He would face a rather stiff problem in his Jingo-Xtian attempt to remove power from the Supreme Court; namely-it'd have to be written into the Costitution as an Amendment, not just a Congressional fiat. Has this idiot eveh read the Constutition? He just might want to; since it spells out what Congress (and he) can and can't do.
Have you read the Constitution? Article III, Section 2 gives Congress, the most powerful branch of the federal government, the power to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
It's certainly worth remembering that the US Constitution is not a libertarian document, granting far more powers to a central government than ought to be acceptable. I agree with most of Dr. Paul's positions on reining in the feds, and recognizing that it is constitutional for the states to write laws which many of us who are libertarians would find offensive. The proper arena for fighting out these issues is the political arena of each state.
If a federal law is passed, the first question should always be "Is it constitutional?" If not, then, as the late Justice Sutherland noted, its merits cannot save it, and if so, its faults do not condemn it. Most of what the federal government does is unconstitutional, and I laud Dr. Paul for recognizing this.
No US state, ever, has engaged in actions as destructive of life and freedom as the federal government. It's never even been close. Paul has his priorities right here, and though I'll never vote again, I'll continue to support his campaign financially. I want that message getting out, and I'm pleased to help.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Ron Paul and the Supremes...
Date: 2007-11-18 05:46 am (UTC)Has this idiot eveh read the Constutition? He just might want to; since it spells out what Congress (and he) can and can't do.
Re: Ron Paul and the Supremes...
Date: 2007-11-18 03:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-18 03:09 pm (UTC)If a federal law is passed, the first question should always be "Is it constitutional?" If not, then, as the late Justice Sutherland noted, its merits cannot save it, and if so, its faults do not condemn it. Most of what the federal government does is unconstitutional, and I laud Dr. Paul for recognizing this.
No US state, ever, has engaged in actions as destructive of life and freedom as the federal government. It's never even been close. Paul has his priorities right here, and though I'll never vote again, I'll continue to support his campaign financially. I want that message getting out, and I'm pleased to help.