I'm sorry, are you asking why Paul doesn't want to ammend the constitution to deal with the issue of pork? Paul, the constitutionalist?
No. I am saying if Paul really feels like the Federal Government is out of control then why hasn't he called for a new Constitutional Convention under Article V.
I'm rusty on the articles of the constitution, but isn't the intent of a constitutional convention to alter the constitution? This would be something that Paul would be very reluctant to do, considering how highly he reveres the constitution. If I'm off base, can you explain exactly what your point is? I think it is pretty obvious, however, that not many in congress are truly interested in cutting pork. What I got from the article you linked is that Paul believes the politicians looking for pork reform don't want to deal with the true issue. Hopefully this issue is brought up in the debate tomorrow so it can be addressed by Paul himself.
He uses earmarks b/c of their transparencies rather than sending them back to the bureaucrats.. But in the end he wants to get rid of them all together. Why don't you learn more before you talk. Here is Paul talking about them himself.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raAtB1FONmg Another one bites the dust..
No he wants the government to follow his minimalist interpretation of the Constitution, which I agree with. The framework of the Constituition is not as explicit as Paul claims. If the IRS is truly unconstitutional make that explicit.
Then what's the problem. :hihi: Do you really want a laundry list ammendment of things that are unconstitutional added to the constitution? I imagine there are other political avenues to deal with pork.
