23 wrote:Sure. Be happy to.
The beginning of the process to drastically scale down our imperialist military, and use the huge savings towards more humane purposes, is definitely Reason No. 1 for me.
Reason No. 2 is the restoration of our civil liberties.
Gotcha. I too would like to see those things happen.
President Paul can accomplish the former via executive mandate as Commander in Chief.
How? By which I mean: How will that executive mandate get past all the very real, very powerful, very entrenched obstacles that stand between his issuing it on a piece of paper and it becoming a reality?
For example, how would it get past the all-but-guaranteed failure and/or inability of congress either to enact the legislation or appropriate the funds delineating that process that you mention in your first sentence? Those being powers that the constitution quite clearly reserves for the legislative branch and withholds from the executive?
I mean, unless the judicial branch says otherwise, of course. But the Supreme Court would pretty much have to tear up the constitution and flush it down the toilet in order for them to say it.
In light of which, what's his plan for dealing with that, constitutionally or extra-constitutionally, as you understand it?
Because he would have to deal with it. One way or the other. In reality.
He can accomplish the latter as the top boss of all the federal agencies, including the FBI, CIA, DEA, et al.
But he wouldn't be the top boss of all the federal agencies, including the FBI, CIA, DEA, et al.
In fact, assuming that he was just the president and that the constitution was still in effect, it would be a massive and illegal abuse of power for him to act unilaterally as if he were.
By which I mean that under the law it would be. As a practical matter, he'd have a little more top-boss authority over some federal agencies than he would over others, all things being roughly equal to what they are now, I suppose. But I personally am very strongly opposed to
any president having even as much top-boss authority over
any of those agencies as the office-holders of my lifetime have had. It's an abuse of power. It's illegal. And it's unconstitutional, either literally or in spirit. IMO.
I definitely wouldn't be in favor of increasing that authority, therefore. Under any conditions, for any candidate. So I really couldn't support any president whose plan to get things done was contingent on his belief that his individual power was so far above both that of the republic as a whole
and all of the various democratic institutions through which it's governed that he could just say jump and they'd jump. Because that would make him a dictator, not a president. Which would also make the United States a dictatorship and not a federal consitutional republic. Needless to say.
So basically, I have the same question as above: What do you understand the process whereby he's proposing to get all those federal agencies he co-administers with congress to skip to his beat to be, exactly?
If, in the 4 years that his term would last, he accomplished the initialization of the demilitarization of our foreign policy (to include the huge savings that that would incur) and restore our civil liberties... I'd be a little more hopeful for my daughter's future.
Not to mention our jails will be significantly less filled too, because the racist and unjust "war on drugs" will be made impotent.
4 short years... 3 significant accomplishments, at the very least... not a bad beginning for a much better future.
Well. If you can explain to me how he'd be able to do that in four years without a military coup d'etat, I'm down.
However, since (a) I myself can't imagine how he'd be able to do that in four years in any other way; and (b) there are a few indications that might just be the way a significant number of his supporters would like to see him do it, I really would need a pretty persuasive and reality-based explanation before I could be.
I mean "before I could be down." But that's really putting it mildly, truth be told. I might equally honestly say "before I could do anything about the prospect of a Ron Paul presidency other than ride through the streets shouting out warnings about at what unacceptably high-risk it had the potential to put my fellow citizens at the top of my voice." And with equal if not greater conviction, too.
There's no game that's worth that candle. Ever. And it's a very frightening possibility, to boot. So if you can point me to the game plan that you see and I don't, I'd really, really appreciate it.
What is it?
, btw. For you and for the great state of Texas both. You can't argue with history, though.
