It isn’t a bad ruling, but ultimately I think it’s just a little pointless.

[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_unmanned_aerial_vehicles#U.S._domestic_use
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/10/nation/la-na-drone-arrest-20111211
http://www.officer.com/news/10443874/new-police-drone-in-texas-could-carry-weapons

And I think it’s been well covered in other comments that you might be confusing a “strong” central government with a “stronger” central government. Under the Articles, the federal gov’t was too weak to do anything and the states were feuding idiotically; the Constitution was designed to fix that.

But your assertion that “the U.S. Constitution was somehow drafted to limit the powers of the federal government and decentralize that power on behalf of the states” isn’t true completely ignores the reality of a Constitution written specifically to enumerate the few powers delegated to and spread across the three branches of the federal gov’t, and which reserves *all* other powers to the states and to the people.

And you seem to have missed my point entirely. My argument centered around their view of what of what a strong central government should be, verses our understanding of what that phrase denotes today. You never make any attempt to define the term and leave the reader confused about what some of the founders were after.

You stated “But we should always be very careful not to view history through the lense of our present circumstance.” In order to do that we have to be clear about the use of under defined terms that invite strong emotional responses from readers. Readers, that will read your words their the filters of their own understanding and world view.

I’ll say it again, the system they came up with, one in which Madison, Jefferson, Washington and many other prominent men of the day were fairly happy with, would be better defined as a “strong enough central government”.

Madison went to Philadelphia with a plan to create a government that was adequate to the tasks he perceived it needed to perform. The Convention was billed as a means of fixing the Articles and it was a revolutionary idea in and of itself to scrap them for a whole new Constitution. Most of the states sent men with the express task of preserving state power. Really they wanted a system that was capable of keeping things together and the states out of war with each other.

To suggest that these men, man of who had recently suffered through the misery of the Revolutionary War, all jumped on their horses and into their wagons, and rushed off to Pennsylvania to create anything akin to what we now understand a strong central government to be is not only misleading, but laughable. I doubt many of them could conceive, in their wildest nightmares, the hideous Leviathan that now inhabits our capital. Do you really believe they wanted things like NLRB, EPA, FBI, CIA, BATFE, DEA, the Department of Education, HHS and the myriad of other acronyms that now creep into and attempt to control every facet of our lives?

No, and the proof of that is in the Constitution itself where the powers of each branch were expressly enumerated and EVERYTHING else was left to the people and the states. They created a document wherein the genius itself was in it’s power to do what was needed and nothing more.

Perhaps you could invite Scott Bradley (former candidate for Senate) on your show to talk about this. I think it would make for some very interesting radio and perhaps we could iron out these semantic misunderstandings.

That’s why they gave us the U.S. Constitution —establishing a very limited, decentralized government to provide for national defense and little else. Because local politicians are closest to the people they represent, the states were to be the ones handling most of the problems and issues facing the people.”

If you think the above is a misrepresentation of the historical discussions behind the creation of our constitution you should pick up a history book, or, better yet, read The Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. You will find that keeping a tight rein on a limited federal government was the main theme of most of the founders Constitutional deliberations.

Your original post is based on the false assertion that Dr. Paul either doesn’t understand this history or that he is purposely trying to mislead people. It is a cheap shot.

Your excerpts of Mr. Paul’s argument do not demonstrate he has a desire restoring anything like the Articles of Confederation.

Take a look at Ron Paul’s website and literature.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/

It is clear that his understanding of what the Constitution authorizes the federal government to do is sound. His arguments for a return to this idea of a limited federal government don’t come close to the ignorance you attribute to him.

Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE –75%, ID -77%, ME – 77%, MT- 72%, NE – 74%, NH–69%, NE – 72%, NM – 76%, RI – 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT – 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.

In the lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and has been enacted by 3 jurisdictions.

None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored.

Of the 22 medium-lowest population states (those with 3,4,5, or 6 electoral votes), only 3 have been battleground states in recent elections– NH NM, and NV. These three states contain only 14 (8%) of the 22 medium-lowest population states’ total 166 electoral votes.

With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency — that is, a mere 26% of the nation’s votes.

With National Popular Vote, big states that are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country, would not get all of the candidates’ attention. In recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have been split — 5 “red states (TX, FL, OH, NC, and GA) and 6 “blue” states (CA, NY, IL, PA, MI, and NJ). Among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (TX and FL) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

With National Popular Vote, every vote would be equal. Candidates would reallocate the money they raise to no longer ignore 2/3rds of the states and voters.

16% of Americans live in rural areas.

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.
The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States. Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.

Any candidate who ignored, for example, the 16% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote.

If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.

A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.

The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don’t campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don’t control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn’t have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.

In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.

Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.

There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.

The National Popular Vote bill would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who ignored, for example, the 16% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.