I would use your second response as a base but I would change "money" to "millions of dollars" and "what they believe" to "a political candidate". So it would read more like, "Billionares shouldn't be able to donate 'millions of dollars' to support 'a political candidate' "
Aya, you would be quite wrong. I am found of the first amendment, but not of the Supreme Court's interpretation of it. No matter how people spin it, money is not speech. It is against any form of logic known to man. I am completely against the use of money to sway elections. If it were possible I would rather money not play any part in political campaigns.
1. Not all gays are liberals thus he probably is standing up for what he believes.
2. Anyone should be able to donate to anything they wish.
3. Ron Paul isn't necessarily evil (I don't know the man personally so couldn't tell you) but I don't think he is electable. I actually like a couple of his views but not enough to ignore the others. I think the same problem exists with what should be his "base" of voters. The same things I, as a liberal, like will make conservatives cringe and the things that conservatives like about him would make me cringe. His views are so extreme in most cases that the moderates cringe too.
Yeah preety much the above. I am not at all surprised though, have you heard of the log cabin Republicans? they are Republicans which support gay rights I actually have a deeply conservative gay friend, there is no contradiction, when you think about it.
People do have the right to bear arms. Don't get me wrong, I personally, don't like guns. But that is in the Constitution. My feeling is, any person owning a gun is fully responsibe for what happens with that gun, wether in his/her hands or not. The guns should be kept in a safe place when not in that persons personal posetion. Hub coming to explain in more detail. My opinion, Greg
I'll post my response, but you first have to promise to answer what I post AFTER reading it. You must then go through my post line by line, or at least paragraph by paragraph, and then write a coherent response.
True American Government Constitution Connected To the Declaration of Independence
The Supreme Court declared in 1897, the Constitution is the body and letter of which the Declaration of Independence is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.
The Constitution itself connects itself to the Declaration of Independence by dating itself from the date of the Declaration of Independence, thereby showing clearly that it is the second great document in the government of these United States and is not to be understood without the first. How many today say the Constitution stands alone devoid of all reference to the Declaration? Let them see hear and understand what those who wrote the Constitution said about our American government. See Article VII.
The Founders believed the Declaration was the foundational document in our Constitutional form of government. The Founders dated their government acts from the year of the Declaration rather than the Constitution. The date of the Declaration of Independence was the recognized date of Sovereignty and Independence of the United States.
In the Declaration, the Founders established the foundation and the core values on which the Constitution was to operate. The Constitution was never to be interpreted apart from those values expressed in the Declaration.
Samuel Adams pointed out: Before the formation of this Constitution this Declaration of Independence was received and ratified by all the States in the Union, and has never been disannulled.
Well into the twentieth century, the Declaration and the Constitution were viewed as inseparable and interdependent. While the Court's change of standards has perhaps been a display of poor judgment, the Court's actions have actually been illegal under the standards of original intent. Furthermore they have violated the value system of "the laws of nature and of nature's God" established in the Declaration of Independence.
Yes, the Declaration of Independence inspired free government, but they aren't that similar. First of all, the DOI was looking to split ties with a British Monarch and the Constitution was looking to create ties between the states and people of the US. Secondly, much of what the DOI says is contradicted by the Constitution itself.
All this rubbish about political donations is a non-starter. What we want is to take away the power of government to affect the basic tenants of a free society and hold politicians accountable for what they do in office. How come government positions are the only jobs in the world where you can't get fired for violating contracts? We pay them to provide a service (their manifesto), and if they don't provide that service, we have every right to fire them or withdraw payment.
Actually statists have that condition. They believe 'leaders' should not be questioned, and it trickles down every to every figure of 'authority', whether it be teachers or police officers. Anarchism is the least 'Godly' of all political systems because it truly sees everyone as equal.
Will our political parties unite to fight the One World Government which the anti Christ is bringing rapidly into existence?I have heard he is a one of the 30 multibillionaires sitting in a powerful position somewhere...
Is Ron Paul giving birth to a movement that can develop into a full fledged political party?Maybe attracting real independents not the pseudo independents that are really just to the left of the democratic party or to...