Who said anything about communism. Don’t jump the gun. All I said, is that the rich (which is roughly 1% of the USA) have been obtaining tax brakes and incentives while Bush is/was president. If they don’t continue to get the tax brakes, it ain’t gonna kill them. Bush is using the government to privatize certain things dealing with the War and you know what I meant.
The 10th Amendment deals with giving power to the Commonwealth/States. Usually, there are cases involving the 10th amendment dealing with environmental issues or gun free school zones or even better interstate commerce.
Here is what the 10th amendment deals with usually/recently:
Most recently, the Commerce Clause was cited in the 2005 decision Gonzales v. Raich. In this case, a California woman sued the Drug Enforcement Administration after her medical marijuana crop was seized and destroyed by Federal agents. Medical marijuana was explicitly made legal under California state law by Proposition 215; however, marijuana is prohibited at the federal level by the Controlled Substances Act. Even though the woman grew the marijuana strictly for her own consumption and never sold any, the Supreme Court stated that growing one’s own marijuana affects the interstate market of marijuana, citing the Wickard v. Filburn decision. It therefore ruled that this practice may be regulated by the federal government under the penumbra of the Commerce Clause.
I think this is what you are confusing it with:
A minority opinion is that since the Constitution splits all federal powers into two groups, those of Constitutional level and those of lesser stature authorized by the Necessary and Proper Clause, the 10th Amendment, being of Constitutional level, prohibits all Constitutional level powers not authorized. By definition, any and all powers mentioned in the Constitution are of the Constitutional level and all those not mentioned are of lesser stature. Since mentioned powers are mostly prohibitions on the states, according to this interpretation the 10th Amendment makes those prohibitions effective on the federal government as well, except in cases where specific authorization is granted. This interpretation is contrary to the widespread use of the Necessary and Proper Clause to authorize the use Constitutional level powers mentioned but not authorized.
Now, getting back to the voting that you identified:
Well his record is pretty solid:
Quote:
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
Can any other candidate claim such a fantastic voting record?
What you say is absolutely correct. Except it’s that old privatization bugaboo again. Right this moment I’m listening to Thom Hartmann interviewing a Brit who’s written a book about why we should privatize our road system, that the government shouldn’t be in the business of keeping up our roads. He thinks that the police force and army should be in the hands of the gov, but not our substructure. Hartmann gave some examples of what is happening with the “public commons” that already has been privatized, and it’s terrifying to think we might be heading back to the day when you had to pay for all these services outside of taxation. At the turn of the last century, for instance, fire depts. would let your house burn down if you hadn’t paid them first to put our fires!
Ron Paul has such a voting record above because he does not believe in the social contract of our Founding Fathers. It’s almost like saying, how so many good Germans do today, that Hitler was good because he gave people jobs and eliminated crime by getting rid of “bad elements”. Privatizing the gov means putting the public commons into the hands of people whose primary goal is profit over service.
You will note, that all the votes listed above deal directly or indirectly with the purging of government functions.
Believe me, there is no one more interested in keeping government out of my private life than I (which is why I support a gun owners right to own guns etc etc.), but I won’t do it by voting for anyone who even vaguely is libertarian. If you want a real eye-opener of what life would be like here if people like Ron Paul get their way, read a history of Clarence Darrow’s courtroom battles with the Pullman railway and other companies who refused to let their workers unionize.
One thing I have learned from history is that you shouldn’t solve short-term problems by using something or someone who is going to cause bigger problems down the road. Too many Americans have become disenfranchised since the days when Roosevelt tried to give enfeebled Americans a voice and some basic stability from which to launch their version of the American dream.
Yeah, I know he ran Lib in '88. That didn’t get him very far, so he jumped ship because he doesn’t want to waste his time fighting to get on certain ballots. The biggest gripe I have is the privatization of Health Care. That isn’t something that should be put into straight capitalist thinking hands. What Paul did with his own practice isn’t what is going to happen with privatization of healthcare! Do you really think these radical changes aren’t going to have negative long term effects on our own people?