Mike
Well-known member
and listen carefully.....................................
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB181Lm9shs&feature=youtu.be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB181Lm9shs&feature=youtu.be
Lonecowboy said:U.S.Constitution
Article. I.
Section 1.
ALL legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
ALL is a pretty inclusive word- what is left for the president then?
NONE Newt!
anyone still want to vote for him after seeing that video?
Steve said:Lonecowboy said:U.S.Constitution
Article. I.
Section 1.
ALL legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
ALL is a pretty inclusive word- what is left for the president then?
NONE Newt!
anyone still want to vote for him after seeing that video?
given the faults of all the candidates it is hard to rule out any of them... let alone support one wholeheartedly..
for as much as I agree with you about the executive orders, I would also question Ron Paul's sanity on dealing with Iran..
Newt has alot of baggage.. but he has been able to get "conservative" issue to the forefront and has a track record of furthering conservative issue.. including welfare reform under a democratic president.. it wasn't perfect but it was a large step in the right direction..
and don't take this as an attack on Paul or personally,, but...
in all the years Ron Paul has been in congress has he actually accomplished anything?..
given the faults of all the candidates it is hard to rule out any of them... let alone support one wholeheartedly..
Lonecowboy said:Steve said:Lonecowboy said:U.S.Constitution
Article. I.
Section 1.
ALL legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
ALL is a pretty inclusive word- what is left for the president then?
NONE Newt!
anyone still want to vote for him after seeing that video?
given the faults of all the candidates it is hard to rule out any of them... let alone support one wholeheartedly..
for as much as I agree with you about the executive orders, I would also question Ron Paul's sanity on dealing with Iran..
Newt has alot of baggage.. but he has been able to get "conservative" issue to the forefront and has a track record of furthering conservative issue.. including welfare reform under a democratic president.. it wasn't perfect but it was a large step in the right direction..
and don't take this as an attack on Paul or personally,, but...
in all the years Ron Paul has been in congress has he actually accomplished anything?..
following our Constitution must be a far harder job than it seems but Ron Paul seems to be one of the few that does, that in itself is a major accomplishment.
as far as:
given the faults of all the candidates it is hard to rule out any of them... let alone support one wholeheartedly..
I have to disagree with you, we need men of integrity that will keep their oath to God and our Constitution- I can NOT /will NOT support someone who campaigns on the promise of NOT following our Constitution which is the law of the land!
Do I support Ron Paul "wholeheartedly" no, but he is the best I see out there for adhereing to our Constitution. does that tie his hands in our corrupt system of usurpers- you bet it does. That is why I support Ron Paul all the more for not caving in and going with the status quo but instead standing with integrity on principle- Who else that is running has a record of doing that?
Faster horses said:Lonecowboy said:Steve said:given the faults of all the candidates it is hard to rule out any of them... let alone support one wholeheartedly..
for as much as I agree with you about the executive orders, I would also question Ron Paul's sanity on dealing with Iran..
Newt has alot of baggage.. but he has been able to get "conservative" issue to the forefront and has a track record of furthering conservative issue.. including welfare reform under a democratic president.. it wasn't perfect but it was a large step in the right direction..
and don't take this as an attack on Paul or personally,, but...
in all the years Ron Paul has been in congress has he actually accomplished anything?..
following our Constitution must be a far harder job than it seems but Ron Paul seems to be one of the few that does, that in itself is a major accomplishment.
as far as:
given the faults of all the candidates it is hard to rule out any of them... let alone support one wholeheartedly..
I have to disagree with you, we need men of integrity that will keep their oath to God and our Constitution- I can NOT /will NOT support someone who campaigns on the promise of NOT following our Constitution which is the law of the land!
Do I support Ron Paul "wholeheartedly" no, but he is the best I see out there for adhereing to our Constitution. does that tie his hands in our corrupt system of usurpers- you bet it does. That is why I support Ron Paul all the more for not caving in and going with the status quo but instead standing with integrity on principle- Who else that is running has a record of doing that?
This is a tough one because we all know that being right is not always
(hardly ever) popular and being popular is not always right. Not one of
the candidates is perfect, it's my thought we need to keep our eye on
who can beat Obama. Much as I like Ron Paul, I don't think it would be him.
And I too fear how he would deal with Iran. So, until something really
changes, I'm still for Newt.
FWIW
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
How could a readiness for war in time of peace be safely prohibited, unless we could prohibit, in like manner, the preparations and establishments of every hostile nation?
– James Madison
January 19, 1788
Larrry said:We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
How do we interpret this. I do guess that everyone is reading and taking this a little different. I think we can all agree that obama is not even close
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
The Congress shall have the power to.............
....declare war......and make rules concerning Captures on Land and Water, to raise and support Armies........... to provide and maintain a Navy;to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces...................to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers vested by this Constitution.............
Larrry said:Can common defense only be achieved on US soil?
Lone Cowboy said:so Steve the fault doesn't lie with Ron Paul but with the liberal/statist "stallers" in comittees! If this country cannot be saved by a man of integrity then how are men of lesser quality going to do it?
I believe this country will only be saved by God through men of integrity!
he Articles of Confederation established the first governmental structure unifying the thirteen states that had fought in the American Revolution. They went into effect on March 1, 1781 and lasted until March 4, 1789 when they were replaced by the US Constitution. Why did the Articles of Confederation only last eight years? In effect why did the Articles of Confederation fail?
The purpose of the Articles of Confederation was to create a confederation of states whereby each state retained "its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right . . . not . . . expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled." In other words, every state was as independent as possible with the United States only responsible for the common defense, security of liberties, and the general welfare. To this effect, the Articles were purposely written to keep the national government as weak as possible. However, there were many problems that soon became apparent as the Articles took effect.
Under the Articles of Confederation, states often argued amongst themselves. They also refused to financially support the national government. The national government was powerless to enforce any acts it did pass. Some states began making agreements with foreign governments. Most had their own military. Each state printed its own money. There was no stable economy.
In 1786, Shays' Rebellion occurred in western Massachusetts as a protest to rising debt and economic chaos. However, the national government was unable to gather a combined military force amongst the states to help put down the rebellion.
Gathering of the Philadelphia Convention
As the economic and military weaknesses became apparent, individuals began asking for changes to the Articles that would create a stronger national government. Initially, some states met to deal with their trade and economic problems. As more states became interested in meeting to change the Articles, a meeting was set in Philadelphia on May 25, 1787. This became the Constitutional Convention.
Under the Articles, on paper, the Congress had power to regulate foreign affairs, war, and the postal service and to appoint military officers, control Indian affairs, borrow money, determine the value of coin, and issue bills of credit. In reality, however, the Articles gave the Congress no power to enforce its requests to the states for money or troops, and by the end of 1786 governmental effectiveness had broken down.