20 votes

Ron Paul on CNN's In The Arena w/ Eliot Spitzer - April 26, 2011

YouTube: (Embedding disabled by user)


Preview: Ron Paul: Allow Young People to Opt Out

Live Stream: http://tvpc.com/Channel.php?ChannelID=159 Please post alternate live stream links in the comments.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Was RP right about Pittsburg

Was RP right about Pittsburg being cleaned by property rights and local ordinances?

The spitz looked

like a ferret on a double expresso. Dr. Paul, as always, made chicken salad.

I'm lovin' all this exposure! The left is gonna have a field day with these interviews. Let the games begin!

Dear Eliot..

STFU and listen.

'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul

I loved

Ron Paul's answer as to why he was running for President...and he said it with spunk!! Good for him!

O.P.O.G.G. - Fighting the attempted devolution of the rEVOLution
Ron Paul 2012...and beyond

Yeah, this is such a common

Yeah, this is such a common tactic by those people who debate just to make it appear as if they have valid opposing points when in reality they are just making up stuff to counter the arguments of others.

I see this crap all the time. why people feel like they are supposed to jump into arguments and make stuff up is beyond me.

Smiling and

knocking these losers over like bowling pins, one by one. Hey Elliot loved your movie Client Number 9, good to see you where's your friend Marion Barry? Rise to power, fall from grace, get your own TV show, only in America.

9/11 was an inside job .....time to get some answers..RP 2012

Spit on Spit

Spit asks a loaded question, then interrupts the hell out of Dr. Ron Paul so that he cannot answer. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid you say are unconstitutional so you will just shut them down. Right?.... Then RP tries to respond Spit changes the topic and bulldozes RPs answer.

RP should NEVER go on the Spit show and get spit on.

I say Spit on Spit.

Could have responded better

Could have responded better to the General Welfare Clause, I think.

The general welfare clause is a reference to the preamble. Rather than relist every power of the general government, they just said general welfare.

In fact, this same misunderstanding of that clause, the necessary and proper clause and the commerce clause were discussed by the founders and they explain this precisely. There is absolutely no reason why any Justice, lawyer, politician should still be claiming authorities under those clauses. It isn't valid in any way, shape, or form.

General welfare was universal and common welfare, equally.

A deficit or debt to no one and a benefit to every one, in general.

Pretty high bar, as it should be.

Free includes debt-free!

Agree with your comment but

Agree with your comment but just wanted to post this:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

So, the powers delegated in the constitution are the powers by which the general government has to promote the General Welfare, not an extra set of powers to be defined in as they wish. They can only use those enumerated powers to promote the general welfare. They can only tax in order to exercise those powers and that tax must come from a constitutionally valid form of taxation.

Any justice who says otherwise needs to be immediately removed from their position, as it is evident they don't understand the constitution; a major problem for someone whose job it is to make decisions about it.

1000' high smoke stack in Pittsburgh in the 1940's?

And Elliot Spitzer was the one that lead the law suits to correct this?


He just lied thru his teeth.

And someone needs to call him on that.

By the way, Paul was right about Pittsburgh ...



Dr. Paul lauded protection of property right in the courts.

This guy worships regulatory actions and claims their benefits.

Free includes debt-free!

Spitzer didn't stop

Spitzer didn't stop blathering and badgering Ron Paul long enough to even let him finish one topic. Spitzer's repetitious "no no no" reflects his determination NOT to hear another point of view. This interview was all about Spitzer who jumped from topic to topic without understanding or allowing an explanation of the ideology behind any response.

I don't think Spitzer was all

I don't think Spitzer was all that bad. He was very respectful. He just has his ideology which is different from Ron Paul's.

In addition, Spitzer is/was a lawyer and bureaucrat. On one hand, RP's ideology would be good for lawyers (lot's of work), but on the other hand it would be bad for their pay because things would be a little bit more cut-n-dry and these bastards would not be able to game the system. It would drive down the salaries of these lawyers, because a more simpler system means a more simpler pay system for these sharks!!!!

I guess lawyers would have a love/hate relationship with RP....

A government big enough to give you everything you want

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." - Thomas Jefferson

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’, because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
Thomas Jefferson

“A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another; shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement” - Thomas Jefferson

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016

There's more to that last one....

and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread that it has earned...This is the sum of good government."~~ Thomas Jefferson

Thank you for posting these.

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

"the folks out there"?

Did anybody catch that line at the end where spitzer said "the folks out there" would think he is anything but status quo? All I could think was "WHAT folks out there?" Does this joker have any viewers when there is no member of the Paul family on as a guest?

I didn't even know spitzer had a show until Rand was on it a while back. Then I forgot all about him. Now he brought Ron on to give his ratings a boost I guess. Tomorrow I will forget all about him again.

SteveMT's picture

Spitzer was driveling upon himself with his own spit.

To watch Ron Paul take this guy apart with the Constitution and the facts was a sight to behold.

Spitzer can crawl back into his cave.


The thing that bugs me is how spitzer was more kind to the islamic guy after Ron...

I like aggressive interviews, but Spitz starts muttering things while someone's responding and I can't understand what's being said.

after watching this over again

i think dr. paul did a great job, considering the circumstances. he did not get too frustrated, like he sometimes did in the past. and god knows there was plenty to be frustrated about. he seems to be sticking to his GUNS more, which is great. looks like he has alot higher expectations for 2012. god bless you dr. paul


Ok, who's the funny guy wrote this one??? Hilarious!

"Spitzer trying to tell Ron about the Constitution is like Ron trying to tell Spitzer where to get a $5 whore."


Spitzer is horrible

Spitzer is horrible beyond words.

Resist the temptation to feed the trolls.

I'm no fashion expert....but....

I really like Ron in green!!! It suits him greatly and he looks much more "common man" style, dunno why that struck me in this video, but it did...

The Lucky Green Tie

I want to go to ebay to get the Lucky Green Tie!

Glendale Keith


I don't get it, how was this man working for the Manhattan District Attorney, graduate of Harvard Law School and at this point in his life he has to read from the Constitution to make his point. Terrible at understanding property right!? Keeps getting troubled by simple concepts... This is unbelievable...

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression.
Frontline: The Untouchables

He's probably read the

He's probably read the constitution but not the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers.

"A true competitor wants their opponent at their best." Lao Tzu

He probably never read the

He probably never read the constitution and just got one of his smart hookers that was working her way through college to write his term papers and later give him advice on how to proceed with his cases.

From the "Father of the Constitution"

Everyone should email this to Spitzer

Federalist #41 (James Madison)

"Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!"

Of course Madison was dead wrong in assuming it wouldn't be misrepresented!

"A true competitor wants their opponent at their best." Lao Tzu

Thanks for posting that

Thanks for posting that section from the Federalist papers. If you like that you'll probably enjoy this. I've collected some excerpts from the Virginia ratifying convention which discuss the General Welfare and Necessary and Proper (Sweeping) clauses. I apologize for the size of the post but these issues were discussed at length. The below description of the meaning of the two clauses is what was understood when the constitution was ratified.

Mr. GEORGE NICHOLAS, The gentleman has adverted to what he calls the sweeping clause, &c., and represents it as replete with great dangers. This dreaded clause runs in the following words: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers Vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." The committee will perceive that the Constitution had enumerated all the powers which the general government should have, but did not say how they were to be exercised. it therefore, in this clause, tells how they shall be exercised. Does this give any new power? I say not. Suppose it had been inserted, at the end of every power, that they should have power to make laws to carry that power into execution; would this have increased their powers? If, therefore, it {246} could not have increased their powers, if placed at the end of each power, it cannot increase them at the end of all. This clause only enables them to carry into execution the powers given to them, but gives them no additional power.

Gov. RANDOLPH. The sweeping clause, as it is called, is much dreaded. I find that I differ from several gentlemen on this point. This formidable clause does not in the least increase the powers of Congress. It is only inserted for greater cautions and to prevent the possibility of encroaching upon the powers of Congress. No sophistry will be permitted to be used to explain away any of those powers; nor can they possibly assume any other power, but what is contained in the Constitution, without absolute usurpation. Another security is {207} that, if they attempt such a usurpation, the influence of the state governments will nip it in the bud of hope. I know this government will be cautiously watched. The smallest assumption of power will be sounded in alarm to the people, and followed by bold and active opposition. I hope that my countrymen will keep guard against every arrogation of power. I shall take notice of what the honorable gentleman said with respect to the power to provide for the general welfare. The meaning of this clause has been perverted, to alarm our apprehensions. The whole clause has not been read together. It enables Congress "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts, and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States." The plain and obvious meaning of this is, that no more duties, taxes, imposts, and excises, shall be laid, than are sufficient to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare, of the United States.

Mr. GEORGE NICHOLAS, in reply to the gentlemen opposed to the clause under debate, went over the same grounds, and developed the same principles, which Mr. Pendleton and Mr. Madison had done. The opposers of the {443} clause, which gave the power of providing for the general welfare, supposed its dangers to result from its connection with, and extension of, the powers granted in the other clauses. He endeavored to show the committee that it only empowered Congress to make such laws as would be necessary to enable them to pay the public debts and provide for the common defence; that this general welfare was united, not to the general power of legislation, but to the particular power of laying and collecting taxes, imposts, and excises, for the purpose of paying the debts and providing for the common defence, — that is, that they could raise as much money as would pay the debts and provide for the common defence, in consequence of this power. The clause which was affectedly called the sweeping clause contained no new grant of power. To illustrate this position, he observed that, if it had been added at the end of every one of the enumerated powers, instead of being inserted at the end of all, it would be obvious to any one that it was no augmentation of power. If, for instance, at the end of the clause granting power to lay and collect taxes, it had been added that they should have power to make necessary and proper laws to lay and collect taxes, who could suspect it to be an addition of power? As it would grant no new power if inserted at the end of each clause, it could not when subjoined to the whole.

Mr. MADISON. The honorable member asks, Why ask for this power, and if the subsequent clause be not fully competent for the same purpose. If so, what new terrors can arise from this particular clause? It is only a superfluity. If that latitude of construction which he contends for were to take place with respect to the sweeping clause, there would be room for those horrors. But it gives no supplementary power. It only enables them to execute the delegated powers. If the delegation of their powers be safe, no possible inconvenience can arise from this clause. It is at most but explanatory. For when any power is given, its delegation necessarily involves authority to make laws to execute it. Were it possible to delineate on paper all those particular cases and circumstances in which legislation by the general legislature would be necessary, and leave to the states all the other powers, I imagine no gentleman would object to it. But this is not within the limits of human capacity. The particular powers which are found necessary to be given {439} are therefore delegated generally, and particular and minute specification is left to the legislature.

Gov. RANDOLPH. But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. I contend that no such power is given. They have power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States." Is this an independent, separate, substantive power, to provide for the general welfare of the United States? No, sir. They can lay and collect taxes, &c. For what? To pay the debts and provide for the general welfare. Were not this the case, the following part of the clause would be absurd. It would have been treason against common language. Take it altogether, and let me ask if the plain interpretation be not this — a power to lay and collect taxes, &c., in order to provide for the general welfare and pay debts.

Mr. MADISON was surprised that any gentleman should return to the clauses which had already been discussed. He begged the gentleman to read the clauses which gave the power of exclusive legislation, and he might see that nothing could be done without the consent of the states. With respect to the supposed operation of what was denominated the sweeping clause, the gentleman, he said, was mistaken; for it only extended to the enumerated powers. Should Congress attempt to extend it to any power not enumerated, it would not be warranted by the clause. As to the restriction in the clause under consideration, it was a restraint on the exercise of a power expressly delegated to Congress; namely, that of regulating commerce with foreign nations.

Gov. RANDOLPH. I observed that the honorable gentleman's proposition comes in a truly questionable shape, and is still more extra? ordinary and unaccountable for another consideration — that, although we went article by article through the Constitution, and although we did not expect a general review of the subject, (as a most comprehensive view had been taken of it before it was regularly debated,) yet we are carried back to the clause giving that dreadful power, for the general welfare, Pardon me, if I remind you of the true state of that business. I appeal to the candor of the honorable gentleman, and if he thinks it an improper appeal, I ask the gentlemen here, whether there be a general, indefinite power of providing for the general welfare? The power is, "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare," so that they can only raise money by these means, in order to provide for the general welfare. No man who reads it can say it is general, as the honorable gentleman represents {600} it. You must violate every rule of construction and common sense, if you sever it from the power of raising money, and annex it to any thing else, in order to make it that formidable power which it is represented to be.

Sheesh, was there even one

Sheesh, was there even one word from RP in which the Keebler Smurf didn't stammer over him? That was so painful...he started reminding me of that black helicopter muttering neighbor in King of the Hill. Imagine trying to answer a question from that cretin. By the end RP had had it with the smurf and put that establishment numb skull in his place. That was priceless.