Slashdot Asks: Whom Do You Want To Ask About 2012's U.S. Elections? 343
For the next year, it will be hard to escape the political season already in full swing in the U.S., as candidates aim for the American presidency (and many other elected positions). There will be plenty of soundbites and choreographed photo-ops to go around. Candidates will read speeches from TelePrompters, and staffers will mail out policy statements calculated to inspire political fealty to one candidate or another — finding unscripted answers from most of the candidates is going to be tough. Slashdot interviews, by contrast, give you the chance to do something that interviews in more conventional media usually don't: the chance to ask the questions you'd actually like to have answered, and to see the whole answer as provided. But there's a hitch: we need to know which candidates or other figures we should attempt to track down for a Slashdot interview. So please help narrow the field, by suggesting (with as much contact information as possible, as well as your reasoning) the people you'd like to hear from. It doesn't need to be one of the candidates, either: if you know of a pollster, a campaign technical advisor, an economist (or even a politicians's webmaster, say) who should be on our list, make the case in the comments below. And if you represent or are affiliated with a particular campaign, that's fine — but please say so. We'll do our best to find a number of your favorites in the year to come.
Al Franken (Score:5, Interesting)
I hate to be cynical and say that it doesn't really matter, since no politician is ever going to give you an honest or useful answer anyway (any written response won't even written by them, just some staffer, you know). But I will suggest one of the VERY few politicians at the top who actually seems to give a modicum of a shit about freedom, the little guy, and all that jazz. From his well-known editorial [huffingtonpost.com] on why he supports net neutrality to his fight against contractors and for regulation of the financial industry, Al Franken seems to be one of the few people in Washington interested in something more than just padding his pocket.
I would be particularly interested to hear more on the Net Neutrality issue, since he seems to be one of the only politicians, Republican or Democrat, actively supporting it.
Yes, he is a little batshit from time to time and prone to saying some crazy shit. But in his defense, they did a LOT of coke on SNL back in the day. He's lost a few brain cells. Poor Chevy Chase is MUCH worse.
Re: (Score:2)
I would second this, but for the reason that I believe he is one of the few politicians that actually seem to follow what's going on in the world of computers and software
Re:Al Franken (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Al Franken (Score:5, Informative)
I've always found Ron Paul tells it like he thinks it should be based on his theories. Personally, I've always found his theories don't match up well with reality.
*Which* reality? (Score:2)
I would say that predicting 2008 housing crash many years in advance would be a pretty good validation of his "theories" that allowing unlimited money creation guided by political reasons leads to rather unpleasant unintended consequences...
But your version of the reality must be different from mine. Does it also happen in your part of multiverse that Obama fulfilled any of his campaign promises, withdrew from Iraq and Afghanistan (which, as Commander in Chief, is about the only thing the President can do
Re: (Score:2)
Rand Paul (Score:2)
Ron Paul is nuts. Every time I want to like him, he goes and says something untrue, inane, or just plain insane.
I would much rather hear from Rand Paul, who has been somewhat in the shadows through all this. Some have suggested that he'll be his fathers successor. Me, I don't know. I really haven't heard enough from him. Thus, it would be great to interview him here. Maybe, just maybe, he'll wind up being the "Paul" I can like.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, Ron Paul; the fellow who wants to shut down any federal agency not involved in killing foreigners. Education, science funding, medical care, environmental protection? Screw 'em, all we need is to be able to kill people. THAT makes for a great country: one built on the corpses of its enemies, real or imagined.
You do realize you're talking about the guy who voted against the war in Iraq and has been consistently saying we need to bring troops home and stop having overseas military bases in places that don't want us there, right?
He wants us to have defensive capabilities, but he wants to cut down on the military budget by quite a lot as well. Which I personally think is a really bad idea along with most of the other stuff he wants cut. That said, I do respect the man a hell of a lot. He knows he can't possibly
Re: (Score:2)
Ask them all this.... (Score:5, Interesting)
"Why did it take a constitutional amendment to ban, then un-ban alcohol in the US....yet marijuana and other intoxicants since then, have been banned/regulated on the whim of the US legislature or executive order? Why is a constitutional amendment no longer needed for banning an intoxicant?"
Distilled Pessimism Squeezed into a Post (Score:4, Insightful)
There will be plenty of soundbites and choreographed photo-ops to go around. Candidates will read speeches from TelePrompters, and staffers will mail out policy statements calculated to inspire political fealty to one candidate or another — finding unscripted answers from most of the candidates is going to be tough. Slashdot interviews, by contrast, give you the chance to do something that interviews in more conventional media usually don't: the chance to ask the questions you'd actually like to have answered, and to see the whole answer as provided.
Oh they won't have teleprompters for a Slashdot interview? So what? Every single candidate or person working for a candidate are going to do the following:
This isn't my first rodeo. Seriously, watch a candidate's speech in BFE one-horse-town North Texas one day and then their speech in yuppie concrete jungle Manhattan the next day. They will skirt issues and spew half truths that are almost (but not quite, it's an art) in direct conflict with their message at another locality. How do you maximize votes? Why settle for those localized maxima with the same speech in two different demographics when a massive overhaul will win you the campaign? Why do you think they have teams of speech writers? If you campaigned on one consistent platform through the country, you're dead in the water. The only way to win is to lie by omission or worse.
Oh and if you think that a webmaster of a politician is going to be allowed to answer questions in regard to that politician's campaign, you can forget it. A person with a STEM background interfacing in a Q&A for someone's campaign?! Are you daft? No no no no, nobody is going to allow that. The phrase "talking points" was made for a reason. Can you imagine that conversation? "Hey, I know I designed your website for your campaign, now I'm going on a news site to represent your campaign to potentially anybody -- I mean if I really fuck up this could be on Colbert or something. Wish me luck!"
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't my first rodeo. Seriously, watch a candidate's speech in BFE one-horse-town North Texas one day and then their speech in yuppie concrete jungle Manhattan the next day.
And there you go The solution to the problem you present. Don't treat the Slashdot version in complete isolation, but rather see how it meshes with the rest of the speeches that the candidate gives.
Re: (Score:3)
Right and at the end of the day, every politician is giving some version of the patronizing message to each demographic! Slashdot will be no different!
If a politician is telling us what we want to hear, then that's a bit of information. It's also possible that they haven't given a great deal of thought to issues that concern Slashdot readers. This sort of Q and A can get them to think about and make decisions on these sorts of issues.
An example from the Obama administration was their original stance on NASA, namely, that they advocated transferring funds from NASA to education projects. Once space advocates heard about that, the policy changed and has
Mod parent up. (Score:2)
With almost all politicians (except the ones YOU like, of course) the "message" is the message. Asking questions is useless unless you're gathering material for The Daily Show or Colbert.
No matter how uninformed a candidate is, the fans will still be fans.
It isn't about picking the best candidate based upon your criteria.
It's about using your flexible criteria to justify the politician / party that you've already emotionally decided upon.
Re:Mod parent up. (Score:4, Interesting)
I think you make a good point. Therefore, I suggest we interview Jon Stewart and/or Stephen Colbert.
Daily Show (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Interestingly, Canada's current Prime Minister campaigned with a single speech which he repeated verbatim (down to the times at which he took a sip of water during the speak) every time he gave it. He gave the exact same speech twice a day every day for over a month (and won).
Another interesting thing that happened in the recent Ontario election, was one of the provincial engineering institutes sent a request to each party for an explanation of their policies on power generation. One party chose not to an
That's the core problem (Score:3)
Ask Diebold (Score:5, Funny)
Slashdot Should Interview... (Score:2)
Chris Hedges.
Ron Paul (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
. . . when his only fault is believing the Constitution means what it says and says what it means. He is the only candidate so far who considers our legal framework to be more valuable than toilet paper.
Re:Ron Paul (Score:5, Informative)
In all fairness, that's because he is radical and crazy.
Which is not necessarily a bad thing, when compared to "arrogant and stupid" or "two-faced and disappointing"
Re: (Score:2)
But then, when you live in an insane world and you yourself are sane, it means you are insane, if the working (as opposed to dictionary) definition "sane" is "the status quo"
That's crazy talk, man.
Re: (Score:2)
Lest we forget, our Constitution was radical and crazy IN THE BEGINNING. It was CREATED THAT WAY, AND ON PURPOSE.
Even today, rights being inherently endowed within the people of a nation is not al that common, and a nation's constitution specifying WHICH powers are invested in the state and that ALL OTHERS are therfore invested in the people is also not all that common.
Our nation was founded to be radical and crazy, compared to the norm then. And it still is, so much so that there are significant factions
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, anything has to be better than the Hope and Change we got last time....
Re: (Score:2)
That's because he is radical. I don't think he's crazy, but the man makes most of the rest of the Republican party look liberal by comparison. Nobody's going to vote for him for the same reason no one will vote for Dennis Kucinich. Too far from the center.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He isn't treaded fair by the media.
He won a straw poll - no coverage. Another candidate get coverage for a second place. WTF?
He appears to have consistent principled integrity as Jon Stewart already mentioned. He speaks the same for 30 years and nobody was listening.
I admit the more I read from him the more I think I understand his point of view. And it makes sense all though it is not comfortable.
I also know: He is the only veteran within the presidential candidates and will bring the troops home.
Ron Paul
Re: (Score:2)
They may not be the same rehearsed Republican/Democratic lines, but all I have ever heard from him is well rehearsed lines. Everything I have heard from him is very black and white, and is completely closed to any compromise, argument, logic or additional information. He already knows all he needs to know and is proud of it. If you like the current republican gridlock where nothing gets done, because no one is willing to compromise, then choose Ron Paul for prez, he will not compromise and being out of l
Re: (Score:2)
RMS (Score:3)
Yes... RMS.... just for 'shits-and-giggles'
Re: (Score:2)
And ESR
And Penn Gillette (Jillete?) WTF it is spelled.
an economist (Score:3)
an economist
An economist you say?
How about Ben Jones
http://thehousingbubbleblog.com/ [thehousingbubbleblog.com]
An how about Tyler Durden (A pseudonym, duh, but I think it would be hilarious to see the ZH response to our questions)
http://www.zerohedge.com/ [zerohedge.com]
Last but not least, George Ure, who is about 20% genius, 60% eh, and 20% nuts?
http://urbansurvival.com/week.htm [urbansurvival.com]
Re: (Score:2)
An economist? Economics is about as scientific as phrenology. There isn't an economist alive that you can't find another economist who will call the first a gold studded liar.
Look what happened when we put an MBA in the White House. I'm sure you need quite a few economics classes to get an MBA.
Re: (Score:2)
Barry Ritholz
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/ [ritholtz.com]
David Merkel
http://alephblog.com/ [alephblog.com]
Though one might argue that they are more so stock traders than pure economists.
Robocalls (Score:2)
Why do politicians always write in exemptions for themselves when it comes to legislation banning telemarketing? Do any of you twits realize how annoying incessant Robocalls are?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they don't. They have their staff and help screen calls. Why don't you do that?
The Web (Score:3)
William Shatner (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Boston Legal was far better, Billy as a cigar smoking, booze drinking, gun toting, criminal creep shooting, mad-cow conservative lawyer ... made me strongly identify him as understanding US Citizens better than any C*O, politician, clergy, or Canadian (I have heard he is Jewish). I keep hoping he will return for one last big case on Harry's Law (may the large complicated case could last for a season).
Billy was always Captain Kirk to US, until Denny Crane!
Andrew Tanenbaum (Score:5, Informative)
Not only does Andrew Tanenbaum have a good handle on polls and vote-projection [electoral-vote.com], but his nerd credentials are excellent [minix3.org].
Re:Andrew Tanenbaum (Score:4, Insightful)
Seconded. His analysis running up to 2008 was spot-on.
Come to /. to see who WON'T be the next president! (Score:5, Insightful)
Given Slashdot's predilections, it is certain that the ones Slashdot likes the most will be the least likely to get elected.
So, come join us on Slashdot to see who WON'T be the next president!
Let us whine together about how awful and broken the system is!
Let us propose reforms to the election system that will never be implemented!
Let us ask obscure technical questions of candidates to the highest office in the land!
Yes, I have been here during elections before.
In b4 Ron Paul
Re: (Score:2)
Does this mean an iPad will be elected president?
Re: (Score:2)
No, more likely it'll be President Tux.
Ron Paul? (Score:5, Insightful)
As a matter of fact, he already did! Back in 2008 (Score:4, Informative)
And I am sure his positions have not changed since then...
http://interviews.slashdot.org/story/08/02/05/1511225/ron-paul-campaign-answers-slashdot-reader-questions [slashdot.org]
Paul B.
Rebecca Mercury (Score:5, Interesting)
Why not ask Rebecca Mercuri [wikimedia.org]? She is a voting expert, and if indications are correct, the last couple of voting exercises were not exactly as clean as they were supposed to have been.
You can ask politicians whatever you want, I would suggest you become more interested in assuring that your vote actually goes where it is supposed to go.
Ask the askers.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Get a journalist from a major network and ask them why the fuck they let politicians off the hook when they give non-answers to direct questions in interviews and debates.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll agree with choosing Al Franken because the guy's intelligent and doesn't seem to pull punches (comedian's instinct).
I'd say yes to Ron Paul because he's so unelectable that he may even respond to the Slashdot request out of desperation.
But this one... this one above all, I want to see the most. Our political system receives 100% from the concept of the will of The People. The People are not capable of (nor have they the time) holding conversations with the candidates of the political races affecting th
real debates (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be 3-4 tedious hours of "legalize weed" "9-11 conspiracy" "can we pass an amendment to remove the separation of church and state"
Barack Obama (Score:3)
Obama's rhetoric on civil liberties during the 2008 campaign was spot on. Given how horrible his actual civil liberties track record has been - "Obama has proved a disaster not just for specific civil liberties but the civil liberties cause in the United States" is how Jonathan Turley described him in a recent LA Times opo-ed [jonathanturley.org] - I'd like to hear him or one of his spokespeople try to defend his record on this matter.
Re: (Score:2)
So, Seconded.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that the civil liberties you speak about really comes from the legislative branch of Government and not the Executive (as laid out in the Constitution), and given that Republican's absolute disdain for Obama and their totally, historically unprecedented use of tactics in the Senate to stop any governance or legislation. I think we can give Obama a pass on this. You should define what you think Obama could do given the intransigence and morally and ethically reprehensible behavior towards their sworn
Re: (Score:3)
"Given that the civil liberties you speak about really comes from the legislative branch of Government and not the Executive" - that's wrong both philosophically and realistically. In the philosophy of law, civil liberties originate in natural law and are codified in the Constitution. That's the essential difference between a right and a privilege - a privilege can be revoked, a right cannot. It is your right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process, and the Constition says as mu
Did he veto the Patriot Act and made 2/3 of evil.. (Score:3)
... republicans in the Congress to overrule his veto?
Or did he go to great extents to sign its extension (via that fancy robotic arm).
I second the notion, I would love to see Obama defend his flip-flopping on, hey, almost anything. I would prefer him to debate my preferred guy (obvious from my signature) on live TV, would be great! ;-)
Paul B.
NOT elections (Score:5, Informative)
Elections are where free people can choose who they want in public office.
In America, the government, corporations, institutions, organizations, and political parties choose what rich stupid b*stard gets to be put in front of you to get "voted" into office.
You do not have a choice. Whatever party you vote in, you will still get scr*wed by a lying, cheating, bribed b*stard. You get the same sh*t. Just different public "statements, promises, and claims"
If we were electing someone to represent our interests in government, they would be representing our interests. Instead, they are representing the interests of lobbyists, PACs, special interest groups, corporations, institutions, and the rich and famous in general.
Is it in our interest to have Obama spend 200,000,000+ on a flight vacation to Hawaii while joblessness is above 9%? I do not think so. How many jobs has Obama created? 1, for Michelle's brother, the basketball coach in Oregon.
Tell me again how anyone, Democrat or republican, got anything they voted for.
Liar.
Re: (Score:3)
You're allowed to write "bastard", "screwed", and "shit" on Slashdot. If you're writing the word, and we all know what it is even with a starred vowel, why do you pseudo-censor it?
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever party you vote in, you will still get scr*wed by a lying, cheating, bribed b*stard. You get the same sh*t. Just different public "statements, promises, and claims"
I find that annoying. Just say "Whatever party you vote in, you will still get screwed by a lying, cheating, bribed bastard. You get the same shit. Just different public 'statements, promises, and claims" and be done with it. If you're going ti use harsh language, use harsh language. If you're afraid of offending, don't use that language
Re: (Score:3)
Is it in our interest to have Obama spend 200,000,000+ on a flight vacation to Hawaii while joblessness is above 9%?
Really? $200M? Who told you this and is it in YOUR interests to swallow such an obvious distortion of the truth? Have you ever asked yourself why someone would broadcast this kind of propaganda, or do you simply accept what the media tells you without questioning the claims and motives of the speaker?
Disclaimer: I don't have a dog in your political fight, but 10,000 miles of ocean air is not enough to dissipate the nauseating smell bullshit from your media.
How about.... (Score:3)
an old fogey (Score:2)
Retired politicians/pundits/... with no stakes in the game anymore are by far the most entertaining and interesting. Plus they want to get rid of stuff they've had on their chest for a while, ie all the lies and stupidities they've ha to spout to please their electoral bases.
Ask the policy setters (Score:2)
Mitch Bainwol and Chris Dodd.
Current non-politician involved in government (Score:2)
Everyone holds bias, but someone who isn't dependent on votes in the near future would be less bound by his/her desire to maintain public image while still possessing the insider experience to give us an insightful appraisal.
Perhaps former officials of the US Cabinet.
Nate Silver (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Go Big, ask for the President .... (Score:2)
My questions:
1. Can the Education Department produce and maintain a BS-free "Open Course Content" (Open eBooks, Open teaching materials, randomized test content ...) curriculum for grades K...12 that are comparable to any extremely highly ranked private school? No don't force the states to use the curriculum, eventually state education budget cuts will require the Open and Free curriculum to reduce education cost. Yes, education infrastructure will still be failing nationally, but some bills the states s
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you want to compare anything to a private school? Statistically, grade wise, they are actually doing worse by a tiny margin over public schools.
Libertarians (Score:2)
If anyone is interested, I can get someone on the Libertarian National Committee (LNC [lp.org]) or the Libertarian National Campaign Committee (LNCC [lncc.org]) to answer questions. The Libertarian Party is the largest third and fastest growing party in the US (as confirmed by Wikipedia!) and I know that many ./ers tend to lean small-L libertarian.
Disclaimer: I am the Region 2 alternate member of the LNC, and Chair of the Massachusetts Libertarian Party [lpmass.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry for the self-reply. I wanted to say that as a member of the LNC, I have pretty good access to any of the elected or candidate Libertarians across the country, including Presidential candidates.
Also, I'd recommend Ron Rivest [wikipedia.org] as a non-candidate expert on voting. (Yes, the "R" in "RSA".) He's a really down-to-earth guy who I think would be really approachable, and he has done work that addresses electoral fraud (including inventing a new voting system).
Opinions are like assholes (Score:2)
Our culture celebrates assholes, just as it celebrates talking heads. We've replaced real news and fact, opinions and jag-off talking heads. Listening to our opinion producers causes you to know less, not more.
Instead, I'll tell you who I don't want to ask: Any politician. Anyone who is regularly on television. Anyone who can't footnote their answers.
Elizabeth Warren (Score:4, Informative)
Sixty-two year old babe running for Senate from Massachusetts. Straight shooter, smarter than me and probably you, too. Also tough as nails. If you like Senator Franken, you will like future Senator Warren.
Sarah Palin (Score:4, Funny)
Nate Silver (Score:2)
He did such a good job of analyzing the 2008 election, I would like a good Slashdot interview of him to discuss his methodologies and what challenges he has when performing political analysis... as well as how the NY Times buy-out of his blog has affected what he publishes.
How about video? (Score:2)
Let's have a Slashdot roundtable. Get together Richard Posner, Paul Krugman, Greg Mankiw, Tyler Cowen, Lawrence Lessig, and some smart econ/political geeks, and let's talk turkey about economic policy, politics, and how technology interacts with these forces. (I'd really love to get a luminary on education in there, but I'm not sure who the good choices would be.)
what's the point? (Score:2)
Rick Perry said it best. "You get to ask the questions, and I get to answer how I want to." Who are we kidding? The candidates WILL NOT ANSWER your questions. Yeah, maybe you can get the webmaster to talk, but how much value is this really?
What does it matter (Score:3)
Regardless of outcome, a fucking grief counselor.
Grover Norquist (Score:3)
This is the most powerful UNELECTED man in Federal Government. Because a large number of the GOP have signed his pledge to NEVER raise taxes, the GOP has scuttled or stalled every proposal to get this nation back on it's feet.
So my question is for Grover. And my question is this: "What gives you the fucking right? Nobody in America cast even one vote for your sorry ass, and yet you are dictating policy more than any elected official, even the goddam president. Do you really think you represent everyone in America? Do you even realize how much damage you are causing to our poilitcal system? Do you realize that YOU created the gridlock that ultimately lowered America's credit rating? And that further gridlock will ultimately cause this nation's downfall?"
Douche.
The American People (Score:3)
And why should they care? Their jobs are up for review only every few years. No one is there to take them to task for attendance or participation. It is unlikely that we will remember their transgressions in the next election season, even if enough people cared to turn out to begin with. These people are your employees. Are you happy with the job your employees are doing? Are they working on your behalf?
So, American People, are you going to continue to put up with this behavior? Are you going to sit idly by on election day and let your chance to make your voice heard? I propose to you that in 2012, we, The American People, tell the current political parties in no uncertain terms that their behavior will no longer be tolerated. I propose we do this by un-electing every single office that comes up for re-election, and that we vote for third parties whenever possible in those elections. And I propose that we continue to do this until we have some people in there who want to put the welfare of the American People in front of the corporations who want to suck us dry. It is, after all, the American People who hire and fire politicians, not corporate interest groups, not the Koch Brothers, not the think tanks in Washington. Us.
So, what do you say, American People? Political blood bath on election day? Or are you happy with Business as Usual?
Andrew Tannenbaum (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not downvoted. AC posts start at 0.
Re:To all candidates (Score:4, Insightful)
I think Ron Paul's answer would be a little dull. ;-)
The thing is you can ask this but I can predict what the answer will entail.
Basically, it will all boil down to the fact that we "need" government to do these things because otherwise terrible (but generally vague) things will happen. The government is responsible for providing for the general welfare and all these things it does directly benefit the general welfare, QED.
Do you want your schools to fall behind in the technology arms race, or to turn out graduates who lack sufficient self-esteem? Do you want people living out in the street and starving while Senators feast on suckling pigs and roast immigrants? Do you want evil corporations using their mind-control rays or poisoning your pets with nuclear waste and crooked accounting? Do you want terrorists sneaking in your house and stealing your healthcare? Do you want Iran nuking your right to bear arms and freedom of speech? Or evil Wall Streeters selling your children to drug lords to pay for their SUVs that run on stem-cells?
Of course, it doesn't matter that in each case the government is either addressing the wrong problem, or addressing the right problem but completely failing to do anything to make it better. The important thing is that We Do Something (TM)! If the problem isn't getting better than we need to do something faster, harder and with more money.
Re:To all candidates (Score:4, Insightful)
Basically, it will all boil down to the fact that we "need" government to do these things because otherwise terrible (but generally vague) things will happen.
Sometimes, but many times government does these things because terrible things HAVE happened and are likely to happen again.
The 1929 stock market crash, bank failures, and depression resulted in legislation that reformed banking. Unfortunately, the politicians don't study history and undid those regs, resulting in the 2008 crash and the Great Recession.
Social Security was started as a result of dire poverty among the elderly. It was the reaction to something bad that had already happened.
The 2006 welfare reform package was to counter generational welfare Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society and War On Poverty wrought. Again, something bad had happened and they fixed it.
Deregulation? Yeah, tell that to the dead miners in West Virginia. Tell that to any of us who were alive before the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.
You only get stupid laws and regulations when you elect stupid or corrupt politicians; the overreaction to 9-11 and the loss of civil liberties afterwards is a good example.
Re:To all candidates (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Because the Constitution is not nearly as restrictive as Ron Paul would have us believe. It does enumerate a number of specific powers, but adds "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers" which allows for much latitude to what is allowed to do.
2a) because there is no violation.
2b) because requiring an amendment (which requires several years at a minimum to pass) for the normal day-to-day actions of the Congress, which so gridlock the national government, as to force to destruction. (IOW, Why do you hate America?)
Re:To all candidates (Score:4, Informative)
What you seem to be missing is that there is an amendment that specifically states that if the power isn't granted in the Constitution then the Federal Government does not have it, and that it then passes to the states or to the people
The 10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So, while I agree that the Federal Government has latitude in passing laws for those things over which it has authority, it has none at all over those over which it does not.
The Constitution isn't supposed to be cherry-picked: It's a comprehensive document that is supposed to be taken as a whole to determine what the limits of Federal power are.
And if you actually read the Constitution and its Amendments, you'll be surprised to discover how few rights the Federal Government has really been granted.
Regards,
dj br
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Honest answer if I were one of the respondees: "Because I don't, you moron. Ron Paul's interpretation of the Constitution is not canonical. Perhaps it would be helpful if you REALLY studied some political and legal history before you became a mouthpiece for a guy who is really just a puppet of the health care industry?
Re: (Score:2)
I hear an awful lot from conservatives about lowering taxes and reducing regulation. I live in a world where in order to fly my grandma has to get groped at the airport, there's government monitored cameras on every decent sized intersection, domestic assassination of US citizens carried out by our government, I need permission from government regarding who I might enter into a financial contract with (marriage), what chemicals I may or may not put into my body
Re:To all candidates (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not just ask if they've stopped beating their wife? The way you ask the question allows for no reasonable answer. The correct answer is that the Constitution rightly endows the Supreme Court with the power to interpret and explain its provisions, that this power has been used since the dawn of the Republic, and that Ron Paul's reading of settled law as "unconstitutional" is simply a method of pandering to his supporters. And furthermore, that the US Constitution is itself a flawed document, containing provisions which are no longer supportable or even ethical in the modern age (most notably, the three-fifths of a man compromise).
Re: (Score:2)
Because the constitution is a living document and changes with the ages, I think is the standard answer.
I think Ron Paul is a little crazy in more than one way, but he certainly gets that part right.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, Romney's still the most likely to get the Republican nomination, maybe. But whether he's "from the right" depends on which way the flip is flopping.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Somewhat seriously, find the top 10 political donors, they will be the ones who decide what happens anyway regardless of who wins, and ask them what they have decided for us?
Re: (Score:3)
Hi, it's 2014 here; I'm not sure how I'm able to reach you across 2 years, but anyway things are pretty bad now. Things have gotten far worse than anyone could have imagined. There's very little electric power now, so I'm lucky to be able to post this, and doubly lucky that I can even connect to the internet. In many places around the US, there's complete anarchy and roving bands of gangs taking whatever they want. The Federal government collapsed back in '12, and things have been spiraling out of contr
Re: (Score:2)
That is an excellent question. Here are some follow-ups:
What other ways do we have to acheive the same goals in a modern society?
Has it outlived its usefulness and should it be repealed?
Second that one (Score:3)
He could actually understand our questions.
Too bad the smear machine has already gone into gear against him and he'll be toppled from his front runner status.