New World Order
See other New World Order Articles
Title: Rand Paul On The Federal Government: ‘Shut The Damn Thing Down’
Source:
Breitbart Big Government
URL Source: http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern ... ment-shut-the-damn-thing-down/
Published: Feb 13, 2015
Author: Charlie Spiering
Post Date: 2015-02-13 12:36:10 by Hondo68
Keywords: shut down and devolved, back to the states, David Koch table
Views: 10882
Comments: 37
Speaking at the American Spectator Gala in Washington D.C. last night, Sen. Rand Paul delighted the crowd with a strong anti-government speech. He began with a defense of the government shutdown in 2013, pointing out that many Americans in “fly-over country” didn’t really care, and only a third of government was shut down at the time. Paul blamed Obama for shutting down national parks and national monuments to raise public concern, praising World War II veterans for ignoring the barriers placed in front of their monument in Washington D.C. “I tell people who don’t understand America, don’t understand that we need to shut the damn thing down, I tell people the image you need to remember is when the World War II veterans got off their bus, took their wire cutters, cut the barricades, and threw them on the lawn,” he said. Paul and his wife Kelly attended the annual gala, seated at the same table as David Koch, one of the two billionaire brothers who serve as philanthropists for conservative ideas. After highlighting more incidents of mismanaged government spending, Paul pointed out that leaders in Washington D.C. can not be trusted to properly run the country. “Everything in Washington is broken, nothing works here,” he said. “We can’t run the post office, we are not to be trusted with money. Congress is not good with money, we shouldn’t be trusted with almost any responsibility up here. Most of government should be shut down and devolved and sent back to the states.” Paul criticized Obama for his “usurpation of power” pointing to a “collapse” of the separation of powers and the checks and balances enshrined by the Constitution. “The Constitution isn’t about restraining you, it’s about restraining government,” he said as the crowd applauded.
Poster Comment: 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: hondo68, Y'ALL, misterwhite, gatlin, and their shrinking list of sycophants (#0)
Wise words that some here need to heed.
Well, when the 'majority rules', some eggs will have to be broken. In the cases most dear to many hearts, the little thing called inalienable rights is not just a trifle.
Wise words that some here need to heed: Was the Constitution written to restrain the government or was it written to make it difficult for the majority of the population to impress their will on the federal government? James Madison appeared to believe it was the latter as he was mostly concerned with what he called faction. That being where a number of citizens could unite in a common interest to permanent and aggregate the interests of the entire community. Madison saw this to be especially dangerous when they form a majority of the population. “The Constitution isn’t about restraining you, it’s about restraining government,” (Rand Paul) said as the crowd applauded. Hmmm, where have I heard that before? Oh yea... "The Constitution was written explicitly for one purpose -- to restrain the federal government," Rep. Ron Paul said in 2008. Bless his heart. (For those of you who didn't grow up in the South, that expression in context means, "He means well, but sometimes I just want to slap him.") Dr. Paul is a likeable and honest person, but he knows as much about the Constitution as I do about obstetrics--the difference being that I don't try to instruct the nation on how to deliver babies. Dr. Paul is far from alone in this bizarre delusion. If there's anything the far right regards as dogma, it's that the "intent" of the Constitution was to restrain, inhibit, intimidate, infantilize, disempower, disembowel, and generally smack Congress and federal bureaucrats around. "Does anyone seriously believe that when the Founders gathered in Philadelphia 220 years ago they were aspiring to control the buying decisions of individual consumers from Washington?" Sen. Tom Coburn asks. "They were arguing for the opposite and implored future Courts to slap down any law from Congress that expanded the Commerce Clause." Sen. Jim DeMint claims that "although the Constitution does give some defined powers to the federal government, it is overwhelmingly a document of limits, and those limits must be respected." If this is true, it's the kind of truth that comes to us only from divine revelation--because it sure doesn't appear in the text of the Constitution or the history of its framing. Historically, in fact, it's ludicrously anachronistic, like claiming that the telescope was invented in 1608 so that people could watch Apollo 13 land on the moon. There was no federal government to speak of in 1787. "Congress" was a feckless, ludicrous farce. The concern that brought delegates to Philadelphia was that, under the Articles of Confederation, Congress was too weak. Many of the Framers were close to panic because the Confederation Congress was unable to levy taxes, pay the nation's debts, live up to its treaty obligations, regulate commerce, or restrain the greedy, predatory state governments. The Union seemed on the verge of splitting into tiny republics, which would quickly be recolonized by Britain, France, or Spain. As early as 1780, Alexander Hamilton (one of the authors of The Federalist)wrote to James Duane that "[t]he fundamental defect [in the Articles of Confederation] is a want of power in Congress. It is hardly worth while to show in what this consists, as it seems to be universally acknowledged, or to point out how it has happened, as the only question is how to remedy it." In April 1787, James Madison, second author of The Federalist, wrote to George Washington his aim for a new Constitution: "The national government should be armed with positive and compleat authority in all cases which require uniformity." (Madison also wanted a rule that no state law could take effect until Congress explicitly approved it.) Shortly before, Washington had written to John Jay, "I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation, without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the different state governments extends over the several States." Jay, third author of The Federalist, made clear to Washington his own view: "What Powers should be granted to the Government so constituted is a Question which deserves much Thought--I think the more the better--the States retaining only so much as may be necessary for domestic Purposes; and all their principal Officers civil and military being commissioned and removeable by the national Governmt." (Note the last part: State executives would be appointed by the federal government.) As for the Constitution's text, if it was "intended" to limit the federal government, it sure doesn't say so. Article I § 8, a Homeric catalog of Congressional power, is the longest and most detailed in the Constitution. It includes the "Necessary and Proper" Clause, which delegates to Congress the power "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." The Framers' main plan for preventing overreach by the federal government lay not in coded restrictions on Congress's powers but in the Constitution's political structure. This is what George Washington meant when he expressed hope that "a liberal, and energetic Constitution, well guarded & closely watched, to prevent incroachments, might restore us to that degree of respectability & consequence, to which we had a fair claim, & the brightest prospect of attaining." The idea was that a bicameral legislature, an independent executive with the power of veto, and a separation between legislative and judicial power would channel Congress's broad powers into constructive channels. State governments would advocate effectively for their own interests both in Congress and with the people. That's a very different vision than the current right-wing claim that the Constitution contains between-the-lines "thou shalt nots" placing various areas off limits to regulation. The far-right argument has the seductive power of any half-truth. Of course there are limits on Congress's power--they are located in Article I § 9: Congress, for example, can't pass a "bill of attainder," tax exports, or grant titles of nobility. In addition, the Bill of Rights explicitly prevents Congress from limiting freedom of speech, "the right to bear arms," trial by jury and so forth. But conservatives mean something different: What they mean is that if something isn't written down in the Constitution in so many words, the "intent" of the Framers was to keep Congress from doing it. If Congress wasn't doing it before 1787, it can't do it now. The worst insult they can level at a governmental measure is that it is "unprecedented." Before the Civil War, conservatives argued that Congress couldn't build roads and canals; it was unprecedented. After the Civil War, Congress "couldn't" regulate child labor; it was unprecedented. When the Depression hit, Congress "couldn't" pass Social Security; it was unprecedented. When the Civil Rights movement arose, Congress "couldn't" outlaw discrimination in public accommodations; it was unprecedented. Medicare was unprecedented; so was the National Environmental Policy Act; so was the School Lunch program. Today, Congress "can't" enact a health-care system. We've never had one, so we can't have one. In fact, the Constitution itself did the unprecedented. It created a national, republican government with adequate power to maintain and govern a strong Union during the unforeseeable events ahead. "Nothing can therefore be more fallacious, than to infer the extent of any power, proper to be lodged in the National Government, from an estimate of its immediate necessities," Hamilton wrote in Federalist 34. "There ought to be a capacity to provide for future contingencies, as they may happen; and, as these are illimitable in their nature, it is impossible safely to limit that capacity." From the record and the text, that was the "purpose" of the Constitution--to create a government with adequate power, even under new circumstances, to make the United States what George Washington, in his final address as Commander of the Continental Army, called "a respectable nation." The error about the purpose of the Constitution explains the curiously two-faced nature of far-right "constitutionalism." On the one hand, they insist that they love the Constitution more than life itself; on the other, they keep trying to sneak amendments into it to strip Congress of power over the budget or allow state legislatures to repeal federal laws. The Constitution they claim to revere actually looks a lot like the Articles of Confederation. The current war on federal power, like the other attacks on its power throughout history, is really motivated by an entirely realistic fear that those idiots, the people, will enact progressive legislation. Only by importing prohibitions on Congress into the Constitution can that terrible outcome be prevented. But the more tightly we bind Congress with imaginary chains, the less we, the people, can create a "respectable nation."
Apple, tree, plop. Rhode apple!
"A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre- eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts." JAMES MADISON, Federalist No. 10, Nov. 22, 1787. Your Madison quote makes my point, not yours. Thanks ---- Both, -- of course. In that particular section of the Federalist, true enough. Madison wrote a lot of it, much of which concerned his fear of big govt.... Yep, just as I've been telling you and misterwhite all along for years. You two exemplify the 'majority rule faction' here, and previously on LP and FR. Good to see you finally owning up to the danger. -- Although it puzzles me why you object to this:---- "The Constitution isn’t about restraining you, it’s about restraining government,” (Rand Paul) said as the crowd applauded. Your attempt to make the above a 'tar baby' comment is idiotic. Thanks again...
Rhode apple! If your trying to compete for LF's Yeltsin Award, -- nice try...
Rhode apple! but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. Are you saying Ron Paul is like Thomas Jefferson. What a compliment to Ron Paul.
Is Thomas Jefferson your god? Nope, but he's the primary author of the Declaration of Independence. Why the obsession on him? Because his American ideals should be conserved. And that's not obsessive, it's Conservative.
Nope.
Yes you did. You just are to blind to see it. Thomas Jefferson and Ron Paul are saying the same thing here. You claim to respect Thomas Jefferson but when you put down Ron Paul for the same position you reveal yourself to be the opposite of Thomas Jefferson.
Hmmm, where have I heard that before? Oh yea... "The Constitution was written explicitly for one purpose -- to restrain the federal government," Rep. Ron Paul said in 2008. Oh for cripes sake... can't they get anything right? The Constitution empowers the federal government, especially in relation to its weaker predecessor, The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. "Some people march to a different drummer — and some people polka."
Ron Paul is a Parrot. Would Jefferson have thought it was a good idea for a theocratic state like Iran to have nuclear weapons? No. He was sane.
"The Constitution isn’t about restraining you, it’s about restraining government,” (Rand Paul) said as the crowd applauded. "The Constitution was written explicitly for one purpose -- to restrain the federal government," Rep. Ron Paul said in 2008. Thank you, Mr. Obvious.. Perhaps you could explain to all of us why you think the amendments are somehow of lesser importance than the body of the document?
It's insane to think you, or any govt, can put the ability to build nuclear weapons back in a bottle. Thus Jefferson, being sane like the Paul's, would have tried like hell to find a diplomatic solution to crazy states building nukes, because the military 'solution' is dicey, at best.
StuxNet didn't work?
"Rand Paul: Nuclear Iran Not a Threat to U.S" www.google.com/search?q=r...ar+iran&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 A country filled with religious zealots who chant "Death to America" isn't a threat to U.S. Riiiiiiight. What time's the apokeelypse?
I could, but I prefer to let you struggle with it on your own for a while, just to see if you can come up with the reason yourself.
"Some people march to a different drummer — and some people polka."
Would Jefferson have thought it was a good idea for a theocratic state like Iran to have nuclear weapons? No. He was sane. It's insane to think you, or any govt, can put the ability to build nuclear weapons back in a bottle. Thus Jefferson, being sane like the Paul's, would have tried like hell to find a diplomatic solution to crazy states building nukes, because the military 'solution' is dicey, at best. A nuclear apocalypse is exactly what everyone is trying to avoid, isn't it?
Perhaps you could explain to all of us why you think the amendments are somehow of lesser importance than the body of the document? Bullshit. You've always been a lightweight debater, Willy, and you ain't gonna come up with a damn thing.. Thanks...
Hmmm, where have I heard that before? Oh yea... "The Constitution was written explicitly for one purpose -- to restrain the federal government," Rep. Ron Paul said in 2008. Well, that makes them both correct - what's your point?
Everyone except the religious morons who are praying for one so they can get raptured before the apokeelypse. Did StuxNet work?
He LIES!
I dont have clue what you're point is, and don't care. -- Get lost.
Alexander Hamilton started the first National Bank, which President Jefferson later killed. Hamilton himself was killed in a duel by the sitting Vice President, Raymond Burr. Canary Hamilton wasn't a popular guy. Sic Semper Tyrannis! Poor rendering, as they appear to be about 20/30 feet apart. Typical dueling distance was 20 paces or more. --- Approx 20 yards...
Yes or No -- Did StuxNet work? C'mon you can do it. Clean the drool off the keyboard and type "Y" or "N".
Back to your same old tricks yucky? Get some new ploys.
Yes or No -- Did StuxNet work?
In other words, you're too intellectually lazy to answer your own question... as if I didn't already know that... LOL!
"Some people march to a different drummer — and some people polka."
Burr could not be held up as the quintessential poster boy either:
Perhaps you could explain to all of us why you think the amendments are somehow of lesser importance than the body of the document? Bullshit. You've always been a lightweight debater, Willy, and you ain't gonna come up with a damn thing.. Thanks... Why should I have to explain your laughable delusions about our Constitution? -- You made the claim Willy, can you tell us why you think the amendments are somehow of lesser importance than the body of the document?
You haven't a clue what Thomas Jefferson would think. They weren't seeking monsters to destroy. They were isolationists. So it is likely that you are wrong about Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson also supported the 4th amendment which you hate. Thomas Jefferson would consider you a traitor.
Burr could not be held up as the quintessential poster boy Yes I goofed up Arron Burr's name. You're just jealous because YOUR vice president Joe Biden, hasn't shot Turbo Tax Timmy, or one of the other US Treasury Secretaries. Well if you disagree, then perhaps you can explain to all of us why you think the amendments are somehow of greater importance than the body of the document. Don't be shy... you're the expert, so please show us what you know.
"Some people march to a different drummer — and some people polka."
Perhaps you could explain to all of us why you think the amendments are somehow of lesser importance than the body of the document? I don't think that Willy, as they are equal in importance. The amendments to the Constitution are "valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; vis'." (Quoted from the preamble to the BOR's) Now, can you tell us why you think they are of lesser importance?
Not a problem...I have done things to match this. I just had to pull you chain...thanks for taking it in good nature.
"The Constitution isn’t about restraining you, it’s about restraining government,” he said as the crowd applauded.
#2. To: tpaine (#1)
#3. To: tpaine (#1)
A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre- eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. JAMES MADISON, Federalist No. 10, Nov. 22, 1787.
#4. To: Gatlin (#3)
#5. To: Gatlin (#3)
Wise words that some here need to heed: -- gatlin repeats ---
Was the Constitution written to restrain the government or was it written to make it difficult for the majority of the population to impress their will on the federal government?
James Madison appeared to believe it was the latter as he was mostly concerned with what he called faction.
That being where a number of citizens could unite in a common interest to permanent and aggregate the interests of the entire community. Madison saw this to be especially dangerous when they form a majority of the population.
Hmmm, where have I heard that before? Oh yea... --- "The Constitution was written explicitly for one purpose -- to restrain the federal government," Rep. Ron Paul said in 2008...
#6. To: VxH (#4)
Apple, tree, plop.
#7. To: VxH, Gatlin (#4)
Apple, tree, plop.
#8. To: VxH (#4)
#9. To: A K A Stone (#7)
Are you saying Ron Paul is like Thomas Jefferson.
#10. To: VxH (#9)
Are you saying Ron Paul is like Thomas Jefferson. Nope.
#11. To: tpaine, Gatlin (#5)
The Constitution isn’t about restraining you, it’s about restraining government,” (Rand Paul) said as the crowd applauded.
It's the Bill of Rights that places restraints on the federal government, NOT the Constitution itself.
#12. To: A K A Stone (#10)
(Edited)
Thomas Jefferson and Ron Paul are saying the same thing here.
#13. To: Willie Green (#11)
Oh for cripes sake... can't they get anything right? --- The Constitution empowers the federal government, especially in relation to its weaker predecessor, The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. It's the Bill of Rights that places restraints on the federal government, NOT the Constitution itself.
#14. To: VxH (#12)
Would Jefferson have thought it was a good idea for a theocratic state like Iran to have nuclear weapons? No. He was sane.
#15. To: tpaine (#14)
because the military 'solution' is dicey, at best.
#16. To: tpaine (#14)
#17. To: tpaine (#13)
Perhaps you could explain to all of us why you think the amendments are somehow of lesser importance than the body of the document?
#18. To: VxH (#16)
StuxNet didn't work? --- "Rand Paul: Nuclear Iran Not a Threat to U.S" www.google.com/search? q=r...ar+iran&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 ----- A country filled with religious zealots who chant "Death to America" isn't a threat to U.S. ---- Riiiiiiight ----- What time's the apokeelypse?
#19. To: Willie Green (#17)
I could, but I prefer to let you struggle with it on your own for a while, just to see if you can come up with the reason yourself.
#20. To: Gatlin (#3)
“The Constitution isn’t about restraining you, it’s about restraining government,” (Rand Paul) said as the crowd applauded.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#21. To: tpaine (#18)
A nuclear apocalypse is exactly what everyone is trying to avoid, isn't it?
#22. To: Deckard (#20)
what's your point?
#23. To: VxH (#21)
Did StuxNet work?
#24. To: Gatlin, VP Raymond Burr, shot and killed, Canary Hamilton (#3)
Alexander Hamilton (one of the authors of The Federalist)wrote to James Duane that "[t]he fundamental defect [in the Articles of Confederation] is a want of power in Congress.
A 20th-century artistic rendering of the July 11, 1804 duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton by J. Mund.
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#25. To: hondo68 (#24)
#26. To: tpaine (#23)
(Edited)
I dont have clue
#27. To: VxH, yukon, is this you? (#26)
#28. To: tpaine (#27)
#29. To: tpaine (#19)
Bullshit. You've always been a lightweight debater, Willy, and you ain't gonna come up with a damn thing.. Thanks...
#30. To: hondo68 (#24)
(Edited)
sitting Vice President, Raymond Burr.
Or was it Aaron Burr ...
#31. To: hondo68 (#24)
Canary Hamilton wasn't a popular guy.
“I leave to my actions to speak for themselves,” Aaron Burr once wrote, “and to my character to confound the fictions of slander.” His faith was ill placed, at least according to Nancy Isenberg, who in her fascinating new biography, “Fallen Founder,” argues that Burr has been misunderstood, and underappreciated, for two centuries. The Burr you know — for killing Alexander Hamilton in a duel in Weehawken, N.J. — is the bad boy of the early American Republic: rash, dissipated, self-interested and, by the end of his life, half-mad.
[...]
When Jefferson finally took office, he shut Burr out of his cabinet and made clear he would favor Madison as a running mate in the next election.
[...]
Rest is here.
#32. To: Willie Green (#29)
(Edited)
I could, but I prefer to let you struggle with it on your own for a while, just to see if you can come up with the reason yourself.
In other words, you're too intellectually lazy to answer your own question... as if I didn't already know that... LOL!
#33. To: VxH (#12)
(Edited)
Would Jefferson have thought it was a good idea for a theocratic state like Iran to have nuclear weapons? No. He was sane.
#34. To: Gatlin (#30)
Was it Raymond Burr ...
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#35. To: tpaine (#32)
Perhaps you could explain to all of us why you think the amendments are somehow of lesser importance than the body of the document?
#36. To: Willie Green (#35)
----perhaps you can explain to all of us why you think the amendments are somehow of greater importance than the body of the document.
#37. To: hondo68 (#34)
Yes I goofed up Arron Burr's name.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]