Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Ron Paul Campaign Answers Slashdot Reader Questions

Posted by Roblimo on Tue Feb 05, 2008 12:21 PM
from the first-they-ignore-you dept.
On January 15th we asked you for tech-oriented questions we could send to the various presidential candidates, and you responded like mad. The candidates were the exact opposite: not a single one answered emails we sent to their "media inquiry" links or email addresses. Slashdot has more readers than all but a handful of major daily papers, so that's kind of strange. Maybe they figure our votes aren't worth much or that hardly any of us vote. In any case, the Ron Paul campaign finally responded, due to some string-pulling by a Slashdot reader who knows some of Ron Paul's Texas campaign people. Perhaps other Slashdot readers -- like you (hint hint) -- can pull a few strings with some of the other campaigns and get them to communicate with us. Use this email address, please. But first, you'll probably want to read the Ron Paul campaign's answers to your questions (below).


1) Global high tech

In the last year, India and China have both announced and made progress towards implementing their own space programs. How should America respond to such growing technological boldness in such countries? Is it a threat or an opportunity?

Ron Paul campaign:
America should stop subsidizing the defenses of the rest of the world and worry more about its own national security interests, including its interests in a viable space program. As president, I will also work to remove barriers to private space flight.

2) Why Can't I Get a Straight Answer?

I've noticed that a number of candidates (I'm not naming names) and a number of administration officials will not answer a question in a clear and concise fashion. The subject could be anything from "Do you think waterboarding is torture?" to "What will be your stance toward the war in Iraq if you are elected?"

So my question to you is, "Do you think that I want someone in that office (Whichever one it is) who is deliberately attempting to deceive me?"

Even if you don't answer this question, I hope you think about it the next time someone asks you a question.

Ron Paul campaign:
The American people should expect clear and direct answers to their questions. Not only have I always strived to clearly state my position on issues, but my voting record backs up my commitment to the free-market, limited government philosophy I espouse on the campaign trail.

3) Marijuana

I'm a college graduate with a decent job in a technical field. I pay my taxes, my debts are minimal. I get along well with others, and am close to my family. I like to think that I am a good citizen and contribute to society. Yet because I smoke marijuana instead of drinking beer when I come home from work, my government has declared war on me.

My question is this: Do you believe I belong in jail? If so, why? If not, what are you going to do to protect me from being arrested?

Ron Paul campaign:
I oppose federal laws outlawing marijuana and I oppose federal interference with state medical marijuana laws.

4) What do you think about technology?

Can you clarify your policy around fair use of digital media and content? More specifically, can you explain how you will balance the rights of the average citizen to use digital content in "fair use" ways (backups, time-shifting, parody, etc.) with the need for corporations to protect IP investments? With the previous two administrations we have seen an erosion of fair-use rights via the DMCA and copyright extension bills. As President, will your policies tend to favor these trends or reverse them?

Ron Paul campaign:
I favor enforcement of intellectual property rights; however, some of the steps taken to protect these rights impose unreasonable burdens on the consumers and even raise civil liberties concerns. As president, I will seek a balance between the interest of copyright holders and consumers of digital media.

5) What do you think about patents?

People complain about taxes being the main hindrance of innovation, but when someone creates a new product, be it an iPhone or a Blackberry, they aren't looking out for the tax man. The main hindrance to American technological innovation is a patent system that rewards people for sitting on ideas and punishes those who create new products.

It has become an accepted fact that when you create something new, you will likely have to pay companies that had nothing whatsoever to do with your invention, just because they filed a patent while never intending to actually produce or sell anything.

As President, would you fix our broken patent system?

Ron Paul campaign:
Patents have a role to play in encouraging innovation. While I do not have a plan for patent reform yet, I would want to work with Congress to make sure that the US patent system encourages and rewards innovation. Making sure the patent system is fair to small business and entrepreneurs, rewards the actual inventors of a product, and does not tilt the playing field to large corporations will be a priority in my administration's approach to patent law.
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Ask the Presidential Candidates 916 comments
This is your usual Slashdot reader-generated interview, except we're only going to pick five questions, not 10, and we're going to send the same five questions to all the major-party presidential candidates and publish each one's answers (in our Politics section) as soon as we get them. Please try to come up with questions the candidates have not been asked in the many interviews and debates to which they've already been subjected, all of which have been notably light on Slashdot-popular topics such as software patents, Internet regulations, and computer file formats. Note, too, that we have no idea how many candidates (if any) will actually answer, and that whether their campaign staffs do or do not think you are worth a few moments of their time is telling in and of itself.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • lolwut (Score:5, Insightful)

    by snarfies (115214) on Tuesday February 05 2008, @12:26PM (#22307720) Homepage
    So, like, I'm confused. Who is actually answering these questions here? The title and story intro say the questions are answered by the "Ron Paul campaign." So does that mean this is, in fact, Ron Paul himself answering, or his people, or a combination, or...?
    • Re:lolwut (Score:5, Informative)

      by Roblimo (357) on Tuesday February 05 2008, @12:39PM (#22307954) Homepage Journal
      The answers were prepared by Ron Paul's legislative director, who is the person in most Congressional offices (don't forget - Ron Paul is a sitting Congressman, not just a presidential candidate) who is empowered to speak on behalf of the representative. It's also possible, although we have not been told this, that Rep. Paul himself came up with the answers.

      Many years ago, on a certain presidential campaign (which one is not important; he didn't win), if you got a "personal" answer to your letter addressed to the candidate, chances are that I wrote it and "signed" his name with a machine that scrawled "his" signature with a felt-tip pen.

      You really can't expect a presidential candidate to personally answer all requests or even all media requests. That task alone takes at least 100 hours per day, which means you need to have a number of people doing it.

      Reality = when you vote for almost any office higher than local school board member, you're voting for a team instead of for an individual.

      I have learned, over the years, to carefully watch the actions of that team, and its organization or lack thereof, as a useful indicator of how competent that candidate will be in office if he or she is elected.

      I may have stories to tell about our attempts to contact various campaigns as the general election gets closer. :)

      - Robin
      • Re:lolwut (Score:5, Informative)

        by Emrys (7536) on Tuesday February 05 2008, @01:07PM (#22308380)
        Of course, the thing with Ron Paul is that given how consistent he has been over the years, pretty much anyone who has followed him can answer questions for him without fear of getting it wrong.

        For what it's worth I work with the grassroots campaign here in TX and saw these answers before they were published, I'm pretty busy but will try to stay around this thread and help clarify things if needed.
      • Re:lolwut (Score:5, Funny)

        by mattwarden (699984) on Tuesday February 05 2008, @01:31PM (#22308780) Homepage
        Many years ago, on a certain presidential campaign (which one is not important; he didn't win), if you got a "personal" answer to your letter addressed to the candidate, chances are that I wrote it and "signed" his name with a machine that scrawled "his" signature with a felt-tip pen.

        Well, looking at how low your ID is, I'm guessing it was William Jennings Bryan
    • Re:lolwut (Score:5, Interesting)

      by damn_registrars (1103043) on Tuesday February 05 2008, @12:43PM (#22308000) Journal

      So does that mean this is, in fact, Ron Paul himself answering, or his people, or a combination, or...?

      Well, just like Ron Paul's newsletters [cnn.com], these will be his own writing when he agrees with it, then someone else's writing when it gets attention, and finally ghostwritten with no prior knowledge of his when the sh*t hits the fan...

      But of course, we are all supposed to believe that he is not just another politician, and he is somehow fantastic and different.
    • Re:lolwut (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anne_Nonymous (313852) on Tuesday February 05 2008, @12:46PM (#22308036) Homepage Journal
      >> Who is actually answering these questions here?

      It's Ru Paul, and the answers are fabulous.
  • Meh... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Oxy the moron (770724) on Tuesday February 05 2008, @12:33PM (#22307832)

    Not trolling at all here, but I was rather underwhelmed by the responses.

    Basically, the responses given by the Ron Paul campaign carried the tone I expected (more focus on personal liberties and free market) but were truly lacking in depth. For once, it would be nice to get a more detailed response from a politician, and not just the typical buzzword jockeying.

    Of all the candidates, this was the one I least expected generalizations and "typical response" muck. Oh well... at least they responded... I guess...

  • by GodfatherofSoul (174979) on Tuesday February 05 2008, @12:34PM (#22307838)
    They're Republicans who want to smoke pot and get laid.
  • by dada21 (163177) <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Tuesday February 05 2008, @12:34PM (#22307844) Homepage Journal
    ...I still support Ron Paul and am very vocal in proposing him as a choice to my many family, friends and customers who do vote.

    Nonetheless, these answers were a bit short and vague, but I do agree with how he answered them. Ron Paul's greatest asset is that he does listen. I have an interesting story dating back many years to a gold conference I attended in San Mateo. Ron Paul was a keynote speaker there, and after his speech, everyone left the convention room to gather for drinks and snacks. Outside the room, I started speaking with some younger folk who gathered outside the convention room (the average age of people in the room was probably 70, and I was the only person under 40 who wasn't a nurse of an old person in a wheelchair). Even almost a decade ago, Paul had young fans who would gather to talk to him outside of the official convention. As I spoke to these teenagers and young adults, many from the convention gathered to hear me out. After about 45 minutes of fielding questions, the crowd finally dispersed, and then I noticed that Dr. Paul was in the crowd listening. A congressman who took time out from his then-hectic schedule to actually hear me speak about gold and freedom. We spoke for a few minutes, and since then I've regularly talked to him at other conventions he's attended. It's ridiculous to me to think that a popular congressman would take even a few minutes out of his life to listen to anyone but lobbyists, but Paul has done it again and again with people around him. Even during the current campaign I've seen Paul spend hours after a speech to shake hands, answer questions bluntly, and sign pocket Constitutions.

    Paul's most magic words I've heard him speak is to say that as President he doesn't have the power that people would want HIM to have. He admits that the President's powers are very limited, and his sole purpose to be President is to use the bully pulpit to raise awareness on Constitutional issues. He would be wonderful with the veto pen, and he would call our big business and lobbying groups for their actions, as he has done (on C-SPAN) over his many years in Congress.

    On the war issue that many neoconservatives hate him for, Paul has said repeatedly that he is against undeclared wars. He's also said that Presidents are to follow Congress on declaring war or refusing it. This means that Paul _would_ go to war if Congress declared it, even in Iraq. He's putting politicians in their responsible positions by demanding that they follow the Constitution.

    Paul wants the Federal Department of Education gone, because they make a mess of education. He also admits he can't do it alone. He wants the IRS gone, because of its unconstitutionalist, but he can't do it alone. A vote for Paul is NOT a vote for getting rid of anything, or stopping a war, or ending rampant government growth -- it's a vote to put a freedom lover in the most powerful bully pulpit, to remind the politicians and the masses that freedom and responsibility are the individual's right to protect and follow through on.

    Even though I don't vote, I support voters who make clear choices based on the Constitution that we believe in to protect the freedoms that I believe are God-granted, or inherent at birth for all people in all countries. Paul's message is powerful in that he's not looking to lead people, but to follow them, and protect their freedoms so they can make responsible, or irresponsible choices, and learn lessons from those choices. He's not looking to stop abortion, but to stop Federal involvement in an issue that is debatable as a "murder" cause. The definition of murder is a State issue, and Paul wants to force the issue there. I appreciate his candor and honesty even though I disagree with many positions of his.

    I'm glad he answered these questions simply, because it allows you to see that Paul believes the President is near powerless, except for the veto pen and the bully pulpit.
  • Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wanerious (712877) on Tuesday February 05 2008, @12:35PM (#22307864) Homepage
    So I suppose it's my fault for not checking this thread and modding these questions down, but come on. "Why can't I get a straight answer?" and an inflammatory question on marijuana? This is why the elected hold the masses in contempt. Then two questions about patents and IP, where one begs the question of a broken patent system (not that I disagree, but it's a lousy way to ask a question). Are these the best presidential questions dealing with science and technology we can come up with? I'd like to hear something about energy policy, science education, NSF funding, international collaborations for basic research, and so on.

    Just blowing off steam. Sheesh.

  • by wiggles (30088) on Tuesday February 05 2008, @12:47PM (#22308060)
    You serve politicians up questions like that, where their answers will either alienate the Slashdot population or the general electorate, and you expect answers? Come on. Those were cherry picked by Ron Paul fanboys. The pot smoking question especially.
  • by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Tuesday February 05 2008, @12:52PM (#22308140) Homepage Journal
    1) Global high tech

    In the last year, India and China have both announced and made progress towards implementing their own space programs. How should America respond to such growing technological boldness in such countries? Is it a threat or an opportunity?

    Khan Paul campaign:
    Do you know the Klingon proverb that tells us revenge is a dish that is best served cold? ...It is very cold in space.

    2) Why Can't I Get a Straight Answer?

    I've noticed that a number of candidates (I'm not naming names) and a number of administration officials will not answer a question in a clear and concise fashion. The subject could be anything from "Do you think waterboarding is torture?" to "What will be your stance toward the war in Iraq if you are elected?"

    So my question to you is, "Do you think that I want someone in that office (Whichever one it is) who is deliberately attempting to deceive me?"

    Even if you don't answer this question, I hope you think about it the next time someone asks you a question.

    Khan Paul campaign: Oh, I've given you no word to keep, Admiral. In my judgement, you simply have no alternative.

    3) Marijuana

    I'm a college graduate with a decent job in a technical field. I pay my taxes, my debts are minimal. I get along well with others, and am close to my family. I like to think that I am a good citizen and contribute to society. Yet because I smoke marijuana instead of drinking beer when I come home from work, my government has declared war on me.

    My question is this: Do you believe I belong in jail? If so, why? If not, what are you going to do to protect me from being arrested?

    Khan Paul campaign:
    I've done far worse than kill you. I've hurt you. And I wish to go on... hurting you. I shall leave you as you left me, as you left her. Marooned for all eternity, in the center of a dead planet. Buried alive... buried alive.

    4) What do you think about technology?

    Can you clarify your policy around fair use of digital media and content? More specifically, can you explain how you will balance the rights of the average citizen to use digital content in "fair use" ways (backups, time-shifting, parody, etc.) with the need for corporations to protect IP investments? With the previous two administrations we have seen an erosion of fair-use rights via the DMCA and copyright extension bills. As President, will your policies tend to favor these trends or reverse them?

    Khan Paul campaign:
    You see, their young enter through the ears and wrap themselves around the cerebral cortex. This has the effect of rendering the victim extremely susceptible to suggestion. Later as they grow follows madness.. and death.

    5) What do you think about patents?

    People complain about taxes being the main hindrance of innovation, but when someone creates a new product, be it an iPhone or a Blackberry, they aren't looking out for the tax man. The main hindrance to American technological innovation is a patent system that rewards people for sitting on ideas and punishes those who create new products.

    It has become an accepted fact that when you create something new, you will likely have to pay companies that had nothing whatsoever to do with your invention, just because they filed a patent while never intending to actually produce or sell anything.

    As President, would you fix our broken patent system?

    Khan Paul campaign:
    No. No, you can't get away. From hell's heart, I stab at thee. For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee.

    Khan Paul 2008 [khanpaul2008.com]
    • by GradiusCVK (1017360) <originalcvk.gmail@com> on Tuesday February 05 2008, @12:42PM (#22307992)
      I don't really see how that's the case, both answers seemed pretty compatible... perhaps if you had given a reason or two we could discuss this further. Your lack of details notwithstanding, let me try to explain why they are not in conflict: 1: He basically stated that by discontinuing our subsidization of other countries through military aid, they will quickly find they have a lot less money to blow on costly, competitive space plans. Beyond that, it's not our business to try to interfere with other countries' efforts to build a space infrastructure. We ought to try to improve our own, of course. 2: He said he believes we all deserve straightforward, concise answers to our questions. I see no conflict... I assume you intended to say that his answer to question 1 was somehow not a straight answer, but I contend that if you try using that brain of yours for something other than snarky comments you will quickly find he gave a very concise, logical answer to question 1 while explicitly avoiding buzzwords and fluff.
    • by moderatorrater (1095745) on Tuesday February 05 2008, @12:51PM (#22308126)
      The whole thing is bullshit. There's no way anyone spent more than 15 minutes on these stupid answers. Also, typical politician speak, in which they take 5 sentences to say "I agree".
        • by s20451 (410424) on Tuesday February 05 2008, @01:40PM (#22308916) Journal
          Then again, these are not Mr Paul's words or views ("The Ron Paul Campaign" ?) --They have been sterilised, vetted, re-vetted and possibly not even drafted by Paul.

          Just like the Ron Paul newsletters! Right?
        • by Maxo-Texas (864189) on Tuesday February 05 2008, @01:43PM (#22308970)
          It is actually pretty consistent with the rest of his campaign literature...

          His logic goes like this.

          Why spend 1 trillion dollars and 100,000 soldiers protecting oil flow and royally pissing off huge numbers of people. If the "real" cost of oil is $200 a barrel and we are hiding that by using tax payer money to provide security then stop doing that. With the true price of oil unmasked, then other alternatives become economically viable.

          Why put 35,000 troops and a hundred million dollars a year into other countries we have been at peace with since 1960 or earlier? We could have those troops ready to move fast to real problem areas and use the money to buy new planes and tanks instead of funding discos in germany, japan, and south korea where our young troops go to party on leave.

          ---
          In a recent election in texas we passed 14 of 15 tax increases. Because they were phrased as vital new services instead of as tax increases. Easily 30% of what the federal government does could be cut back and then you can immediately pay off the deficit and then lower taxes. And those lost services would be replaced at the state level in the states that felt they were good enough to pay for.

          We have essentially created a "commons" of "free" money in the federal government. We are looting and pillaging it while ignoring the fact that the "free" money is really coming out of our own pockets.

          • by Intron (870560) on Tuesday February 05 2008, @01:55PM (#22309180)

            We have essentially created a "commons" of "free" money in the federal government. We are looting and pillaging it while ignoring the fact that the "free" money is really coming out of our own pockets.
            This is what enrages me about the Bush tax cut proposal. It is much the same as if your boss told you he was giving you a raise by letting you charge $1000 more on your own credit card. Are people really that stupid?
    • by jandrese (485) <kensama@vt.edu> on Tuesday February 05 2008, @12:43PM (#22307994) Homepage Journal
      How about the "Ron Paul stands just about as much chance of being elected as you do" posts? It doesn't really matter if the person reading is 15, an atheist, Chinese, or a member of Al Qaeda; the statement is still accurate.

      The best thing about Ron Paul this year is how he can be the ultimate form of humiliation. Pundits and pollsters were all over Rudy "9/11" Giuliani before the primaries started. Some of them were practically writing his victory speeches before the first vote had been cast. Then people started voting and he got less votes than even Ron Paul.

      As far as the "nut" complaint, just Google "Gold Standard". He's also protectionist as hell. He also stands behind a lot of things that Slashdotters find acceptable that are political suicide in America today (legalize drugs, gay marrage is ok, privatize Social Security). It's one thing to be against "wasteful government spending", but when it ends up involving people dying on the street (social programs), it's a lot harder to stomach. From a purely economic point of view it is probably better to let the mentally ill and unemployable just die on the street instead of subsidizing them for the rest of their life, but that's not what most people consider acceptable for the first world.
    • Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Workaphobia (931620) on Tuesday February 05 2008, @01:36PM (#22308838) Journal
      To be fair, those questions outright SUCKED. *That's* the best Slashdot can give our candidates? No wonder no one responded! I was expecting questions that would give a layman's summary of all the great issues whose explanation we take for granted, including patents, copyright, distribution monopoly, fair use, parenting in the digital age, internet governance, etc., and then ask for a well-reasoned or thought-out action plan. But these questions do nothing to motivate a person to think deeply about anything I care about.

      Fuck, you have an opportunity to get official answers to questions that would *never* be asked in a mainstream debate, and instead you shove forward crap about Marijuana and "our elected officials deceive us"? We all deserve the shitty response we got.
    • Softball questions. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by JonTurner (178845) on Tuesday February 05 2008, @12:56PM (#22308210) Journal
      Not just leading, but real "softball" questions. I'm surprised they didn't ask if he likes puppies. I'm pleased to learn he believes in providing direct answers to direct questions and I'd like some answers to questions such as:

      Do you believe the current levels of illegal immigration are harmful to America in terms of economy and culture? If so, how do you propose to reduce/end illegal immigration?
      Do you believe in open borders -- unrestricted immigration?
      In Republican debate #2, you implied that America was not attacked on 9/11. What words, the, would you use to describe the events of that day -- the murder of thousands of people by organized foreign nationals subsidized by States, the destruction of hundreds of millions of dollars in property and the follow-on damage to our economy?
      Should those on welfare be disallowed from voting?
      What restrictions to firearm ownership do you support?
      Do you believe the Federal government has exceeded the authority granted to it by the Constitution? If so, how do you propose to return America's Federal government to the limited powers proscribed therein?
      How will you reduce America's dependence on foreign oil?
      Is healthcare a right?
      Please give you opinion regarding Kelo v. City of New London (Supreme court deciison which gives municipalities broad powers to seize private property for the purpose of increasing tax revenues).
      etc.

      Frankly, I'd like answers to those questions from ALL politicians. It would be a step forward, instead of the current internecine squabbling : the "he said/she said/you made the girl cry" pandering Soap Opera.
      • by XxtraLarGe (551297) on Tuesday February 05 2008, @01:07PM (#22308374) Journal

        In Republican debate #2, you implied that America was not attacked on 9/11. What words, the, would you use to describe the events of that day -- the murder of thousands of people by organized foreign nationals subsidized by States, the destruction of hundreds of millions of dollars in property and the follow-on damage to our economy?
        Citation please? I saw that debate, and never heard Ron Paul say anything remotely close to that, implicit or explicit. Ron Paul said that the lame-brain jingoistic excuse often given for the attacks "they attacked us because we're free & prosperous" was not the reason we were attacked. We were attacked due to our interventionist foreign policy in the Middle East. Switzerland is free and propserous and Al Qaida didn't attack them.
      • by Emrys (7536) on Tuesday February 05 2008, @02:04PM (#22309352)

        I will give these a try. This is not an official campaign response, but it's also not just a fanboy response; I *have* been sent to represent the campaign before, and am on a first-name basis with the family and campaign. I will also try to get an official response to this but it's kind of Super Tuesday today so most people are working in the field.

        Most of these can also be answered via google, anyway.

        Do you believe the current levels of illegal immigration are harmful to America in terms of economy and culture? If so, how do you propose to reduce/end illegal immigration?

        Paul is the strongest anti-illegal immigration candidate still running, primarily because of the harm done to our economy when people take entitlements they did not contribute to. He is absolutely opposed to illegal immigration and has published a 6-point plan to secure the border, including no amnesty, amendinging the Constitution to make clear children born to illegals here are not citizens, physically securing the border, etc.

        That said, he does not oppose legal immigration and primarily sees the problem as economic. He has stated that immigrants are made scapegoats of our current economic problems. We can't afford to keep doing what we're doing with entitlements, so we have to fix that first, but once the economy is fixed he has stated the problem would always be too little immigration.

        Do you believe in open borders -- unrestricted immigration?

        I think this is included in the second half of the answer above; for more information on things Ron Paul has consistently said on immigration see here: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/?tag=Immigration [ronpaul2008.com]

        In Republican debate #2, you implied that America was not attacked on 9/11. What words, the, would you use to describe the events of that day -- the murder of thousands of people by organized foreign nationals subsidized by States, the destruction of hundreds of millions of dollars in property and the follow-on damage to our economy?

        We were obviously attacked and I've never heard him say anything remotely otherwise. He has consistently proposed for and voted for legislation to go after the actual perpetrators (al Qaeda) as opposed to random Arabian countries that have oil we'd like to have. He has criticized our interventionist, imperial foreign policy as a strong contributing factor for why people attack us, but regardless of their reasons they need to be brought to justice. Random civilians do not need to be bombed for this to happen.

        Should those on welfare be disallowed from voting?

        I've never heard him speak to this directly but I would certainly say no. He is the one person running who knows we need to eventually get rid of the entitlements BUT do it in a way that keeps existing people dependent on them from being thrown in the street, and revoking their basic rights is not consistent with his approach. We need to cut our imperial spending and take care of things at home, while promoting better policies for the future (as in letting kids opt-out of social security, while still paying back those that paid in already).

        What restrictions to firearm ownership do you support?

        None, though private property owners set the policy on their own property.

        Do you believe the Federal government has exceeded the authority granted to it by the Constitution? If so, how do you propose to return America's Federal government to the limited powers proscribed therein?

        What softball? Ron Paul of course believes the Federal government has run roughshod over the Constitution. He never votes for unconstitutional legislation and as President would veto it. He has stated that he would veto any budget that contained unconstitutional spending. The one place for "wiggle room" here is going to be his above approach to not throw people used to entitlements out onto the str