What IS So Hard About Following The Constitution?
Some guy decided to respond to comments on this video with the headline "Newt Destroys Ron Paul's Foreign Policy". The guy is responding, basically, to the charge that libertarians are nothing more than anarchists and are kooks and some more of the usual bullshit. He writes back:
"Your statements are entirely wrong. And please learn the difference between Libertarian and libertarian. No, libertarians do not all believe in anarchy and no government at all. We believe in a strict reading of the Constitution, and the Rights of the States. Within certain limits, a state can actually do a lot of the conservative/liberal big gov’t projects that neocons and liberals like. They just can’t do it at the federal level. And likewise, I can choose to move to a different state that fits my philosophy of liberty, and you may do likewise. If a state wants to ban abortion or ban gay marriage or any other number of things the right (or left) love, then I’m all for it. I will argue with every breath to let that state do it. But I will vociferously argue equally that if the Constitution doesn’t give the federal gov’t that power, then the Fed has no business in it, and according to the 10th Amendment it is up to the states to decide themselves.
As for being pacificts or peace-niks or anti-military, that is also false. Again, libertarians recognize the need for a military for defense of our citizenry, as laid out clearly in the Constitution. We also recognize the need for war at times, usually due to an attack upon us, but ALWAYS with a declaration of war from Congress. Again, as laid forth in the rules for governing our country that we call the Constitution. We don’t believe in being the world’s policemen. That may be your idea of “providing for the defense” but it’s not mine. You realize that Congress hasn’t actually declared war since WW2? Yet there is no doubt we have sent our troops abroad to engage in combat. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq x2, and numerous other smaller engagements… not once has war been declared. Congress just “authorizes” the President to send troops… and we end up in open conflict for 10+ years. Does that sound constitutional?
What is so hard about following the Constitution as written?
The GOP and most Republicans give a lot of lip service to “small constitutional government”, but it’s a bunch of crap. You are no different from the Democrats when it comes to small government. You can cry about the left’s regulatory adventurism, but the right loves regulation just as much. The right and left just disagree on the CONTENT of the regulation, not the volume of it. And if that’s how you all feel, then be my guest… to each his own… but don’t tell me you are for small government in the same breath. The fact is, you aren’t… neither is Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum (especially Santorum), and Perry is probably somewhere in the middle."
Its only the founding document, after all...
"Your statements are entirely wrong. And please learn the difference between Libertarian and libertarian. No, libertarians do not all believe in anarchy and no government at all. We believe in a strict reading of the Constitution, and the Rights of the States. Within certain limits, a state can actually do a lot of the conservative/liberal big gov’t projects that neocons and liberals like. They just can’t do it at the federal level. And likewise, I can choose to move to a different state that fits my philosophy of liberty, and you may do likewise. If a state wants to ban abortion or ban gay marriage or any other number of things the right (or left) love, then I’m all for it. I will argue with every breath to let that state do it. But I will vociferously argue equally that if the Constitution doesn’t give the federal gov’t that power, then the Fed has no business in it, and according to the 10th Amendment it is up to the states to decide themselves.
As for being pacificts or peace-niks or anti-military, that is also false. Again, libertarians recognize the need for a military for defense of our citizenry, as laid out clearly in the Constitution. We also recognize the need for war at times, usually due to an attack upon us, but ALWAYS with a declaration of war from Congress. Again, as laid forth in the rules for governing our country that we call the Constitution. We don’t believe in being the world’s policemen. That may be your idea of “providing for the defense” but it’s not mine. You realize that Congress hasn’t actually declared war since WW2? Yet there is no doubt we have sent our troops abroad to engage in combat. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq x2, and numerous other smaller engagements… not once has war been declared. Congress just “authorizes” the President to send troops… and we end up in open conflict for 10+ years. Does that sound constitutional?
What is so hard about following the Constitution as written?
The GOP and most Republicans give a lot of lip service to “small constitutional government”, but it’s a bunch of crap. You are no different from the Democrats when it comes to small government. You can cry about the left’s regulatory adventurism, but the right loves regulation just as much. The right and left just disagree on the CONTENT of the regulation, not the volume of it. And if that’s how you all feel, then be my guest… to each his own… but don’t tell me you are for small government in the same breath. The fact is, you aren’t… neither is Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum (especially Santorum), and Perry is probably somewhere in the middle."
Its only the founding document, after all...
Comments