Board 8 > Freedom, Liberty, Ron Paul - The Topic [no wars] [no income tax] [no TSA]

(+) Yeah! (+)

--
Genesis does what Nintendon't
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7nsBoqJ6s8

Pretty good message, although it doesn't answer any of the big questions.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/social-358501-security-congress.html

Social Security: Even more terrible than you previously imagined.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Things keynesians actually believe:



--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

From the frontpage:

http://www.gamespot.com/news/valve-hires-economist-to-study-virtual-currency-6382690

I'm sure hiring a Greek economist will work out really well!

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul-wins-iowa-caucuses-2012-6

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

From: SmartMuffin | #455

From the frontpage:

http://www.gamespot.com/news/valve-hires-economist-to-study-virtual-currency-6382690

I'm sure hiring a Greek economist will work out really well!

They prob hired him to figure out what NOT to do

Also, I've noticed recently how almost none of the left's attacks on Romney would work on RP. It's like the republicans are trying their hardest to lose.

--
foolmo
at work

Also, I've noticed recently how almost none of the left's attacks on Romney would work on RP. It's like the republicans are trying their hardest to lose.

I've been saying this for months <_<

--
From his looks Magus is Macho Man Randy Savage as an anime zombie. The black wind howls, and one of you will snap into a Slim Jim ooh yeeeah! -sonicblastpunch

Romney is so similar to Obama, it's surprising the left bothers to attack him at all >_>

From: Mr Lasastryke | #459

Romney is so similar to Obama, it's surprising the left bothers to attack him at all >_>

Keeping the illusion of choice going is absolutely vital to the interests of BOTH parties.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=027B452F-8238-40EB-8DAE-7176BA2DE739

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Nigel Farage is so awesome. He's like Ron Paul, except willing to openly mock his opponents right to their faces.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Well worth the time to watch this. Absolutely amazing that the left doesn't give a **** about any of this.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

That article about Obama not enforcing the law: I thought that's been done for ages? That's the power the Constitution gives the president, to enforce the laws. If the framers wanted Congress to enforce the law, they would have given Congress that power instead.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

But that's just the thing, the President is directed to enforce the law. Not enforce the parts of it he likes and ignore the rest.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

If enforcing the law means nothing more than "do whatever Congress says" then the framers need not have attached any importance to the office of President at all. The way I see it, as long as the President is not enforcing laws that don't exist, everything is fine.

The Constitution seeks to protect the citizens from the government. It does this by requiring all 3 branches of government to do something before the government can do something to a citizen. The legislature must pass a law, the president must enforce it, and the courts must agree with the president. We get extra protection that way.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

An interesting idea. I'm not going to say that you're totally wrong, only that this is never how presidential power has been interpreted ever, and it sets a pretty dangerous precedent. Giving the president power to unilaterally ignore any law of his choosing is the equivalent of a line-item veto, and then some.

If this power existed, why would Romney be talking about repealing Obamacare or granting waivers from it? Can't he just say "Elect me President and I will refuse to enforce Obamacare."

For that matter, couldn't Ron Paul say "Elect me President and I will refuse to enforce the 16th amendment, the civil rights act, the social security act, the sherman antitrust act, all laws prohibiting drug use, etc."

It doesn't make much sense to give the President unilateral power to ignore any law he chooses, but ZERO power to legislate. But given that such an arrangement would certainly benefit those who favor freedom a lot more than those who favor government regulation, I can't say I wouldn't take it.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

It's something that would have made a lot more sense back before FDR and the extreme expansion of the size of government. For most of our history, most enforcement of the laws was not carried out by the federal government but rather by private citizens (through civil lawsuits) or state or local governments. Laws are not meaningless even if the President chooses to ignore them as long as those people can still enforce them.

As far as constitutionality goes, my understanding is that it is and has been held to be legitimate. Refusal to prosecute, for instance, is always okay. If you selectively prosecute (say, you charge minority kids with felonies for cheating in school but not white kids), that can be grounds for voiding all the prosecutions. Refusal to file a civil suit is similarly okay- I don't have to sue even if I have a valid cause of action. So at least as far as the President's refusal to enforce amounts to "we will not file any cases in court" it's legitimate.

Your example with Ron Paul dismantling the income tax by executive fiat is interesting. I could be wrong, but I don't think that's really been tested in court before. The fundamental principle of separation of powers is that branches of governments cannot issue orders to each other. It's like how Congress cannot order states to serve as tax collectors for the federal government, but Congress can pass laws banning states from interfering with the IRS.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

For most of our history, most enforcement of the laws was not carried out by the federal government but rather by private citizens (through civil lawsuits) or state or local governments. Laws are not meaningless even if the President chooses to ignore them as long as those people can still enforce them.

Right. The reason this case is clear political pandering is that Obama could have easily achieved the same goal in secret. They could have made the decision and simply not made a big deal about it and ordered all the people high enough up to keep quiet and whatnot.

For the record though, the federal government is CURRENTLY suing the state of Arizona for making its own immigration law, under the logic that immigration is the federal government's business and therefore the state cannot enforce it. Arizona's defense is "we are only helping you enforce the law you already have on the books." It would be interesting for the federal government to simultaneously declare that they can choose not to enforce immigration laws AND that the states cannot get involved in any way whatsoever.

The fundamental principle of separation of powers is that branches of governments cannot issue orders to each other. It's like how Congress cannot order states to serve as tax collectors for the federal government, but Congress can pass laws banning states from interfering with the IRS.

Well, there's the famous Andrew Jackson quote: "The Supreme Court has made its decision, now let them enforce it." This quote is generally understood by both the left AND right to be a disgusting attack on the judicial branch and a completely unconstitutional usurpation of powers. Are you saying you agree with Jackson here?

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Well, there's the famous Andrew Jackson quote: "The Supreme Court has made its decision, now let them enforce it." This quote is generally understood by both the left AND right to be a disgusting attack on the judicial branch and a completely unconstitutional usurpation of powers. Are you saying you agree with Jackson here?

The Supreme Court developed all the doctrine about branches of government not giving orders to each other (or to states). But naturally it doesn't like the same doctrine being applied to itself.

Though there is still a distinction here based on action/inaction. Court orders are obviously dominant when telling the executive that he cannot do something, or to stop doing something. But it's not so clear when/if there is a court order telling the executive affirmatively to do something. For example, if a court rules that you do not owe the IRS money, the IRS has to stop collective from you. But if a court rules you do owe the IRS more money, can they order the IRS to collect it from you? What if due to budget cuts from an RP presidency, the whole IRS was dismantled? Could a court order the President to go out and hire people? Seems to me, probably not.

For the record though, the federal government is CURRENTLY suing the state of Arizona for making its own immigration law, under the logic that immigration is the federal government's business and therefore the state cannot enforce it. Arizona's defense is "we are only helping you enforce the law you already have on the books." It would be interesting for the federal government to simultaneously declare that they can choose not to enforce immigration laws AND that the states cannot get involved in any way whatsoever.

It's certainly ironic. I wouldn't say without merit though, either legally or for giving the people as much protection from government as possible.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Well, I would say that the Constitution does make it pretty clear that the President's JOB is to enforce the laws that Congress passes. All of them. Whether he likes them or not. He has the freedom to determine how best to enforce them, but not to simply refuse to do so.

Now, as to "Well what are they going to do about it?" that gets a bit trickier. A President can only be impeached for "high crimes or misdemeanors," and I'm not sure mere "dereliction of duty" or whatever you want to call it would qualify as that. PERHAPS the fact that he took an oath to uphold the constitution and faithfully execute the office of President, that he would clearly be violating, could be construed as some form of perjury?

Ultimately, the responsibility would fall on the voters to refuse to elect someone who refuses to properly execute the office, but our culture has become so stupidly politicized into the left/right paradigm that such things literally do not matter to the overwhelming majority of the population.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

I would think dereliction of duty is exactly what high crimes and misdemeanors is supposed to refer to. But as a practical matter, it's not going to happen unless one party holds 2/3 of the Senate. There's no case law on this, because only 2 Presidents have been impeached, so the court that would try a President has only been convened twice.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Operation Twist extended aw yeah.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Of course this would take place in DC.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Now, as to "Well what are they going to do about it?" that gets a bit trickier. A President can only be impeached for "high crimes or misdemeanors," and I'm not sure mere "dereliction of duty" or whatever you want to call it would qualify as that. PERHAPS the fact that he took an oath to uphold the constitution and faithfully execute the office of President, that he would clearly be violating, could be construed as some form of perjury?

Dereliction of duty is a serious charge when brought against a mere grunt in the military. Why would it be any less serious when brought against the Commander in Chief?

--
From his looks Magus is Macho Man Randy Savage as an anime zombie. The black wind howls, and one of you will snap into a Slim Jim ooh yeeeah! -sonicblastpunch

When I think of "high crimes and misdemeanors" I'm thinking of like, things you can get executed for. Dereliction of duty is serious, but not THAT serious.

Also, your logic is completely flawed. Everyone knows that the "seriousness" of your offense is inversely proportional with your rank. That's why a bunch of E-5s went to jail for Abu Grahib, but no officers ever did. And if officers don't get prosecuted, you can bet your ass politicians won't. Remember when Bill Clinton perjured himself multiple times in front of Congress and the American people and got away with it scot-free?

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

http://www.facebook.com/JudgeNapolitano/posts/10151108303335802

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Well, the Constitution gives treason and bribery as examples of high crimes and misdemeanors. I dunno how dereliction of duty compares with those- seems it covers a pretty wide range of things.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Treason is a pretty huge deal, in the military you can technically still be executed for it during a time of war.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Oh, treason is definitely the ultimate as far as severity of crimes go. But bribery isn't nearly as bad, and depending on what dereliction of duty means, it could fit with that.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Dereliction of duty simply means "failure to properly complete duties assigned (assuming the duties assigned are reasonable).

Like, sleeping while you're on watch is dereliction of duty. It's one of those things that's kind of a big deal in the military, but in the civilian world, it's not really a CRIME. You just get fired.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Goldman Sachs is advising that we short US stocks. Time to buy?

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Tom mad.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

So, is Gary Johnson gonna be on the ballot for the Libertarian party?

--
Genesis does what Nintendon't
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7nsBoqJ6s8

I assume so. He won their convention. Why wouldn't he?

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2163658/PETER-HITCHENS-Theres-moral-tax--feel-free-avoid-it.html

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

I was just wondering. So the next topic should be "Freedom, Liberty, Gary Johnson - The Topic".

--
Genesis does what Nintendon't
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7nsBoqJ6s8

No. Gary Johnson has a lot to, shall we say, improve upon. There was a recent interview with him and he basically didn't even know who Rothbard was.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

True, but lingering around Ron Paul, who isn't even gonna be on the ballot in 2012, doesn't seem healthy for the liberty movement. We need to get people more interested in Gary Johnson.

There's also a lot of people who are "scared" of Ron Paul or whatever, for being "racist" or "extremist" or whatever. I think Gary Johnson is our nice clean slate that we should all work on.

I love Ron Paul too, and never compromising, and all that, but we might have to move on.

--
Genesis does what Nintendon't
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7nsBoqJ6s8

People aren't "afraid" of Gary Johnson because he is way too soft and could easily be molded into an establishment democrat

--
_foolmo_
'Most people at least try to say something funny. See foolmo's post as an example.' - The Real Truth

I have absolutely NO issues with anyone voting for Gary Johnson.

However, Ron Paul is the face of this movement until he decides not to be.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/sunscreen-ban-schools-angers-parents-16637760

lol government

You'd never see this sort of nonsense at a private school.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

awwwww yeah STUtistics

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/blog/stu/please-don%E2%80%99t-print-this-blog/

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

From: SmartMuffin | #492

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/sunscreen-ban-schools-angers-parents-16637760

lol government

You'd never see this sort of nonsense at a private school.

Ya go my California

--
http://img.imgcake.com/nio/bokbokbokpngur.png
Mr Caffeine? He was awesome. - Ayuyu

That's weird, I definitely had sunscreen at my school as a kid. Maybe things changed or it just wasn't enforced.

Also, president Jimmy Carter drops the truth:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/25/opinion/americas-shameful-human-rights-record.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/opinion/17carter.html

I wonder how he would feel about the current state of his Department of Energy and Education

--
_foolmo_
'and out of the blue and completely unprovoked came foolmo and his insult' - Anagram

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Oh man, almost time for a new topic of Freedom and Liberty. I'm so hype.

--
PSN: JDTAY87

gary johnson

--
oh yeah. i am a dog. i smoke cigarettes and vote democratic because i am classy - the dog
http://i.imgur.com/x4Tma.jpg