Resurrect The Republic

[Aloysius]

The only candidate who has a chance of saving our great republic is Ron Paul.

[url="http://www.ronpaul2008.com"]http://www.ronpaul2008.com[/url]

[url="http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/"]http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/[/url]

He's anti-war, but like a republican, not like a hippy. And that's what gets to me: I detest the hippy anti-war people, but Ron Paul's anti-war stance makes sense. Why? Because it's based upon the Constitution. Pure and simple. And then on top of it being sound according to the highest law of the land, he considers just war doctrine.

Can we get a revolution started? Come on people, this is where the future is. Ron Paul has the guts to put everything on the line. I think it's about time I step up and throw down. I am throwing 100% of my support into Ron Paul. If he doesn't win the nomination, I'm not sure I'll even vote for anyone else other than him anyway. I'm certainly not voting Guiliani or someone ridiculous like that.

[url="http://youtube.com/watch?v=SwRXp8ZMdNQ"]http://youtube.com/watch?v=SwRXp8ZMdNQ[/url]

Yeah, you might call me inconsistent, for in the past I've defended Bush a lot. But you know what, it was a negotiation with evil based on the idea that there was no better option available to the United States; in the framework of government and worldwide policy that existed with seemingly no other options at the time, to me, Bush's positions made sense. But Ron Paul offers hope for the Republic to be what it was meant to be. Ron Paul offers hope for the Constitutional Republic. And in that context, it's time to throw out the garbage of the Republicans who have lost their way and get back to

RON PAUL 2008
The only hope for America.

I am convinced. I am formally disavowing my previous support for war-hawk style republicanism, for bush-style republicanism, and re-asserting a beleif in the Constitution of the United States of America.

Godspeed, Ron Paul. Godspeed.

oh, and I know most people have abortion at the forefront of their political minds (as well it should be, it is the greatest evil of our time). I have seen no statement as strong and poignent as Ron Paul's, and what's more, I actually beleive him. He'll do something about it. He won't increase the federal government's power to illegalize it, but nor would any other candidate, but he will do his best to undo Roe v. Wade (he has attempted to undermine it in the congress before)

[url="http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/"]http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/[/url]

[SarahB]

The Constitution Party has been meeting with Rep. Paul and talking with him about possibly running on our ticket should he not win the Republican nomination. But regardless of who our canidate ends up being, you should look into them.

I can't vote for Rep. Paul because I'm registered Constitution, but I fully support him, pass out literatrue, etc. And I'm telling all my friends why they should vote for him. I wish him the best, but I doubt he'll even get close. Most voters just go with who the media puts forward, and don't bother looking at the "lower tier" people.

[Aloysius]

if he were to win the Republican nomination, would you vote for him in the general election? I should think the Constitution Party should endorse him if he wins the republican nomination and not even offer their own candidate, as it would be counter-productive.

I know that probably wouldn't happen (him getting the nomination), but I'm just sayin.

[SarahB]

I met with our National Chairman last weekend at our state committe meeting and we wer talking about that. He has said that should Ron Paul win, we'll support him, even as a Republican. What's important is his strong stance on the Constittuion, not what ticket he ends up running under.

But yes, it's unlikely that he'll get the nomination.

And yes, I would absolutely vote for him should he get the Republican nomination.

[catholicinsd]

Also he's the only true pro-lifer running.

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1396365' date='Oct 1 2007, 11:55 PM']Also he's the only true pro-lifer running.[/quote]

can you prove that?

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1396378' date='Oct 2 2007, 12:04 AM']can you prove that?[/quote]

As I've often said here, in order to be "Pro-Life" you must be againist not only Abortion and Euthanasia, but also againist most all Capital Punishment and offensive War. I don't wanna start another War/CP debate but suffice it to say that Dr. Ron Paul is the only one with these values.

[ardillacid]

It's 'resurrect.'

[traichuoi]

[quote name='notardillacid' post='1396402' date='Oct 1 2007, 08:32 PM']It's 'resurrect.'[/quote]

Thank you! My pet peeve as well.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='traichuoi' post='1396407' date='Oct 2 2007, 12:35 AM']Thank you! My pet peeve as well.[/quote]
Oh, will you look at that. It magically changed!

[son_of_angels]

O good grief!

If I had a nickel for everytime a reportedly Catholic politician called for a return to the Constitution, I would be a rich man. Yet Constitutionalism isn't what this country needs at the moment, nor a wrong-headed drive to lessen the federal government. Either of these views is both counter-productive and irresponsible. They are counter-productive, because it is through the strength of the Presidency, not the impotency of Congress that this nation has advanced further than ever towards Catholic social ideals, and it is, in fact, the President alone who possesses the strength of office to be a real model of social behaviour for the country. A lessening in his power would only result in power be distributed to the Washington bureaucrats who really do not need any encouragement from us to continue coddling their constituents. It is irresponsible because the United States, contrary to popular belief, is an empire. We behave like an empire, we impose like an empire, we are economically united like an empire, and we are advancing like an empire. We have no choice in the matter except to dissolve the "Republic" (which itself is an imperial term, as originally we were not one republic but 13 republics in one federation), or to accept the mantle of empire which we chose for ourselves beginning with Thomas Jefferson and culminating in the Empire's inauguration in Abraham Lincoln.
One lesson that all Empires must learn is that there is no choice but to advance. Should the nation ever stop growing in power and influence, it becomes weak at the foundations and collapses. Even so, the Constitution, and a kind of reductionist strategy towards its "restoration" is not what is needed. Instead we need real constitutional reform, the kind of reform that can encourage and mandate new situations in our present crisis. For example, there is currently no judicial oversight of the President, which would be solved if the Senate were made the Supreme Court. The Congress does not even really operate as a deliberative body when in plenary session, which would be solved by an appointed Senate taking the lead on the legislative process. Moreover, the popularity of the President is affecting elections in the legislative branch, which in turn makes it impossible to tell who actually is qualified for the job and who just seems better than the current president. This would of course be solved if the President were appointed by a deliberative process by the few, therefore having less public mandate, rather than our current deluded system of popular election.

The Constitution, moreover, is gravely flawed by its reliance on out-moded and unfounded Enlightenment philosophy, which could not effectively imagine government and the Church having a substantial relationship. This was commented on by Popes beginning with Leo XIII.

[Aloysius]

Leo XIII critiqued the way Church and State are conceptualized in our country, but he did not critique (to my knowledge) the concept of federalism. In fact, it is in keeping with the Catholic Social Justice principal of subsidarity which states that what can be accomplished at the lowest level should be accomplished at the lowest level. That's why Pius IX sent a letter of support to Jefferson Davis; Catholic Social Justice demands that local governments have power over their own affairs.

Catholic social justice demands that larger governments only deal with things that larger governments are necessary for; ergo, the only purpose of the Federal Government should be for things that states cannot accomplish on their own; such as inter-state issues, international issues, et cetera.

I'm afraid you have gravely mischarecterized the views of Leo XIII regarding the American Republic. He praised a good lot of it; merely saying the the concept of Church/State was not ideal, but that it at least allowed the Church freedom to operate and thus could be praised for that.

The Constitution does not directly contradict any principals of Catholic Teaching regarding government, except for semi-problematic views on Church and State. I would defy you to show me where it did.

[Farsight one]

While I agree that his chances of winning the Republican ticket are slim, if he does, I see him as a shoe-in for president.

Ron Paul is the kind of candidate that gets me off my butt to go and actually register to vote.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1396385' date='Oct 2 2007, 01:09 AM']As I've often said here, in order to be "Pro-Life" you must be againist not only Abortion and Euthanasia, but also againist most all Capital Punishment and offensive War. I don't wanna start another War/CP debate but suffice it to say that Dr. Ron Paul is the only one with these values.[/quote]This may be the criteria that you use for determining a "true" pro-lifer, but you can't impose this definition on others.

[son_of_angels]

The problem is, that the principle of subsidiarity really should only be applied that already assumes that the highest level of government has the potential to exercise full authority when needed. For example, subsidiarity would become unjust if, instead of the federal government outlawing abortion, it used subsidiarity to blame the states who lack the political wherewithal to do so. Necessity makes the higher powers act.
Likewise, when the Holy Roman Empire was forming to unite Europe and defeat Islam, plenary power was always given to the Emperor, because no one else could accomplish nor hold together what he was trying to accomplish. As for the Civil War, as a Southerner I certainly have sympathies for the Southern cause, but our (Southern) grievance in that case could be justified not because we had the intrinsic right to act on our own authority, but because the Constitution and state governments seemed to grant that right. It was a matter of law not of natural rights.

I will go more into Leo XIII's position later, if time allows.