Rep. Ron Paul for Prez

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by iella

I actually believe I was right on both counts. The Constitution was written to strengthen the federal government beyond what the Articles of Confederation provided, but also to ensure that the federal government would not become too powerful in the future.

Think about it - if the intent was to have a really strong federal government that could overrule the states on a whim, why have any discussion of states' rights at all? The founders, being not far removed from the British monarchy, were very well aware of what an overreaching central government could do. The point of the weakness of the Articles of Confederation was that they didn't want a powerful central government. They realized that the original Articles were too weak to keep the country together, but that doesn't mean they wanted what we have today. Is it really so ridiculous to say, "We've come to far, let's start thinking about moving in the opposite direction"?



Thus, any rights that aren't specifically enumerated in the Constitution are open to debate. That's all we're doing - challenging what the government has done thus far. I think it's the sign of a healthy democracy, you seem to feel otherwise.



"The fact that you are arguing... shows how crazy..." Is this meant to be a serious argument? You're effectively saying, "The fact that you disagree with me is enough for me to dismiss you." I suppose that's how today's politics work. You are not the first person to disagree with Dr. Paul, and I will certainly not hold a grudge against you for doing so. I hope you will give us the same respect.

It is exceedingly difficult to show a politician respect when he openly attacks legislation that protects minority rights (especially given is track record with regard to racist comments).