Sunday, June 10, 2007

AMBER Alert Discussion

This is just a partial transcript from a forum on MySpace. In this transcript, I believe that I embody the values that Ron Paul holds dear when defending his vote on the matter. His first post:

In what would seem like a no brainer, this Republican candidate president has voted as if he doesn't have a brain.

Many know about the amber alert bill? It's basically a bill that would protect children nation wide if they are abducted or taken by people who want to do harm to the children of this nation. It could stop a child molester from harming kids.

There is actually a current Republican candidate who voted against this! His name is Ron Paul.

Some say he voted against it because it's unconstitutional. I thought molesting and abducting children violated our children's constitutional rights.

I guess this isn't true if you're Ron Paul

Ron Paul would rather protect the rights of child molesters over the rights of children.

I responded:

So, here is how it works. In the Constitution, there is a clearly defined 'levels of government.' There are local governments, there are state governments and there is the federal government. The federal government has certain duties assigned to it by the constitution. The document also states that power not enumerated (that is, specifically stated) by the Constitution fall to the States and/or local governments (Amendment #10, Part of the Bill of Rights).

The Constitution gives no such authority to the federal government to perform any of the duties assigned with issuing an "Amber Alert." I think that Dr. Paul, or anyone else for that matter, would agree that the Amber Alert system is a positive system. However, Dr. Paul and people that adhere to the Constitution (which, by the way, is the Supreme Law of the land) would argue that it is not an issue that the Federal government should take on but, instead, the state governments should be in control of.

Now, I know most of this is 'political hubbub' and may seem too 'technical.' I mean, surely, the Founding Fathers would issue the Amber Alert themselves, right?! Unfortunately, I think that you're wrong in that assumption. You see, small, federal bills and laws have, over time, created a monstrosity of a government that many of the founding fathers would disapprove of.

And, if you want further logical reasoning, I will present an argument that I believe would not be too different from James Madison (author of the Bill of Rights, former Vice President, former President, Founding Father and, altogether, a very important man). James Madison wrote several essays in 1786 and 1787 that contributed to the whole of what we called today the Federalist Papers. These papers outlined support for our current (albeit, no amendments) Constitution. Jimmy stated in one of these Federalist papers that the Federal system MUST be a Federal system that delegated most of its power to the states because the states were closer to the people. Furthermore, he went on to state that the diversification between states would split the country apart at its seams if it were not accommodated to delegate such decisions to the state governments (VERY good example: abortion). Instead, states shall be their own 'pockets of democracy' that would provide specific needs and services to their citizens. Also, certain states would have certain tendancies (Mass. [Gay Rights] and Texas [Gun Rights]) that would further attract citizens to that state because of its policy. However, all of these pockets of democracy would be protected until the Rule of Law of the Constitution that outlined basic rights AND a strong national defense--which, along side commerce regulation, was the primary reason for adopting the Constitution over the Articles of Confederacy.

It was a long, winded response, I know, but I have to provide clear, factual information to prove the point that, according to Constitutional Law, Ron Paul did the right thing by not voting for the Amber Alert
He replied this afternoon, saying:

Listen to me buddy. I am all for smaller government and following the laws.

However, if someone votes not to protect our children, that does not sit well with me at all!

You seriously think that it was constitutional to vote against protecting our children? Wow.

Do you have Children? Do you have brothers and sisters?

Have you EVER experienced the horror of having a child or sibling disappear? Even if it is just for a few minutes?

If not, then you have no idea why Ron pisses me off as much as he does!

Ron Paul is a man who votes against Amber Alerts, against funding the war, he has never decided what party he is a member of, he blamed our government for 9/11, do I need to go on, or do you catch my drift?
Finally, my most recent post, enlightening on the power of the people:

First of all, your antagonistic debating style isn't going to get you anywhere. Also, your pathos-strewed arguments have no logical or moral backing! You are appealing to your own and your readers emotions by misconstruing a "No" vote against a bill as an attack on children when, instead, it was a moral and logical decision to uphold the Constitution.

I agree with you: the Amber Alert system protects our children and that is a good thing. However, not only is it unconstitutional (read the Constitution), but it would be a much better! system if the states were to run it themselves. For example, one state (lets say Montana) has far less Amber alerts than another (lets say New York). The citizens of Montana would be paying less for those Amber Alerts and they could personalize it as to display which county the child was last seen in and, if the child were on his or her way to Mexico, they could also provide information to Canadian Law Enforcement. However, the citizens of New York may have to pay more for their system. They would also want a much more details Amber Alert system for the New York City area--instead of just saying "in Manhattan," the Amber Alert could provide information based on major street intersections (think Wall Street and South Street). This gives more pertinent information based on states.

Also, it gives YOU more of a voice in the operation of the Amber Alert in your state! In Alaska (I assume that's where you live) there are 700,000 people. In the United States, there are 350,000,000 people. By odds, you have more of a say in your state. So, if you wanted to support more funding for improving upon the current Amber Alert system, your vote and your say matters more at a state or local level.

Rep. Ron Paul is about given power back to the people--the power that the national government has robbed from us. The power has been slowly consolidating itself in Washington since Hamilton began the Federal Bank and it is now time for us to use our power of revolution to win it back!

P.S. No, I don't have children. I have 3 brothers and 1 sister. I recall one time that me and my brother were out hiking in the woods at Dale Hollow Lake. We somehow just wandered away from each other (he was around 10, then, and I was 13). It was a frightening experience, to say the least. However, I am not prepared to give MY SOVEREIGNTY up to the national government in order for them to post warnings on the television. I still don't understand why him telling you that he is going to give you all the power in the world so that you can make all of the Amber Alerts that you want pisses you off. I'm sorry. I just don't get that.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

This is wonderful. I was trying to think of a way to argue this and you've helped a lot. I can't believe people have been so blinded by blanket coddling that they can't see how it goes horribly wrong.