How would Ron Paul achieve his program?

I don't see that this has been addressed elsewhere.

Presuming a Paul win, how would he actually achieve his program? The President doesn't operate by fiat, and must largely work through Congress to achieve bills that his or her administration seeks to achieve. It seems to me that in order for Paul to achieve his goals, he would have to have a kind of power that the President just doesn't have, and from what I can tell, it would largely be a Presidency based on veto.

Thoughts?

 

Simply wanting goals does not equal him being able to do them. He however can setup the basis for things to get done in the future, studies, policy, air time to get people educated on the ideas to support them etc.

He also 'from what I have viewed' does not say he will be able to do everything, he speaks on what he'd like to accomplish.

Where he gets his power from would be the US constitution, I highly doubt RP would abuse it simply to get something he wants in place. He afterall to me appears to be the only one who trully wants to get back to what the US constitution stands for.

 

Grim, I'm not saying he would seek extra-constitutional power - not at all.

I am saying the Presidency simply doesn't have the power he needs in order to achieve his stated goals. He "would eliminate" the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Administration, the Interstate Commerce Commission and the IRS. My question is simple, but important: how, when he doesn't have the power to act by Presidential fiat?

Beyond these, there are other a plethora of historically embedded institutions and departments that are funded at the pleasure of congress, for instance - and these people answer to home constituencies. It strikes me that were he to win, he would have little choice but to veto most legislation that crosses his desk - a Presidential analogue, basically, of his voting "no" on most bills in congress. And I do think it is a very realistic scenario of protracted standstill, with the President on one side, and congress on another. I don't know that I've seen any discussion anywhere of how he would deal with this.

 

I am sure Dr. Paul would work with the Congress to strengthen the US constitution. He would have important aides in his core team. He and his team would succeed in creating the foundation for reforms for future governments to undertake.

US President is highly influential IMO. He would direct the economic policy and foreign policy, and educate the masses about the importance of his decisions.

Is there a clearer, stronger, better Presidential candidate in the US other than Ron Paul?

What is your opinion? Who do you feel is fit among the Republicans and Democrats to become the president of the world's strongest country? If I may ask, who would you like to be your President?

 

Congress funds, not the President, Gauharjk, and what Ron Paul would like to accomplish is not something congress will go along with, in my opinion. Institutional legacies are deeply embedded, and no politician answering to a home constituency will agree to the dismantling of the federal government at the level that Paul is stating. And so I do foresee four years of logjams and lines in the sand.

As to my own choice, I am unfortunately burned out on all politicians. I do believe in good government - I am not a libertarian, prefer to embrace what the Germans call gemeinschaft, community, over gesellschaft, society; belive that we are not simply individual atoms bouncing off each other, a petri dish of individual wills with zero linkages between us; and I do not believe the phrase "good government" is a necessary oxymoron. Good governance, in a less than ideal world, can do good things. Anymore, I also think a large part of the President's job is his or her ability to affect others - a leader, in the best sense; not quite charisma, alone, but a seamless sense, an ability to draw coalitions together to accomplish shared goals - with compromise being a key ingredient. After 20 years of a deeply polarized America, and a deeply disaffected citizenry, I do think Obama has the ability to lead, and will likely be going with him.

 

Gauharjk - it's cool with me that this is how you feel - may the best man, or woman, win. But I am confused a bit - the quote below was from two weeks ago - can you discuss?

And before that, at the end of November, this is where you were:

I have no issue with changing one's mind - in fact, if it comes from deeper research/thoughts, I think that is a great thing - but just wondering if you might discuss the above.

 

northpointaiki, have you seen Ron Paul's Comprehensive Economic Revitalization Plan? Ron Paul has often talked about end goals without discussing much the interim steps to get there. He has started to release more details on the interim plan.

Of course the president has to work with Congress to achieve many things. Just like every president to the present has had to do. Their main tool of leverage in that regards is the VETO.

 

I haven't read it yet, Bernard, but I will. I am going from the presumption of what I've often read: "he will eliminate...[a given Department]," and I actually have not yet seen a discussion of how he would do that, because the President just doesn't have the power.

Regarding the veto power, first of all, there is no provision for "veto" in the Constitution. The veto itself is extra-constitutional, and so Paul's reliance on it would be a philosophical disconnect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veto#United_States

Secondly, I cannot agree that a President's main tool of leverage is the veto, for a couple of reasons.

One, I do think that for Paul to exert his wishes with respect to his program, he will have to veto - to a degree never before seen in American history, and I would expect his veto pattern to roughly follow his pattern of "no" votes in Congress. And I just think it's a crappy way to proceed - effectively, nothing gets done except a deeper polarization in this already polarized nation. All that is accomplished is a sludgy standstill.

Two, veto is not a panacea for a President, in terms of exerting leverage - he needs to make sure he can override a 2/3 majority in congress. Irrespective of the substance of bills issued and reasons for veto given, I do foresee a Congress that would get pretty damned testy, as an institution, with a President who merely vetoes everything that passes his desk, and on the principle of separation of powers alone, I envision a Congress that would set up an "our turf" mentality, to override the vetoes Paul would make.

This, of course, says nothing of the fact that Paul's platform itself doesn't seem like it would be supported by enough members of congress to regularly sustain his vetoes. I say this for the reasons I say above - posts #3 and #5.

 

Are you being purposely obtuse? I said VETO - not line item VETO. Sending legislation back to Congress with objections *is* a VETO.


P.S. I'd rather have a President fighting for the right things than riding roughshod with the wrong things.

 

Bernard, do not insult me personally. If again a question raised in opposition to your candidate is too much to handle, and you can't debate on points without resorting to this, leave.

I'd rather have a President who can continue the nation - which includes a level of leadership that accomplishes at least some measure of the nation's shared goals. I just don't see how Paul would be able to accomplish anything other than 4 years of obstreperous cloistership, against a Congress seeking to do what it is supposed to do - pass legislation.

 

Against my better judgment (had to modify my ignore list), I'm responding to this thread.

Because it's a lack of knowledge issue, people rule out candidates without any serious due diligence.

Veto, Executive orders, federal appropriation of funds. There are sufficient tools in place. Executive orders may be the most powerful. One could simply redefine the mandates of these federal agencies.

You truly "get it". I caught your point made some time back about partisanship, and there are A LOT of people who agree with you, because the numbers of independent voters keeps swelling, and party memberships are dropping.

We've got tough times ahead. No one President can alter global warming, or solve the economic bubble that is going to burst. But it's been high time that we had a high profile politician talk about the role of government and the rule of law.

Bully pulpit, and the points listed above. To win a general election would imply that there is sufficient public support for these positions, that members of the Congress would have to answer to their constituents.

That said, we're either going to shrink government willfully, or it will be dried up as a natural consequence of our economic reality. One way requires sacrifice, the other requires pain.

For those of us who feel that government does TOO MUCH, or meddles TOO OFTEN, the idea of a Congress that does less, particularly with regards to growth of the bureaucracy and entitlement system, is a good thing. As Paul has said, the less government does, the bigger his paycut as President should be.

 

I did no such thing. I also answered your question. You were the one being pedantic with your semantic argument.

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

You are free to your opinions on Ron Paul. I don't agree with your characterizations of what a Ron Paul presidency will bode for the country.

 

Using the "can't handle a question about your candidate" retort seem pretty insulting to me.

A Congress is not supposed to pass legislation. That is a failure of understanding. The Congress is under no directive to pass legislation, in fact, they could show up and introduce no new legislation, and would not be remiss in their duties.

Personally, I think that this sort of thinking stems from the entire system of taxation, and people expecting their politicians to do something, ANYTHING to get a return on their investment. Doesn't matter if they pass bad laws, JUST PASS SOMETHING, NOW! HURRY!

Frankly, I find it terrifying that people still want the status quo, and would be willing to support Obama, who has stood behind the Patriot Act AND HR1955, while pandering to the voters on the trail about civil liberties. A guy who talks about taking on special interests and lobbyists, and his own campaign finance shows him to be an insider with that very system.

We can call Paul's ideas and positions idealistic, but we certainly can't say they aren't principled. And that people would support unprincipled politicians, then have the gall to call out a principled politician, utterly and totally baffles me.

 

You don't need to explain why you speak, Guerilla. It's a free country.

Your "toolbox" is fallacious, and vague. "Executive Order" is a term - but it still doesn't allow a guy in an oval shaped office to write "I order that the Department of Education be consigned to the dustbin of history - and I mean NOW!" and have it be so, in the way of the Pharaohs - "so let it be written; do let it be done." Though the President has his or her discretionary fiscal powers, within a limited delineation, funding - such as at the level of ending a Federal agency - is at the pleasure of Congress, not the President. And so on.

To "win an election" is a valid point - which implies that for Paul to be able to carry Congressional overrides for 4 years, he would, at the very minimum, need a 66% approval of the populace now, on election, and through his term. How close is he to that now? And, should he win, and federal funding for college education ends, for example - how many parents are going to continue to say, "man, I'm great with this - keep it up!"

We disagree on whether 4 years of inaction, based on rounds of veto and override, or veto and retooled legislation, or 4 years of action, based on compromise, is a better scenario.

 

You are free to believe as you want, and you are free to call me obtuse - a person dull, dumb, or otherwise of limited capacity. But it strikes me as not very useful to a respectful exchange of opinions.

 

Was someone decrying pedanticism?

 

No, I do. Because I have been avoiding you, and reserve the right to continue to do so at anytime that I feel the conversation isn't about a subject, but about me personally.

Perhaps you should read up on what has been done by Executive Order before making this statement. It offers broad and massive potential for organizational change. One might not be able to "close" a Department, but it could be brought under control, and eventually reduced to an empty shell.

Not that it is Paul's plan to do it this way. And I don't believe that Paul supporters should be your first stop for information on Ron Paul, unless you are looking for resources to get his definitive positions, in his words.

It's hard to discuss with someone who brings little background on the subject matter to the table. Federal Funding is why the cost of education and medicine continues to rise astronomically. Perhaps you should read Paul's legislation, speeches and platform as it regards to education.

Compromise got us to the point that people are looking for change. And I don't even think it has hit critical mass yet. That might be next election cycle.

The Democrats were elected in 2006 to end the war. They have failed miserably to utilize the power of the purse to defund it. They have compromised on nearly every piece of legislation the Executive has wanted. They compromised on Mukasey, they compromise on Blackwater, they compromise on impeachment for political gain, they compromise on civil liberties legislation etc.

Many people today believe there is no difference between the Dems and GOP. Because they compromise their supposed "values", we have a slate of centrists (statists) to elect from. Convenient actors for the hot button agenda of the day.

 

I know you're not BTW I'm going to keep this short as I'm seriously bored of most discussions in P&R as of late. This one however did draw me in

He does not have the power to outright do it, he however can get the ball rolling, the momentum in the right direction to achieve the goals. That's about the best thing possible, this might not be a sure fire way but nothing is. It's the first step in the process, the only other option is to simply have more of the same and not even try IMO I'd rather the long route of getting things done, or at least trying to that RP has proposed.

Maybe it's about time that someone takes a stand and instead of pandering draws a line to follow the constitution. That is my take on it at least, this 'historical' funding by congress, is one thing that needs to end.

It might not be pretty to start, but personally I think it's time for such a show down. Something to stop the insane spending, something to stop the destruction of our constitution. It might not be easy, but I believe it would be worthwhile.

 

No drama needed, Guerilla. You are free to come and go at will. Just as you are free to scream for freedom of speech, unless you don't agree with it, or to call the John Birch Society, an organization founded on the destruction of the right to privacy and the freedom of association, a "beacon of liberty," or any of the other host of things over which I took issue with you, supporting my contentions with facts. It's not personal, Guerilla, it never is. Just as this isn't personal with Ron Paul, but with the first instance of a question, all too often, the battle cry "smear campaign!!!!!!!" is screamed. At any rate - stay, or leave, at your pleasure, and no need to paint a drama.

I am well aware of the history of and power inherent to executive order. At the heart of the latitude given to the president is that the order must be seen to be clearly within the Presidential purview - for the most part, in the realm of war or national security (a dangerous slippery slope), or as clarifier or enforcer of laws, which emanate from Congress, by definition, lawmakers. Where the President has clearly used the order power to make law, the Supreme Court has rejected it. It seems to me the dismantling of congressionally funded federal agencies is lawmaking, and this is not supportable as lying within Presidential power.

Beyond this, this poses a quandary:

Either Paul does not rely on "executive prerogative" in issuing executive orders, must face the fact that 2/3 of the country doesn't want him or his platform, will have to veto most legislation that comes across his desk, and be shot down via congressional override;

Or he will have to continually attempt to work by "executive order." I find it quite troubling that you have decried a host of "tyrannies" in your posts here, and presumably, your creed - among them, the Bush Administration and its abuses of power - yet have no issue with one man ruling via executive order, congress, the elected representatives of the American people, be damned. I'm just a wee bit uncomfortable with the notion of a dictatorship "for our own good."

This is decent:

I won't respond to your statements dismissing out of hand an opposing view without considering the opponent is well informed and conscientious, his or her opposition notwithstanding.

The world of politics is messy, and the system we have in place isn't perfect. In my world, compromise - which includes what has been constitutionally provisioned, namely, retroactive judgment, "throw the bums out" - beats interminable stasis.

So, here's where it lies for me.

Paul must be able to sustain a 2/3 override of Congress. For him to do that, going with your logic, the country would have to be behind Paul such that congress wouldn't dare make the attempt. I don't see it.

Outside the "veto," what you're proposing swings between two possible scenarios:

- an effective attempt at a dictatorial presidency, side-stepping congress under the banner of "executive order." I am quite sanguine that Paul's desire - the dismantling of the Department of Education, Health and Human Services, and so forth - would be resoundingly bounced back by the Supreme Court, on the grounds the President cannot make law; but this one scenario, of a President that wishes to "rule" this way, is not my country. The last 8 years have been enough.

-stasis.

And I flatly disagree that either scenario is healthy for our polity.

 

While I'm not arguing that Paul would seek to "rule" extra-constitutionally, Grim, although Guerilla and others have regularly decried a President who rules outside the "check and balance" of Congress, apparently Guerilla, and likely others, have no issue with a President making the attempt to rule by Executive Order, so long as it's in service of some "ideal" as they see it. Though for reasons I state above, the effort would fail abysmally, in my mind, the implications of such a mindset are huge. One's "ideal" is another's tyranny. All "revolutions" reward the winners. Hence, the value of compromise.