In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth is Revolutionary.
Saturday, July 20, 2024

While other politicians fiddle, Ron Paul tries to stop burning of the Constitution


In the 2008 Presidential campaign, candidate Barack Obama condemned the rights-robbing USA Patriot Act and promised to curtail the law’s most onerous privisions, including the unlimited detentions of Americans — something that openly violated the Constitution.

The Patriot Act, crafted by President George W. Bush‘s bible-thumping attorney general John Ashcroft and rushed into law by a shell-shocked Congress, ignores many freedoms supposedly protected by the Constitution.

As President, Obama not only forgot his campaign promises about the Patriot Act but supported measures to expand the law to further violate the rights of American citizens.

That is reason enough to kick his lying ass out of the public housing he occupies at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

However, the only other choice that will be on the Presidential ballot in most states will be Mitt Romney, who supports the Patriot Act.

Ron Paul: A protector of the Constitution

The only candidate in this year’s race who opposed the Patriot Act is Libertarian/GOP Texas Congressman Ron Paul, who has long opposed the law for what it is: A flagrant violation of the Constitution.

Paul broke ranks with the GOP in 2001 and became one of just three Republicans to vote against passage of the act.  When the act came up for re authorization in 2011 with more rights-robbing regulations supported by both Democrats and Republicans Paul was one of 26 Republicans opposing the act.

The list of those who wanted to put the Constitution first grew in 10 years but it wasn’t enough.  Congress still passed the re-authorization and Obama signed it into law — extending the streak of Constitutional erosion that accelerated after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

With the GOP nomination out of reach, Paul is now concentrating on acquiring enough delegates to have a role at the party’s convention in Tampa in August and exerting some influence on the platform.

Among the things Paul wants is a platform plank opposing unlimited detention of Americans under the Patriot Act.

Here at Capitol Hill Blue, we applaud his determination to impact the platform.  While we don’t agree with some of his positions we feel his unwavering support of the Constitution and his steadfast opposition to those who want to scrap the protections the document once provided deserve praise and support.

In our opinion, no law in American history has been more a threat to freedom and unpatriotic than the so-called “USA Patriot Act.”  It has done more to erode the once-sovereign protections of the Constitution than any other action ever taken by Congress or signed into law.

At least Paul has the courage to stand up to those who want to turn the document that once defined our nation into little more than toilet paper.

Enhanced by Zemanta

22 thoughts on “While other politicians fiddle, Ron Paul tries to stop burning of the Constitution”

  1. A short time in the WayBack Machine known as a search engine, reveals that at the time of the Patriot Act debates, we had several more (yet less than a full finger count on one hand), outspoken critics of its provisions. We relied somewhat on assurances that when renewal came due, the Constitution shredding would as a matter of course, be limited by passage of time, reasonable investigation, and the realization that passing time would and should temper the desire to fling the nation headlong into what amounts to full blown tyranny.

    Today, after a federal a judge has declared the NDAA unconstitutional for its chilling effect on statements and association with certain persons under fear that statements and deeds (meeting or association with certain persons) would be sufficient for indefinite detention based upon reasonable (or not) suspicion of terrorist activity, or aiding such. Did it influence lawmakers? Not a bit.

    What is going on now? The Congress is again putting indefinite detention without due process into the next NDAA. It is the Groundhog Day of unconstitutional enactments from an otherwise do nothing group of pols that want to be “tough on terror” while at the same time being tyrannical on the Bill of Rights. We are less free than we were at any other time in history, and losing ground fast.

    It makes me weep.

  2. It is unbelievably odd and seriously tragic that here we are in 2012, lauding the fact that one – but only one – of our elected representatives is fighting to uphold the document this country was founded on and that all our other elected representatives have sworn to uphold as well.

  3. While Ron Paul has a few good ideas, his overall understanding of constitutional government is faulty.

    On Roe v. Wade; he said SCOTUS created new rights out of thin air. I.E. He believes our rights come from government.

    He said only gold and silver can be legal ender. False. That applies to the STATES; I.E. states may not print their own currency.

    Paul’s desire to eliminate the 16th Amendment is dangerous to residents in states with low personal incomes. That danger is spelled out in the book “Saving America: Using Democratic Capitalism to Rescue the Nation from Economic Folly” (Algora Publishing of New York City).

    Paul was silent in the travesty that made Buffoon Bush the president. The SCOTUS decision didn’t apply to Congress that has the duty to count Electoral College votes and declare the winner. It could have refused to include the Florida vote until there was a complete and fair recount, telling the Court who was in charge. Paul didn’t support the Constitution on that count.

    Paul’s claim he wants a national government mainly responsible for national defense and a singular monetary policy; and little else, especially commercial regulation, taxation and government spending. That ignores the disaster that was the Articles of Confederation that empowered the federal government with national defense, a singular monetary policy, foreign relations and affairs with Western Territories (I.E Indian tribes). No taxing or regulatory powers. It also ignores the economic disasters of 1920-21, 1932, 1937, 1948-49, 1974 and early 1990s in California brought on by major reductions in government spending. Also ignored was the present economy brought on by deregulation of Wall Street just as deregulation brought on the Savings & Loan disaster of Reagan and the Enron and other corporate scandals.

    If libertarian government wouldn’t work in a nation of 4 million people with a simple agrarian economy, how would in work today with more than 300 million people and the most complicated and diverse economy in history?

    Paul wants to go back to the original Constitution that allows only men in Congress and the Presidency; only men with the rights of the Bill of Rights (read it); the President as commander in chief of the Army and Navy (no Air Force) and many other 18th Century conditions that would not apply today.

    Too many negatives; not enough positives for Paul.

    • “It also ignores the economic disasters of 1920-21, 1932, 1937, 1948-49, 1974 and early 1990s in California brought on by major reductions in government spending.”

      As if price fixing imposed by the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 had nothing to do with the Great Depression.

    • Several points of error in another of your analyses, thomas…

      First, RP does not believe rights come from govt, but are natural. Actually read any of his many works.

      Next, he says that no State shall coin money or emit Bills of Credit or make anything but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts… as written in Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution. Having heard him many times, myself, what he says in addition is that people should be able to take their own gold and silver to a private or govt mint and have that turned into convertible currency… something not disallowed by the Constitution.

      And cutting to the chase, the Bill of Rights refers almost exclusively to the “people”. Limits on rights to men? BS.

      Further the Constitution says “No PERSON except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States”… again, not that only men can hold the office.

      Regarding economics, it would take way too much detail to debunk your unsupported conclusions. Suffice it to say, you haven’t shown any basis for your position anyway, and if you did it would likely be akin to the other bogus points you’ve made.

  4. Was John Ashcroft actually thumping the Bible as he “crafted” the vile Patriot Act? If not, your characterization of him as a “bible thumper” is a pointless slur. Plenty of non thumpers are equally gung-ho on killing constitutional freedoms.

    • In fact he was thumping the Bible. At a press conference discussing the Patriot Act, Ashcroft picked up his Bible, waved it in front of photographers, and claimed the Act was carrying out the Biblical adage of “an eye for an eye.”

      Any more questions? 🙂

      • Doug, no offense but the Patriot act was already written long before GW BV$H and gang hauled it out of its lock box and thumped it ready made on the desk. It was siting on the side lines ominously just waiting for the right moment to be brought forward. That nobody in Congress even bothered to read it isn’t that surprising either given the absolute terror that prevailed in the days and weeks after the attack. America might pack the most powerful punch on the planet today, but 9/11 proved she has a glass jaw and the introduction of Constitution destroying so called Patriotic Act is proof positive of that fact. It frightens many of us today that we are probably just another such act of terror away from a formal Police State in this country. This fact alone IMO puts us in terrible peril, not from the Terrorists , although knowing this gives them a wonderful incentive to try again and again, but from the PTB who are themselves more then happy to use these attacks to forward their own Authoritarian agenda.

  5. the constitution is the law of the land. it is clear that the majority of our elected reps and senators are breaking the law for the purpose of monetary gain and power. this is confusing. can i press charges and have those involved arrested?

  6. As a progressive, how can one see the Patriot Act as anything but a welcome precedent against an overly restrictive Constitution that inhibits the state from implementing its social and economic agenda?

  7. There is absolutely NO way that I will ever vote for Mitt ObamNEY for pres, vp or otherwise, for the simple reason that I am NOT a Marxist.

    I will only vote for Ron Paul. By write-in, if necessary. I am a Proud American First and foremost.

    I do not compromise my values, nor will I compromise my country. Mitt ObamNEY, and you call yourself conservative? Go tell that to his dog on the roof – though I doubt he’d listen either.

  8. A Romney/Paul ticket, wether it is Ron or Paul would be a meaningless, token gesture without a dramatic policy shift.

    All men dream: but nor equally, Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses oftheir minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did. I meant to make a new nation, to restore!
    T.E. Lawrence from: “Seven Pillars of Wisdom”

    Restore US All vote Ron Paul.
    Liberty and Freedom for US All RON PAUL.

  10. Romney can not win the General Election without Paul’s support. Paul has motivated, economically literate and very smart campaigners and a lot more delegates than the mainstream can bring itself to admit.
    Romney’s people have often been corrupt and where they have won have achieved this through cheating. This is well evidenced on youtube at numerous caucuses and primaries. Despite this Paul is taking over large chunks of the Republican Party
    The office of VP has been described as one of he most pointless offices, it operates at the discression of the president although Paul may see opportunities in reserecting its original constitutional role as chairman of the senate.
    Paul will need solid deals on large parts of his agenda. To end forign adventurism and take on the military industrial complex, to audit the federal reserve and move towards its abolition and the restoration of sound currency and to reduce the scope and cost of the Federal Government. Paul people regard the neocons as diguised Trotskyites and there are some good reasons for believing this. The influence of neocons in the party would have to be dramatically reduced and the influence of the Council for Foreign Relations and other Globalist outfits similarly.
    Romney and Paul seem to get on personally but for this deal to work Paul needs more than a job title. Yes I can see it, it may be the only way to heal the Republican Party. The Libertarians have the momentum and a lot of the best brains. Romney needs Paul more than Paul needs Romney.

    • Whilst I can’t help agreeing with everything I wrote I must apologise for a couple of glaring spelling mistakes. The misspelling of “discretion” I put down to an argument earlier in the day as to whether the Cressingham or Aylesbury duck was the extinct breed. My misspelling of resurrection was probably a continuation if the same thought process.

Comments are closed.