A Serious Problem Within the Military
Hat tip to Kenny Rodgers
comments powered by Disqus
Sudha Shenoy - 11/11/2007
I've been told that the principle involved --from Ron Paul's standpoint -- was govt payment to lawyers (under whatever guise.) That was why he supported it: _no_ tax monies to be given to lawyers.
Mark Brady - 11/11/2007
Bill, the explanation may indeed be along the lines you indicate.
I've just found that the bill as introduced was intended "[t]o amend the Revised Statutes of the United States to prevent the use of the legal system in a manner that extorts money from State and local governments, and the Federal Government, and inhibits such governments' constitutional actions under the first, tenth, and fourteenth amendments."
That said, I'd appreciate any further explanation that readers may provide.
Mark Brady - 11/11/2007
I hope he does have a logical explanation and one that is compatible with a political philosophy of individual liberty. The question remains, however, what is that explanation.
Bill Woolsey - 11/11/2007
Paul is a federalist on "culture war" issues. He has strongly supported legislation to keep the federal courts from interfering with state and/or local regulation of these matters.
This looks to be an example of that sort of legislation. While issues at the Air Force academy suggest that we shouldn't ignore a need for the Federal courts to hold the Federal government to the 1st amendment, one can imagine that this wasn't a key consideration when this bill was passed.
Keith Halderman - 11/11/2007
I do not know why but I would be willing to bet if you did ask him he would have a logical explanation for it.
Mark Brady - 11/10/2007
"In 2005, when Weinstein filed suit against the Air Force for constitutional violations of church-state separation, the house of representatives, with little public notice, passed a chilling bill that undermines enforcement of the First Amendment's separation of church and state. The Public Expression of Religion Act, H.R. 2679, provides that attorneys who successfully challenge government actions that violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment shall not be entitled to recover attorney's fees. According to The Washington Post, the purpose of this bill is to prevent suits challenging unconstitutional government actions advancing religion."
House vote #480 (September 26, 2006) shows Ron Paul voting for this bill. Why?
- Rubio Surges Into Second In New Hampshire
- Branstad Says Cruz Ran ‘Unethical’ Campaign
- Christie Highlights Santorum’s Endorsement of Rubio
- Portman Comes Out Against Trade Deal
- Megyn Kelly Gets a Book Deal
- A Big List of the Bad Things Clinton Has Done
- An Unambiguous Sign Sanders Won Last Night’s Debate
- Still Friends at the End
- Quote of the Day
- Trump Still Leads as Clinton Slips
- Clinton Can’t Shake Image as Wall Street’s Friend
- Maddow Doesn’t See Sanders Winning
- Why Does the Media Still Shield Chelsea Clinton?
- Bush Jokes His Mother May Have Abused Him
- Rubio Closes the Gap in New Hampshire
- Transcribed Document: Soviet Politburo Discussed CIA Billion Dollar Spy Adolf Tolkachev
- Pentagon withholds Iraq War photos showing detainee abuse
- These Rebels Have Amassed A Library From Syria’s Ruins
- Was 1916 fire at Canadian Parliament set by German saboteur?
- United Nations Calls On U.S. To Pay African Americans Reparations For Slavery
- Juan Cole says America’s inclination to turn to the military started with Manifest Destiny
- History Jobs Drop
- Paul Krugman gives credence to Robert J. Gordon's pessimism about American economic growth
- Harvard President Drew Faust Condemns Free Tuition Proposal from Outsider Overseers Ticket
- Andrew Roberts says Trump is the Mussolini of America with double the vulgarity