I guess, he's just invisible!!!

:(

answer: all

offtheirheads===So the Democrats are the only ones that are smart?? Gee you people are so misinformed or just plain dumb as hell. Obama has taken all of you for ride and you seem to like getting knocked on your butts. Wait until the Obama Bills start to come due.

Newt was good in Congress and that's about it. A rather good statesmen and a helluva lot better than Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi.

I imagine he knew that from the beginning but what the hell. How could he refuse a free meal ticket and a chance to travel at the expense of others.

I was thinking of running for anything as long as I got other peoples money to spend. The bills are piling up and Obama has no jobs plan yet.

maybe obuma could spread his wealth with all you fools that kiss his as-

That's not a very good idea. Take a good look at the news being with the Secret Service people seems to be the place to be. They party hardy and travel the world. They just a few guys that didn't want to pay their own way. That's why they are called the Secret Service.

Well Newt was just to late for this job. If he would have tried this earlierin life maybe but that would have been a long shot back then too. He is likable to a point.

tired and worn out .....

I guess if the GOP are foolish enough to select Romney as candidate, there's no point in trying to change their minds, now is there !? ;)

I guess the right wing really does live via talk radio and Faux news. RP never stood a chance.

I'll still not be supporting Romney tho ....

Rerere,

Stop being brainwashed yourself. Dr. Paul doesn't follow the Constitution. Instead, he has completely and repeatedly butchered its actual meaning and how courts interpret it to comport with his ideology. He looks solely at the language of the 10th Amendment to fuel his arguments in favor of states' rights and his notion about how the Constitution limits the powers of the federal government despite the fact the 10th Amendment, as interpreted by the Surpeme Court, has rarely been the basis for overturning federal laws or defined the limits of federal power. The proper scope or reach of the federal government has been measured much more frequently by the Commerce Clause during the last 70 years of Supreme Court litigation. Only two cases have relied on the 10th Amendment to overturn federal legislation during the last 55 years, and those involved federal laws that forced the states to enforce federal law, which arises infrequently.

But my favorite example of how Dr. Paul has hoodwinked his followers like you with his constitutional ignorance are statements he makes about religion. According to Dr. Paul, "The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance." This is demonstrably false, according to no less an authority than the United States Supreme Court, which has consistently recognized that the purpose of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was to build or erect a wall separating Church and State, according to Thomas Jefferson, whose group drafted the clause:

"[A]t the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say: 'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions,-I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.' Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured." Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1878) (emphasis added).

"This Court first reviewed a challenge to state law under the Establishment Clause in Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 67 S.Ct. 504, 91 L. Ed. 711 (1947). Relying on the history of the Clause, and the Court's prior analysis, Justice Black outlined the considerations that have become the touchstone of Establishment Clause jurisprudence: Neither a State nor the Federal Government can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither a State nor the Federal Government, openly or secretly, can participate in the affairs of any religious organization and vice versa.2 "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State.' "Everson, 330 U.S., at 16, 67 S. Ct., at 511 (quoting Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 164, 25 L. Ed. 244 (1878)). Even the Everson dissenters agreed: "The Amendment's purpose ... was to create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion." 330 U.S., at 31–32, 67 S. Ct., at 519–520 (Rutledge, J., dissenting, joined by Frankfurter, Jackson, and Burton, JJ.); accord, Lee v. Weisman, 505 US 577, 599-600 (1992)(emphasis added).

So what does Dr. Paul say about these court decisions: "Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity." So this arrogant twit, who is uneducated in the law, purports to be a higher legal authority on what the Founding Fathers intended by the religious clauses contained in the First Amendment than the Supreme Court, the final authority on what the Constitution means, despite the Court's consistent rulings since 1878.

To me, Dr. Paul resembles a lot of conservatives, who rant about a variety of things being unconstitutional without knowing what part of the Constitution is purportedly being violated or without know much about the Constitution or how it's been interpreted by the Supreme Court. Actually, Paul is worse than most--he makes specious statements about both the intent of the Founding Fathers and about constitutional provisions, thereby sowing the seeds of ignorance among his followers just like you Rerere.

Dr. Paul is an old kook who has actually corrupted the true meaning of the Constitution. He should retire now and hand the baton of constitutional ignorance to his son Rand, another constitutional nincompoop who arrogantly and erroneously asserts that the 14th Amendment does not compel the prohibition of racial discrimination.

And Rerere, among those who actually study and write about the Constitution, it is spelled with a capital "C." Finally, Rerere, I'm afraid you're the one who's actually been brainwashed, as have all the folks who've been conned by Dr. Paul's homespun charm.

Michael L. Marowitz
J.D., J.S.M. (Master's Degree in Law with emphasis on constitutional law, Stanford Law School, 1981)