Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Barry Goldwater Jr. Endorses Ron Paul
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA-Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul today gained a public endorsement from Barry M. Goldwater, Jr.
"America is at a crossroads," said Mr. Goldwater. "We have begun to stray from our traditions and must get back to what has made us the greatest nation on earth or we will lose much of the freedom we hold dear. Ron Paul stands above all of the other candidates in his commitment to liberty and to America."
"Leading America is difficult, and I know Ron Paul is the man for the job," he added.
Mr. Goldwater is the son of the late former Republican presidential candidate and Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater. Barry Goldwater, Jr. served in the House of Representatives for six terms with Texas Congressman Paul, and is currently on the Board of Directors of the Goldwater Institute. After representing northern Los Angeles County in Washington, D.C. for 14 years, Mr. Goldwater retired from politics in 1983 to pursue a successful career in business and humanitarian ventures.
"The Ron Paul campaign is exceptionally honored by Mr. Goldwater's endorsement," said Paul campaign manager Lew Moore. "Dr. Paul and Congressman Goldwater fought together in the Congress for the ideals of limited constitutional government that Mr. Goldwater's father so tirelessly advocated. The Goldwaters have left an indelible mark on the Republican Party, and theirs is a legacy which Congressman Paul will certainly inherit as President."
The late Barry M. Goldwater, Sr. sparked the modern conservative movement and was the Republican Party presidential nominee in 1964.
reason on Barry Sr. here and here.
On Ron Paul here.
Jorgen|11.16.07 @ 12:01PM|#
It's interesting that this sort of endorsement is coming from someone who's now outside of politics; it seems like the endorsement process is as much about getting to the front of the influence line as it is about actually supporting the best candidate, so it's probably dangerous for a public official to support somebody who isn't going to win.
Bingo|11.16.07 @ 12:03PM|#
Jorgen: Why else would Hillary be getting so much cashola from defense contractors? If you don't bet on the winning horse you lose a lot of influence in DC.
Episiarch|11.16.07 @ 12:07PM|#
Why else would Hillary be getting so much cashola from
defense contractors? If you don't bet on the winning horse you lose
a lot of influence in DC.
Don't be silly. Hillary is going to get us out of Iraq, why would
defense contractors give her money? Oh wait...
|11.16.07 @ 12:09PM|#
The reason Episiarch's comment is so insightful is because we won't spend any money on defense programs if the Iraq War ends.
|11.16.07 @ 12:10PM|#
Remember back before the Iraq War, when the management at
Northrup Grumman had to wait tables at night to pay the rent?
No, me neither.
hiimallen|11.16.07 @ 12:12PM|#
A son of a son of liberty endorsing a true man of liberty. How
fitting indeed!
Watch a vid on my blog of Ronald Reagan stumping for Goldwater in
1964
WE NEED RON PAUL!!!
hiimallen|11.16.07 @ 12:16PM|#
joe you are WRONG
Ron Paul will
Stop USING our weapons for offense
OPEN U.S. bases closed by Clinton and Bush
Reallocate Defense spending to missle defense.
Severely reduce our risk of being attacked by terrorists.
Improve Recruitment Overnight by requiring congress to Declare
War.
Franklin Harris|11.16.07 @ 12:19PM|#
Excellent. I can remind Donderoooooo of this the next time he trots out his favorite non-sequitur: Barry Goldwater founded the libertarian movement (not true, but whatever); Goldwater was for a "strong military"; therefore all "true libertarians" must be for killing brown people in the Middle East, raping their daughters, and sowing their land with salt.
hiimallen|11.16.07 @ 12:19PM|#
If Ron Paul would have been President on 9/11 Osama would be hanging from ground zero. And Sadaam would have been overthrown by his own people.
|11.16.07 @ 12:19PM|#
I think you might be thinking about a different poster, hiimallen, because I didn't make any claims about Ron Paul.
|11.16.07 @ 12:20PM|#
joe | November 16, 2007, 12:10pm | #
Remember back before the Iraq War, when the management at Northrup
Grumman had to wait tables at night to pay the rent?
No, me neither.
Remember when Lockheed, Martin Marietta, Northrup, and Grumman were
all separate companies.
No? Maybe you should see someone about that.
|11.16.07 @ 12:21PM|#
I bet there are thousands of public important persons who would
like to endorse Ron Paul,if they haven't do that until now is
because they fear of being labeled by old media as "terrorists" ,
"isolationists" and things like that.
If he would start winning primaries,these people will take the
courage to endorse him.
a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for who REALLY love America
Minion of URKOBOLD|11.16.07 @ 12:22PM|#
AND IF RON PAUL WOULD HAVE BEEN PRESIDENT ON 9/11, ALL
PLEASANTLY- AND ERGONOMICALLY-SHAPED APPLICATOR TIPS WOULD BE SOFT
AND WARM.
IF RON PAUL WOULD HAVE BEEN PRESIDENT ON 9/11, WE WOULD KNOW THE
ANSWER TO THE QUESTION, "IS SULU GAY".
|11.16.07 @ 12:24PM|#
I bet there are thousands of public important persons who
would like to endorse Ron Paul
I doubt that. 'Public important persons' would necessarily be
people that thrive in the current establishment. President Paul
would be a credible threat to the continued success of just about
all of them.
Guy Montag|11.16.07 @ 12:25PM|#
Actually, the stupidest Ron Paulaholic thing in the DC area is
happening on Craig's List right now:
http://slashdot.org/~GMontag/journal/187999
As most of you are familiar with my picking on Paulaholics, it may
surprise you that I think the above went quite too far.
Wonkette found it before me and the discussion over there is beyond
silly.
|11.16.07 @ 12:27PM|#
joe,
Episiarch's argument is that the current big defense spending gravy
train will continue to roll with her. I doubt that he's arguing
that they weren't getting any of your tax dollars pre-911.
I'm not so sure. Even with Kosovo and Somalia, Bill continued the
defense cuts begun by George Senior. I don't see her ending US
entanglement in Iraq, but I can see her cutting defense
somewhat.
Edward,
I've missed you. I'll adjust my sights.
hiimallen,
joe was talking about Hillary and Ron Paul will almost certainly
not reopen closed US bases or increase spending on missile defense.
He will reduce the number of armed forces personnel since they
won't be needed overseas, so recruitment will not be an issue.
Episiarch|11.16.07 @ 12:27PM|#
If Ron Paul would have been President on 9/11 Osama would be
hanging from ground zero. And Sadaam would have been overthrown by
his own people.
Wow, Ron is cool and all, but I didn't realize he was Batman.
|11.16.07 @ 12:28PM|#
Warren,
I am old enough to remember the mergers in the defense industry in
the 90s, but I'm not sure about your point.
Are you trying to remind people that the last President Clinton cut
defense spending significantly, causing some of the defense
contractors to merge in order to deal with reduced revenues?
Otherwise, I'm not sure where you're going with this.
hiimallen|11.16.07 @ 12:29PM|#
How long would Osama be in Pakistan after Ron wins in 2008? Cut their foreign aid and put a $1 billion price on his head. "Letter of Marqe and Reprisal" anyone?
|11.16.07 @ 12:30PM|#
hiimallen,
You're beginning to help me see what Edward and Montag hate about
Paul boosters.
|11.16.07 @ 12:30PM|#
Rimfax,
Episiarch's argument is that the current big defense spending
gravy train will continue to roll with her.
No, Episiarch's argument is that the donation from defense
contractors demonstrates that Hillary Clinton's Iraq policy will be
indistinguishable from George Bush's.
If Eric Dondero is to be believed - which is a might big IF, I know
- Ron Paul would not have taken military action against Afghanistan
after 9/11, so it's pretty unlikely that Osama would have been
caught.
hiimallen|11.16.07 @ 12:31PM|#
"Ron Paul will almost certainly not reopen closed US bases or
increase spending on missile defense"
Wanna bet? Ron Paul is all about national defense.
Guy Montag|11.16.07 @ 12:34PM|#
How long would Osama be in Pakistan after Ron wins in 2008?
Cut their foreign aid and put a $1 billion price on his head.
"Letter of Marqe and Reprisal" anyone?
How could he cut their foreign aid below the amount zero that he
promises to cut it as soon as he is sworn in?
On a more practical note, how is he going to dictate this stuff to
the Congress? You know, that purse-string holding branch of
government?
|11.16.07 @ 12:34PM|#
joe,
Not exactly, I'm trying to remind you that a Republican congress
under a Democratic president cut defense spending significantly
with the major point being that we can now be sure that Hillary
will be no improvement over Cheney.
hiimallen|11.16.07 @ 12:34PM|#
Apologize for my boosting, but I see so many people saying "I like Ron Paul but..." as if he is against a strong national defense. Please ignore me if I get in the way of Ron Paul's sucess.
Episiarch|11.16.07 @ 12:35PM|#
Episiarch's argument is that the current big defense
spending gravy train will continue to roll with her.
No, Episiarch's argument is that the donation from defense
contractors demonstrates that Hillary Clinton's Iraq policy will be
indistinguishable from George Bush's.
Actually, you're both right. Congratulations, but you will have to
split the prize. 1/2 of zero is...well, you know.
|11.16.07 @ 12:36PM|#
Thank you very much, Mr. Goldwater!!
It is well known about my party (the GOP) that the most decent,
honorable, and principled man to carry it's banner as the nominee
for POTUS (BaAuH2O) got his teeth kicked in by the most dishonest,
dishonorable, and unprincipled man to ever carry the banner for the
Dems (Lying Bastard Johnson).
Very soon, we could face the very same situation, with Ron Paul as
the GOP candidate, and The Screech toting the rock for the Dems.
And if that happens, I pledge my life, my fortune, and my sacred
honor to ensure that the dream of Barry Goldwater is fulfilled at
long last.
- Someone hijacked our party. And now, we're going to take it
back.
|11.16.07 @ 12:36PM|#
"Wow, Ron is cool and all, but I didn't realize he was
Batman."
That's where you were wrong, Episiarch; apparently, you're unversed
in the Constitution's superhero-granting-powers.
hiimallen|11.16.07 @ 12:36PM|#
"how is he going to dictate this stuff to the Congress? You
know, that purse-string holding branch of government?"
I don't know, how did Clinton and Bush do it?
Reinmoose|11.16.07 @ 12:39PM|#
RON PAUL IS ALL ABOUT EATING SIX SERVINGS OF FIBER PER
DAY.
*opens a bag of carrots*
|11.16.07 @ 12:40PM|#
Remember back before the Iraq War, when the management at
Northrup Grumman had to wait tables at night to pay the rent?
No, me neither.
they clearly weren't struggling. but continual foreign intervention
sure does help job security, corporate growth, and healthy
christmas bonuses.
am i wrong?
|11.16.07 @ 12:45PM|#
Warren,
Actually, there was a Democratic Congress for the first two years
of Clinton's presidency, and that's when the defense cuts
began.
Which leaves the bit about Clinton and Cheney as just as much of a
non-sequitor as it was in your version. "Congressional Repulicans
cut Defense spending after the Cold War, so Hillary Clinton wants
to continue the Iraq War."
Um. OK. That makes at least as much sense as "Defense Contractors
giving Hillary Clinton big donations - as opposed to John McCain,
Mitt Romney, or Rudy Guiliani - demonstrates that they are donating
the candidate most likely to continue the Iraq War, as opposed to
most likely to win."
Reinmoose|11.16.07 @ 12:46PM|#
Why would Defense Contractors donate to who they think is going to win if they don't expect some benefit from it?
|11.16.07 @ 12:48PM|#
joe-
I think David Eisenhower is actually a Democrat now. He said he
voted for Kerry last time IIR.
Episiarch|11.16.07 @ 12:48PM|#
That's where you were wrong, Episiarch; apparently, you're
unversed in the Constitution's
superhero-granting-powers.
Article 15, Section III:
"And the president shall forthwith be granted his choice of three
of the seven following powers: flight like the eagle, strength of
the bear, vision like the feeling Ben Franklin gets in his
pantaloons around French women, tremendous height, imperviousness
to the opinions of Congress, unlimited ability to spy on American
citizens, or use of the President's Office for 'personal
business'."
We all know which ones
George Washington took.
|11.16.07 @ 12:49PM|#
JL,
I don't think there's any question there would be "continued
foreign intervention" under a Clinton presidency, but that's an
awfully broad term.
Bill Clinton engaged in "continued foreign intervention." He wasn't
dumb enough to think it was a good idea to occupy Iraq,
though.
Iraq is actually a specific issue all by itself, about which people
hold opinions based on the specifics of the case.
|11.16.07 @ 12:49PM|#
RON PAUL IS ALL ABOUT EATING SIX SERVINGS OF FIBER PER
DAY.
Yeah, he's just a regular guy.
hiimallen|11.16.07 @ 12:49PM|#
"We close bases here at home-- some want to close Walter Reed--
while building bases in Arab and Muslim countries like Saudi
Arabia. We worry about foreign borders while ignoring our own. We
build permanent outposts in Muslim holy lands, occupy territory,
and prop up puppet governments. This motivates suicide terrorism
against us.
Our policies naturally lead to resentment, which in turn leads to
prolonged wars and increased casualties. We spend billions in Iraq,
while bases like Walter Reed fall into disrepair. This undermines
our ability to care for the thousands of wounded soldiers we should
have anticipated, despite the rosy predictions that we would be
greeted as liberators in Iraq.
Now comes the outrage."
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=526
|11.16.07 @ 12:51PM|#
Reinmoose,
Obviously. However, "some benefit" does not equate to "the
continuation of the Iraq War."
Hence, my point about Northrup Grumman management managing to keep
up with the rent prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom.
oldnumberseven|11.16.07 @ 12:57PM|#
Letter of Marqe and Reprisal
I am curious about Ron Paul, and what he would intend to do if
elected. Are not Letter of Marqe and Reprisal necessary if
you are a shit box country and cannot put in the field your own
army or put to sea your own navy? Granted our current
administration have outsourced some of this war to private
contractors, but are you saying Ron Paul will outsource the entire
war?
hiimallen|11.16.07 @ 1:06PM|#
Letters of Marqe and reprisal would help, not replace, the military. Ron Paul voted to send the military after Osama in Afganistan, just as congress did in the First Barbary War. It would require RESULTS for a contractor to get any money.
squarooticus|11.16.07 @ 1:07PM|#
if you are a shit box country and cannot put in the field
your own army or put to sea your own navy?
So now following the Constitution equates to "shit box country"?
Last I checked, we weren't supposed to have a standing army.
Joe S.|11.16.07 @ 1:10PM|#
" . . . are you saying Ron Paul will outsource the entire
war?"
He will end the war. The war has nothing to do with going after
Osama. Indeed, the Bush Administration has nothing to do with going
after Osama.
oldnumberseven|11.16.07 @ 1:13PM|#
hiimallen | November 16, 2007, 1:06pm | #
Letters of Marqe and reprisal would help, not replace, the
military.
How is that different from what we have going on now?
Ron Paul voted to send the military after Osama in Afganistan,
just as congress did in the First Barbary War.
Makes no sense to me. Osama, and the Barbary War are two much
different things.
It would require RESULTS for a contractor to get any
money.
So, the dough is held in escrow until bin Laden is captured or
killed? Good luck getting even Blackwater™ to go into Pakistan to
get him.
hiimallen|11.16.07 @ 1:29PM|#
"How is that different from what we have going on now?"
I answered that question already
IT WOULD REQUIRE RESULTS TO GET ANY MONEY!
The First Barbary War was a PERFECT template for what we should
have done after 9/11
"Good luck getting even Blackwater™ to go into Pakistan to get
him"
Ron Paul said he had several offers.
In the days of "No Standing Army" Jefferson and Madison also
espoused:
"We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens, and
make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education.
We can never be safe till this is done." -Thomas Jefferson
oldnumberseven|11.16.07 @ 1:30PM|#
squarooticus | November 16, 2007, 1:07pm | #
if you are a shit box country and cannot put in the field your own
army or put to sea your own navy?
So now following the Constitution equates to "shit box
country"? Last I checked, we weren't supposed to have a standing
army.
Only thing I could find in the Constitution regarding an army is
this: Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of
the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when
called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require
the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the
executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of
their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant
Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States,
except in Cases of Impeachment.
Joe S. | November 16, 2007, 1:10pm | #
The war has nothing to do with going after Osama. Indeed, the
Bush Administration has nothing to do with going after
Osama.
Not sure why you would say the war has nothing to do with going
after bin Laden. The war in Iraq, perhaps, but if you believe the
administration they are going after bin Laden the long way around.
I would say though for America we need to get bin Laden.
JL|11.16.07 @ 1:37PM|#
Bill Clinton engaged in "continued foreign intervention." He
wasn't dumb enough to think it was a good idea to occupy Iraq,
though.
true, but he did drop more bombs in the middle east than anyone
prior to the iraq invasion -- including Bush II.
the point is, it is in the interest of defense contractors to
support a candidate that will a)keep their business hummning and b)
likely succeed.
oldnumberseven|11.16.07 @ 1:40PM|#
hiimallen | November 16, 2007, 1:29pm | #
"Good luck getting even Blackwater™ to go into Pakistan to get
him"
Ron Paul said he had several offers.
When did he say this, and did he name from whom the offers came?
Will the dough be held in escrow until we get results?
oldnumberseven|11.16.07 @ 1:44PM|#
JL | November 16, 2007, 1:37pm | #
and b) likely succeed.
Doesn't even have to be likely. There are many that need weapons,
some who can afford weapons, and some who can buy weapons.
|11.16.07 @ 1:45PM|#
JL,
Agreed. There is an honest, accurate case to be made about Hillary
Clinton's foreign policy being overly-interventionist.
Pretending that she would continue the Iraq War, or that there are
no meaningful differences between her foreign policy and that of
Dick Cheney or John McCain, isn't part of that case.
That's all I'm sayin'.
Chucklehead|11.16.07 @ 1:54PM|#
RON PAUL IS ALL ABOUT EATING SIX SERVINGS OF FIBER PER
DAY.
"Dr. Ron Paul. For a healthy Constitution."
hiimallen|11.16.07 @ 1:54PM|#
Ron Paul offered a
bill for Marqe and Reprisal one month after 9/11.
He did not say who he got the offers from, but he did say he
recieved offers.
Sure escrow would work.
robc|11.16.07 @ 1:56PM|#
oldnumberseven,
Only thing I could find in the Constitution regarding an army
is this
You missed a key bit from Aricle 1, Section 8:
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money
to that use shall be for a longer term than two
years;
compare with the next line:
To provide and maintain a navy;
Notice the difference? Armies werent supposed to be budgetted long
term. Why not? Because we werent going to keep standing armies.
Navies had no time limit and congress was given the power to
maintain it.
|11.16.07 @ 2:03PM|#
joe,
Actually, the defense cuts began under Bush, Sr. They peaked in '89
and were back around '84 levels by '91, with a very slight reversal
in '92. Clinton continued making cuts at about the same 5% per year
as GHWB.
- defense
spending in absolute dollars
- defense
spending relative to GDP and discretionary spending
oldnumberseven|11.16.07 @ 2:06PM|#
Joe,
What are the differences? As far as I can tell, Hillary will keep
Bush's quagmire going while reducing the troop. Peace with honor, I
believe Nixon said.
Let us not kid ourselves. Musharraf will be voted out, if he
follows Bush's wise advise, or will be voted out, and will re-seize
control in a new coup, and then will be overthrown. If he goes
down, then there will be a democratically elected partially radical
muslim majority armed with nuclear weapons. People think Iran is a
powder keg, but that keg is a bit in another direction. India,
along with their nukes, are right next door. Maybe the two
countries will follow the MAD guidelines, or maybe not.
What will result:
1. Pakistan goes radical(er)
2. We never get bin Laden
3. India and Pakistan have it out.
4. the End of the World (like on 24 but better)
Or:
1. Pakistan does not go radical
2. US Army Rangers find bin Laden
3. War is Over.
|11.16.07 @ 2:07PM|#
In defense of hiimallen, if the payout is big enough, there are investors who will buy a share for a possible payout. A reasonable analogy could be made for the treasure hunting investments that were reasonably well-covered by the popular press in the '90s.
oldnumberseven|11.16.07 @ 2:09PM|#
robc | November 16, 2007, 1:56pm
And what, our standing Army is not legal?
|11.16.07 @ 2:13PM|#
robc,
Navies protect against piracy which is ever present, even today.
The global impact on trade of a large scale stand-down of the US
Navy is a scary prospect.
I used to subscribe to the Navy News. It was shocking how many
piracy related interventions and rescues were performed on a weekly
basis by the US Navy in the remotest parts of the world.
I don't get the impression that Paul would do much reduction of the
Navy.
oldnumberseven|11.16.07 @ 2:15PM|#
Rimfax | November 16, 2007, 2:07pm
In defense of hiimallen, if the payout is big enough, there are
investors who will buy a share for a possible payout. A reasonable
analogy could be made for the treasure hunting investments that
were reasonably well-covered by the popular press in the
'90s.
So, what would it take in real dollars to get some Texas Rangers™
to go into Pakistan and find bin Laden?
In other words, the US has spent much blood and much dollars to
pacify Iraq, Afghanistan, and capture or kill bin Laden. A private
army will do which?
oldnumberseven|11.16.07 @ 2:20PM|#
Ron Paul has been one of the few candidates to say we will Iraq
upon his election, and I applaud him for that.
What of bin Laden, though?
|11.16.07 @ 2:28PM|#
Rimfax,
Right you are. I was going to correct myself, but got distracted.
Stupid work!
I should have written "...and that's when Clinton's budget cuts
began," instead of "...the budget cuts."
oldnumberseven,
Actually, it's Republicans like Huckabee who are talking about
'peace with honor.' Hillary Clinton, like every other Democrat
running (and Ron Paul) has stated she will end the war.
Which is not to say she will do exactly as Ron Paul, Dennis
Kucinich, or even Bill Richardson recommend. She would likely draw
down troop levels more slowly. She would likely have troops in the
region carrying out missions like striking terrorist camps (if
necessary) or providing a security guarantee to the Kurds (if
necessary) - you know, they type of things we were doing in the
Middle East prior to Bush's war. And there are certainly cases to
be made against either of those residual missions. But they do not
represent a continuation of the war, or of the war policy.
Hillary Clinton has also sponsored legislation forbidding the use
of taxpayer funds to construct permanent bases in Iraq. That, right
there, is the key indicator of the candidates' intentions. Those
who support the perpetual occupation of Iraq and a permanent
American military presence for the purpose of bringing the region
to heel are preparing for an American army to stay there
permanently; those who oppose such a policy are opposing those
efforts.
Back in 2002, I considered the difference between what we were
doing prior to the war and what we were doing there in April 2003
to be pretty darn important. I imagine you did, too. And the hawks?
Forget about it - to them, the difference between our policy in
November 2002 and our policy in May 2003 was the difference between
Chamberlain in 36 and Churchill in 40. Now, they're pretending that
going back to something quite a bit like what were doing in
November 2002 is indistinguishable from the policies of Dick Cheney
and Duncan Hunter.
A lot of hawks are working awfully hard to mislead anti-war folks
about the consequence of their vote next November, and they're
doing it in an attempt to retain power and keep the war going.
|11.16.07 @ 2:29PM|#
Ron Paul has been one of the few candidates to say we will Iraq
upon his election
He did? Man, I don't want to Iraq anymore. We've been Iraqing for
five years, and it's been a freaking disaster.
Guy Montag|11.16.07 @ 2:35PM|#
Notice the difference? Armies werent supposed to be
budgetted long term. Why not? Because we werent going to keep
standing armies. Navies had no time limit and congress was given
the power to maintain it.
We still don't appropriate for longer than 2 years for the standing
Army. What's the problem?
robc|11.16.07 @ 2:39PM|#
oldnumberseven,
And what, our standing Army is not legal?
No, it is legal. Although it is engaging in an unconstitutional
war, but thats not the army's fault.
The FFs were opposed to a standing army. So they made budget rules
that made it hard to have a standing army. One congress couldnt
budget it and forget it. After every congressional election they
would have to fund it again. And they have been. But, its real easy
to end or cut down, because there arent long term budgets like the
navy has.
Navies protect against piracy which is ever present, even
today. The global impact on trade of a large scale stand-down of
the US Navy is a scary prospect.
Where did I say anything about a stand-down of the Navy? I even
pointed out how it is constitutionally different from the Army, the
Founding Fathers put into place a way to supply it with long term
budgets, to prevent budgetary games being played with the Navy.
|11.16.07 @ 2:43PM|#
I think we're all in agreement here - there's nothing forbidding the government from having a standing army, and they have the power to create and maintain one of they want to, but it was the intention of the founders not to have one.
hiimallen|11.16.07 @ 2:55PM|#
$5 billion for Osama, the end.
This private army does not even have to be from the U.S. It could
even be Iraqi, or Pakistani, or even tied to our foreign aid. The
dictators in the middle east are not Islamofacists, they are
welfare statists. Take away their gun stamps and make them work for
it.
joe- if you think Hillery will end our occupation of Iraq and
Afghanistan, you are going to be as fooled as you were when Bill
balanced the budget by raiding Social Security.
Terrorists attack us because we are OCCUPYING their Holy Land. I
cannot for the life of me figure out why people think it is
cowardly to get out of countries that want our friendship and
money, just not our troops.
We supported radicalized religious zealots in the 80's to get
Russsia out of Afghanistan, WHILE we were sending Russia foriegn
aid. We funded and encouraged Sadaams dictatorship for him to
attack Iran, WHILE the CIA was selling arms to Iran.
The Shah was our puppet, Sadaam was our puppet, Osama was our
asset. Why can't we learn from history?
|11.16.07 @ 2:57PM|#
This might provide a solution to who to put in the VP slot on a
Ron Paul ticket.
Ron Paul/Barry Goldwater Jr. '08
It would certainly give all those older voters, who realize they
made a grievous error when they voted for Lyndon Johnson, an
opportunity to atone for that sin.
It would also help to paint the picture that Senator Rodham-Clinton
has become what she once protested against; a militaristic
authoritarian in the mold of LBJ.
I'll be giving The Ron Paul campaign my second monthly donation of
$50 very soon. It looks like they will easily surpass the 12
million target for this quarter.
|11.16.07 @ 3:00PM|#
CORRECTION: This might provide a solution [of] who to put in the
VP slot on a Ron Paul ticket.
Sorry 'bout that.
JL|11.16.07 @ 3:12PM|#
joe,
i agree. i wouldn't attempt to argue that.
they are different breeds of assholes.
Roberto Leibman|11.16.07 @ 3:24PM|#
If Ron Paul would have been President on 9/11 Osama would be
hanging from ground zero. And Sadaam would have been overthrown by
his own people.
Mexican Saying: "If my grandma had wheels she'd be a bicycle"
Guy Montag|11.16.07 @ 3:26PM|#
No, it is legal. Although it is engaging in an
unconstitutional war, but thats not the army's fault.
Words mean things, Sir. You are misusing "unconstitutional".
Maybe you don't like the Congressional approval of this war and the
new Congress' continued support and funding of it, but it is most
certainly a constitutional use of force against a foe abroad.
Maybe you are hung up on this mythical "war declairation" form that
some think the Congress has to fill out in triplicate or something.
The Executive proposed this venture and the Congress approved
it.
|11.16.07 @ 3:29PM|#
I hate it when I agree with Montag.
If the Congress can use a power, then they can delegate that power.
They delegated their war power to the president.
JL|11.16.07 @ 3:34PM|#
joe and guy,
I thought that way too, but it has become more clear to me that
there is a difference between a congressional declaration of war
and simply giving the president the authority to wage war. in a
sense the burden of the war is shifted (if ever so slightly) from
the congress -- which is much more closely tied to the people than
the executive branch -- to the president. the power and
responsibility becomes much more centralized. and i think that's
what the founders had in mind when they wrote the constitution, and
required a declaration from congress and congress only.
hiimallen|11.16.07 @ 3:42PM|#
joe- they did authorize the war, and the way they did it is what
gets under Ron Paul's skin. He is on the committee that endorsed
the war resolution and they ALL voted AGAINST his Declaration of
War resolution. Calling it "frivolous"
The reason they did not declare war as is required by the
constitution was so they could blame the President, and not be
responsible for the war. How can anyone be against this war who
voted for it? Congress is made up of cowards.
War is a life and death decision. In the Constitution Congress has
this power, not the President. Every war undeclared is only
"illegal" in the sense that it is not done exactly as the
Constitution states. The President is commander and chief of the
military and can act without congress to defend the country.
Retribution is not an imminent attack.
|11.16.07 @ 3:46PM|#
JL,
I understand what Congress's intent was. Nonetheless, if a body can
exercise a power, then they can delegate or condition that
power.
hiimallen,
I agree that the Congress did something stupid and wrong - but they
didn't do anything unconstitutional.
hiimallen|11.16.07 @ 3:50PM|#
joe- How can you vote for someone who is "stupid and wrong" for your President?
robc|11.16.07 @ 3:57PM|#
joe,
Nonetheless, if a body can exercise a power, then they can
delegate or condition that power.
I disagree with this statement. The power is congresses alone and
they cannot delegate it to anyone else. I dont think the
constitution grants them the ability to delegate any of their
powers. For example, only the Senate has the power to approve
Supreme Court justices nominated by the president. Can they
delegate this power to an outside agency? Ditto any other
congressional power.
It is much like, despite owning yourself, you cant sell yourself
into slavery. That power cannot be delegated.
hiimallen,
Every war undeclared is only "illegal" in the sense that it is
not done exactly as the Constitution states.
I hate the phrase "illegal war", which is why I unsed
"unconstitutional" instead. Because it was not done exactly as the
Constitution states.
robc|11.16.07 @ 3:58PM|#
can congress delegate their power to legislate?
Considering the way congress has rolled over to executive orders, I
think they already have.
the innominate one|11.16.07 @ 4:00PM|#
more specifically, can congress delegate their power to
legislate to the president?
also, can SCOTUS delegate their power to rule on the
constitutionality of laws to the president?
if so, we could save a lot of money and just go back to a monarchy,
but we'd call it the unitary executive.
robc|11.16.07 @ 4:00PM|#
BTW, I think congress allowing regulatory agencies to set standards is an unconstitutional delegation of their legislative powers. Congress needs to waste times arguing over the definition of a truck instead of letting the EPA do it (referring to the 9th circuses decision on SUV CAFE standards).
hiimallen|11.16.07 @ 4:04PM|#
"you cant sell yourself into slavery"
You can't?
So who gave us the IRS, Social Security, and Welfare?
robc|11.16.07 @ 4:07PM|#
Calling it "frivolous"
Didnt Hastert call the the "declaration of war" section of the
constitution an anachronism?
MattXIV|11.16.07 @ 4:14PM|#
I understand what Congress's intent was. Nonetheless, if a body can exercise a power, then they can delegate or condition that power.
Actually, wasn't the argument that Congress cannot delegate the
ability to alter the content of legislation to the executive branch
the grounds for the line item veto being struck down?
|11.16.07 @ 4:17PM|#
hiimallen,
I'm rarely given alternatives.
t.i.o.,
Yes, and they do. For example, the Clean Air Act directs the
executive branch to establish thresholds and identify pollutants.
The regulations so promulgated have the force of law.
if so, we could save a lot of money and just go back to a
monarchy, but we'd call it the unitary executive. Hold it,
this is a question of whether Congress can delegate a specific
authority in a specific instance, and direct the executive how to
utlize that power and what criteria to use to make its decisions.
And Congress always maintains the authority to take that power back
by passing further legislation.
|11.16.07 @ 4:18PM|#
Remember back before the Iraq War, when the management at
Northrup Grumman had to wait tables at night to pay the rent?
No, me neither.
I think joe pulled this one out of the lefty grab bag, right next
to the army never has to hold bake sales.
|11.16.07 @ 4:18PM|#
MattXIV,
The Line Item Veto involved the executive taking actions in
violation of the laws passed by Congress. We're talking about the
executive taking action as directed by Congress.
robc|11.16.07 @ 4:37PM|#
joe,
The Line Item Veto was the executive taking action as directed by
Congress. The law directed the executive to ax out anything he
didnt like.
The Line Item Veto was a law passed by congress. How can using it
be in violation of the laws passed by congress?
MattXIV|11.16.07 @ 4:52PM|#
joe,
But the bill isn't law until it is signed, enacted by default if
the prez doesn't sign or veto it after a long enough duration, or
after a veto override. They're delegating the ability to amend
pending legislation, not an ability to override laws.
I don't necessarily think that there's no distinction between the
line item veto case and the AUMF, but I think you'd have to argue
that the AUMF constituted a declaration of war, not that Congress
was delegating the ability to declare war. I can imagine it being
valid to conditionally declare war in legislation as long as the
conditions don't effectively allow the executive to unilaterally
declare war - ex Ordering the president the to give enemy forces in
US territory an ultimatum to leave before attacking. Yes, it's not
really a practical difference, but that's never been an impedement
to a distinction in constitutional law before.
the innominate one|11.16.07 @ 5:12PM|#
joe,
at best, that's a very limited instance of the executive applying a
specific legislative power.
I'm asking, can the congress turn over all legislative power to the
executive? Can congress nullify its own existence by legislation
and allow the executive to take over the function of drafting new
legislation?
the innominate one|11.16.07 @ 5:15PM|#
But the bill isn't law until it is signed, enacted by
default if the prez doesn't sign or veto it after a long enough
duration, or after a veto override
a little backwards here, MattXIV, IIRC.
a bill is vetoed by default if not signed within a certain period
of time. see "pocket veto".
Eric Dondero|11.16.07 @ 5:16PM|#
Two big endorsements today for Giuliani:
African American, self-described "libertarian" Gerald Reynolds,
fmr. Chairman of the US Civil Rights Commission, opponent of
Affirmative Action, and an op-ed Contributor to the Orange County
Register.
And...
Atlanta Attorney Randy Evans -- A Shocker!!! -- Top Aide to
Gingrich, and the leader of his Exploratory Comm. for President. A
sure sign Gingrich may follow.
the innominate one|11.16.07 @ 5:25PM|#
actually, IDRC
it is I who should have reviewed pocket veto before posting
oldnumberseven|11.16.07 @ 6:19PM|#
Tons settled here today. So, is Ron Paul going to end this war in Iraq, continue the war in Afghanistan, and capture or kill bin Laden? That is what I want, and any candidate who can outlay a plan for those goals gets my vote. Granted, I am only one poor socialist guy, but I have a vote. Also I would like miniature American flags for all, and abortions for some.
Franklin Harris|11.16.07 @ 6:32PM|#
Two big endorsements today for Giuliani:
If by "big" you mean, "Who the hell are those guys?"
|11.16.07 @ 7:33PM|#
Ah this is one of the best endorsements anyone could get!
Yay.....
Go Ron! Can't wait for December 16th.
They think they confiscated all our gold? Just wait, there's more
where that came from.
Giuliani is a crook - Paul is impeccable and squeaky clean.
|11.16.07 @ 7:34PM|#
OH is this Dondero fool still kicking around? Hey Eric, who cares if FILTHY LIBERALS Endorse Rudy? That says it all though don't it?
Eric Dondero|11.16.07 @ 7:48PM|#
Umm, Gerald Reynolds is one of the Nation's leading Black advocates against Affirmative Action. He's a friend of Ward Connerly's. He also served as the Bush Admin. Chairman of the US Civil Rights Comm. And he's an op-ed Contributor to the Orange County Register. And he's a self-described "libertarian."
|11.16.07 @ 8:13PM|#
Remember when Lockheed, Martin Marietta, Northrup, and Grumman were all separate companies.
Remember when Socialism, Progressivism and Liberalism used to be
three separate ideologies?
|11.16.07 @ 8:31PM|#
Two big endorsements today for Giuliani:
Neither of those come anywhere close to Barry Goldwater Jr. in
stature.
p.s. Why do you keep saying "self-described libertarian"? Is that
your definition of libertarian now? Only that someone describe
themselves as such?
oldnumberseven|11.16.07 @ 9:17PM|#
Brandybuck | November 16, 2007, 8:31pm
Why do you keep saying "self-described libertarian"? Is that
your definition of libertarian now? Only that someone describe
themselves as such?
Just curious how many people or politicians do you think are
libertarian who do not describe themselves as such?
Mark Bahner|11.16.07 @ 9:45PM|#
Heh, heh, heh!
Wonder what the yokel on RedState blog who calls himself the "Proud
member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party" says about
this?
I can't see, because when RedState blog banned me*, they also
disabled my ability to even see their blog.
Mark (Banned on RedState blog and Brad DeLong's blog, for telling
inconvenient truths)
P.S. See the hilarious stuff (those of you who haven't been banned)
over at, "Apparently, RedState is evil." (They forgot "pathetic,
too.")
P.S. I was banned forever for posting these remarks (luckily, I
copied them before they disabled my access). See them under the
heading, "Yeah, right." (To the yokel's claim that Barry Goldwater
Sr. would have "to be restrained if in the same room" as Ron
Paul.)
One other thing, if Goldwater was alive, he probably would have to be restrained if in the same room as the dip stick from Texas.
"Yeah, right. Let me introduce you to Barry Goldwater:
The rights that we have under the Constitution covers anything we want to do, as long as its not harmful. I can't see any way in the world that being a gay can cause damage to somebody else.
I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass.
In 1996, with Senator Dennis DeConcini, Goldwater endorsed an
Arizona initiative to legalize medical marijuana.
P.S. If Barry Goldwater Sr. would have such as problem with Ron
Paul as YOU claim, why does Barry Goldwater Jr. get along with Ron
Paul so well?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPoFXl97wv4
Could it be that Barry Goldwater Jr. knows more of his father's
mind than you do?"
Mark Bahner|11.16.07 @ 10:05PM|#
I understand what Congress's intent was. Nonetheless, if a body can exercise a power, then they can delegate or condition that power.
That's nonsense, as has already been pointed out. No body can
"delegate or condition" a power to anyone who is not authorized by
the Constitution to exercise that power.
|11.17.07 @ 1:03AM|#
Just curious how many people or politicians do you think are libertarian who do not describe themselves as such?
Not too many. However, self-described libertarians are so damned
common they're diluting the word. Socialist progressives who think
medical marijuana is a good idea are NOT libertarians, they're
still socialist progressives. Ditto for neoconservative supply
siders who want a mild middle class tax cut, they're still
neocons.
You don't have to be a purist Rothbardian anarchist to be a
libertarian, but you at least have to believe in small, limited and
restrained government.
David Monk|11.17.07 @ 2:37PM|#
To anyone who has been following the campaign this is no surprise. Hell, there's a video of his support thats been on google video for months. Personally I do not care if you are a Dem, a Rep, a Lib, or Ind. To steal and change a clinton campaign line," It's all about the issue's stupid."
|11.17.07 @ 5:55PM|#
All Three of Youze,
If the Congress handed the executive a general power - pass
legislation, appoint cabinet members without approval, declare
wars, write environmental legislation - that would be a violation
of its constitutional power. A line-item veto bill that gave the
President the right to cross out line items he didn't like in
future bills would be unconstitutional.
However, a bill dealing with a particular case or situation can
delegate Congress's authority over that particular item.
Congress can tell the president, "Go to war with Iraq at your own
discretion," but it can't tell the president, "you can now start
wars wherever you see fit without Congressional approval."
In other words, Congress still has to take action and pass a law
for the executive to be authorized to act (outside of the
tightly-bounded area where the executive has inherent authorities)
- but that action can be to delegate some of its decision-making
power to the president or other executive branch officers.
Also, in the particular case of the line-iten veto, the point about
the spending bills now being law until signed is a good one, and I
misstated the law upthread. The reason that is illegal is because
the president would be changing bills sent to him by the Congress,
and signing a bill that was never passed by Congress.
Mark Bahner|11.18.07 @ 12:37AM|#
huh? Maybe I nisses the coals[[[[['
I have no idea what that means...
oldnumberseven|11.18.07 @ 8:05AM|#
Mark Bahner | November 18, 2007, 12:37am | #
huh? Maybe I nisses the coals[[[[['
I have no idea what that means...
The funny thing is I have no idea myself.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245