"Dr. Paul Betrayed the Constitution while in office"--JustcantgetEnough

Posted June 25th, 2008 by Kevin Tuma

"Dr. Paul Betrayed the Constitution while in office"--JustcantgetEnough

http://www.dailypaul.com/...

--Title for a post by JustcantgetEnough where he attempts to favorably compare Bob "Patriot Act" Barr to Ron Paul, by dragging Dr. Paul DOWN.

When you call Ron Paul a traitor, you've taken your Bob Barr shilling too far.

I personally call on JustcantgetEnough to apologize to Ron Paul, Manystrom, and to the entire readership of this Forum for insulting the intelligence of the group.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

output

A Victory for Freedom!

On June 26th, 2008 FoxCreek says:

Thank you Mr. Nystrom for liberating us from the insatiable Troll.

Justcan'tgetbootedfastenough

On June 26th, 2008 bigmikedude says:

does seem to be quite anti-Paul most of the time.

Amen I wish flagging were still an option.

On June 26th, 2008 Libera_me says:

Libera me, let the truth break, what my fears make--Leslie Phillips

The world will never be a

On June 26th, 2008 RobertJ says:

The world will never be a peaceful place as long as there are lowlifes like "JustcantgetEnough" breathing oxygen.

I always wondered if someone would ever point this out. JustcantgetEnough is absolutely right. Paul did vote for something that was not in line with the constitution. Absolutely. He is right on the money. There's one problem though, unless I didn't read this. He is wrong to deride Ron Paul for his behavior.

Probably the biggest misunderstanding about Ron Paul is his adherence to the Constitution. It is perceived that Paul is dedicated to the Constitution for the Constitution's own sake. That is wrong completely. He is dedicated to it because of what he believes. Yes, just like anyone else. This is important. Why? Because it shows he is not a dogmatic narrow-minded person but has that capacity must important and necessary to any person and any admirable person: adaptation. His ability to put down his strong and unwavering dedication and belief in respecting the rule of law when it was necessary is equally amazing as his dedication to it. He even says quite clearly his reasoning behind the vote.

"Sadly we find ourselves today dealing with our responsibility to provide national security under the most difficult of circumstances.
To declare war against a group that is not a country makes the clear declaration of war more complex.
The best tool the framers of the Constitution provided under these circumstances was the power of Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisals, in order to narrow the retaliation to only the guilty parties. The complexity of the issue, the vagueness of the enemy, and the political pressure to respond immediately limits our choices. The proposed resolution is the only option we're offered and doing nothing is unthinkable."

He says, "...doing nothing is unthinkable." If people here are as dogmatic and narrow-minded as to not understand this way of thinking by Ron Paul then you are creating a false sense of support for him as you are not inline with his argument and belief system.

BillyDee, is that you?

On June 26th, 2008 JKap says:

:-)

Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty Money Bomb!

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -John Quincy Adams

Don't know who BillyDee is,

On June 26th, 2008 Adam0980 says:

Don't know who BillyDee is, but that's not me. I have been posting on this site since last year.

Honestly

On June 26th, 2008 silentboom says:

I wouldn't be surprised if this kind of post is done to deter support of Barr. It looks like Dr. Paul doesn't mind if we support both of these guys. If someone attacks anyone disregard what they say in general.

"The wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the righteous are as bold as a lion."

LOL

On June 25th, 2008 Justcantgetenough (not verified) says:

I'm not apologizing for a damn thing. I reiterate it.

It's a true statement. Dr. Paul did something unconstitutional. He voted to give Bush this authority: "(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

That's transferring Congresses powers and responsibilites to the President, to use the military whenever he wants as long as he thinks it's necessary to prevent future terrorism. It's unconstitutional.

There was only ONE congressperson that voted against it. Her name is Barbara Jordan. She explains: "It was a blank check to the president to attack anyone involved in the September 11 events -- anywhere, in any country, without regard to our nation's long- term foreign policy, economic and national security interests, and without time limit. In granting these overly broad powers, the Congress failed its responsibility to understand the dimensions of its declaration.... The president has the constitutional authority to protect the nation from further attack and he has mobilized the armed forces to do just that. The Congress should have waited for the facts to be presented and then acted with fuller knowledge of the consequences of our action."

By the way, I never called Dr. Paul "a traitor." He simply had a lapse in discipline, by violating the Constitution, which was easy to do at that time. Just like Barr made a mistake giving Bush the authorization to bomb Iraq. In fact, that was my point. Dr. Paul is not perfect, so you shouldn't choose not to support someone because theyre not a perfect Constitutionalist. Dr. Paul isn't. He's close, but not perfect.

***************
Bob Barr Money Bombs July 2: www.BarrBomb.com and July 4 www.BobBarrMoneyBomb.com Help continue propagating the Revolutionary message of liberty. (9/11 "Truthers": Please don't support Barr. You'll hurt his public image and cost him support and votes, like you did to Dr. Paul).

He didn't have a "lapse in

On June 26th, 2008 Adam0980 says:

He didn't have a "lapse in discipline." He had and has the capability to consider and adapt to reality. It wasn't a lapse. He chose to vote that way deliberately and it was also unconstitutional. He was breaking the law and doing it rightly so.

Be gone

On June 26th, 2008 Gnat60 says:

Worm tongue

Fact is

On June 26th, 2008 speculor says:

Dr. Paul did NOT vote unconstitutional with regard to the Afghanistan issue. This is what you have to understand. Sure, Afhanistan as a country did not attack, but Al Qaeda in Aghanistan - the masterminders behind the attack - did, thus it was 100% justified. Dr. Paul wanted it to be an operation to hunt down Osama Bin Laden and NOT - as he was afraid - a nationbuilding exercise, which it has indeed turned out to be while the attempt to go after Al Qaeda was simply stopped. Dr. Paul expressed his dismay about this. Now, you will probably never mind Osama Bin Laden.

Dr. Paul is a human person, can make mistakes, but also in this case he made NO mistake, judging from the reasons why he voted so also. I would have been unconstitutional to declare war against Afghanistan, as they as a country did not attack, but 100% constitutional to go after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Apropo Barr and the Patriot Act, the whole issue, has been dealt with...he had he reservations and objections initially, they persuaded him it would only be temporary and he voted yes in order to negotiate its temporary vs eternal nature and to restrict it. He did fight against it now since 5 years. There has also been a Patriot II Act, which is even more restrictive. I can understand and appreciate Barr's motive for voting. Note that in a difficult time of crisis, security is important and there is a basis for a temporary decision. Take an example for instance of an mergency: the president hears about news that a plane has just being hijacked by terrorists and they plan to fly it into the Capitol with say a lot of people (demonstrators perhaps) in DC. In this case, the president should have the power to decide alone - with advisers, to shoot the plane down. He/She cannot wait for congressional approval!

With regard to the Patriot Act, certain passages/parts are useful with regard to terrorists. Dr. Paul has also said he would either take away the "offensive" parts/provisions in the Patriot Act and leave the useful part s for security, or repeal the law entirely and make a new separate law only for intelligence, and not domestic spying and other abusive regulations.
The reality the world is not always black and white, there are some truth elements. This is what they do with legislation in DC: they mix useful things with transgressions into one act and then the congress must vote yes or no.
It becomes difficult. If Dr. Paul votes no, it does not mean he disagree with everything in a bill, and if say Barr voted yes on the same thing, it does not mean he agrees with everything. As a matter of fact, they may both agree about the inclusion of the same thing and the omission of the other thing.

Frankly, everybody can listen to various radio interviews and can also see google videos as proof where Barr worked actively against the Patriot Act for the past five years. Dr. Paul;s friend Walter Jones fist voted for the war and was instrumental in renaming french fries "freedom fries" in protest against the French opposition to the war, but he totally changed now and is against the war. Dr. Paul does not hold that against him, or distrust him, and neither should we. Barr with his legal background and very astute smart formulations
is the perfect person to explain to those people who think the Patriot Act is ot big deal on their daily lives, they do not care, that it is in fact a danger to their civil liberties and to demonstrate all the problems. In his 2005 interview with Chuck Baldwin, Barr mentioned specifically also problems that people have.
This is info he knows better than most (better than Baldwin too). With his work with the CIA in 1970-1978, he has insight in how some of them work and know one cannot trust it.

Now, if you have say Alex Jones coming against the Patriot Act, some people will simply feel he is a conspiracy nut and not see any problem with it. Now when you have someone like Barr preaching against the Patriot Act on the other side, they will surely listen and be persuaded.

What is unconstitutional about that?

On June 26th, 2008 ggibson1@hotmail.com says:

There is nothing unConstitutional about going after those that had just attacked us in an immediate response to 911. This is very much like police having extra leeway in a "hot pursuit" situation... there was no nation state sanctioned attack on us and so this was basically a "police action in hot pursuit"... If we listen to people like you we would just let people hit us and get away with it. Thomas Jefferson sent the Marines after the Barbary Pirates in a similar action...

That is totally different from the illegal invasion and occupation of a nation such as Iraq...

Peaceniks are no better than democrats who have no backbone.

Couple problems with

On June 26th, 2008 Adam0980 says:

Couple problems with this:

1) There was something unconstitutional with that legislation and his vote.
2) The Constitution did and does provide a way to deal with the 9/11 attacks: the letters of marque and reprisal Paul talks about.
3) I dont know the details, but if Jefferson wasn't directed by congress through legal means, he did the wrong thing as well (at least speaking about the law).

"I never called Dr. Paul a

On June 26th, 2008 Kevin Tuma says:

"I never called Dr. Paul a traitor". Perhaps in your morally nebulous Bob Barr world, where politicians are never held accountable for violating their oath, that rings true for you.

However, you said "Dr. Paul BETRAYED the Constitution. Not "made a mistake", not "did something I don't like politically".

BETRAYED THE CONSTITUTION. The most statesmanlike Congressman in the past century, who has done more to preserve the document than any modern leader. And to be honest, someone of your caliber judging the constitutionality of a vote by the likes of Ron Paul is utterly laughable.

I'm not surprised that you aren't apologizing. For one thing you are a habitual liar; for another you are desperate to make your nauseating, odious, untrustworthy candidates Barr/Root look good and you're so childish, you're willing to try to tear down Ron Paul to do so on a web Forum devoted to him.

SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States