when this nation had its best chance of ridding itself of the George W. Bush cancer." Making a statement in opposition to a recount order by the Florida court, as Paul did, and opposing the ascendancy by Bush without a thorough recount, as I wrote, is a distinction missed by Paulites and Paulettes who challenged the statement and apparently can't read competently.

First off; let's make one correction to common knowledge and get it out of the way. The United States Supreme Court didn't make George W. Bush President of the United States. But the Supreme Court did prevent the rightful winner from being President.

The delegates to the Electoral College put Bush into the White House. That is where Paul showed, that by failing to support the rightful winner, he is no constitutionalist and has not the love or understanding for that document that he claims.

Article II of the Constitution says that electors shall meet in their respective states and vote for president. The results shall be forwarded to the US Senate where the president of the Senate shall open the certificates and count the votes in the presence of the senators and representatives. Only then is a President elected.

This is where Paul could have demonstrated his love of the Constitution he and his supports claim he champions. He could have demonstrated constitutional integrity by protesting the illegally secured Florida votes for Bush. He was a member of the House at the counting, but apparently remained silent when he easily could have made a motion to not count Florida's votes until the rightful winner was determined by a legal and thorough recount. He did nothing.

Paul was more than willing to remain silent in order to play partisan Republican politics by installing a totally unfit buffoon of a man to the presidency. Standing up for constitutionalism probably would have done little except demonstrate that Paul cares for the Constitution, as he claims.

But, when bark came to bite we didn't get as much as a "grr" out of Paul, who preferred to put his tail between his legs and slink back to his kennel.

If he really cared about the Constitution he would have been shoulder to shoulder with Laurence Tribe, constitutional professor at Harvard University; Paul Krugman, New York Times columnist, and hundreds of other constitutional experts and scholars protesting this travesty.

In fact, if any Republican would have protested this constitutional subversion, the mini-minded minions of the mainstream media would have picked it up and broadcast it everywhere, would have printed it all front pages, it would have been common information and all would know. The fact that not a single Republican stood up for constitutional integrity indicates there was no concern for the Constitution over a hijacked election.

Most Republicans seem not to care about the Constitution, but it is Paul and his fanatical supporters who claim he champions the Constitution ~ as opposed to the rest of us ~ and is the only presidential candidate capable of restoring the Constitution to its rightful place, and that is why he is singled out for scrutiny. Paul's silence betrayed him.

Dear Paulites and Paulettes, prove me wrong.


======

Thomas Bonsell is a former newspaper editor (in Oregon, New York and Colorado) United States Air Force cryptanalyst and National Security Agency intelligence agent. He became one of American journalism's leading constitutional experts through years of study at Georgetown University Graduate School of Government in Washington, D.C. He is the author of "The Un-Americans: Trashing of the United States Constitution in the American Press", a critique of the mainstream media for ignorance of, or disdain for, our constitutional principles of self-government. He left newspaper work years ago, disgusted at the direction the Fourth Estate -- under the mismanagement of ineffectual, out-of-touch, can't do executives -- was taking away from honest responsible journalism and the observation that there was no place in the mainstream media for a progressive, or liberal, constitutional "expert". Bonsell is an honors graduate of Woodbury College (Los Angeles, California) with a bachelor of business administration degree. He is profiled in Marquis Who's Who in America.

Personal motto: Have brain; will use.
www.opednews.com




This ALIPAC member has posted this entity be it editorial opinion, news article, column, or web creation as information for the General Population (public) only. It is not intended as an endorsement for this candidate by this poster. Its use here has not been anticipated to be used as, or used to discredit any candidate mentioned herewith.

Who really cares? Unless you think that Paul actually had a hand in chad hanging, this whole thing still sounds like a 'sour grapes" liberal.

It's over, Bush's term is almost done. Sheesh.

BUt the next time I see him, I'll ask him for you if I get the chance, ok?

Look, I don't agree with everything Paul has written or said, but who else you got? Hunter has a list of ethics violations, and has too many ties with the military indistrial complex. (Even with that, he's my number 2 guy.) On immigration, nobody else still in the race has anything even close to the platform planks of those two.

That was an interesting read GGA, Thanks. Well I can't add much that wasn't covered in the replies to the original link other than:

Personal motto: Have brain; will use.
On occasion

Just my opinion, but I thought Ron Paul's take was spot on.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=177

December 4, 2000

Activist Courts Threaten Our Liberty
The Judicial Coup Began Decades Ago


The presidential election controversy not surprisingly reached the Florida Supreme Court, which rendered a verdict stunningly at odds with Florida law. Of course both camps in the dispute are guilty of exhibiting a "win at all costs mentality", using teams of lawyers to piously argue against the "injustices"they have suffered. Both are interested only in the final outcome, despite their shameless references to the Constitution and the "rule of law." Even in this atmosphere, however, most Americans still expected the Court to issue an impartial decision based on a rational interpretation of Florida law. It appears, however, that the Court simply ignored the plain language of state voting laws (and the Constitution) and imposed its political will on the people of Florida and the nation as a whole. The decision perhaps is not surprising, however, in light of the trend toward activist courts in our country.

Judicial activism, once decried in politics and the field of law, happens when judges choose to create an outcome rather than follow the laws enacted by the legislature. The legal world once criticized such judges for being "results oriented," which meant they were not doing their job. Most judges used to take pride in zealously maintaining a proper judicial temperament, never allowing personal or political feelings to influence a decision. In short, judges once simply interpreted and applied the law to effect the intentions of the legislature.

Today, however, judges at every level increasingly engage in shaping the law to meet their particular political and social agendas. Liberal/collectivist interests especially have found a sympathetic audience among our federal judges, who have been willing accomplices in crafting liberal legislation and overriding properly enacted state law. Perhaps the most egregious example of judicial legislation is the infamous Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, which created a federal constitutional "right" to abortion out of thin air. While the collectivist agenda is advanced, activist courts have refused to uphold economic due process rights and property rights. The result is a legal landscape where all manner of fabricated social rights are upheld (e.g. entitlements), while true constitutional rights (e.g. gun ownership, religious freedom) are trampled.

The real victim, of course, is the Constitution and our liberty. The Founding Fathers created three coequal branches of government so that federal power never could grow unchecked. Their goal was to safeguard liberty. The judiciary was charged with preserving liberty by overturning laws which violated the Constitution; otherwise its role was to effectuate the intent of Congress. Over the past century, however, the unconstitutional notion of judicial supremacy has emerged in American politics. We have come to view courts as omnipotent superlegislatures which can substitute their wisdom rather than follow the law.

The Florida decision at least brings attention to the unfortunate activist trend; hopefully more Americans will give thought to the proper role of our courts as a result of the presidential election. Liberty cannot be preserved unless each branch of government stays within the confines of its constitutionally authorized powers. The separation of powers created in our Constitution is not an antiquated notion or a rhetorical theory, but rather a critical doctrine which is needed today more than ever.