Mitt Romney: I dont know what the Constitution says! Ask Ron Paul

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


According to you the CRA is pretty much worthless?
OK fine.
It does NOTHING TO HARM YOU IN ANYWAY.
So what is the issue? Why the argument to do away with it at all?

I have asked a lot of Ron Paul supporters what liberties were lost by the CRA and while they all claim some were, none can name a single one. Ron Paul keeps talking about how it infringes on liberty and should be controlled by the states.
1. He cannot name one liberty it infringes upon.
2. Last time it was in the hands of the states we had cheap cotton.

reply to post by Kafternin

Perhaps the subject is too complicated, not "black and white" with the simple answer you are looking for.
Granting unlimited power to the federal government can happen over time, and come in a pretty package, but ultimately create as many or more problems than it solves.
Paul understands this, as do many of us. You don't.
It is okay.
Yes, slavery existed, and the federal government was there the entire time until it was abolished for political reasons. You knew that, didn't you?

The people who favor big government are not impressed with the words of the founding fathers. They think they themselves are smarter than the founders. To them the constitution is a living document, to be changed on a whim.

Their hero is Obama, one who knows the constitution very well and considers it something to be overcome, an inconvenience. He would throw it out, and be king, if he could. It limits him. He wishes to rewrite it to empower himself and his minions. To say what the government must do for citizens, rather than what government is forbidden to do to citizens. This is the problem with POTUS, not his color, rather his politics.

Once the socialists or communists get in, it is unlikely they will go quietly if voted out. I hope I am wrong about all of this. See you all in the camps...

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

You treat the Civil Right Act as if it was some holy and perfect doctrine, but it did not put an end to racism and you know it.

Strange that you seem to feel the intent of the Civil Rights Act was to "end racism"????

Does outlawing pedophilia end pedophilia? Does outlawing theft end thievery? Ad infinium.

The Civil rights act was a legal declaration of American Principles and a mechanism for justice....not an end to those who inflict those injusticies. The law is incapable of effecting men's hearts or minds. The law is means to hold those men to account.

"End racism"..that seemed a particularly dishonest slight of logic.

Mitt, I'll take "Things You Don't Know about the Constitution and yet you will swear to defend and uphold it" for $200!

Originally posted by kawika
The people who favor big government are not impressed with the words of the founding fathers.

Are you refering to the people that envision a government legislating values and religious preference?

Contraception, Marriage, Religious choice etc.?

Originally posted by dadgad

So you are actually denying that there was an immense racist undertone in American society? Just because the constitution equals all men doesn't mean that in practice it works that way. I mean, history proves that. Throughout American history African-Americans and other minorities have been oppressed, discriminated and treated as second-class citizens because of their skin color only. If this proves only one thing, it is that a few lines in a constitution don't guarantee anything. That is why the Civil Rights Act was necessary. And it is a mile-stone in political history, if not only because it recognizes the fact that a constitution alone is not enough to provide for everyone that what is god given (excuse my terminology).

Where in the world did I deny that there was a large section of the American public which was extremely racist? What I am saying is that there was no need to implement the Civil Rights Act because the rights to minorities was included in the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't say that only white men were created equal, or that the rights enumerated within the Constitution only applies to white men.

IMO the Civil Rights Act was implemented for a simple purpose, to hide where most of the racism really came from.

A lot of Americans have forgotten that it was the Democrats, who were the rich plantation owners in the south, and a majority of the south whom were also Democrats, who were extremely racist against minorities.

The people living in the north were mostly Republicans, the Yankees, among them, and it was under a Republican President, and with the Republican's help that slavery was abolished, but the Democrats in the south kept their resentment for the most part, and the Civil Rights Act was implemented, under a Democrat President to slowly make Americans forget that part of American history.

I am not saying every Democrat was racist, there were some Democrats who grew a soul and also helped slaves, just like there were some Republicans who were also racists against minorities, but on the overall the racism existed amongst Democrats for the most part.

One thing you might have forgotten is that at the beginning the powers of the Civil Rights Act were really weak, and only when Congress asserted it's will to enforce parts of the U.S. Constitution, did the "Civil Rights legislation" actually started winning some ground

...
Powers given to enforce the act were initially weak, but were supplemented during later years. Congress asserted its authority to legislate under several different parts of the United States Constitution, principally its power to regulate interstate commerce under Article One (section 8), its duty to guarantee all citizens equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment and its duty to protect voting rights under the Fifteenth Amendment. The Act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, who would later sign the landmark Voting Rights Act into law.

en.wikipedia.org...

There is another little fact that many Americans have forgotten, it might seem silly, but it really is not. Before the 2000 elections, and every election before it, Republicans were known to use the color blue to show which counties, and states were Republicans, and Democrats used the color red.

It was in the 2000 elections that the color scheme were reversed, and imo this wasn't just an oversight, but it was done because Democrats lean to the left, and most of their legislation tends to be extremely similar to socialist and communist legislation, and the color red incidentally is also used by socialists/communists, and the Democrats/and TPTB didn't want Americans to keep tying Democrats with socialism/communism.

Just like people should realise the fact that it wasn't just an oversight the fact that the OWS camp for the most part used socialist/communist logos, and they had the backing of Democrat groups/partners.

To some, mostly those in the left, these things might seem trivial, or just chance, but it is in fact predetermined.

Originally posted by dadgad
You treat the written constitution as some holy and perfect doctrine. By doing that you simply ignore the reality of everyday to day life and undermine the way humans behave. If the written constitution would have been enough then there would have been no racism.

Perfect? There is nothing perfect in this world, but the United States Constitution is the best thing that happened to Americans. This is reiterated by the fact that, among other things, Congress had to enforce parts of the United States Constitution in order for the Civil Rights to be protected.

By why didn't Congress just do that from the beginning? All they had to do was enforce the U.S. Constitution and the rights even of minorities would have been protected from the beginning.

Originally posted by SurrealisticPillow
reply to post by Kafternin

 

Perhaps the subject is too complicated, not "black and white" with the simple answer you are looking for.

Of course the subject is too complicated. My question however is not too complicated at all. In fact, I wrote it myself. It is quite simple.
I guess this is a way of not answering but also responding? Pretend my question is something else?

Granting unlimited power to the federal government can happen over time, and come in a pretty package, but ultimately create as many or more problems than it solves.
Paul understands this, as do many of us. You don't.

I don't?

Your roof can fall in as well.
Yes, I understand that things are possible.
Why do you make the leap from possible to probable, especially in this case?
Do you know?

It is okay.
Yes, slavery existed, and the federal government was there the entire time until it was abolished for political reasons. You knew that, didn't you?

It was like you hit reply and typed a bunch of stuff just to say "I am not going to even try to respond to your post but I am going to throw some empty talking points at you."
Could have done it one line.

Originally posted by Indigo5
...
The Civil rights act was a legal declaration of American Principles and a mechanism for justice....not an end to those who inflict those injusticies. The law is incapable of effecting men's hearts or minds. The law is means to hold those men to account.
...

And exactly what is the U.S. Constitution?... In it you can find that EVERYONE'S rights, not just white men's, are protected...

The Civil Rights Act was nothing more than a political tool trying to shift more Americans to the Democrat party.

I am not saying the Republican Party is perfect, in fact it isn't. After almost 100 years of open corruption which the progressive Democrats allowed to enter in our political system, including in our economy, even the Republican Party, for the most part, has been corrupted.

I am certain that the mayority of Americans don't even remember the fact that it was the Republican Party which used to be "the party of the people", and the Democrat Party was the Party of the rich, and the banksters.

The roles were reversed imo to swicth Americans into accepting more leftwing legislation, and at the end to allow the dissolution of the Republic of the United States into something more leftwing, such as The Socialist Republic of North America, or The Social Democratic Republic of North America, which will occur in time unfortunately.

What I still don't understand is why so many politicians, even back 100 years ago allowed this to happen when they knew they would not see the end goal of these changes happen.

Was it perhaps the goal of a group of people, such as for example "The Illuminati" which has passed down this goal from generation to generation of members to CHANGE the Republic of the United States, hence the reason why politicians and other people in power made the changes so slowly?

When you make such changes as slowly as they have occurred most people would not even notice, hence you have a greater chance at success, and will avoid the American public from rising up against these changes.

reply to post by Kafternin

Of course the subject is too complicated.

Well, I figured as much. Perhaps you should start with reading the actual legislation? But, it IS a bit complicated trying to understand the true intent as opposed to stated intent. After all, POLITICIANS or perhaps lobbyists wrote it. I bet Ron Paul has read it.

In fact, I wrote it myself. It is quite simple.

Yes, we covered that.

I guess this is a way of not answering but also responding? Pretend my question is something else?

Again...twice I provided the answer, and twice you failed to comprehend. Did you put the sock with the hole in it back on? (That is an analogy btw)

I don't? Your roof can fall in as well. Yes, I understand that things are possible. Why do you make the leap from possible to probable, especially in this case? Do you know?

Yes, I think you don't. As for my roof, if enough government legislation is stacked upon my roof, then yes, the roof could fall in. (Another analogy)

It was like you hit reply and typed a bunch of stuff just to say "I am not going to even try to respond to your post but I am going to throw some empty talking points at you." Could have done it one line.

We covered this already. I understand that you are looking for a simple answer to a complicated question. I see many reporters doing this to Ron Paul, trying to score "simpleton" points. I know the agenda THEY have. What is yours?

A star & flag to you. That is just sad. I see no humor in that whatsoever. I find the fact that there was a crowd of Americans that find humor in it is nothing short of just plain scary. This is just one more item in a growing list of reasons not to vote for Obamney.

I do find solace in the fact that Obamney just told us all, even if many did not understand it, that Ron Paul is clearly more qualified to be president,

He is obviously threatened by Paul but for any presidential candidate to attempt to use knowing and understanding the constitution as an insult is simply stunning.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by Indigo5
...
The Civil rights act was a legal declaration of American Principles and a mechanism for justice....not an end to those who inflict those injusticies. The law is incapable of effecting men's hearts or minds. The law is means to hold those men to account.
...

And exactly what is the U.S. Constitution?... In it you can find that EVERYONE'S rights, not just white men's, are protected...

The Civil Rights Act was nothing more than a political tool trying to shift more Americans to the Democrat party.

I am not sure where to begin with such a claim that is simply not historically accurate.

The civil rights act was anything but a tool to shift more Americans to the Democrat party.

The South was virtually entirely Democrat and the north virtually entirely Republican prior to the Civil rights act ...they flipped geography after the civil rights act and the forced desegration of the south and the Democrat Party lost significant numbers of voters leading to Nixon being elected for two terms by a landslide.

The GOP only lost power after Nixons scandal and resignation and after Ford finished his term and Dem. Carter was elected as a knee jerk reaction.

The Civil Rights act didn't win any voters - just the opposite, if not for Nixon getting caught he would have likely served two terms and Carter would have lost to Gerald Ford, Nixon had one a second term for the GOP by a landslide just a few years prior.

The Democrats had a massive recovery ahead of them...Nixon won EVERY State in the Union with the lone exception of MA...think about that. If not for the Nixon Scandal the Dems would not have seen the white house untilt he 80's at a minimum. It took time for even the north to come fully to grips with Civil rights.

He is some pictoral history of what the 1964 Civil rights Act did to the political leanings of the USA..

Before the Civil Rights Act





After the Civil Rights Act

reply to post by ElectricUniverse



Look I have to keep it short. I strongly suggest you look into the Civil Rights movement. What these people fought for is one the most honorable things in American history.

I don't understand why you can't get it through your head that regardless how beautiful the constitution sounds it clearly was not sufficient enough. Why is that so hard and painful to admit?

Lol!!

Originally posted by kawika
The people who favor big government are not impressed with the words of the founding fathers. They think they themselves are smarter than the founders. To them the constitution is a living document, to be changed on a whim.

Their hero is Obama, one who knows the constitution very well and considers it something to be overcome, an inconvenience. He would throw it out, and be king, if he could. It limits him. He wishes to rewrite it to empower himself and his minions. To say what the government must do for citizens, rather than what government is forbidden to do to citizens. This is the problem with POTUS, not his color, rather his politics.

Once the socialists or communists get in, it is unlikely they will go quietly if voted out. I hope I am wrong about all of this. See you all in the camps...

edit on 11-1-2012 by kawika because: corectolated spel'n err

I think Obama is already forming the - Transition Committee - for an orderly transfer of power
to the GOP in January 2013.

The time has come to reduce the size of the US Government. Obama blew it.
First on the list is the EPA. They are out of control.

Originally posted by KaiserSoze
A star & flag to you. That is just sad. I see no humor in that whatsoever. I find the fact that there was a crowd of Americans that find humor in it is nothing short of just plain scary. This is just one more item in a growing list of reasons not to vote for Obamney.

I do find solace in the fact that Obamney just told us all, even if many did not understand it, that Ron Paul is clearly more qualified to be president,

He is obviously threatened by Paul but for any presidential candidate to attempt to use knowing and understanding the constitution as an insult is simply stunning.

The media question was absurd.
We have a terrible economy with millions out of work and we get side tracked with BS questions
that take up valuable time during a presidential debate.