FTR, I can be done with Ron Paul at any moment, but I will always blindly follow the constitution.
Question, not trolling or disagreeing, just interested in your view: why is a document that was created by a group of men hundreds of years ago in a vastly different time still necessarily and entirely valid today, and also better than anything else?
Unlike popular belief, the Constitution is not a document relevant only to one place in time - such as the Bible. It is, in it's purest sense, a document outlining structure of government. It is a system of checks and balances to assure that a dictatorship or monopoly of power does not occur. Today, we live in a society where the People fear the government. Our constitutions ONLY PURPOSE was to assure that the government fears the people.
Regardless of claims that a 200 year old document is not relevant due to cultural differences, there is nothing I see that doesn't account for cultural differences as it's vague in interpretation, but literal in ruling. What do I mean by that? Statements such as "all men are created equal" - in 1796, that meant all white people with testicles were equal. In 2012, it clearly means all humans are equal. Cultural definitions change, but the rules provide a framework for how you apply those definitions. It's not perfect, but if it were followed, there would not be growing concern over a corrupt federal reserve, because there wouldn't be one. There wouldn't be accusations of presidents being a dictator as there would be checks & balances for all decisions.
The best I can answer is this: If all civil liberties were and always have been completely protected and the constitution was followed through out the entire history, there would have been no:
1. Civil rights issues in the 50's, 60's & 70's as All men & women would have ALWAYS had those rights.
2. Vietnam War, Korean War, Desert Storm, and not likely the current conflict that we're in. All of these 'could' have happened, but it would have taken an act of congress to declare each of these.
3. Financial Housing crisis: there would have not been fiat money, and qualifying for a loan would have been much more difficult - which if you read further up in the thread, JFK may not have been shot over issuing silver certificates because all currency would have been backed by silver/gold/etc.
4. Gay marriage / rights would have not been an issue on a federal level.
I could probably go on if I had more time - but I think you get the picture. A dictatorship is evil and easily corruptible. Currently, we operate under the illusion that we hold the government accountable - but between the last two presidents we have had:
1. Wars started strictly for the purpose of financial gain of some individuals and commanded through executive order
2. Privacy taking a back seat to personal safety through the Patriot Act.
3. NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) removing right to peaceful protest, right to trial by jury of peers, and a right to bear arms and has turned the presidential office into judge, jury, & executioner.
Understand that the Liberty movement is not afraid of all of these powers being abused right now, even though each of the above has been abused, including a 16 year old American boy being assassinated, but you NEVER allow power to be given to anyone that your worst enemy may be able to some day occupy. We have set a precedence for allowing a President to make decisions in all of our lives, with or without our approval. What happens when a president think YOU are a terrorist for something of you're own personal conviction? Because you own a gun due to your personal choice to hunt; Or because you practice a certain religion; or whatever else.
A man I respect very much once said something that changed my entire outlook on life/work/parenting.
I'm paraphrasing here, but:
"whenever I'm approached with a problem within society, I first always ask myself; Is there a way this problem could be solved with a little more freedom?" -Penn Jillette
