Enter your email address to be notified of new blog entries:
08/24/2007 - 2:07am
Vote For Constitutionalism
The first is his libertarian view of society, that the government should stay out of our personal lives and out of our wallets, and that the free market is the best provider of goods and services.
The second is his belief that the federal government should return to following the U.S. Constitution.
There is some icing on the cake here. First, his libertarian views are pretty much in line with mine (which I like), and they're also pretty much in line with his constitutionalist views.
But the primary issue here is his constitutional views. For those that don't understand why this is so important, here's a little background.
The U.S. Constitution is a "positive grant" document. That means that the government derives its powers from what the Constitution says that it can do. It is not the burden of the Constitution to list things the government cannot do. In short, if the Constitution doesn't explicitly give the government the power to do something, it doesn't have it.
The branch of government that makes laws is the Congress. Article I Section 8 of the Constitution is an itemized list of things Congress can do. If it's not listed here, they can't do it (except where amendments were later passed giving them additional authority). You'll notice that nowhere in this section does it say they can, for instance, provide healthcare, regulate education, make laws regulating guns, tax wages, or many of the other things that we know they do (or want to do).
Some people think the government should do all of these, some people think some, and yet others think the government should do none of these things. However, none of that really matters, because the Constitution doesn't allow the government to do these things. And since the Constitution is the "highest law in the land", the government can't legally do these things, and laws that the government passes cannot override the Constitution.
So what does that mean when the government does these things? It means they are acting illegally; and I have no idea why people blindly accept that this is okay, or maybe they're just not aware of it. Of all the candidates running for President in 2008, only Ron Paul believes the government should act within the confines of the Constitution, that the government should do things legally.
Even if you think the government should provide universal healthcare, should tax the wealthy to give to the poor, or provide any number of social services, you would probably agree that the government should go about these activities legally. So how would they do that legally when the Constitution doesn't allow it? The Constitution provides provisions for this called "amendments." Without getting into the details, the U.S. Congress proposes an amendment to the Constitution, and three-fourths of the states have to approve or "ratify" it.
So whether you want a small government that leaves people to do as they will as long as they don't harm anyone else, or you want an intervening government that takes care of you from cradle to grave, or even somewhere in between, I think we can all agree that we want a government that plays by the rules. This is precisely why Ron Paul is the candidate for everyone, because he is the only candidate that wants to force the government to play by the rules.
For a government that provides education illegally, or provides welfare illegally; there is absolutely nothing stopping them from taking your house illegally, screening your phone calls illegally, or arresting you without charging you with a crime or allowing you representation. (BTW, the U.S. Government currently does do all of these things, because we've set a bad precedent allowing them to engage in illegal activities by not restricting them to the Constitution).
Copyright 2004-2017 Arizona Paths