This is true, but not the way you make it sound. He picks and chooses what is unconstitutional for the federal government to do based on a strict literal translation of the constitution. The U.S. Constitution is not like the bible. it is law, a written legal contract between the government of the United States of America its people. There must not be any “interpretation,” but only reading and applying what is there. If the constitutions gives us the right to bear arms, than we must all be allowed to do so. If we feel exceptions should be made (such as for atomic bombs or people who are clinically insane or have criminal records) than the contract must be changed, not simply “interpreted” differently in a way that it was “supposed” to mean, which is really just going to end up being whatever meaning you want it to have.

As far as I can tell Ron Paul think the Fderal government should have a role in just the fallowing:

1. National security. (as apposed to global security, i.e. Iraq/Korea)
2. Providing and protecting a sound currency. (as apposed to a private bank running the show)
3. Protecting the inalienable rights of the people outlined in the constitution. (as apposed to things like the patriot act, the FDA, IRS, banning gay marriage, national ID cards, the FDE, and many many other examples)
4. Amending the constitution when the people see fit. (such as a constitutional amendment defining when human life begins, as apposed to the courts legislating instead of judging)

So basically the federal government would by tiny if he had his way, letting the free market (NGO’s, companies, churches, consumers, families, etc.) take care of many of the things the Fed does (very poorly, I might add) these days. Yes, he is picking and choosing the role of the federal government, but he’s picking and choosing very little, and he’s picking and choosing based on a strict reading (rather than “interpretation”) of the U.S. Constitution.

My point? America needs to unify. Not by the iron fist of the collectivists, but by our free will and rationality as individuals. Not the easiest thing to do, I realize, but at least we can try. Can’t we?

Ron Paul is harmless. Better than that, he really wants to fix this mess. None of these other CFR cronies running for President are serious about THAT. Sound ideas, principles, and theorems- not outward appearances of the same- are going to be our guides in this revolution.

I think we need to get back to the Constitution, or as near as possible. The Law needs to be clear and concise, so all can know it and understand it. If we get to that point, We the People will at least be in charge of our own destiny again. No more lawyers yanking us around with laws we’ve never even heard of. We’re at a crossroads as a nation… Golden Age, or despotism?

Lovers of Liberty: get the facts, run for office, support like-minded people, and we can certainly take our power back.

Ok, I feel better now.

3 simple things are the core of government’s purpose.
- protect individual rights
- protect property rights
- defend the country

Regulating money falls under property rights. The Dept of Treasury is necessary because it regulates the value of money. Money is property. Of course Paul believes in the Dept of Treasury. He is, however, against private involvement in regulating money, ergo the Federal Reserve.

The gay adoption thing needs more info. I don’t buy that he’s all anti-gay. Many other voting stances paint a different picture. I’m sure it’ll get clarified somewhere. Like Todd says, check the legislation. And if I’m wrong… oh man, what a sinister guy… lets execute him, that bastard.

Please get off the emotional high horses.

Cheers!

Legislation is rarely a genuine reflection of the TITLE it’s been given…
Legislation is rarely a genuine representation of the PEOPLE it will affect–rather the will of powerful lobby dollars… You all know this…

Don’t let WebSide Ventures fool you with sound-bites. Look at the fruits Ron Paul has bore and perhaps even, READ the legislation he’s voted on!

I’ve never known of a politician as principaled an honest as Ron Paul.

Don’t be so damn ignorant about this issue, it is important to understand that Net neutrality is being pushed by corporate lobbyists. you all should ask yourselves, WHY??!

There are many examples of things we take for granted that the federal government has done in the last few hundred years that aren’t talked about in the constitution. Alexander Hamilton was (I think) the first to introduce the implied powers of the executive branch, and that argument has admittedly been used to some extremes at times.

RP is basically picking and choosing what he thinks is “unconstitutional” for the federal government to do. He is holding up the constitution as this wonderful document that we should adhere to, but conveniently forgetting how it’s been interpreted for the last 200+ years. That’s including by those who wrote it! It doesn’t get any more clear than that.

I agree that the No Child Left Behind legislation is a good candidate for The Stupidest Idea Ever, but that doesn’t mean the federal government is all bad. It needs competent leadership, who values competence over loyalty. In theory the people should choose the most competent leader. Unfortunately the leadership we have has been very manipulative, playing on peoples’ fear to stay in power. You might guess from what I’ve written that I would vote for Obama, or maybe even Bloomberg if he runs.

@Stryder: That’s pretty funny because I was about to write to you that surely all you need to be happy was your property and a gun to protect it, maybe in sub-Saharan Africa where you would have very little government involvement? But I settled for the shorter version, which I should probably have done for RestoreTheRepublic also.

By the way, what does “Restore The Republic” mean? Restore to what? The 18th century standard, exactly as it was in 1776, before the federal government was established? Or maybe to the time of the Gold Rush? Please explain.

All right, that’s enough “bashing and hating” for now. Actually I kind of feel sorry for the guy.

Also, to the genius who brought up the Federalist Papers…would you care to explain how, exactly, Ron Paul has “misinterpreted” the Constitution, and the source of the interpretation you apparently subscribe to? You must be reading a different document (IE not the Supreme Law of the Land) if you think that Ron Paul’s views on constitutional authority are anything but honest and politically accurate. We aren’t talking about the Bible here, the US Constitution enumerates the rights of the people and the powers of government very clearly, with little room for interpretation. If something is wrong, we amend it. Otherwise we follow it without any deviation. Our government has failed to do so, and we have all failed to punish them for it. Ron Paul is our only hope.

The bashers and haters seem to be a bit silent about their preferred candidates…probably because not a single one of them even comes close to Dr. Paul in the categories of honesty and consistency.

This is a rare time where two individuals will see differently and end it peacefully *puts gun away* lol >:p

“Reposting the first dude’s very excellent and fully accurate post of Dr. Gold-Standard’s voting record.” Whoever posted this has some guts, the first post was a complete trash piece by someone who obviously doesn’t do his own homework.

I looked up those votes. The things you claim he voted “YES” or “NO” for are things he voted because they were either unconstitutional, or represented more government interference in our lives. Watch any Ron Paul speech. He’s ALWAYS consistent. NO other candidate can say this, especially for TWENTY YEARS.

Check out this video of Ron Paul 20 years ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBLaLFOYuRg Does this sound like a guy who changes his view on positions?

All I can say is those reposting garbage should be ashamed of themselves. I encourage EVERYONE to do their OWN research because the characterization of Ron Paul by that first voter is egregiously misrepresentative of what Ron Paul stands for and HAS VOTED FOR his entire life.

- He voted against Net Neutrality because he feels the government shouldn’t even know about the net, period. When the government knows about something they automatically will get their hand in it. He wants it in an ” Open Market ” not to be government regulated because anytime the government is involved ( just look at the departments and programs ) they screw it up.

- When you bring up ” if the government should limit this company or that company” , it’s a branch of Communism. That is like saying ” If TechCrunch became the primer blog site to visit and the world decided to only view this site because it was their choice to, the government would cut it down to a limit so other sites can come up. Is that TechCrunch’s fault or the consumer?

The government should not limit someone or something because of it’s success, if you don’t like it then don’t support it, you want to change it, then create something new for consumers ( That is a truly free market that Ron Paul preaches )

- Anything he votes against ( no ) to is because he doesn’t want ” US Taxpayers ” to pay for these programs, It’s unconstitutional.

- And To Mattias: I see your post so I’m going to reply to it because it falls in line with some others that think along the same line as you do:

A Consumer is the purchaser of an item, if you bought it ( or support it ) you deal with it. I don’t know where you got the idea he means for someone else to worry about it ( That is the democrats way ) . If everyone watched for themselves they’d use a little more caution instead of the way it could go where it would be ” Oh I bought it but now ,it’s doing this, let me complain to the government so I can sue ”

The Democratic field ( in other words ) are Socialists. Look at the stances.

The founders cherished Liberty not Democracy, learn the difference. This is the ” Republic of the United States Of America ” not the Democratic.

And on a final note, don’t get confused on how and why Ron Paul is running when in the votes he is not cutting it or likely to be president, look at him as a Rude Awakening for the people who have been sleeping all these years.

People who were never into politics, never looked at history, never thought about running are now, getting involved in every which way possible.

You are responsible for your own actions, not the government.

Have you ever read the constitution?

You speak as though your opinions are absolutes and that it is impossible that another person may have opinions differing from your own.

Of course, the average politician often gives unconvincing responses, incoherent arguments, and messes up their sentences. But Paul is supposed to be an above average politician, a leader, for God’s sake. How he’s managed to command the spotty, seething masses of Digg.com I’ve no idea, because compared to Obama, or even Clinton, Romney and the rest of the field, he’s about as inspiring as a sack of porridge.

Anyway, to the Ron Paul “supporters”: How about you read the Federalist Papers which elaborate pretty well on the intentions of the Constitution. I think you will come away with the impression that Ron Paul has (intentionally?) misunderstood the Constitution. Unless you want to interpret it literally, I guess, but that’s a different issue. Just read the Federalist Papers. While you’re at it, read “Alexander Hamilton” by Ron Chernow. Hamilton is really the guy responsible for our strong federal government, for example by assuming the states’ debt after the revolutionary war. He deserves great respect.

Everything is easy and elegant if you take Ron Paul’s road. Why? Because it’s an abdication of responsibility. Everything becomes someone else’s problem. Pollution? Just leave it to the consumer. Which consumer? Someone other than you. What about abuse in China? Not up to us - now please go to WalMart and buy some crap to support the economy. It would be the end of the USA. Happily, Hell will freeze over before he becomes President. Now I’ll just sit back and watch the flames.

Ron Paul voted NO on establishing “network neutrality” (non-tiered Internet).
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record.
[Voted to] Abolish the federal Department of Education. (Dec 2000)
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer.
Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR.
Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels.
Rated 5% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes.
Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids.
Rated 76% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record.
[Voted to] Abolish federal Medicare entitlement; leave it to states.
Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight.
Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment.
Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration.

IOW, Ron Paul has a near 100% voting record IN FAVOR OF GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE in the areas where the government has no place regulating, and AGAINST GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE WHEN IT’S ACTUALLY NECESSARY, like environmental regulation, where corporations generally foist off the externalities of pollution onto the surrounding communities.

States’ rights is no excuse; the Constitution applies to the federal AND state governments.

Way to go, “Libertarian.”

The school prayer bill Paul sponsored is not aimed at making anyone pray it explicitly forbids forced prayer. That bill was designed to allow people to pray in schools or give freedom of religion. As a Buddist you should love the law as it will give you the right to meditate and to form a group of Buddists to meditate together with restriction.

The bill for intelligence was to a large bill that funded all intelligence. Paul is the only Republican that voted against the patriot act and the FISA bill. You are completely being misled by this information source you have. You need to get a good source for information.

ON stem cells did you know that Ron Paul voted no on a stem cell ban and also voted no on a federal ban on human cloning? Both of these severely limits the science that could help your genetic disorder.

And finally for your gay adopted son Ron Paul voted against the national amendment to ban gay marriage. Don’t you think your son has the right to live in a state that will accept him and his partner’s right to live together in peace? or are civil unions offered up by the liberals good enough for you?

Not sure who or where you are getting your information but your sources are misleading you, you should try; if you have time; to find information that is less biased and does not have an agenda.