Comments on: Marijuana and Voting Defensively

By: invisipunk

invisipunk — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 00:33:47 +0000

@beetlbumjl - yep, the English Reformation which can arguably be a catalyst for the Scientific Revolution leading to the Enlightenment. Hopefully I have that history right. In either case, from an academic perspective, the existence of any government no matter how relaxed they are, is a threat/possible threat to freedom.

By: bile

bile — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 20:05:21 +0000

Sure they do… but an election where a Ron Paul like figure is elected would likely mean a sea-change in Congress. I find it unlikely that those who would be opposed to this sea-change would be left in office or wouldn’t change their opinions on things pretty quick. Most politicians are merely opportunists. They have their beliefs and then they follow the road to the most power. Not everyone of course… but it’d be quite a different looking legislator.

By: bosco

bosco — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 18:12:37 +0000

Ha! You’re apologizing to ME for getting off topic. I’ve had 50+ post arguments with bile.

By: beetlbumjl

beetlbumjl — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:47:27 +0000

(Wandering off topic, sorry bosco.)

My hangup — that the problem extends past the presidency and that the larger picture must be corrected or else smaller wins will be reverted back into problems. Apologies for the pessimism.

By: bile

bile — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:24:16 +0000

It is the president’s responsibility to defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic. Congress’ actions on these topics makes them enemies of the Constitution and therefore the president has the authority to respond accordingly.

I don’t get what your hangup is. The president is the executor. If he wants the troops home he can he can make it so. If he wants to pardon all nonviolent drug criminals he can. He is constitutionally able to. Congress may allocate funds but the executive branch controls the actual spending. He doesn’t need Congressional approval for any of that. Look at the organizations under the executive branch… he is the top of that hierarchy.

By: beetlbumjl

beetlbumjl — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:42:47 +0000

bile - My point is that the there wouldn’t be a choice in the matter. These candidates could do as much as they wanted to shrink the power of the executive. Half of it would be done automatically by the Democrats and Republicans by marginalizing him. But any attempt at actually reducing the overall footprint of government would probably be rebuked by both party leaders.

I wonder if it is the president’s responsibility to bring home the troops, stop the drug war, defund the IRS, etc. It seems to me that these are mostly within the scope of Congress. They write the laws and establish the budget. The president can only veto. Given my prior point, I don’t see how an outsider president could actually achieve most of these things without Congressional approval.

By: bile

bile — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:19:28 +0000

Ron Paul would act constitutionally. And that’s all that’s needed in order to make huge changes. Bring home the troops, stop the drug war, pardon nonviolent drug prisoners, defund the IRS, etc.

By: beetlbumjl

beetlbumjl — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:06:02 +0000

@invisipunk - Are you talking about the English Reformation?

By: invisipunk

invisipunk — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 13:23:45 +0000

So you get someone that may work on your side and then 4 to 8 years later someone else who tries to undo that work. Reminds me of what the English were going through with all the switching around from different churches until it some people woke up enough to disregard the whole damn thing.

By: bile

bile — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 12:33:48 +0000

burt is what happens when I write comments from my blackberry which doesn’t have spell check.