alt.education

On 06 Mar 2008 07:45:25 GMT, PseuDoeCyAnts
wrote:

>on Sun 02 Mar 2008 11:03:40p
> Pisano posted
> in news:ql8ns31k9vosidrjjgfvclhcsj61nghrnh@4ax.com:
>
>> On 2 Mar 2008 22:59:02 -0500, adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3jmms3tka9ul697uiapfs4nucgicj2hqra@4ax.com>,
>>>Pisano wrote:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYLVgMF9R9g
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Ron Paul rejects evolution
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPoCsC8VT9g&e
>>>
>>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: I saw you in one of the earlier debates,
>>> all of the candidates were asked if they believe the theory
>>> of evolution to be true and they had a show of hands, but I
>>> didn.t see which way you voted, and I was wondering if you
>>> believe it to be true, and should it be taught in our
>>> schools.
>>>
>>> PAUL: First, I thought it was a very inappropriate question,
>>> you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific
>>> matter. And I, um, I think it.s a theory, theory of
>>> evolution, and I don.t accept it, you know, as a theory.. I
>>> just don.t think we.re at a point where anybody has absolute
>>> proof, on either side.
>>>
>>>Here's a summary of all the legislation that Paul has not just
>>>voted for but sponsored. The anti-war folks that back him just
>>>for troop withdrawal should be in for a surprise. His gold
>>>standard stuff is k00k economics according to essentially all
>>>economists.
>>>
>>> http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-
>>> congress.html
>-- Tiny Url: --
>>>
>>>He's been a busy little legislator.
>>>
>>
>> You left this one out:
>>
>> http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/
>>
>>
>> Then there's this . . .
>>
>> =-=
>>
>> What Gunny Had To Say:
>>
>>
>> Interestingly enough, the 'explanations' of Paul's record which
>> this blogger provides, contradict the facts of his record posted
>> right with them.
>>
>> For example, the blogger posts a bill sponsored by Ron Paul to
>> allow Congress to prosecute people who destroy flags OWNED BY
>> THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. But in the bloggers analysis, he claims
>> that Paul's bill would make it illegal for people to burn flags
>> which they themselves own.
>>
>
>Well gunny seems to have a very significant problem with reading
>comprehension. Was he home-schooled?
>
>From Library of Congress' Thomas legislative database:
>H.J. Res. 80:
>
>H.J. Res. 82
>
>-----------------------------------------------
>
>H.J. Res. 80
>Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States
>authorizing the States to prohibit the physical destruction of the
>flag of the United States and authorizing Congress... (Introduced
>in House)
>
>105th CONGRESS, 1st Session
>
>H. J. RES. 80
>
>Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States
>authorizing the States to prohibit the physical destruction of the
>flag of the United States and authorizing Congress to prohibit
>destruction of federally owned flags.
>
>IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
>
>June 10, 1997
>
>Mr. PAUL introduced the following joint resolution; which was
>referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
>
>JOINT RESOLUTION
>
>Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States
>authorizing the States to prohibit the physical destruction of the
>flag of the United States and authorizing Congress to prohibit
>destruction of federally owned flags.
>
> Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
>United States of America in Congress assembled, (two-thirds of
>each House concurring therein), That the following article is
>proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States,
>which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the
>Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of
>the several States within seven years after the date of its
>submission for ratification:
>
>`Article--
>
> `SECTION 1. The States shall have power to prohibit the
>physical destruction of the flag of the United States and Congress
>shall have the power to prohibit destruction of federally owned
>flags.'.
>
>-----------------------------------------------
>
>H.J. Res. 82
>Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States
>authorizing the States to prohibit the physical destruction of the
>flag of the United States and authorizing Congress... (Introduced
>in House)
>
>105th CONGRESS
>
>1st Session
>
>H. J. RES. 82
>
>Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States
>authorizing the States to prohibit the physical destruction of the
>flag of the United States and authorizing Congress to prohibit
>destruction of federally owned flags.
>
>IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
>
>June 12, 1997
>
>Mr. PAUL introduced the following joint resolution; which was
>referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
>
>JOINT RESOLUTION
>
>Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States
>authorizing the States to prohibit the physical destruction of the
>flag of the United States and authorizing Congress to prohibit
>destruction of federally owned flags.
>
> Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
>United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each
>House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed
>as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which
>shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the
>Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of
>the several States within seven years after the date of its
>submission for ratification:
>
>`Article --
>
> `SECTION 1. The States shall have power to prohibit the
>physical destruction of the flag of the United States and Congress
>shall have the power to prohibit destruction of federally owned
>flags.'.
>
>-----------------------------------------------
>
>Are you sure the poster's pseudo wasn't "gunny-sack"?


Pretty much.

As proposed, the amendment leaves the broader issue up to
state governments to decide. This means the U.S. Congress is given
only limited authority, limited only to flags owned by the federal
government. If you check the congressional record, Paul's proposed
amendment is likely one in response, and intended to pull the sharper
teeth of one already proposed that was overly broad in scope.

In any event, the simple proposal of an amendment to the
Constitution does not automatically pass. There is a process, and
that process requires not only a majority passage by both houses, but
also a ratification of the several states.

No matter what anyone tries to sell you to the contrary,
constitutional government does not work like a dictatorship, unless
there is rampant conspiracy and corruption. If you say that rampant
corruption already exists, then I believe electing Ron Paul is the
right thing to do. In my opinion, he has been consistent and sincere
about his respect for America's constitution, and that is clearly
evident in his consistent voting record over the past 20 years.