It is him or Bob Barr. Barr voted for the Patriot act without reading it.
Is Barr for NAFTA and GATT too?
I can vote for Chuck too. He is the best man running (and I would say that even if his "competition" were a whole lot better than McCain and Obama--to say that he is better than them is no great compliment). I would have loved to have seen a ticket with Ron and Chuck, that would have been as good as we could have wanted or hoped for.
I'll prolly end up voting for Baldwin, he seems to be only candidate left that actually has a soul. I guess that's what bothers me about Barr, he always seemed up for grabs.
The way I see it Baldwin is the very best running and I hope he makes it on the ballot where I live. If he doesn't there won't be much use in wasting the gas to go to the polls. I sure won't vote for McCain or Obama.
The way I see it Baldwin is the very best running and I hope he makes it on the ballot where I live. If he doesn't there won't be much use in wasting the gas to go to the polls. I sure won't vote for McCain or Obama.
Baldwin supports The Defense Of Marriage Act and and a national abortion ban. But, he (says he) believes that medical marijuana is a state issue and the feds shouldn't get involved.
Do you believe in a federal DOMA and abortion ban? Will an abortion ban stop abortions or create a black market and a new class of "criminals and border jumpers" just as Prohibition did and federal drug laws have done?
As a Christian pastor it would be incumbent upon him as president to punish anyone who went to Canada for an abortion just as our govt would punish someone who goes there for marijuana now.
Do you support codifying his morality into law and enforcing it with criminal penalties? Why is that preferable to Bush's? There are millions of cops and other "drug warriors" (hooked on asset forfeiture) who'd rather keep marijuana illegal and (forced to choose) keep legal abortion. To hear them tell it, marijuana is deadly and dangerous because that's what their "religion" teaches.
Shouldn't all who'd use the power of the state to enforce their personal beliefs get out of our bodies and out of our lives?
Why is one group of hypocritical kooks preferable to another?
Shouldn't all who'd use the power of the state to enforce their personal beliefs get out of our bodies and out of our lives?
If someone believes, as does Pastor Baldwin, that abortion is murder he would be untrue to his conscience to do otherwise than to oppose it.
I disagree with state intervention on it, but do find abortion to be tantamount to infanticide, and I do not share his particular religious beliefs.
Obviously you feel otherwise about abortion and thus wish to see your views codified.
Abortion is one of those issues that causes strong emotion because for those who oppose it they are opposing what they view as murder, and while you may disagree with that conclusion - given that viewpoint that the anti-abortion movement people have you must admire their commitment to their beliefs.
All governments are founded upon moral beliefs and codes. It is simply a matter of determining which one promotes the greatest good for the greatest number.
Obviously you feel otherwise about abortion and thus wish to see your views codified.
because dawg's against federal codification of abortion doesn't translate into his wanting codification of his views, does it? i believe his position, as is mine, is that abortion should be a state legislation issue and not federal. isn't this Ron Paul's opinion as well?
I was just commenting within the narrow context of the post. As I pointed out I am opposed to Federal Government intervention even though I personally find abortion a repugnant practice. However, I do agree that abortion is not within the limited mandate granted the Feral Government by the Constitution, and I do not believe that the 3/4 majority necessary to pass an amendment outlawing abortion exists. So, to some degree it is a moot point.
Also Ron Paul expressed his opposition to the practice of abortion while still maintaining a Constitutionalist position.
I do not believe that the 3/4 majority necessary to pass an amendment outlawing abortion exists
Perhaps the first order of business should be the passage of an amendment making amendment easier. IMO, the constitution is too hard to change, and, simply on the basis of the fact that the standard deviation of N votes is proportional to sqrt(n), both amendments and override of a veto should be easier. Looking at the initial number of senators the united states had, an override purely by chance was MUCH easier than today. The same chance today would require only 52 or 53 votes. A house override should require only a simple majority. The expansion of the number of senators and representatives has helped make the executive more powerful.
It might not make us any freer, but the state and the lawyers who run it would have less desire and need to resort to sophistry.
Perhaps the first order of business should be the passage of an amendment making amendment easier. IMO, the constitution is too hard to change, and, simply on the basis of the fact that the standard deviation of N votes is proportional to sqrt(n), both amendments and override of a veto should be easier. Looking at the initial number of senators the united states had, an override purely by chance was MUCH easier than today.
However, from a Constitutional perspective the intent of the Founders WAS to make it difficult, but not impossible, to alter the Constitution. The reasoning being that it should not be changed for light and transient reasons nor as a result of the clamoring of the mob.
While it is frustrating at times one remedy would be not to add another amendment making it easier but to repeal an amendment; specifically the 17th Amendment which made Senators subject to election by the general electorate - thus removing it from the sole discretion of the several State Legislatures and thus making it a popularity contest subject to manipulation through money power. This was one of the original checks and balances that emphasised State Power and Authority over the Feral Government. It's restoration to uh, umm, original intent would restore one of the checks and balances making the government subject to manipulation. It means that you have to control a majority of State Legislatures to control the Senate. A very difficult and expensive proposition.