Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Registration is currently closed. That means if you're not already registered, you can't comment. We will let you know if and when registration re-opens. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
I knew it’d be Ron Paul. He’s always the “1″. I think there was another house vote calling for condemnation of Palestine for the rocket attacks, and he was the “1″ that time as well.
jimmy the notable on April 10, 2008 at 8:41 AM
Self serving contrarian who likes the attention.
JohnTant on April 10, 2008 at 8:46 AM
As soon as I heard this on the radio last night, I just knew…
I get tired of all this symbolic crap. WTF business does the state of Ohio have recognizing the “armenian genocide?” I am sincerely tired of this sort of thing. Even when Senate Republicans jousted with Democrats over the English language. Was it our unifying language or official language? No matter which one got more votes neither would have made English the official language nor overturned the provision the the Civil Rights Act that forces states to provide voting materials in every language under the sun. I was hoping for something more meaningful from Republicans.
I’ll say this, Ron Paul does no how to tap some of the many raw nerves amongst many a disenchanted conservative. Republicans would be wise to throw the Ron Paul crowd a bone by, you know, shrinking government vs. slowing it’s growth or worse yet adding drug coverage to Medicare and balooning our responsibilty to seniors by 40%, thanks Bush! I would be wise for the GOP to blunt Paul’s influence. The GOP becoming more influential and getting more Congressional seats (in the future I know we don’t look good now) the more his influence grows. Alot of his supporters (libertarians, anarcho-capitalists) have the potential to do to Republicans what the Kos Kids and Huffington Post crowd has done to the Democrats. We have real issues that the GOP is ignoring such as the the tsunami of spending that is coimng our way, it’s called the babyboomers. Republicans better start talking about real issues lest they give Ron Paul more raw nerves to step on…
Theworldisnotenough on April 10, 2008 at 9:22 AM
This will anger his Hollywood fans no doubt!
saltydogg14 on April 10, 2008 at 9:35 AM
I was going to go with Cynthia McKinney, but, then realized that that nutjob is out of Congress.
There is a difference between the armenian genocide and Tibet. One is happening now, the other happened damned near 100 years ago.
Its the EXECUTIVE Branch which is supposed to run Foreign Relations… not the Congress.
§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
1 Stat. 613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).
Under law its the STATE DEPARTMENT who should be dealing with foreign governments, not the Congress… therefore, the Logan act “could” apply… because this has nothing to do with Congress’s mandated Powers.
Romeo13 on April 10, 2008 at 9:51 AM
Hey Ron Paul, the 18th Century called…even they think your foreign policy is outdated.
CP on April 10, 2008 at 9:51 AM
and to further make my point… the Constituion clearly lays out Congres’s powers, and anything NOT laid out in the Constitution goes to the STATEs.
So please, someone show me where it enumerates that Congress shall condemn foreign governments?
Romeo13 on April 10, 2008 at 9:53 AM
Nothing surprises me anymore when it comes to Ron Paul.
the State Dept. isn’t in the Constitution…is it thus “unconstitutional” and a matter for the states?
Foreign Affairs is a grey area to say the least, the Executive Branch lost alot of power after Nixon that Congress stripped it of(which was probably unconstitutional). Bush has tried to get some of it back and has been vilified for it. the Paultard himself states that Congress makes ALL POLICY, including Foreign(while claiming he would end the Iraq war as President at the same time contridicting himself). You can make a strong case that its Executive in nature given the language of Montisqeu on the subject.
given what Paul has said, nothing is wrong with Congress doing this. Its simply he thinks the United States should abide to MOral Relativism and never, ever take sides….ever. We should never make a Public statement condeming terrorist groups like Hezzbollah against Free Democracies and allies like Israel for example.
from link:
1. Foreign Policy and the Constitution. Paul is what you might call a Constitutional originalist. He divines his governing philosophy from the Constitution and America’s Founders. But his understanding of their vision is profoundly flawed. Paul appears to believe the founders vested absolute authority for foreign-policy making in Congress, not the executive. “Policy is policy,” Paul wrote in 2006, “and it must be made by the legislature and not the executive.” But there’s almost no evidence the founders saw it in such simplistic, absolute terms. Law professor Michael Ramsey, a former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, recently noted (pdf) this in very eloquent terms in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. Reasonable people can agree that Congress has failed its oversight responsibilities with regard to Iraq and the Bush Doctrine. But Paul’s thinking here is simply not supported by the weight of historical evidence.
jp on April 10, 2008 at 10:13 AM
It goes both ways. If you want to invoke the theorem that this resolution is out of bounds because it’s dealing with a foreign government, than what to make of Paul’s yes vote on H RES 642, “Expressing sympathy and support for the people and governments of the countries of Central America, the Caribbean, and Mexico which have suffered from Hurricanes Felix, Dean, and Henriette and whose complete economic and fatality toll are still unknown?”
What’s the HoR doing “supporting” those governments….?
Or H RES 233, “Recognizing over 200 years of sovereignity of the Principality of Liechtenstein, and expressing support for efforts by the United States continue to strengthen its relationship with that country?”
And those are from just a cursory scan of the 1st Session’s roll calls.
Where is the Constitutional Mandate for supporting a foreign government independent of the State Department?
As long as we’re talking Constitution, what authority does the Congress have in telling the Commander In Chief what troop levels he should use? H CON RES 63, “Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.”
Paul is voting for notoriety, not out of principle.
JohnTant on April 10, 2008 at 10:15 AM
edit, Never take sides unless its to praise one College Football team over another as one example.
the truth is he’s a Rothbardian Pacifist(potentially anti-semitic), and thinks the key to staying out of war is taking stupid and self-contridicting philosophies such as Moral Relativism to our policy, thus never “taking sides”, etc. This way, we would never go to war, the world would leave us alone and without war the “Empire” and “Big Govt.” can’t expand….
jp on April 10, 2008 at 10:17 AM
Romeo has it right.
Change the law, but he voted right as the law is written.
Ask if he personally agrees or disagrees with the call, and I bet he will support it.
(Disclaimer: I didn’t vote for Rue Paul, and I think he is wrong on all his foreign policy stances.)
Tim Burton on April 10, 2008 at 10:19 AM
There’s another side to this being overlooked, the Lew Rockwell groupies view China as the model Govt. in the world right now….as hard as that is to beleive. Because they have a “free market”….who cares about the authoritarian nature, lack of human rights, torturing Tibetans…they got a free market man!!!
seriously, check out some of their views on China sometime.
Last week I wrote about the critical need for Congress to reassert its authority over foreign policy, and for the American people to recognize that the Constitution makes no distinction between domestic and foreign matters. Policy is policy, and it must be made by the legislature and not the executive. – Ron Paul, 2006
jp on April 10, 2008 at 10:21 AM
JohnTant on April 10, 2008 at 10:15 AM
Good point, and thanks…
I didn’t know Paul’s “reasons” for doing this… trust me, I’m NOT a Paulian…
I’m just wondering why the Congress is wasting its time doing a Non constituionaly enumerated function when things like FISA still isn’t on the books…
Romeo13 on April 10, 2008 at 10:22 AM
Romeo13 on April 10, 2008 at 9:53 AM
Now, now Ron Paul is just a kook, nothing he says can have any value, remember it is Ron Paul. So much easier to dismiss him then think about an issue. /sarcasm
The longer the GOP acts like Ron Pauls support exist for no reason the larger his following will become.
Theworldisnotenough on April 10, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Some resolutions from the 2nd session of the 109th Congress:
H RES 578, “Concerning the Government of Romania’s ban on intercountry adoptions and the welfare of orphaned or abandoned children in Romania.”
H RES 736, “Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that legal action in Afghanistan against citizens who have already converted or plan to convert to other religions is deplorable and unjust.”
H RES 795, “Condemning in the strongest terms the terrorist attacks in Dahab and Northern Sinai, Egypt, on April 24 and 26, 2006.”
Why did Paul vote in favor of those if he thinks criticizing foreign governments is under the aegis of State?
On the other hand, apparently it’s out of bounds for Paul to condemn terrorist attacks against Israel: H RES 921, “Condemning the recent attacks against the State of Israel, holding terrorists and their state-sponsors accountable for such attacks, supporting Israel’s right to defend itself, and for other purposes.”
An interesting no vote from him: H RES 861, “Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.”
What an inspiring guy!
JohnTant on April 10, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Romeo13 on April 10, 2008 at 10:22 AM
A valid criticism, but wondering why dumb resolutions are coming up instead of FISA authorization is a Pelosi issue. She’s the one setting the agenda.
OTOH, I would kind of rather have Congress voting to commend the New York Giants instead of, oh, figuring out how to implement a gun ban.
JohnTant on April 10, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Um, hes right folks.
Its the EXECUTIVE Branch which is supposed to run Foreign Relations… not the Congress.
§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States…
Romeo13 on April 10, 2008 at 9:51 AM
Oh, sorry, my mistake. For a second there, I thought we were talking about he UNITED STATES Congress.
I forgot that Ron Paul is also a member of the Neptunian Congress. And you’re right; those guys don’t constitute the “authority of the United States.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Registration is currently closed. That means if you're not already registered, you can't comment. We will let you know if and when registration re-opens. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I was thinkin’ Sheila Jackson Lee, but she’s not in Congress anymore.
Tony737 on April 10, 2008 at 8:37 AM
I knew it’d be Ron Paul. He’s always the “1″. I think there was another house vote calling for condemnation of Palestine for the rocket attacks, and he was the “1″ that time as well.
jimmy the notable on April 10, 2008 at 8:41 AM
Self serving contrarian who likes the attention.
JohnTant on April 10, 2008 at 8:46 AM
As soon as I heard this on the radio last night, I just knew…
bikermailman on April 10, 2008 at 8:51 AM
At least he is consistently nuts.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on April 10, 2008 at 8:57 AM
but Resolutions praising the Louisville Cardinal football team for winning the Orange bowl are perfectly fine with Paul, worhty of a Yay vote.
even he contradicts himself on such resolutions.
jp on April 10, 2008 at 9:01 AM
Damn…I guessed Kucinich.
flipflop on April 10, 2008 at 9:21 AM
I like his no vote.
I get tired of all this symbolic crap. WTF business does the state of Ohio have recognizing the “armenian genocide?” I am sincerely tired of this sort of thing. Even when Senate Republicans jousted with Democrats over the English language. Was it our unifying language or official language? No matter which one got more votes neither would have made English the official language nor overturned the provision the the Civil Rights Act that forces states to provide voting materials in every language under the sun. I was hoping for something more meaningful from Republicans.
I’ll say this, Ron Paul does no how to tap some of the many raw nerves amongst many a disenchanted conservative. Republicans would be wise to throw the Ron Paul crowd a bone by, you know, shrinking government vs. slowing it’s growth or worse yet adding drug coverage to Medicare and balooning our responsibilty to seniors by 40%, thanks Bush! I would be wise for the GOP to blunt Paul’s influence. The GOP becoming more influential and getting more Congressional seats (in the future I know we don’t look good now) the more his influence grows. Alot of his supporters (libertarians, anarcho-capitalists) have the potential to do to Republicans what the Kos Kids and Huffington Post crowd has done to the Democrats. We have real issues that the GOP is ignoring such as the the tsunami of spending that is coimng our way, it’s called the babyboomers. Republicans better start talking about real issues lest they give Ron Paul more raw nerves to step on…
Theworldisnotenough on April 10, 2008 at 9:22 AM
This will anger his Hollywood fans no doubt!
saltydogg14 on April 10, 2008 at 9:35 AM
I was going to go with Cynthia McKinney, but, then realized that that nutjob is out of Congress.
There is a difference between the armenian genocide and Tibet. One is happening now, the other happened damned near 100 years ago.
He’s still a crank.
William Teach on April 10, 2008 at 9:35 AM
Um, hes right folks.
Its the EXECUTIVE Branch which is supposed to run Foreign Relations… not the Congress.
§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
1 Stat. 613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).
Under law its the STATE DEPARTMENT who should be dealing with foreign governments, not the Congress… therefore, the Logan act “could” apply… because this has nothing to do with Congress’s mandated Powers.
Romeo13 on April 10, 2008 at 9:51 AM
Hey Ron Paul, the 18th Century called…even they think your foreign policy is outdated.
CP on April 10, 2008 at 9:51 AM
and to further make my point… the Constituion clearly lays out Congres’s powers, and anything NOT laid out in the Constitution goes to the STATEs.
So please, someone show me where it enumerates that Congress shall condemn foreign governments?
Romeo13 on April 10, 2008 at 9:53 AM
Nothing surprises me anymore when it comes to Ron Paul.
Yakko77 on April 10, 2008 at 10:04 AM
the State Dept. isn’t in the Constitution…is it thus “unconstitutional” and a matter for the states?
Foreign Affairs is a grey area to say the least, the Executive Branch lost alot of power after Nixon that Congress stripped it of(which was probably unconstitutional). Bush has tried to get some of it back and has been vilified for it. the Paultard himself states that Congress makes ALL POLICY, including Foreign(while claiming he would end the Iraq war as President at the same time contridicting himself). You can make a strong case that its Executive in nature given the language of Montisqeu on the subject.
See this posting on Paul’s idiocy related to Foreign Affairs: http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/6863
given what Paul has said, nothing is wrong with Congress doing this. Its simply he thinks the United States should abide to MOral Relativism and never, ever take sides….ever. We should never make a Public statement condeming terrorist groups like Hezzbollah against Free Democracies and allies like Israel for example.
from link:
jp on April 10, 2008 at 10:13 AM
It goes both ways. If you want to invoke the theorem that this resolution is out of bounds because it’s dealing with a foreign government, than what to make of Paul’s yes vote on H RES 642, “Expressing sympathy and support for the people and governments of the countries of Central America, the Caribbean, and Mexico which have suffered from Hurricanes Felix, Dean, and Henriette and whose complete economic and fatality toll are still unknown?”
What’s the HoR doing “supporting” those governments….?
Or H RES 233, “Recognizing over 200 years of sovereignity of the Principality of Liechtenstein, and expressing support for efforts by the United States continue to strengthen its relationship with that country?”
And those are from just a cursory scan of the 1st Session’s roll calls.
Where is the Constitutional Mandate for supporting a foreign government independent of the State Department?
As long as we’re talking Constitution, what authority does the Congress have in telling the Commander In Chief what troop levels he should use? H CON RES 63, “Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.”
Paul is voting for notoriety, not out of principle.
JohnTant on April 10, 2008 at 10:15 AM
edit, Never take sides unless its to praise one College Football team over another as one example.
the truth is he’s a Rothbardian Pacifist(potentially anti-semitic), and thinks the key to staying out of war is taking stupid and self-contridicting philosophies such as Moral Relativism to our policy, thus never “taking sides”, etc. This way, we would never go to war, the world would leave us alone and without war the “Empire” and “Big Govt.” can’t expand….
jp on April 10, 2008 at 10:17 AM
Romeo has it right.
Change the law, but he voted right as the law is written.
Ask if he personally agrees or disagrees with the call, and I bet he will support it.
(Disclaimer: I didn’t vote for Rue Paul, and I think he is wrong on all his foreign policy stances.)
Tim Burton on April 10, 2008 at 10:19 AM
There’s another side to this being overlooked, the Lew Rockwell groupies view China as the model Govt. in the world right now….as hard as that is to beleive. Because they have a “free market”….who cares about the authoritarian nature, lack of human rights, torturing Tibetans…they got a free market man!!!
seriously, check out some of their views on China sometime.
jp on April 10, 2008 at 10:19 AM
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst121806.htm
jp on April 10, 2008 at 10:21 AM
Good point, and thanks…
I didn’t know Paul’s “reasons” for doing this… trust me, I’m NOT a Paulian…
I’m just wondering why the Congress is wasting its time doing a Non constituionaly enumerated function when things like FISA still isn’t on the books…
Romeo13 on April 10, 2008 at 10:22 AM
Now, now Ron Paul is just a kook, nothing he says can have any value, remember it is Ron Paul. So much easier to dismiss him then think about an issue. /sarcasm
The longer the GOP acts like Ron Pauls support exist for no reason the larger his following will become.
Theworldisnotenough on April 10, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Some resolutions from the 2nd session of the 109th Congress:
H RES 578, “Concerning the Government of Romania’s ban on intercountry adoptions and the welfare of orphaned or abandoned children in Romania.”
H RES 736, “Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that legal action in Afghanistan against citizens who have already converted or plan to convert to other religions is deplorable and unjust.”
H RES 795, “Condemning in the strongest terms the terrorist attacks in Dahab and Northern Sinai, Egypt, on April 24 and 26, 2006.”
Why did Paul vote in favor of those if he thinks criticizing foreign governments is under the aegis of State?
On the other hand, apparently it’s out of bounds for Paul to condemn terrorist attacks against Israel: H RES 921, “Condemning the recent attacks against the State of Israel, holding terrorists and their state-sponsors accountable for such attacks, supporting Israel’s right to defend itself, and for other purposes.”
An interesting no vote from him: H RES 861, “Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.”
What an inspiring guy!
JohnTant on April 10, 2008 at 10:31 AM
A valid criticism, but wondering why dumb resolutions are coming up instead of FISA authorization is a Pelosi issue. She’s the one setting the agenda.
OTOH, I would kind of rather have Congress voting to commend the New York Giants instead of, oh, figuring out how to implement a gun ban.
JohnTant on April 10, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Oh, sorry, my mistake. For a second there, I thought we were talking about he UNITED STATES Congress.
I forgot that Ron Paul is also a member of the Neptunian Congress. And you’re right; those guys don’t constitute the “authority of the United States.”
logis on April 10, 2008 at 11:03 AM