Today, after a federal a judge has declared the NDAA unconstitutional for its chilling effect on statements and association with certain persons under fear that statements and deeds (meeting or association with certain persons) would be sufficient for indefinite detention based upon reasonable (or not) suspicion of terrorist activity, or aiding such. Did it influence lawmakers? Not a bit.

What is going on now? The Congress is again putting indefinite detention without due process into the next NDAA. It is the Groundhog Day of unconstitutional enactments from an otherwise do nothing group of pols that want to be “tough on terror” while at the same time being tyrannical on the Bill of Rights. We are less free than we were at any other time in history, and losing ground fast.

It makes me weep.

First, RP does not believe rights come from govt, but are natural. Actually read any of his many works.

Next, he says that no State shall coin money or emit Bills of Credit or make anything but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts… as written in Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution. Having heard him many times, myself, what he says in addition is that people should be able to take their own gold and silver to a private or govt mint and have that turned into convertible currency… something not disallowed by the Constitution.

And cutting to the chase, the Bill of Rights refers almost exclusively to the “people”. Limits on rights to men? BS.

Further the Constitution says “No PERSON except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States”… again, not that only men can hold the office.

Regarding economics, it would take way too much detail to debunk your unsupported conclusions. Suffice it to say, you haven’t shown any basis for your position anyway, and if you did it would likely be akin to the other bogus points you’ve made.

As if price fixing imposed by the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 had nothing to do with the Great Depression.

On Roe v. Wade; he said SCOTUS created new rights out of thin air. I.E. He believes our rights come from government.

He said only gold and silver can be legal ender. False. That applies to the STATES; I.E. states may not print their own currency.

Paul’s desire to eliminate the 16th Amendment is dangerous to residents in states with low personal incomes. That danger is spelled out in the book “Saving America: Using Democratic Capitalism to Rescue the Nation from Economic Folly” (Algora Publishing of New York City).

Paul was silent in the travesty that made Buffoon Bush the president. The SCOTUS decision didn’t apply to Congress that has the duty to count Electoral College votes and declare the winner. It could have refused to include the Florida vote until there was a complete and fair recount, telling the Court who was in charge. Paul didn’t support the Constitution on that count.

Paul’s claim he wants a national government mainly responsible for national defense and a singular monetary policy; and little else, especially commercial regulation, taxation and government spending. That ignores the disaster that was the Articles of Confederation that empowered the federal government with national defense, a singular monetary policy, foreign relations and affairs with Western Territories (I.E Indian tribes). No taxing or regulatory powers. It also ignores the economic disasters of 1920-21, 1932, 1937, 1948-49, 1974 and early 1990s in California brought on by major reductions in government spending. Also ignored was the present economy brought on by deregulation of Wall Street just as deregulation brought on the Savings & Loan disaster of Reagan and the Enron and other corporate scandals.

If libertarian government wouldn’t work in a nation of 4 million people with a simple agrarian economy, how would in work today with more than 300 million people and the most complicated and diverse economy in history?

Paul wants to go back to the original Constitution that allows only men in Congress and the Presidency; only men with the rights of the Bill of Rights (read it); the President as commander in chief of the Army and Navy (no Air Force) and many other 18th Century conditions that would not apply today.

Too many negatives; not enough positives for Paul.

Any more questions?