Ron Paul shredded MSNBC/Morning Joe in their hack attempt. Great job RP.

If you found that interview "amusing" and weren't outraged at the low class attack and shoddy journalism of it, I can safely assume you are not here as a Ron Paul supporter.

a thing of beauty!

Here's to the Ron Paul of '87. I like him, too! I appreciate the way he's trying to stop people from cutting him off and not letting him answer.

btw, do you think the 19 mill is also making him bolder? Napoleon Hill says a man acts entirely different when he has money in his pocket, than when he doesn't, implying it gives him confidence. (maybe that's obvious)

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ru2EjElKqrE
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjnBZzL-rcM

Please don't label people, we all have human life value which should be respected. The way we are raised, taught, and educated is how we live. When we know better, we do better. ALL people are the assets and we, here and now, all want the same future. Let's work towards that end.

Those with different thoughts and views should be welcomed and learning from these posts, not insulted.

You're not the only one who noticed this. What about the news media? I didn't hear a bloody thing about this comment anywhere else.

Dear Mr. Mayor,

Since you are kindly doing research for us poor simpletons, you might want to read us some passages from the Anti-Federalist Papers as well. Or do you think the Anti-Federalists are just a bunch of obtuse numskulls?

Looking back, almost all of the fears of the Anti-Federalists have turned out to be well-founded. Hamilton had argued in Federalist No. 84 that the Bill of Rights is not really necessary. His argument was quite sound, and he had foreseen the danger:"Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power." Indeed, when the U.S. Attorney General claims "there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution", you know Hamilton was right.

It's surprising, then, that Hamilton could entrust the Federal Government with such powers and still believe it won't be abused. History has shown that the Constitution is not enough to restrain the government. Now it's largely being ignored, especially by the current Bush Administration. So it can be said that the Constitution is Hamilton's biggest mistake

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

You said:"The Articles of Confederation which existed from 1776-1787, allowed for secession because the weak, federal government derived its power from the loose alliance of sovereign, independent state governments, which led to numerous problems such as, for example, different currencies, different laws and moral codes leading inevitably to mass confusion." If a strong Federal Government is the solution to that "problem", then I guess it makes sense to bring the whole world along as well. Because, you know, all these sovereign, independent countries, with their different currencies, different laws and *gusp* moral codes, are really causing all the problems in this world. Some of these countries are not even democracies!

In short, this pretense about so called "foreign policy of freedom" is nothing more than a means to justify the right of the evil dictators of other countries to oppress their people. I say let's invade them all so we can bring freedom to ALL the people of the world.

You're pretty off-base there dude. Lincoln killed 650,000 Americans. He suspended Habeas Corpus. He imprisoned dissenters...

The Constitution placed restrictions on the states -- yes -- but one of those restrictions was not that those states could not secede. The Constitution is a treaty between the sovereign states delegating a number of duties to a federal government, that would have the upper house of it's legislature as well as the President effectively appointed by the state governments. The election of a President and Senators by the people was a later development.

The federal government was designed to be limited, and the states were intended to maintain sovereign rights -- delegating some of those rights to the federal government (and agreeing not to exercise them concurrently) while they were within the treaty. There is no prohibition on secession, and the 10th amendment delegates all rights not expressly given to the federal government or otherwise denied to the states in the Constitution to the states. That would include the right to secede -- which, since the Constitution was a treaty, was an assumed right of the sovereign governments entering that treaty anyway.

Now, you might be able to argue that Lincoln was not wrong in waging war on the Confederacy (as any party who withdraws from a treaty is potentially committing an act of war), but I would venture that, at least by modern standards, such an action would be condemned by most of the world.

----
Registered Republican
Federalist Society Member
REAL Conservative for Ron Paul

I read Article 10 in the Constitution, and there is no mention anywhere about secession; reading Amendment 9, an unenumerated right is the right to seceed; and reading Amendment 10, it states if the Constitution doesn't say it, it will be left to the states. Also when you read some of the state constituions, they state the fact that the people have a right to abolish their [state] governments. So I have proof that the people have an unalienable right for their state to seceed, in spite of what Abe may think. Abraham Lincoln was really America's first tyrant.

I will concede that there isn't really a secession clause in the Constitution. However, the Constitution only specifies the rules of playing in the USA sandbox. That presumes that the state is a member of the USA to begin with. The argument here is whether a state can choose to opt out and therefore be outside the jurisdiction of the Constitution. Therefore your citation of Article 1 Sec. 10 is irrelevant. In fact, any citation of the constitution on matters of secession is pretty moot.

The question is a moral one, and obviously cannot be answered objectively. I think you need to really understand the intent of the Federal government (something long disputed even at its inception). You mention the Articles of Confederation. Good! Clearly, since it was the first choice, we can infer how important state sovereignty was to our founders. So I highly doubt that when the constitution was ratified, they swung the pendulum to the other side and demanded centralized government. (See Amendments 9 and 10).