Comments on: This Just In: Ron Paul Is Coming To Iowa Saturday November 14th On Behalf Of Kent Sorenson

By: Robert Republican

Robert Republican — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 02:40:47 +0000

That was an excellent post, jabowery. That summed it up very nicely.
I know Ron Paul is very much for the 10th amendment, but I think the Federal Government issues and the fight to “End the Fed” are his biggest issues right now, which is where he is at.

I think the States are going to have to rediscover the 10th Amendment themselves.

By: Robert Republican

Robert Republican — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 02:14:01 +0000

Wow, I can’t believe some of the bad comments about Ron Paul from a couple of people here. Most of which are really just petty issues:

Michael Steele is pro-choice, believes there is room for pro-choice candidates in the party, and believes Roe V Wade should be overturned.

Yet that never stopped him from being Chairman of the RNC!

Ron Paul actually has a bill to define LIFE AT CONCEPTION (Sanctity of Life Act).
Where was the GOP support for that?

Enough with the hypocrisy already.

By: jabowery

jabowery — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:08:42 +0000

I’m with the Campaign for Liberty and was on a Stat GOP platform committee last year successfully introducing several Constitutionalist planks which were adopted by the full convention.

The states-rights detractors from Ron Paul who accuse him of being soft on the gay marriage issue have a point: Ron Paul does support a State level constitutional amendment against gay marriage, but during interviews at the national level he rarely talks about the importance of the 10th Amendment in allowing States to violate pseud-”libertarian” dogma — this despite the fact that Ron Paul himself supports the 10th Amendment. In our own Iowa Campaign for Liberty this confusion is a problem with many of the pseudo-”libertarians” thinking that the State level of government has no business legislating any standards of behavior beyond force and fraud. This is not only a violation of the 10th Amendment, it is a violation of the most important libertarian principle of freedom of association. If people choose to associate under a State government which places limits on behavior at the level of the State, the beauty of the 10th Amendment is it allows people to “vote with their feet” in a laboratory of the states to have both voice and choice in the kind of human ecology they prefer. Ron Paul’s actual principles appear sound with respect genuine libertarianism in that he does support States rights over pseudo-”libertarian” dogma, but he needs to speak out more forcefully for his beleifs about the right of States to control the environment in which their children are raised.

Having said that, it is clear to me that “Republicans” like Huckabee are enemies of the United States: ”Pretty soon, Southern white guys like me may be in the minority,” Huckabee said jokingly as the LULAC (Hispanic activist)crowd roared in laughter.

By: Robert Republican

Robert Republican — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:40:08 +0000

I cannot wait to go to this!

Ron Paul is the Old-time Republican I’ve always wanted to vote for!

By: belikebunce

belikebunce — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:53:35 +0000

Timmy – “Try to get it done with the current majority party in charge.”

I will restate – “BVP, or whoever the next governor is, MUST sign take swift, decisive action to execute the Constitution by putting the SSC back in their place.”

By: Timmy

Timmy — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:15:38 +0000

Try to get it done with the current majority party in charge. Oh wait, that’s what the whole problem has been all along. I rest my case.

By: belikebunce

belikebunce — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:02:09 +0000

Timmy your own argument defeats you. It doesn’t take a crew of engineers, architects and carpenters to put out a fire. It takes a small skilled team of trained emergency response personnel. What on earth could be more critical than SSC overtly violating the State Constitution and trampling all over the authority of the other two branches of government and The People. BVP, or whoever the next governor is, MUST sign take swift, decisive action to execute the Constitution by putting the SSC back in their place. If we allow this flagrant mockery of the Constitution, then why should anyone respect the section that requires a balanced budget?

By: Timmy

Timmy — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:42:47 +0000

Bunce, wing: I had a pretty decent post this am before I left for work, but my ‘puter took a dump and I lost it. Anyway, before we get lost in semantics we must approach this politically first. I have stated over and over why I believe the E.O. is a disaster waiting to happen for the GOP, especially when the state is mired in the economic mess we’re in right now. I think most would agree that it’s pretty futile to worry about a leaky faucet when the house is on fire!
We need to first elect a Governor and legislature and there are not enough Republicans alone in Iowa to win in the general. Therefore we must appeal to the independents, libertarians, moderates, etc. and I believe voters are most concerened about the economic and fiscal issues first. That isn’t to say we should abandon the socon issues and we need to develop a strategy to possibly amend the Iowa constitution if need be, but we have to regain a majority first. The old adage of “when you are up to your a$$ in ‘gators, it’s difficult to drain the swamp” still holds true!

By: wingnut

wingnut — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:59:05 +0000

Timmy why don’t you watch the speech David Barton gave at the ICA event it is posted on this site.

By: belikebunce

belikebunce — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:32:20 +0000

Timmy – You make a very good PRAGMATIC argument. Pragmatism is good in politics, but it is complete hogwash in LAW. We are discussing RULE OF LAW here. Constitutional Law beyond that. I do not know what the Best thing to do here is politically, but I really don’t care. I am one of those guys that believes if we did it right the first time we wouldn’t be in this mess. Limited Constitutional government is a hard thing. It hurts much of the time. People have to be responsible for themselves, and for their neighbors. The government can’t step in and make things all better. Try to find a Republican today that would vote to take away dissolve the Federal Department of Education, or the or the Department of Agriculture. Try to find a Republican today that would be willing to remove 90% of the funding for the Department of Transportation. All of these would be Constitutional positions because the first to Departments are unconstitutional, and the third greatly oversteps its constitutional authority (if it is allowed at all).
The precedent of impeaching all the Activist judges for dereliction of duty would be ugly, but it is the RIGHT (vs wrong, not vs left) and LEGAL thing to do.
An Executive Order, it is not in favor of limited government and personal freedom. That has already been taken away by the State Legislature back in the 1890s when they started requiring Marriage Licenses in the first place. I would be in favor of repealing the entire section of code pertaining to state regulation of marriage, but the Legislature has to do that, and they have to do it for the people.
There is nothing in the Iowa Constitution that says the Legislature cannot regulate marriage. (US Constitution Art 1 Sec 8 does say the Federal Congress can’t regulate marriage.) Therefore if the people want the Iowa Legislature to regulate marriage, they can, and they did. They said that marriage is valid only between a man and a woman.
The Governors EO is a direct response to the SSC’s procedendo. It instructs the County Recorders, who are elected members of the Executive branch of government, that they have no legal authority, and definitely no legal responsibility to issue marriage licenses to same gendered couples. That puts everything back in the hands of the Legislature and the People, where it was meant to be in the first place. Would this cause a Constitutional Crisis as the Des Moines Register put is? I don’t know, but I trust that BVP has done enough study to be prepared for that the same way he has studied enough to know he legally MUST issue the EO.