GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
The House has voted 413-1 to pass a resolution, rightfully, condemning China for their crackdown of nonviolent Tibetan protesters. It seems that “the true defender of the Constitution” Ron Paul was the only no vote. I don’t pretend to understand this one. Any guesses?
April 10th, 2008 at 7:55 am
Sadly, I probably agree with Mr. Paul on most issues that ore not related to foreign policy. However, on foreign policy, he is just a complete nut with his head in the sand. Even most in the anti-war crowd are not this crazy.
April 10th, 2008 at 7:58 am
It makes complete sense, from a Ron Paul perspective. His thought process is probably something like “What business do we have policing the world by passing resolutions to condemn other countries?”
April 10th, 2008 at 8:00 am
There’s a reason to vote no. It’s the same reason to vote no when Congress was condemning the Armenian Holocaust.
Here’s what Ronny boy might have been thinking:
“You don’t do anyone any good by shooting off your mouth. Nothing gets better in Tibet by Congress condemning China. China still gets upset and does things behind the scenes to retaliate against us.”
We may not agree with that but he has a point on how Congress keeps butting into the President’s job (foreign affairs).
April 10th, 2008 at 8:09 am
Ron Paul is in favor of having Texas succeed from the Union. He is not to be taken seriously. However, I’ve always been interested to find out what Fred Thompson’s one opposing vote in the Senate was for. Anyone know what it was?
April 10th, 2008 at 8:14 am
Mr. Thompson is also a Constitutionalist, but he seems to use his brain a lot more, at least with foreign policy.
April 10th, 2008 at 8:21 am
Too easy. He looked into his breast-pocket edition of the Constitution and saw no mention of Tibet, China, or the Olympics.
Over the past year, he must have repeated the mantra of how Issue X was not in the Constitution and must therefore be opposed.
April 10th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Such a resolution has little effect unless the U.S. is actually willing to cut back on trade with China.
April 10th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Doug #7: You’re right. But it’s actually one of those “feel-good” resolutions that has no impact other than allowing legislators to show later on that they were on the “right side” of the issue.
Unfortunately, knowing Ron Paul’s take on trade, I suspect he would have voted with most Democrats on the Colombia free trade agreement. His reason for rejecting it would have been different, but for me it’s the vote that counts more on this issue.
April 10th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Because condemning other countries’ actions with meaningless resolutions isn’t authorized in the Constitution?
What a pointless, pointless, pointless resolution!
April 10th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Hope no one tells him that, since it’s not granted in the Constitution, legislators aren’t allowed to take potty breaks.
April 10th, 2008 at 10:35 am
MarkG, you mindless toad! Do I really have to explain this one?
What’s the difference between taking a bathroom break and voting on a resolution?
Wait for it — wait for it –
The fact that one is a piece of legislation and the other isn’t?
April 10th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Except that (as noted a Hot Air) Paul seems to be kinda hit and miss on these things.
April 10th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Dawnsblood,
Thanks for pointing that out. It seems the Paulian rubrick for disent is somewhat flexible. Obviously, I and no one should take his ‘nay’ to be tacit support of China and it’s policies, but it seems like he’s voting no only to garner attention to himself.
Personally, I think it’s pretty futile, writing nasty letters of disapproval to other governments. Isn’t that what the U.N. is for?
April 10th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
TLG hit the nail on the head. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to waste the time and money of taxpayers on nannying the internal goings-on of other countries any more than the Constitution authorizes Congress to pass, for instance, federal gun control laws.
April 10th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
PS, I also highly recommend viewing this Youtube video of Dr. Paul’s questioning of Gen. Petraeus. The Doc makes a lot of good points that we as Republicans would do well to thoughtfully consider.
April 10th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Forgot to post the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWr5Wl-mev0
April 10th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
11, thing is,its not legislation.
April 10th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Resolutions are by definition not “legislation” as such as they do not have the force of law. However, pointless resolutions are well within the concept of legislative power generally - just like, for example, congressional hearings. It’s an inherent part of how a legislative body operates, and the Constitution doesn’t need to spell it out in order to authorize it. So it’s far more about Paul being opposed to poking our noses into “other countries’ business” than anything the Constitution has to say.
April 11th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
PnGrata #18,
That’s the point, exactly. The Constitution doesn’t authorize us poking our noses into “other countries’ business,” so therefore it doesn’t authorize pointless resolutions that do so, congressional hearings that do so, or official legislation that does so. Dr. Paul isn’t opposed to the concept of resolutions, nor are they unconstitutional. If the resolution was to, say, declare war, that would be perfectly constitutional–the Constitution authorizes that power to Congress. However, the Constitution does not authorize the power to nanny other countries’ internal affairs, and therefore it is not constitutional in any form, whether it’s in the form of a resolution or legislation.