How, that is, under what authority, would Ron Paul keep his campaign promises?

Several of the items could not be done unilaterially (i.e. they would need the support of Congress). My guess is that he would lobby Congress to accomplish his goals. Almost none of the campaign promises by any of the candidates could be done single-handedly. But to answer your question directly:

1. The gold standard is simply flxing the value of your currency to a certain amount of gold (by regulating the cost of gold in currency, i.e. gold is fixed at $500 per oz.). This decision is made by the President, usually via the Secretary of the Treasury. Nixon unilaterally ended the gold standard in 1971, and presumably, Ron Paul could reinstate it.

As for the necessary amount of gold, the U.S. currently holds $207 billion dollars in gold, as of December 2006. There is currently $760 billion in U.S. currency in circulation. The idea of returning to the gold standard would be to prevent inflation due to the fiat currency. Thus, the gold is already there - it doesn't need to come from anywhere. We would simply have a period of deflation, or (depending on the price the government set), people would buy gold on the international commodity market.

2. While it is true that Congress controls the income tax laws, Ron Paul would have three major options to abolish the income tax: first, he could push for a Constitutional amendment to the 16th amendment which allows the income tax; next, he could push for Congress to abolish the income tax using legislation. Finally, he could order the IRS not to enforce the tax laws. He might be censured/impeached, but he certainly could choose to order the IRS not to collect money or arrest violators (or simply disband the IRS altogether).

3. The President is in charge of the CIA, FBI, ATF, and other agencies. While they are authorized by federal law, I can imagine some creative ways for them to be "abolished". For example, Ron Paul could fire all of the employees of those agencies, and not hire any replacements. While this would technically leave the CIA "in existence", he would essentially have abolished them.

4. NAFTA permits withdrawl after a six month notice period to the other members. When the U.S. joined NAFTA, it did not do so by use of a treaty (which requires 2/3 of the Senate to approve). Instead, it was an "executive-legislative agreement", which required a majority of both the House and the Senate. Because it is not a treaty, it is unlikely to be binding law, and the President should be able to unilaterally withdraw. In 1979, President Carter was sued for unilaterially withdrawing from a defense treaty. However, the Court dismissed the case as a "political matter". Thus, it is unlikely that even if Ron Paul withdrew from NAFTA, the Supreme Court will not step in, leaving Congress hamstrung (the case is Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979)). The same arguments apply to the WTO.

5. The United Nations, on the other hand, is a treaty, and carries the force of law. Withdrawl would not be easy, and would likely require Senate approval. However, Ron Paul's likely strategy would be to disregard the rulings of the UN, refuse to send delegates, and perhaps even prevent them from meeting in New York (among other creative ideas). Since the UN has no formal legal system to prosecute the President, the only option to enforce the treaty would be sanctions, which would be economically devastating. Thus, since there is no penalty for ignoring the UN, that would be Ron Paul's best option. Again, he may be open to censure or impeachment by Congress, but he could "technically" still do it. The same arguments apply for NATO, which is also a treaty ratified by the Senate.

All of these are certainly difficult things to accomplish, and require more strategy and technique than simply relying on the normal power of the President. But as president, Ron Paul would likely be able to accomplish each of these measures to some degree, if not explicitly, then by effect.

[Rebuttals]

Your question asked "where will the necessary amount of gold come from?" We have enough gold to return to the gold standard. Doing so will most likely cause a massive deflationary trend in the U.S. economy (I am not defending such actions). You asked where will the gold come from. I answered: we already have it. Maybe not as much as we like, but we do have gold.

You didn't ask about the merits of Ron Paul's ideas - you asked: "under what authority would Ron Paul keep his campaign promises?".

If you're just a troll looking to start an argument with Ron Paul supporters, sorry for raining on your parade by actually answering the question asked.

As for lacking the support of Congress, I argued in my post that all of the items on the list can be more or less achieved unilaterally in their effect. Meaning, the outcome is the same, even if the process isn't "technically correct".

None of the items listed in your question are provided for in the original body of the Constitution (the income tax was added by amenment in the early 20th century...in fact the Constitution originally provided no means by which income could be taxed). So Ron Paul's position in doing away with these items does not contradict with his "reverence for the Constitution."

First of all we already have enough gold to be on the gold standard, so that really is not an issue.

Second, the income tax was not part of the original constitution or the bill of rights (which were passed at the same time as the constitution). Like anyone who is elected president he will need the support of the Congress in order to get the income tax abolished (or get any other campaign promise enacted). Which if he is elected then the same people who voted for him would need to let their congressmen and senators know that they want the income tax abolished.

Third, the CIA, FBI, ATF and other agencies are just that: agencies. They are not constitutionally protected. So again with the support of Congress these objectives can be achieved.

Fourth, NAFTA and the WTO are treaties that can easily be done away with if the American people tell their senators, this is what they want. And voting for Ron Paul would be a way of sending that message.

Fifth, withdrawing from the UN and NATO can be simply accomplished by refusing to pay membership fees (they are just like clubs).

Any candidate that runs for office on a platform can not accomplish those goals without the support of the American people. Instead of asking "how can he do these things?" you should ask, "how can I help him do these things?".

There is a difference between "educating" and "promising," in Ron Paul's campaign. Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist, but because America hasn't had one in a while, his campaign must work to teach people what a Constitution-based government would look like. Educating his audience, however, is a separate action from making a 'campaign promise.'

When he talks about (2) abolishing the income tax, or (4/5) getting rid of the WTO/leaving the UN, he's explaining the extensions of Constitution-based logic that advocate smaller government and greater personal freedom. The PROMISE Paul makes is that he will follow the Constitution; the LESSON is that the Constitution should lead to policies that separate the US from NATO.

Likewise, when RP talks about (1) the gold standard, it's not that he's making a 'promise' to return the country to the gold standard immediately or that he can instantaneously abolish the FED. Instead, he's working against the misconception that fiat money is the best or only currency for a stable economy.

(3) As for abolishing the CIA, FBI, etc.--I'm not sure that's actually the case. He's been outspoken in his disapproval of the secrecy and dangerous/immoral policies of those agencies, but he also recognizes the importance of collecting intelligence for national security. He ultimately seeks a reduction in the power and size of those agencies.

Nonetheless, the basic principle is the same: his disapproval of certain agencies is not equivalent to a belief that the President has unlimited power to abolish them. On the contrary, he wants to *limit* government authority rather than use imagined Presidential power to pursue his platform.

That said, the Ron Paul R3VOLution deserves some mention here. Even though the President does not have the authority to instantaneously change all those things in government that Ron Paul would like to reform, the symbolic importance of the American public electing a man like Ron Paul should carry the repercussions his supporters seek.

Electing Ron Paul would express a demand for a Constitutionalist government, moral taxation, legal wars, responsible spending, individual responsibility/liberty, and honest/informed political discussion. If other politicians properly acknowledge this demand, there may be more opportunities to elect Constitutionalists into Congress, and then the Constitutionalist Congress would have the authority to accomplish many of the goals that Ron Paul advocates.

Furthermore, while Ron Paul as President might not have the authority to abolish the Fed or IRS, his election to the oval office would add greater credibility to his ideas and the claim that they express the will of the voting public. As a result, he would be in a better position to discuss and encourage Congressmen to vote for Constitutionalist policies.

So, there are two answers to your question: 1) Ron Paul does not believe that the President necessarily has the authority to single-handedly return the government to the Constitution; but 2) electing Ron Paul may spark support for the proper authorities to reform the government according to Ron Paul's ideas.

In the end, however, the only campaign promise the voters need to expect Ron Paul to keep is his loyalty to the Constitution, as it is from that document (and only from that document) that he can gain any authority.

I hope this answers your question--thank you for asking!

Such a simple question for such drawn out answers.

The simple answer is that he would have no authority to keep these promises.

The scary part of this is he either knows this (which makes him another lying politician) or he doesn't know this (which means he is a bigger fool than even I believe).

Either way he has no place in the White House except as a dinner guest.

He's been working in Congress for the past 30 years. Why wouldn't he know how the system works? The President does have the authority, under the Constitution, to veto, or break off any treaty that is against the Constitution itself. Such as the NAU, NATO, WTO, CAFTA, NAFTA, and UN. As Thomas Jefferson stated, "Entangle alliances with non; Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations." That means he can trade, communicate with the rest of the world, but can't have treaties that can lead us into trouble. Since the FederalReserve caused the declining dollar, we can't buy gold with worthless paper they left us. But we can "borrow" for the moment when we have money by the backed currency. He can dismantle it because our Founding Fathers never advocated a central bank. So, it's illegal for that case. Wow, now slow your horses. He said he wouldn't abolish the CIA and FBI altogether. He even stated we spend about 40 billion on the CIA, while they don't follow our court system. They torture illegally, they are in the process of trying to overthrow the Iranian government, and that isn't for collecting intelligience. Back in the Cold War, they did an outstanding job against Soviet intelligience where we paid very little than 40 billion. And no worries, there are other intel agencies besides the CIA. Well, if he can dismantle the FederalReserve and IRS, why pay the Income if they wouldn't exist? We can exclude ourselves from NAFTA and WTO because the Constitution doesn't advocate us into other treaties, or affairs. Besides, you wouldn't have your tax dollars wasted just maintain ourselves in some useless organization. And finally, UN and NATO, those are the responsible ones that has gotten us into many conflicts. The UN is a useless that flamed many conflicts around the world, especially when it implemented Israel in the Middle East. NATO was a good alliance only in the beginning of its creation to block the Warsaw Pact. But now, it mislead us into Kosovo, when their extremists financed other extremists in the Middle East region. But if you leave the UN, it would be a pretty good idea. You pay a huge chunk of money to keep the organization alive since we have its headquarters in NY, and you pay even more to keep yourself in it as a member. It just creates more problems for us, and it's better if we withdraw and fix the problems we have here at more. As in protect our borders, and get back our national defense. The others never impressed me because they're all for big government, and the bigger, the more problems, and more money you pay. We have a debt of 9trillion dollars. Ron Paul can reduce it by reducing government spending, and we'll have more money to lower the debt. Just think about it, and think about your kids so they won't have to suffer in this economic crisis we're struggling to acheive. I'm voting for someone to fix this country up, and cure it. He is our last hope for now.

Restore the Constitution.

Sir or Ma'am,

We went to war with Iraq without the consent of congress, (who most were actually AWOL). We have continued this war in Iraq against the demands of congress at great expense and threat to the troops. There have been thousands of Executive Orders to do just about anything. The US has gone to war numerous times to defend capitalist interests, not the people's interest. Your question asked, "by what authority...." I ask you, "by what authority were these programs INITIATED?"

We pulled out of Vietnam because the people of America raised their voices in agreement that it was wrong. The only changes that have EVER taken place in this country come from the PEOPLE taking a stand against their government. Ron Paul is trying to make a stand for what he believes in. (are the other candidates even trying to do something about the problems?)

With the people of this country united, we can move mountains!

under what authority did Andrew Jackson dismantle the last federal bank?

there is precedent

the president also makes treaties so he can break them, that's part of the president's job

getting enough "GOLD also means buying silver platinum and other precious metals

http://www.gnn.tv/forum/thread.php?id=818

the panic of 37 was brought about by the bankers and wallstreet people buy interfering with true capitalism

and yes he vetoed the charter but was working on dismantling it , when federal bank president Biddle brought it up for renewal in trying to take on jackson , it was a power play , the charter had 2 years left on it, he used his power over the congress to bring it up for early charter renewal and he gambled and he lost. it was for the good of the country.

abolishing the income tax is very easy. the 16th amendment was never ratified and there for illegale

http://www.apfn.net/Doc-100_bankruptcy20.htm

The artificial interference in the economy was a disaster prior to the Depression, and government efforts to prop up the economy after the crash of 1929 only made things worse. According to Rothbard, government intervention delayed the market’s adjustment and made the road to complete recovery more difficult

Furthermore, Rothbard criticizes Milton Friedman's assertion that the central bank failed to inflate the supply of money. Rothbard asserts that the Federal Reserve purchased $1.1 billion of government securities from February to July 1932 which raised its total holding to $1.8 billion. Total bank reserves only rose by $212 million, but Rothbard argues that this was because the American populace lost faith in the banking system and began hoarding more cash, a factor very much beyond the control of the Central Bank. The potential for a run on the banks caused local bankers to be more conservative in lending out their reserves, and, Rothbard argues, was the cause of the Federal Reserve's inability to inflate

congress has a history of passing the presidents platform at a average of 70%, and that can usually last the first year

and that is no matter which party controles congress and no matter what party holds the executive office. the spinelessness of the congress , combined with the bullypulpate of the president , can be a powerfull tool. so many of the congressmen say they dont like the system as it is now , i guess a ron paul presidency will give them the chance to vote concience instead of contributions

http://www.tamu.edu/upress/BOOKS/2002/sa...

http://www.fordham.edu/politicalsci/prof...

http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/kreppel/ty...

http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/rconley/dissabs.html

Ron Paul never said Abolish the CIA,FBI,ATF..he said he would stop them from over throwing goverments and conducting secret wars.he would stop the FBI from doing Illegal wire taping and sighning thier own search warrants against americans and the ATF..well they kind of do the FBI job so why is it that we have all these directors drawing pay.he would combine these groups and have one boss.so that the field people get a raise and the tax payers get to keep more of thier money.also.NAFTA and WTO are unfair.he would undo the harm done by these aggrements by simply chargeing taxes on IMPORTS since all the other nations still charge us Import taxes.that would also save americans money.Ron Paul is a student of economy.and also the President can comand the grand stage.he would be able to inform people and allow us to choose and actually listen to our wants and needs.

Rome wasn't built in a day...

It's not important that Ron be able to accomplish everything in one term of office... What IS important is that if elected, he starts to take this country in the right direction with the power that he has and the will of the American people...

Ron Paul has my vote...

He would have to abrogate the constitution, the supreme court and the congress. Not likely.