The only reason we still have freedom of speech (well, mostly) is because the courts enforce that part of the Constitution. If the courts didn't do that the politicians would have taken away free speech long ago. If the courts actually enforced the monetary provisions within the Constitution, rather than choosing to "interpret" them into meaninglessness, politicians would not be allowed to create currency not backed by gold (or silver). The federal government could still borrow under a gold backed currency but its borrowing would be sharply constrained. There would be no Federal Reserve to create money out of thin air with which to buy debt. So real investors would have to be found for the debt, and they would demand higher interest rates. The higher interest rates in turn would constrain the amount of debt that can be issued. (Certainly one reason the government is issuing so much debt today is that the Fed has kept interest rates extraordinarily low. This has kept interest payments tolerable -- for now. If interest rates ever go back up to where they were just a decade or two ago we're fucked.) As for the argument that if we have a sound currency we'll be outmatched militarily by a country with fiat currency -- I don't think that's really a problem for the U.S. All we need is a couple of aircraft carriers, a bunch of subs, some troops on the borders, and enough nukes to ensure that no one will be dumb enough to nuke us. We could do that with a fraction of our military budget. No one is going to be able to funny money his way to victory over us. Most of our military budget now is for fighting wars in distant lands where we have no business being anyway.
The youtube Ron Paul ads are so much better than the official campaign ads. If the Paul campaign would just have the sense to air ads like this one he'd walk away with the election.
It's tiresome because you're ignorant, you can't admit when you're wrong, you're dishonest, and you've been discredited. 1) You're ignorant because at first you wrote this which is total nonsense: "Actually Article I, section 10 also says that no state shall coin money." 2)You can't admit you're wrong because after a_person called you on it, you backpedaled with this: "I want to add that in the sentence, "States shall not make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in the payment of debts" the word "make" does not refer to the manufacture of money (which states aren't allowed to do -- the federal government must mint the coins) rather "make" refers to the designation of what a debt is to be paid in." 3) You're dishonest because knowing full well that the states are forbidden to "make" (as in designate), you tried to change the debate by substituting "accept" which has a totally different meaning: "Forbidding states to accept anything but gold or silver coin as tender in payment of debts does not force the federal government to only accept gold or silver coin as tender in payment of debts. BUT it does forbid the federal government from forcing states to accept anything but gold or silver coin as tender in payment of debts. So the federal government can issue paper money but the states can't use it -- which makes the paper money pretty useless." 4) You've been discredited here: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3381309#post3381309 , in this post and elsewhere yet you're still not man enough to admit you're wrong. Finally, as for YOUR most recent attempt at "weasel wording," the federal government can designate what the states can be paid in. Article 10 only forbids the states to designate it, which you've admitted is the meaning of "make" as I've quoted you in #2.
You and Ron Paul are both kooks who have no clue about national security. He's a joke in the military and most of his contributions come from soldiers who are tired of all the deployments and I don't blame them. But isolationism won't work either. So fuck off yourself and get a clue, moron.
Since when are conservatism and not thinking it's OK to let Iran get nuclear weapons mutually exclusive?
We wouldn't have been able to fight WWII. Brilliant... NOT! You have no idea what the future might bring so this is incredibly naive. Past misuses of the military don't mean there won't be a future situation where going to war on a scale that requires borrowing is vital to our survival. Total horseshit. What we need is ultimately determined by the National Security Strategy as it trickles down through the National Military Strategy, etc. It's not something that some ET idiot like you pulls out of his rectum based on a whim.