Debate Comments
[Robert Owens]
www.owenslawoffice.com
If you wish for a return to the limited government established by our founding fathers, a government that provides personal liberty, a secure border, sound money, low taxes and a balanced federal budget you have only one choice – Ron Paul. Ron Paul will end the war, restore Habeas Corpus, repeal the Patriot Act and abolish the private banking monopoly that is the Federal Reserve.
If you wish for a return to the limited government established by our founding fathers, a government that provides personal liberty, a secure border, sound money, low taxes and a balanced federal budget you have only one choice – Ron Paul. Ron Paul will end the war, restore Habeas Corpus, repeal the Patriot Act and abolish the private banking monopoly that is the Federal Reserve.
[Nick Schulz]
Only one candidate understands the role of judges, big surprise, it's Ron Paul. Is there any topic this man is not an expert on?
Only one candidate understands the role of judges, big surprise, it's Ron Paul. Is there any topic this man is not an expert on?
[Wil Estenzo]
Wow! The first 3 candidates seemed honest enough with their views, until I was blown away by Ron Paul's in-depth knowledge and real solutions to the problem! It made the other candidates answers look like typical-political speak. Ron Paul seems more honest and effective.
Wow! The first 3 candidates seemed honest enough with their views, until I was blown away by Ron Paul's in-depth knowledge and real solutions to the problem! It made the other candidates answers look like typical-political speak. Ron Paul seems more honest and effective.
[Adam Weisholtz]
Ron Paul is right. The courts should have a smaller role in shaping our laws. Lord knows that Roberts and Alito agree with him. Time Magazine wrote an entire piece on "the great shrinking Supreme Court" and how they've accepted fewer cases under Roberts than any time in recent history. Looks like we chose the wrong candidate to speak at our Annual Convention. Next year, I vote for Ron Paul!
Ron Paul is right. The courts should have a smaller role in shaping our laws. Lord knows that Roberts and Alito agree with him. Time Magazine wrote an entire piece on "the great shrinking Supreme Court" and how they've accepted fewer cases under Roberts than any time in recent history. Looks like we chose the wrong candidate to speak at our Annual Convention. Next year, I vote for Ron Paul!
[Michelle Murphy]
I agree that Ron Paul would have the greatest impact of the four candidates. Not only would he be the most effective in gaining the support of Congress on his appointments, but he would also revive the notion of enforcing the Constitution in the Executive Branch. This means bringing the Executive Branch power back to its proper role in government. For example, if President Ron Paul eventually dissolved the Department of Education, states will be able to again define their own education systems. Also, President Paul will be more likely to enforce Supreme Court decisions as president; a few times now the courts have ruled the income tax to be unconstitutional, yet the enforcing branch of government has ignored this ruling. What is the point of appointing the Constitutional Supreme Court Justices, if the other branches of government can choose to ignore them? Note: McCulloch v. Maryland, U. S. Chief Justice Marshall ruled against Maryland saying: "The power to tax involves the power to destroy."
I agree that Ron Paul would have the greatest impact of the four candidates. Not only would he be the most effective in gaining the support of Congress on his appointments, but he would also revive the notion of enforcing the Constitution in the Executive Branch. This means bringing the Executive Branch power back to its proper role in government. For example, if President Ron Paul eventually dissolved the Department of Education, states will be able to again define their own education systems. Also, President Paul will be more likely to enforce Supreme Court decisions as president; a few times now the courts have ruled the income tax to be unconstitutional, yet the enforcing branch of government has ignored this ruling. What is the point of appointing the Constitutional Supreme Court Justices, if the other branches of government can choose to ignore them? Note: McCulloch v. Maryland, U. S. Chief Justice Marshall ruled against Maryland saying: "The power to tax involves the power to destroy."
