Ron Paul stumped by question on Constitution during Huckabee debate!
Submitted by galtgulch on Mon, 12/05/2011 - 08:56Ron Paul was asked if there were any Constitutional amendments that he would want to repeal.
Believe it or not, all he thought of was Prohibition, said it was already repealed, and that his focus was on Article 1 Section 8 and the Bill of Rights.
What did not occur to him for some reason was the Sixteenth Income Tax amendment which counteracted the Article 1 Section 9 prohibition on the Congress to tax the citizens of the States directly.
Also he did not think of the Seventeenth which called for popular vote instead of appointment of U.S. Senators by the state legislators.
He really should have been prepared for that question without having to fumble.
Still there is plenty of time and it is evident that when people are enlightened about him they flock to him and never leave!
- Login to post comments
I think the problem is that
I think the problem is that Dr. Paul can't hear very well. He can't ever hear the question or the moderator dialogue. I think he answers the question that he thought he heard, but honestly, I just don't think he hears it.
amendments to constitution
for the person that is knowledgable and passionate the issue is a big deal and well .. but for the others ..the majority .. shudder the usage of the word and its implication the criticism leveled by huckabee this am on tv was more damaging to rons campaign .. the entitlement thing the programs have to be addressed but some think ron paul will outright get rid of them .. it can't happen that way .. but many folks hear that and the ballot box will not be rons friend to those that believe . even though the entitlement thing may not be a constitutional perogative they exist and can't be ended any time soon ..restructured yes .. ended no ..the more people that hear about the constitution the more likely they will want a constitutional convention and many of those will want to change it outright ..
13th - Anchor Babies
I know RP is not a fan.
Leges sine moribus vanae
Whether it was intentional or not,
I think he did right.
There is no up-side to declaring some amendment "a mistake", because it's not something he can change without a complete amendment process which isn't likely to be successful anyway.
So it was a loaded question that was meant to provide future attacking points against him. He avoided that.
I say good on him for answering the way he did.
The 16th did NOT counter the Sec 9 prohibition on direct
taxation.
It merely clarified that taxes on incomes are indirect and thus do not need to be apportioned.
So says the Supreme Court.
And therein lies one of the keys to telling you who and what the "income" tax really applies to.
Actually, I think the question was intended to be a softball
I think that the question was a softball intended for Ron Paul to knock out of the park. Remember that it came from the attorney general Ron Paul endorsed and who most favors Ron Paul. Sadly, due to acoustics or whatever, he didn't hear the question well and was confused.
It was a missed opportunity the same as it was a missed opportunity to not give a better answer on the Patriot Act question. That is really disturbing to me, because Ron Paul and his campaign should know that it is one he is going to get hammered on and there should be a pat answer ready to rebuff such attempts which strongly states that he is not soft on terrorism but does not think that we have to give up our liberties to combat it.
Check out my new site to help promote and fund Ron Paul: http://www.bestronpaulvideos.net/
I agree
I was quite dismayed by his response here. In fact, I thought he was not at his best during this entire process. I of course did not watch any of the monkeys in the cage up there with him, because my own preference is carved in stone and lacquered in transparent teflon, but I did not think that he set himself apart as well as he has in other venues.
As I recall
He was asked which amendments were a mistake. Different.
I doubt very much there's an
I doubt very much there's an amendment that Ron Paul cannot speak to. What is unfortunate is the nature of the question and its clarity of intent. The venue was a cross-examination as if one was being interrogated and yet the question was difficult to hear clearly. This media BS is so vomitous they should be ashamed. "Morning Joe", another vomitous staged show just screened several polls misleading whatever viewers they have into believing that Ron Paul's message is not even reportable or his winning numbers in the polls showable let alone even his name in several of the polls being mentionable.What a crock! This continued misrepresentation of news reporting reflects everything that is flawed in the current system in Amerika.
New segment...They mentioned
New segment...They mentioned Ron Paul.
He was not "Stumped"
Stumped means you get a question you don't know the answer to. He was asked an unexpected question that for some reason he didn't understand when he was asked. To say he was "Stumped" is just your way to belittle Paul.
Why
wasn't that same question asked of the other GOP candidates?
That was a set-up question if I ever heard one. It had absolutely no relevance to the issues concerning the presidential race that would be affected or implemented upon a candidate becoming president. They might as well ask which color on the American flag he likes the least.
Conscience does not exist if not exercised
"No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up!
---Lily Tomlin
More like sidestepped.
Prohibition a was good thing to mention. I think he also didn't want a repeat of that interview with Rand Paul and that left leaning female tv personality(What's her name?) and get labeled a racist.
It could have been miscommunication also.
http://www.dailypaul.com/226732/alternative-cancer-therapies...
http://www.dailypaul.com/145783/joel-salatins-polyface-farm-...
http://www.dailypaul.com/142513/roberts-rules-vide
The question was which amendment was a "mistake." I am sure he
didn't hear correctly as he stated but then I think it was still unclear to him what the question was when they rephrased and so his answer did not make all that much sense. It was a shame. He really was not on the ball that night.
the real problem is ..ending med,SS and medicaid statement
this am the report from a major network was>>while interviewing huckabee it was stated that ron paul said he wants to end medicare medicaid and social security .. that generalization is the roadblock to his becoming the nominee.. whether huckabee misrepresented what ron said during his debate or not the impression is out there and the major media will continue to focus on this until the campaign explains how this could be achieved.. there is a huge gap here somewhere .. if ron does not detail how and over what time period he intends to phase out these three entitlements he will be pulling up the rear stalled in 3rd place ......
There was an issue with the question...
He heard the question... Didn't hear the slight chide from the questioner interrupting an immediate response... Didn't hear him the second and third time he restated "just keep it to a few". Then a clarification of the question was restated as well. This ordeal lasedt for a good few moments which given the situation had brought the questioncompletley out of context in Dr. Pauls mind.
This is clearly evident by the fact he answered the question pretty incoherently given his ability to state a firm position on virtually any question especially a gimme question such as this. This moment I would consider a "gaffe."
Remember folks the Dr. Paul is an imperfect messenger with the perfect message. Don't think for a minute that question if asked again wouldn't be answer exactly the same way we no he would have in regards to the 16 and 17th amendments. Its our job to convince our peers in defense of Paul.
Viva la revolution!
Somewhere there are men planning the next destructive and evil ploy to make this world their own... The common man is not part of that plan as we would see fit... Merely pawns to be used against one another.
I agree
He is not running to be a good Speaker,He is running to be a good President.
"You go and carry off the enemy's land; the enemy comes and carries off your land"-Ancient Sumerian tablet
here's the deal......
OK folks, I thought about this one too, and I believe I have the answer.
What i believe Ron Paul did was to avoid any sound-bite ammunition that could be used against him later. of COURSE Ron Paul isn't stupid enough to only bring up "prohibition". He KNOWS the 16th and 17th amendments were horrible (as well as the 14th). But, if he had said 17th, then he could be accused by others of "not wanting democracy" since he would advocate taking power "away from the people" by not "letting" them vote for their (traitorous) senators. Students of Ron Paul and the constitution know full and well that the 17th amendment gutted a very large piece of the "miracle at philly" in that senators were to be appointed by the state legislatures so that the States had power in the congress in one chamber, the People in the other. Checks and Balance. The 17th amendment destroyed that. Ron Paul is not stupid nor ignorant of this fact, but in general the population is ignorant of it, and if he tried to explain it he would just sound like the crank the media makes him out to be--anybody advocating repeal of the 17th amendment is made out to look like they want to take "voting power away from the people" (due to the people's ignorance and brain washing).
So ..... after having thought about this exact thing, I simply believe that Dr. Paul was tip-toe'ing around the mine field here. Uncool? maybe. I was disappointed he didn't scream 17th amendment right off the bat too, but it is what it is.
That is exactly what he did I did the same thing
When they got done asking I first thought 16 and 17 but then I thought no don't do that so I started thinking of others and I went blank. The difference in me and Ron Paul He knows his Constitution better than me and if his supporters will allow him to sidestep these gotcha mine field he can do it. We just have to have faith in him that while he steps around the mine field we can trust that he has our interest at heart. We need to free him up to answer the question more diplomatically if we want him to win this election. We all know Ron is a good guy lets free him up to win. please! We need him so bad!
yawn
Prohibition is a great answer
Yep. I watched the Ken Burns
Yep. I watched the Ken Burns Prohibition series recently, which I think is well done. You can substitute "drugs" for "alcohol" at any point during the movie, and the results are the same.
OK, but he gets a pass.
I don't think he heard the question well or perhaps he blanked out for a minute. Hell, I'm somewhat younger than Ron and I loose my keys everyday.
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783
"I have one word for you...predator drones. Oh, you think I'm kidding?" Obombya
Right!
If I thought of the 16th and 17th Amendments as a good reply then Ron Paul should have also. Well, he always says he's not the perfect messenger. and who knows what I would have been able to think of if I was on stage.
New Hampshire and Ecuador.
My thought also:
When I heard that asked, I knew he would pause to think for a few seconds as I did. The first thing that came to mind were 16 & 17.
I guess great minds do think alike.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I love my country
I am appalled by my government
Huckabee
said, "keep it to a few". Ron is asked questions 8 days a week! I know I couldn't be prepared for every single question every minute of the day. As you know, he's not the "sound bite" guy.
i think they told him
to name only one or two at the most. He just picked one.
________________________________
the lesser of two evils is still evil