Very disheartening. Notwithstanding him being loopy, I actually thought that he was a decent man. WRONG. Goes to show you. Why is there always screwing of a minority for political gain by republicans? That's the only way they can get any power. It so sounds like 1930 germany when these angry rich white guys open their mouths. Just seeing that stage last night was frightening. At least the dems white guys don't look like fascists.

Well at least he respects the Constitution enough to want to formally make changes with the consent of the governed rather than just doing whatever the hell he wants (like some Presidents I could mention).

As far as Dr. Paul's so called affinity for the Constitution goes - don't expect too much. Note that the mailer has a call to "end birthright citizenship". It says nothing about amending the constitution to do so. My understanding is that Paul does not believe an amendment is necessary. In keeping with a man who is opposed to the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, and thinks Lincoln had "other options" besides war, he tends to not ascribe too much reach to, or put too much stock in, the post civil war amendments. Or for that matter, the last 150 years or so of jurisprudence.

This isn't the only issue on which he ignores the constitution, Ron Paul also believes that the Constitution establishes a "robustly Christian America" and that separation of church and state is not in the Constitution.

Maybe the Constitution he follows only exists in his head?

CSP,
How would he end birthright citizenship without a constitutional amendment? The 14th is pretty clear: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." Even if he stripped jurisdiction from the federal courts (which he is in favor of doing on some other issues), the state courts are still bound by the 14th amendment...

Apparently his ad people are also unclear on the flaunt/flout distinction.

GQ, it's been clear to a lot of people that Paul's a malevolent whackjob. Kucinich is just bonkers.

Real libertarians are usually pretty decent on immigration.

The separation of church and state is also based on Article VI section 3, which states "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Thank God for the separation of church and state, one of our greatest achievements!

Sorry, late responding. Really an accident I even checked back in. I just made a relatively offhand remark about a total whacko. I even went easy on him.
It was largely based on readings I have done on Paul and conversations with Pauliacs.

I should be more careful.

I have checked. I am wrong. I knew he had introduced legislation regarding this, and knew he had badmouthed the 14th amendment. I see now that the legislation he has introduced is in fact for a constitutional amendment.

That is probably the crux of people's objections - so again I apologize.

But just to hit some of the other stuff and Ron Paul highlights in general -

Google "Ron Paul" and "Voting Rights Act" for info on his stand there. Not hard to find. You'll learn about how it violated property rights and inflamed racial tension. This is from a well documented event involving a congressional vote - I forget now, perhaps the vote was ceremonial to celebrate passage of the act or something. It was probably in 2004 on the 40th anniversary.

Google "Ron Paul" and "Sherman Antitrust Act" for more fun info about his views. It is a landmark piece of legislation. You'll learn about how it was used to unjustly persecute Standard Oil. This may even be up at Paul's congressional website.

The "Lincoln had other options" reference is from a fairly recent glowing fluff piece in the Washington Post. Sorry I do not have a link handy. It should not be hard to find. It was written because of the interest his current presidential campaign is generating.

For the really good stuff (stuff that the Pauliacs will largely try and dismiss as a smear - even if they do not deny the facts) try googling:

"Ron Paul" and "LA Riots 1992" - but of course that has been well covered at Kos and elsewhere. Oh, wait, I think it is even covered in Wikipedia. They probably also cover there the 1996(?) Houston Chronicle (?) article and attendant quotes.

Then going in some sense even deeper into the forest try googling:

"Ron Paul" and "Trilateral Commission"

The man is really good for endless entertainment.

Sorry, that was confusing. It could be either flaunt or flout. One of the definitions of flaunt is "to treat contemptuously."

2008 Presidential Candidate Weekly Poll

www.votenic.com

The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Weekly Tuesday Night at Midnight.

Wow, I was not aware that Ron Paul as President can change the Constitution by striking out the 14th Amendment... oh wait, he can't.

So how does Ron Paul actually think he can do what his mailer claims, that "Ron Paul end birthright citizenship."?

So, if Paul should eliminate "birthright citizenship" and make it retroactive, then Michelle Mallengong/Mallkin, aka the "anchor baby" would be deported?

Sweet!

-- To the first "Anonymous", who suggested that a proposal to amend the Constitution is in fact an attempt to trample on it, a question: How many of the 26 active amendments to the Constitution would YOU like to see rescinded ... all of them?

EVERYONE who seeks to amend the Constitution does so BY DEFINITION because "he [or she] doesn't like a provision of it".

-- And, of course, there would be no legal way to make the elimination of birthright citizenship retroactive, not even for Michelle Malkin, who was born here legally, and who also supports the elimination of birthright citizenship.

David McLeod wrote: "Many states had state religions and continued to have them through the 1800s. Clearly the Constitution was not intended to end the association of church and state because it was allowed for many years after the Constitution was ratified."

Proof of the "multiple wrongs make a right" theory, I suppose. In order for something (such as a provision within the constitution of an individual state) to have its constitutionality challenged, someone has to actually challenge said provision, either at the state legislature or in court. Some unconstitutional laws sit on the books for years, awaiting challenge; this fact does not make them any less unconstitutional. More importantly, the fact that a law, or an article of a state constitution, is found to be unconstitutional DOES NOT make it mandatory that said law or article be repealed. It means that the provision is unenforceable. It can remain in place forever ... and remain meaningless -- forever.

Regarding specific states: Connecticut and Massachusetts were the only two of the "many states" that had what could be accurately described as "state-established religions" after the ratification of the First Amendment in 1791. Connecticut ended this practice in 1818, when its FIRST state constitution was adopted (after 30 years as a state ... slackers!); Massachusetts ended it in 1833, with an amendment to its constitution.

The 1st Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Article VI reads: "This Constitution ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding". The 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868) reads: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"; meaning, the Bill of Rights applies to state law.

Clearly, the Constitution says what it means and means what it says.

I'm sort of surprised by the anger of the comments here, especially from Paul detractors.

I'm not sure what the anger is about. It seems like a relatively coherent immigration plan. It's pretty specific, except for #6, which is a generic, sounds wonderful but means nothing, kind of idea, something that I would expect more from the bigger campaigns.

#1 and #2 seems pretty straightforward. You can't "do something" about illegal immigration unless you secure the border and keep some account of those people who crossed.

Now #3, 4, 5 could certainly be viewed as controversial. I tend to agree with all three points, but I can understand how some people think such ideas are not compassionate, or even cruel-hearted.

#3 No Amnesty: Pragmatically, it would be easier to declare amnesty and be done with it. Although illegal are immigrants are by definition "illegal", most no one treats them as criminal. If there was some assurance that the other five points would be implemented, I think most conservatives (particularly an economist like Ron Paul) could stomach some form of amnesty. I think the fear is that the other five points won't be implememnted, we will declare amnesty, and then we will have several million new illegal immigrants again in a decade. The moral (not pragmatic) case is that there are many people around the world who have been patiently waiting for years, if not decades, to gain entry to the United States. These people filled out the forms and dotted the i's and did everything that we legally demand of them, but they cannot gain entry, even as we turn a blind eye to a flood of illegal immigrants. For many conservatives, endorsing a policy that rubber stamps this kind of hypocrisy is not something they can stomach. Admittedly, squaring this moral approach with reality is tricky, since most illegals are very hard-working, did not have an opportunity to enter legally, and were breaking a set of immigration laws that were unrealistic in light of the massive econoomic opportunities that America provides them. My sense is that a "demanding amnesty", one that demanded illiegal immigrants meet several criteria to "earn" their amnesty would probably be workable.

Speaking of economics, that is the driver behind the #4 and #5. I don't think most illegals sneak into the U.S. to either suckle at the welfare teat or
bear children. Most come here for the economic opportunities alone. But if that alone is such a magnet, then it is poor policy to provide the additional inducements and comforts, that from an economic perspective, will just add to the flood of people to this country. And I don't understand how it is cruel or cold-hearted to suggest that illegal immigrants children retain the citizenship of their parents. What have their parents done to earn citizenship besides illegally sneak into the United States?

I honestly don't see much that is wrong with this plan. It is actually nothing that novel, but it is nice to see a candidate give you some concrete points.

It actually gives you something to criticize. Which is more than some candidates can say. Even if you don't like Paul's plan, be careful not to fault him too much, unless you can find another candidate that actually does have a coherent and concrete plan. I certainly haven't seen a superior one.

I'm sort of surprised by the anger of the comments here, especially from Paul detractors.

Hilarious. Pauliacs are legendary assholes.

"About Ron Paul

Many are asking, "Why isn't Ron Paul on the condensed monthly poll and weekly poll?"

I'll give a time line and summary of developments on this site relating to Ron Paul.

When Ron Paul first announced I received many emails telling me to put him on. Not nice emails. They were emails filled with expletives and full of berating comments.

Since strawpoll08 is trying to be fair and include all, (as you can see from having over 120 candidates and over 50 parties to choose from) I decided to put him on all the polls.

I soon learned something. In the world of the Ron Paul follower, if he isn't winning, then it must be because of a big vast corporate conspiracy meant to suppress him. But if he is winning, then it's the Jesus given truth.

Well Ron Paul wasn't winning some of the polls. Because of this I received many berating emails filled with expletives, insults and conspiracy theories. The chat room and myspace messages were filled with such messages too.

We're not talking a handful of idiots here. We're talking many uncouth idiots...

So I made another decision to not reward bad behavior. I took him off all the polls.

I received even more expletive filled berating messages.

Well it quieted down. I'd receive the random expletive filled message here and there for the next seven months.

Come October I had to update my polls. Just as a token of good will to the jerk-wads, I thought I'd put him back on the expanded and junk polls at least.

No sooner is he added and I start receiving the mass, berating expletive filled messages again!

It is mass consensus amongst non-Ron Paul supporters online, that the majority of his followers are uncouth, rude thugs! So me noticing this isn't something limited to strawpoll08. Even Ron Paul himself had to separate himself from his supporters for their actions.

My point? My site is not the only one that recognizes Paul supporters need a serious attitude adjustment.

I never received a message from another candidate's followers berating me about their candidate..."

http://www.strawpoll08.com/ronpaul.htm

"... legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property... Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right."
Thomas Jefferson (in a letter to James Madison), 1785

"While it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from Nature at all ... it is considered by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no one has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land ... Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society."
Thomas Jefferson

"Private property ... is a Creature of Society, and is subject to the Calls of that Society, whenever its Necessities shall require it, even to its last Farthing, its contributors therefore to the public Exigencies are not to be considered a Benefit on the Public, entitling the Contributors to the Distinctions of Honor and Power, but as the Return of an Obligation previously received, or as payment for a just Debt."
Benjamin Franklin

"All property, indeed, except the savage's temporary cabin, his bow, his matchcoat and other little Acquisitions absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the creature of public Convention. Hence, the public has the rights of regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the quantity and uses of it. All the property that is necessary to a man is his natural Right, which none may justly deprive him of, but all Property superfluous to such Purposes is the property of the Public who, by their Laws have created it and who may, by other Laws dispose of it."
Benjamin Franklin

"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
Thomas Paine

"Personal property is the effect of Society; and it is as impossible for an individual to acquire personal property without the aid of society, as it is for him to make land originally. Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist, the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation therefore of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes, on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came. This is putting the matter on a general principle, and perhaps it is best to do so; for if we examine the case minutely, it will be found, that the accumulation of personal property is, in many instances, the effect of paying too little for the labour that produced it; the consequence of which is, that the working hand perishes in old age, and the employer abounds in affluence. It is perhaps impossible to proportion exactly the price of labour to the profits it produces; and it will also be said, as an apology for injustice, that were a workman to receive an increase of wages daily, he would not save it against old age nor be much the better for it in the interim. Make then Society the treasurer to guard it for him in a common fund, for it is no reason that because he might not make a good use of it for himself that another shall take it."
Thomas Paine, "Agrarian Justice" 1797

"Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all."
Adam Smith

Immigration, legal and otherwise, is a matter that needs to be addressed. It will be as soon as we put Republicans, from Bush to Paul, to bed for good.

I find it funny that you all bemoan Paul for being a constitutionalist. If you don;t like the constitution then change it, as Paul is willing to do and not go around it. He wants to repel an invasion into our country, as the President takes an oath to protect us from threats both foreign and domestic. Why should a gun be put to my head and be forced to drop my cash for an illegal immigrant who breaks his arm sneaking into my country.
In fact why should we be forced to take care of an anchor baby, let mexico or private charity deal with that.

Another note: Paul has Libertarian tendencies, but he is much more of a Constitutionalist. True Libertarianism, which would create equal playing field for all, would most likely require an eradication of the constitution as too many limits are in place because of that document.

"Why are you guys all mad?"

We came here from the CFR link and by extension loathe US sovereignty, private property, and personal liberty. If someone is an enemy of trade agreements, central economic planning and state imposed social engineering -- he is an enemy of ours.

Ron Paul is the only capable presidential candidate who is not a member of our council, and as such we detest his opposition to the unelected and unaccountable elitism of Lionel Curtis so admired by the original New York Council; “right public opinion was mainly produced by a small number of people in real contact with the facts, who had thought out the issues involved.”

For an example of the type of extra-constitional imperialism we favor, see Michael Mandelbaum.

The 14th Amendment was never intended to give citizenship to the children of illegals. Paul's position on this issue 100% in line with the Constitution. I am a Paul supporter and this mailing doesn't bother me at all. In fact, Paul's position on combating the illegal immigration problem is the #1 reason why I am supporting him.