Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine
Let me rephrase it then: If Massachusetts restricted firearms to a well regulated militia  |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine
The Constitution was written rather a long time ago. That raises countless issues. For example, should websites be considered interstate commerce? If so, they'd fall under the federal government. Should the activities of corporations which operate nationally be considered a interstate commerce? Once again, they'd fall under the federal government.
The Constitution was written in an era where communication and travel were slow and arduous. When it was written, to travel across a large state would cost as much time as it would now cost to travel to the other side of the world.
|
I hear what you're saying, and those are certainly issues that will need to be addressed if this was to ever become a reality and there was to be a Presidentially-inspired 'dressing down' of the Federal Government.... but still, Ron Paul as President would only be one man - with political power to sway opinion, maybe - but, in regards to actual power, he could only delegate what laws are enforced, and veto or sign bills (and let me say that knowing his platform, I feel confident that Ron Paul would limit his scope of power to those duties, and not make up special powers as his term moved forward)... to make a lasting impression, the Legislate would have to be on board with his opinion on a particular topic, as well, repealing old law and writing new law.... so there's the checks and balances in effect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine
The fragmentation Ron Paul supports runs counter to globalization. That makes me very doubtful about whether it could work. It seems to me that it would ultimately turn the US into something similar to - and as ineffective as - the European Union.
|
Honestly, I'm ok with that. The potential little inefficiency in exchange for the possibility of much greater freedom is ok in my book. IMHO, there are a lot of wrong turns that the U.S. has made in recent days - limitation on freedom, domestic bungling mixed with foreign ineptitude. I feel something needs to change - and when something's broken in my own life, I always find it useful to look back to the basics for inspiration.
And let's not forget, the constitution can change... if something's broken - if some internet or commercial or freedom-oriented or global-economy-centric issue can best serve the nation - it only takes (after a bit of preparation in congress) 2/3 of the states to agree it's a good idea, and it becomes a law across the land.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine
But if you choose to live in the Massachusetts from my example, you will live under laws that are ineffective and merely symbolic because of the laws of an adjacent state. What point is there in banning booze if there is no way to stop it from coming into the state? What point in regulating firearms if they are sold to anyone with money just a few miles away?
|
Well, personally, I can't think of a single physical item in all the universe that I'm for the "banning" of, so it wouldn't bother me all that much.
As far as those people who want to live in an environment where there's no booze, no abortions, and no loud music after 6PM... with no real chance of such items affecting their lives, I imagine they'd find themselves locating to the areas that, geographically, support their isolationist preferences....
...well, I guess until that gay couple that got married in California moved in next door...
and, when that happens, I figure they're just gonna have to learn to deal with it one way or the other.
I'm a firm believer in the ideal that my rights of expression and liberty end at the exact place that they affect your right to life, liberty or property.
And because of that, if he does receive the nomination, Ron Paul could very well be the first Republican I've ever voted for in a Presidential election.