Redstate

However, accusations (from the floor of the House) that the President is about to "create a Gulf of Tonkin-type incident" as a pretext to lie his way into "launching a full-scale nuclear attack on Iran" tend to overshadow that solid constitutional conservatism with the appearance of absolute lunacy.

That's not the only "constituional position" that makes people think that Ron Paul is crazy.

that Bush and the neocons who influence/advise him might create such an incident. You may think it unlikely or even implausible, but that hardly Ron Paul an "absolute lunatic." We would be a far freer, more secure, more prosperous country with more men like Ron Paul in Congress.

For a true advocate of individual freedom and strictly limited, constitutional government, Ron Paul hasn't been "good on some things," he's been great on nearly everything.

Impossible? No. But then, what truly is impossible?

There are those who look on Dresden and Tokyo and Hiroshima as some of the greatest evils ever perpetrated by man. I look on them and thank the perpetrators for saving millions.

Uhh...I don't know if we'd necessarily be more prosperous the rate at which Ron Paul votes against free trade agreements. To give him credit, though, the free trade agreements might be more than offset by how low he would set the tax rate. LOL. It'd probably be like 1% or something.

Imagine how fast our economy would grow with a 1% tax rate. We would probably be able to sustain 10% to 15% GDP growth per year under a 1% tax rate.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

"The emerging American economy." :-)

The New York Times would be irate that there was no one left on welfare because everyone had a job.

Until then, Paul needs to start voting for free trade agreements!!!

Actually, Shadegg has introduced this kind of legislation every term since his first in 1995, prior to Ron Paul returning to the U.S. House. I searched legislation back when Paul was in the House the first time, and saw no legislation of the sort. I think this is Shadegg's own baby... kudos to him!

Grassroots Girl

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

When I wrote my law review article on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, I compared it four similar statutes that each provided qualified immunity to various industries or activities. In each case, the Congressional findings which were used to justify the legislation had at least one finding that it had an effect on interstate commerce. Other findings related to other powers enumerated to Congress including the Spending Clause.

The same is true when Congress appropriates money; they will make a Congressional finding that the activity the money is being appropriated for relates to the “General Welfare.” What exactly constitutes the "General Welfare" has always been a matter for the democratically elected members of the legislative branch and not the courts to decide*. The courts have from almost the founding of our nation given great deference to Congress’ findings and consistently held that both the Commerce Power and Spending Power are plenary so long as it can make some finding to support it, I don’t see any practical benefit to Shadegg’s legislation.

If anything gimmicks like this are harmful because while conservatives are being distracted by bills that have little practical effect, we’re not focusing on doing thing that would make a real practical difference. IMO the elected members of Congress are doing passing legislation and appropriating money because they believe that in general it is what their constituents want. Until that changes and people see their self-interest more aligned with limited government than with some form of the Nanny State, nothing is going to change for the better.

* Ironically enough, many of the same conservatives who worry about the courts usurping the role of the legislative branch on issues like abortion and marriage are pretty liberal about wanting the courts to usurp the role of the legislature by second-guessing its powers under the Commerce and Spending Clause.

I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.

that conservatives support ANY of those laws? Have you actually spent any time reading postings on this site on ANY of those subjects?

I think you may be in for a shock if you actually read any articles and the replies on those topics.

I for one, would like to scrap the lot of them and also a few dozen more leftovers from the "New Deal" and "War on Poverty" eras.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

You are confusing real conservatives with "Republicans". Most of us are Republicans, but there are more than enough moderate to liberal Republicans to pass the bills you listed. Everything you listed is an unconstitutional farce.

You sound like a libertarian that doesn't like conservatives too well :)