Typically, I’m not one for outright mudslinging, but I do think it’s altogether fair to examine each candidate based on their records and statements. A lot of the top-tier candidates have already been berated by the media, the blogosphere, and their opponents.
So I thought I’d take a look at Ron Paul, the Champion of the Constitution. Let me start by saying that I do believe that Ron Paul is correct in claiming that title. I believe he has some good ideas for America. But I also believe that part of his record is quite dismal from a conservative perspective.
So here’s what I’m going to do. In no particular order, I’m going to list some things in Ron Paul’s record that most Americans should find the least bit troubling. I’m not going to elaborate on each one. I’m just going to let the votes and statements speak for themselves.
Ron Paul voted against the prohibition of cloning.
He voted against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 1999, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001 and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004.
He voted against banning the burning of the U.S. Flag.
He voted against the Anti Terrorism Act of 2001.
He voted against the Same Sex Marriage Resolution.
He voted against the AIDS Assistance Bill.
He voted against a nationwide AMBER alert system.
He voted against the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act.
He voted against the Condemning Iraq Abuse of Prisoners Resolution.
He voted against the Reduction of Spam Bill (a.k.a. CAN-SPAM Act).
He voted against the Do-Not-Call Registry Bill.
He has expressed interest in ending the war on drugs, as well as legalizing marijuana.
In more controversial legislation, he voted against the No Child Left Behind Act and the Patriot Act. I do not intend to discuss the legitimacy of those two acts, but I felt it necessary to list them nonetheless.
If you look at Ron Paul and what he stands for, some of these things may not surprise you. He truly believes in defending the Constitution and there is nothing wrong with that. I wish more Americans would adopt that kind of philosophy.
However, I think that the things he’s voted against, compared to some of the other things he has voted for, reveals a certain degree of inconsistency. I believe that this post has been quite fair, regardless of my own personal convictions. If you want to know more, I’d urge you to check out his record on VoteSmart or at OntheIssues.org.
July 25, 2007 at 3:04 am |
Such voting is not inconsistent at all. It reflects an understanding that the scope of federal power is limited by its enumeration in the Constitution. I might be for XYZ, but if the Constitution has no enumeration allowing the federal government to do XYZ, the federal government is not supposed to do XYZ. Conservatives used to call this sticking to the rule of law. We are a government of laws not men (at least that’s the rhetoric).
July 25, 2007 at 3:20 am |
You haven’t actually pointed out where you think the inconsistencies are. Maybe to you they seem obvious, but nothing leaps out at me. Care to elaborate?
July 25, 2007 at 3:29 am |
While you may believe you presented this in a fair manner, I must respectfully disagree. From my point of view, you studied his voting record with social conservative glasses on, and then tried to label him inconsistent as a _constitutional conservative_. If you were to reevaluate his votes considering this, I think you would find no inconsistencies at all. Small government. Minimized bureaucracy. Downsizing federal bloat. More states rights. More individual rights.
Those votes not relating to federal governmental power generally fall under the domain of grandstanding, which he has also always voted against (re: condemning abuse of prisoners, telling the arab states to condemn the violence in darfur).
Having done a bit of research on my own, the only issue about which I have been able to find an inconsistent stance is on border security, him being against it in ‘88 and for it today.
July 25, 2007 at 3:34 am |
You cannot reduce this stuff to simple bill titles and get a clear understanding of why he voted against the measures. It makes no sense.
July 25, 2007 at 4:07 am |
Casey Khan is right. Ron Paul’s voting record is simple to follow. It goes to two things: Following the powers enumerated (and NOT enumerated) to the federal government by the consitution (and many if not most bills these days don’t pass constitutional muster) and limiting wasteful government spending. The second is why he voted against $30,000 medals for Rosa Parks and the Pope. He had no problem recognizing and praising Rosa Parks and the Pope. His problem was with spending $30,000 of our taxpayer money on a medal when a $100 signed and framed document would have been fine. Before you know it, you have spent $1 million of our money on medals recognizing people’s accomplishments when congress could have kept it to a grand or two.
July 25, 2007 at 4:19 am |
Your article is very fair and I must add it is refreshing to see someone discussing Dr. Paul without what appears to be a clear motive to smear.
The only thing I can add here is that you will probably see alot of bills like this that have a warm and fuzzy name attached to it that were not at all warm and fuzzy!
The other part is what is usually attached to these bills, contains a lot of unauthorized spending that Paul would never ever vote for, or simply something that would cause the Govt to get bigger, either way its always a NO with Dr. NO. It is unfortunate that he is going to be fighting this battle throughout the election process.
Just try to put yourself in his shoes trying to stand up against the big govt gang on capitol hill, what would you do, vote against your principle, or suffer the wrath from people who dont understand what is contained in these cozy bills?
Anyways, I liked your post, there are going to be more of these questions as he begins to hit the mainstream, I hope he is ready to answer them forcibly.
July 25, 2007 at 4:28 am |
Another blogger trying for over 200 responses. Well, congratulations, Braden, I think you’ll get them, especially with this disingenuous interpretation of Ron Paul’s voting record. Prepare to be “educated.”
July 25, 2007 at 4:34 am |
The article doesn’t have to make sense.
Does the USA PATRIOT act protect patriots? Does it protect freedom?
It’s just an opinion piece with a preconceived agenda (duh). I write a lot, and I usually have an idea of what I am going to write before I start.
July 25, 2007 at 5:09 am |
“But I also believe that part of his record is quite dismal from a conservative perspective.”
Neo-conservative perspective in your case. Ron Paul is as traditional a conservative as you can get.
Voting inline with the Constitution is the political definition of being consistent. Calling Ron Paul inconsistent is like claiming that he doesn’t believe in liberty, it’s a slander that never works.
July 25, 2007 at 5:13 am |
I agree. You have to keep in mind that there might be some underlying issue behind his votes. For instance, he voted NO on new neutrality. Why would he do something like that? Because actually voting on net neutrality is that same as asking the GOV to regulate it, therefore we should not even give the GOV the time of day on issues such as these.
July 25, 2007 at 5:35 am |
I knew I’d take heat for saying anything remotely bad about the sacred Dr. Paul. But at any rate, let me elaborate on his inconsistencies.
While he voted against prohibiting cloning, he also voted for the ban on partial-birth abortion. That may not be a big deal to you, but I think it leaves a loose end untied when you’d allow human beings to be cloned in a lab, but will fight against abortion. Not to mention that he voted against the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act as well.
Ron Paul claims be non-interventionist, but he did vote to authorize military force against those responsible for 9/11.
He voted against the Gay Marriage amendment (marriage is only between man and a woman), but he voted yes to banning gay adoptions in D.C.
Some say I’m looking at this through “social conservative” glasses. Can it be said that Ron Paul is not a “social conservative?” I honestly can’t tell one way or the other.
DW, thank you and I am in fact, trying to be fair. I’m trying to reconcile his record together as much as possible. I can see the perspective of wanting to be true to the Constitution, but voting against things like the AMBER alert? That seems extreme to me.
July 25, 2007 at 6:33 am |
The constitution is the law the PEOPLE set out for the government. That is why the constitution starts out – We the people, not – we the government. The constitution is the law that the government is made to follow, it is not the law of the people.
A government that doesn’t follow that law is a government with no limits and is tyranny.
So therefore, to support a candidate who does not follow the constitution and do things according to the law is supporting a tyrant. The candidate might be a tyrant in the way you like, but they are still a tyrant until they follow the law of the constitution.
And now you can maybe understand why people from all parties support Ron Paul. Because no matter who is elected, we want them to follow the laws the people of the United States set for them. If you keep voting for the tyrants, you are saying it’s acceptable. So just remember that when the tyrant you don’t want is voted in, and you are forced to other peoples will, that you only made yourself available to that because you believed in tyrants, rather than the rule of law in the elections, and went further to support the idea that elected officals are tyrants, rather than people who must follow the rule of law.
July 25, 2007 at 6:34 am |
errr, the above line where is says “it is not the law of the people”, it should say “it is not the law for the people”.
Once you understand that the constitution is the rule of law setup by the people for the government, you can understand why it is important to follow it I hope.
July 25, 2007 at 6:35 am |
Seems you set off the alarm at the Paul Cave again, Braden. Unfortunately, Dr. Paul’s interpretation of the Constiution ignores the Supremacy Clause, the Commerce Clause, and about 200 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence. I thinking about writing the ultimate Ron Paul hit piece to bring all the Pauliacs out of the woodworks. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that they might all just be Ron himself, posting under different pseudonyms. Conspiracy?
July 25, 2007 at 7:20 am |
Thank you for your blog post. With all due respect, have you even looked at why he voted the way he did? He votes strictly according to the Constitution, and he understands the Supreme Court more than any of us do.
Please, take some time to do some more research: http://www.ronpaullibrary.og
He voted against prohibiting cloning probably because he doesn’t think the gov’t has any business regulating it. He voted against the gay marriage amendment because he thinks it should be a states issue, not a Federal amendment. He voted against the child interstate abortion act and the national Amber alert, because once again, he doesn’t think it’s the Federal gov’t’s business. He wants the Fed out of our lives, and wants to have the states vote on complex issues like those. He might be all for the Amber alert, etc. but he doesn’t want the Feds to run it. He wants the states to do that. That’s how the Constitution works, and he stands by it. States can have their own laws and have cooperation between them. That’s how our government was set up. He’s just trying to get it back to the way it should be.
Unlike the other candidates, sound bites really don’t get it regarding Ron Paul. He’s just too smart and layered for that. You cannot judge a candidate just by a yes or no vote. You have to understand why he voted the way they did.
I’m not criticizing you, just your methods of trying to dig up stuff on Ron. Please, by all means, go back and try to dig up the reasons why the votes went down that way. We welcome your findings.
And to the person that thinks there are so few of us “coming out of the woodwork,” sorry, you’re wrong. I’ve been to some events and there are more of us than you think. There are 22,000 meetup group members. We are passionate in our support of him because we know that we’ve found the last honorable man in D.C. and we want him to be President so he can bring the country together and get us out of this mess. And the press just doesn’t give him a fair shake, so it sometimes makes us defensive. His campaign is very grassroots, so give us a break, okay? We don’t have the millions that Clinton and Giuliani have, that’s why we’re so vocal. They can HIRE people to talk them up. We do it for free.
I’m a traditional conservative (not a neocon) and I really think he is the best candidate. Thanks!
July 25, 2007 at 7:23 am |
“clause” means loophole. Why the people would allow the constitution to be abused beyond such things is beyond me.
The preamble sets the purpose of the constitution. When the government wishes to expand the constitution, they must do so with an AMENDMENT. It’s not just coincidence that people say “amend”, and it’s called amendments. Just like the general welfare clause, where the preamble states clearly part of the constitution is to promote the general welfare, and the articles that contain the general welfare gives congress the power to provide the things in the amendments.
These clauses you talk about are reading the constitution backwards. As a government that can do anything as long as it doesn’t violate the LIMITED RIGHTS listed in the constitution. Of which, they can’t seem to stay out of. Such clauses and abuses lead to the government being able to do whatever it wants as long as it can be spun to being something good.
If you want a LIMITED GOVERNMENT, instead of LIMITED RIGHTS, it’s pretty simple. Add amendments and quit abusing “clauses”. You want healthcare, add an amendment. You want education, add an amendment. But please quit abusing the American people with clauses.
July 25, 2007 at 7:24 am |
And when you make it an amendment, then it becomes a RIGHT, and people will all be treated fairly.
July 25, 2007 at 7:24 am |
PR, that’s right; I’ve done it again. I’d like to point out that very few, if any, of these comments so far have attempted to actually defend Dr. Paul’s reasoning behind any of these votes specifically. I’d also like to point out the fact that several of these measures actually passed! I think that reveals a disconnect between Ron Paul and the rest of the country. I encourage you to write that magnum opus on him. Maybe it’ll take some of the heat off of me.
July 25, 2007 at 7:38 am |
Yeah, I’m all for limited government, but you won’t see me joining any Birch Society extremist types. Ron Paul has a snowball’s chance in hell of getting elected – but I’m glad he’s around for the laugh factor.
July 25, 2007 at 7:38 am |
I’m sorry, but hiding behind the constitution is unethical for a man as devout as Ron Paul. It’s so funny where he takes his stand. In researching the article you just read you would not believe how often i found it stated unequivocally that he supported stem cell research. They made no mention of the fact that he does not support embryonic stem cell research. I’m not an advocate for anyone, and posts like this cheer me up no end.
well done.
July 25, 2007 at 7:48 am |
“Hiding behind the Constitution?” “Extremist?” Please just do some research before labeling people unfairly.
Read Dr. Paul’s writings at http://www.ronpaullibrary.org and do the homework, like all of us did when we were trying to decide to support Dr. Paul. There’s just too much information in his writings to post everything here. I’m fairly new to supporting Dr. Paul, and I must say that most of the Ron Paul supporters I’ve met are intelligent people who read and study history, economics, and politics and make up their own mind about things. No, we’re not all perfect, and yes, we are passionate. What’s wrong with standing up for what you believe in?
Please do the homework. http://www.ronpaullibrary contains all the info you need. lewrockwell.com is another good site.
Watch some you tube videos. It’s all there. We don’t have to defend him. He speaks for himself. Go after the liars, not the truth tellers.
Thank you.
July 25, 2007 at 8:11 am |
I have heard many of Ron Paul’s YouTubes, have read many articles about him by recognized and respected authors, I have met him and spoken with him personally. I have met Carol his wife, and have observed how he treats people. I have listened for any inconsistencies in his speech, and have read his Texas Straight Talk and his statements from the floor of the house. I have found Ron Paul to be a refreshingly honest man of integrity who walks the walk of upholding and defending the Constitution. If you have an issue with any of the bills upon which he voted, I would suggest that instead of ranting why don’t you contact the man directly and ask him point blank. There is no doubt in my mind that every voter who does so will come away with a very favorable impression. He stands on his own and not because he is not as bad as all of the others. And they are all bad when measured by the metrics of limited federal government and individual liberty.
July 25, 2007 at 8:17 am |
suzan: were you talking to me? I did read them. I quite possibly have read every damn thing the guy has written that he hasn’t burned to keep it from the public eye. I also read his campaign site…you want to talk BIG gobernment? Just try to install his border security ideas.
July 25, 2007 at 8:30 am |
Ron Paul voted against the prohibition of cloning.
Its not the federal governments place to decide.Where does the constitution give them the authority?
He voted against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 1999, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001 and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004.
“The “Unborn Victims of Violence Act” the president signs today will weaken women’s constitutional rights by giving separate legal person hood to a fetus, equal to that of the pregnant woman, thus attempting to undermine the legal basis for the Supreme Court decision in Roe vs. Wade.”
Once again he doesn’t want abortion to be a federal but a state issue.
He voted against banning the burning of the U.S. Flag.
Ever heard of the 1st amendment in the Bill of Rights?
Apparently our Senate has on this issue.
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/flag/26029prs20060627.html
He voted against the Anti Terrorism Act of 2001.
This bill contained wiretap provisions which were later found to be used illegally and unconstitutionally violating the 4th amendment. It’s bad that he voted against making government smaller? It’s bad that he protected our civil rights?
He voted against the AIDS Assistance Bill.
Foreign Aid has proven to never be effective. Most is laundered back to criminals. 15 billion dollars in foreign aid when we have over 46 million Americans with no health care insurance? Some highlights of the bill also enforce value judgments on the aid recipients such as establishes the priorities as abstinence, being faithful, and condom use.
He voted against a nationwide AMBER alert system.
Ron Paul voted against the Amber Alert bill, because it has the attached RAVE act in it. This bill makes club or event holders responsible for all drug behavior of every single person at the club/concert/event. This includes social activism events. Do some research, and you will see why he votes the way he does.
http://www.emdef.org/s2633/
He voted against the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act.
Another vote against big government prying into personal family business.
He voted against the Condemning Iraq Abuse of Prisoners Resolution.
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=2552
This article is all the proof you need to why you got fooled into believing that was a good bill.
He voted against the Reduction of Spam Bill.
So he voted against the federal regulation of the internet. Thats a good thing.
He voted against the Do-Not-Call-Registry Bill.
He voted against the federal regulation of telephones. Thats a good thing!
He has expressed interest in ending the war on drugs, as well as legalizing marijuana.
Of course! Hes the only politician that is willing to admit that war on drugs doesn’t work. We waste over 600 dollars a second on the failed War on Drugs, and violence is worse than ever. Remember prohibition? It didn’t work then, and it doesn’t work now.
In more controversial legislation, he voted against the No Child Left Behind Act and the Patriot Act.
Thank god. Nothing worse than having the government take away our Bill of Rights, and impose the federal will for education guidelines on states. Parents are supposed to be responsible for the children that they have, not federal government.
Anything else?
July 25, 2007 at 8:37 am |
Assuming, for the moment, that this was a serious attempt to get some questions answered and not an attempt to drive a wedge into the ranks of RP supporters:
He’s called Dr. No for a reason, and that reason is mostly summed up in the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution. To wit:
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Ninety-nine out of a hundred bills that Dr. Paul votes against concern matters that are, according to the Constitution, matters for the several States or for the people to decide (always preferably the people). And it doesn’t matter if he’s the only one voting against, as he occasionally is. If it’s unconstitutional, it’s unconstitutional, and every member has a duty to oppose it. Sadly, only he seems to take his oath seriously.
So lets look at some of the issues you raised:
“While he voted against prohibiting cloning, he also voted for the ban on partial-birth abortion.”
Try these:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=765
He regards the cloning prohibition and banning funding for stem cell research dangerous government meddling in science.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=635
He voted for banning D&X procedures, but with grave concerns about the constitutionality of such a vote.
“…he voted against the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act as well.”
No brainer. Not the Fed Gov’s bidness. See Amendment X.
“Ron Paul claims be non-interventionist, but he did vote to authorize military force against those responsible for 9/11.”
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=218
Would you rather he did otherwise? He did so with grave reseervations, again, because of the power that the President would abuse the authority to go after those AND ONLY THOSE who were responsible for 9/11. Gee, guess what happened?
“He voted against the Gay Marriage amendment (marriage is only between man and a woman), but he voted yes to banning gay adoptions in D.C.”
Gay Marriage: see Amendment X.
Gay Adoptions in D.C.: I’ll admit it, you’ve got both me and Google stumped there. I can’t find any statement on it one way or the other. The only reason I can think he allowed himself to vote on it is because D.C. actually belongs to the Federal Gummint, IIRC. Perhaps you should ask him.
July 25, 2007 at 9:15 am |
Are Dr. Paul’s border security ideas more expensive than the medicaid cost for 7 million anchor babies being born in our hospitals? I think not. Is this cheaper: http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/text/criminals.html No, American lives should be considered priceless. And the same goes for our soldiers who should be home protecting our borders rather than getting their legs blown off while they build walls around Sunni communities.
July 25, 2007 at 9:34 am |
well of course they are..under ron paul illegal immigrant babies can’t be born in our hospitals…of course we wont have a fifth and a fourteenth amendment to the constitution under ron paul either, but who needs a constitution. Right?
sorry braden…i won’t respond to them anymore here..but that one was just silly.
July 25, 2007 at 9:45 am |
So let me get this straight. Ron Paul’s idea for a perfect “constitutional small government” is where marijuana is legal, cloning is performed, telemarketers call you constantly, spam is proliferated in every way possible, our children are in more danger due to the lack of an AMBER alert system, abortions can be obtained without consent, we surrender to drug dealers, our national flag can be burned, we provide no foreign aid, we have no foreign allies, and gay marriage is up to the states? These are good things?
And you wonder why he won’t win this election. Americans won’t elect somebody like that.
July 25, 2007 at 9:52 am |
criminy jicket: I wasn’t really directing my comments about reading up on Ron Paul specifically toward you, it’s for people in general, and for Braden, because it’s his blog.
I wish that Congress, amendments, bills, clauses, the Constitution and the Supreme Court were simple to discuss on blogs, but the truth is, they’re not. And it’s time consuming. We all have lives. That’s why we keep referring you to http://www.ronpaullibrary.org and http://www.lewrockwell.com because it’s all there for you to read for yourself.
I doubt that Ron Paul would ever consider burning his writings to cover anything up. If you know anything about the man, that thought is hilarious.
We asked him a question on Saturday, and he was gracious and honest enough to let us know that he couldn’t address the issue fully in the 2 minutes time he was allotted. He didn’t attempt to pander or make up an answer. He isn’t a phony.
It doesn’t really matter to me whether you agree with the man’s stance on the issues. No one is trying to make you become a Ron Paul supporter. But please don’t suggest that he is dishonest. He has nothing to hide.
I am not trying to convince you or anyone else to be a Ron Paul supporter. You have to think for yourself and make up your own mind.
We just want to make sure that Ron Paul is represented honestly and fairly, which is not the case in the mainstream media. If you don’t want to vote for him, then don’t.
The last thing that anyone, even all the liars in D.C., would accuse Ron Paul of, is dishonesty. He really is a good man who is trying to help his country.
It’s late, and I’m tired. Good night. Thanks for an interesting discussion.
July 25, 2007 at 3:59 pm |
As for his vote against gay adoptions, I’ve looked into this. It was a matter of federal funding for Gay Adoptions. Again, not a federal matter and not for our tax dollars to go to.
July 25, 2007 at 7:31 pm |
Braden, I think you miss the point entirely with your last post. I’m not a Ron Paul supporter but at least I get where he is coming from. Rather than the anarchic society you so eloquently ascribe to his voting record Ron Paul is punting these issues down to the states to decide. Do know or understand the history of States Rights? His position, which I think is basically legitimate if old fashioned and hackneyed in this day and age, is that the federal governement shouldn’t take on these broad societal issues. It should be the states.
You want small government right, and you want a say in what your government does? If the States were left to make these decisions your vote would count for more in your local area and you could feel more secure that your way of life was protected. Instead you preach small government, less taxes, and still support federal government meddling in the culture wars. Your views would be better supported by Ron Pauls idealistic stance than I think you realize.
July 25, 2007 at 7:42 pm |
Braden,
Just to point out that it seems you are confused on the issue here is a gem from one of your posts on healthcare. I’ve taken the liberty of analyzing it.
“If healthcare was part of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness,” I’d like to think that the founding fathers would have addressed that.” – Braden
This sounds like classic Ron Paul to me. Strictly constitutional. In Ron Pauls view, and yours I assume from this quote, the Constitution limits the Fed’s meddling in social issues.
Now from the next sentence in your quote:
“Besides, if the government can’t insure the right of life for an unborn child, why would they feel obligated to insure healthcare? ”
In the same breath you want the Federal government to take a side in the culture war with this one. You’ve contradicted your own stance in the same paragraph.
I happen to agree that the government should work to insure the rights of unborn children to live. I also think that they should work to insure that the lives of living people are sacred and that they all get the best health treatment possible. But, I’m not a strict constitutionalist either. I’m OK with the government spending my money.
If you want small government, less taxes, more of a say in your government, and protection of your beliefs and way of life I don’t understand why you wouldn’t support more power at the State level?
July 25, 2007 at 7:52 pm |
I understand where Ron Paul is coming from as a defender of the Constitution. And I don’t think he wants anarchy or anything of the kind. I agree with Dr. Paul on a lot of things. But the votes I mentioned in this post, I do not agree with.
I mean, if he opposes abortion, why not vote for the Unborn Victims of Violence Acts? If he opposes cloning, why not prohibit it? If he wants our children to be safer, why did he vote against the AMBER alert system? As for ending the war on drugs, he hasn’t really offered a solution to the problem that drugs are causing in this country.
I understand that he thinks these issues should be left up to the states. I understand that he thinks some of these things are unconstitutional. But do any of you honestly believe that we’d be better off without the things he has voted against?
I’m a small government conservative, but I like to keep things within reason. I think it’s incredibly disjointed that we allow gay marriage in one state, and oppose it in another. I think it’s important to make a stand for these issues on a federal level. And that’s where I must disagree with Dr. Paul. It’s not that I don’t understand his point of view. It’s not that I don’t understand states’ rights or the constitution. I just disagree with Ron Paul based on his voting record. And as you can tell from the fact that many of these measures did pass through the house, most Americans disagree with him as well.
July 25, 2007 at 8:06 pm |
Jens, I did not contradict myself in that I am making the same point I have been making all along. If we can’t trust our government to protect the right of unborn children, how can we trust them with our healthcare? I must admit though, Ron Paul and I probably do share many of the same views on this issue.
You’re trusting the same government who allows unborn children to be murdered to take care of your health. Correct me if I’m wrong. And not only that, you want to give them more money to do it.
Yes I think we should protect the rights of the unborn. But I also think that a government who has not been able to do so should not be trusted with the healthcare of an entire nation.
July 25, 2007 at 8:19 pm |
If you understand his stance then don’t you see why it is disengenuous to state that in Ron Paul’s ideal world includes no drug laws, no AMBER alert, no SPAM laws, legal cloning of human babies, etc…
He believes these are for the states to decide. By saying these things you are putting words in his mouth and smearing him by putting up a straw man and then tearing it down. In essence, you’ve moved the argumentative target in order to justify your view. He probably wants most of these things, just not funded by the Feds. Saying he is in favor of these terrible things in his personal view is disingenuous.
The rest of your arguments are valid but that one post is quite far off base if you really do understand his stance. Yes, he is idealistic. Yes, some of these passed and mabye he isn’t in step with the public. But you can’t fault him personally or morally for trying to change the government toward what he sees as the ideal. Where these laws passed in a State assembly I’m sure he would be thrilled, but he can’t support them on a Federal level. It makes perfect sense to me, even if I don’t agree.
July 25, 2007 at 8:26 pm |
The contradiciton in your quote is that you argued it from the basis of strict constitutionalism, then turned around and negated that ideal in the next sentence. Had you used any other arguement I would not have said anything.
I understand your point related to trusting the government. That isn’t the contradiction. The contradiction is using a strict constitutional perspective to argue against healthcare, then wanting a looser standard applied to abortion. Your overall point that you don’t trust the Fed to handle your tax dollars is not my bone of contention. That quote, combined with your previous post made it seem like you didn’t quite understand the distinction.
July 25, 2007 at 9:52 pm |
I never argued against universal healthcare on the basis of strict constitutionalism. I’m not sure how you reached that conclusion. Ron Paul would, but I wouldn’t. I’d argue against it from a capitalist/practical perspective.
I understand that Ron Paul believes that he is acting within the confines of the Constitution. I know that he may or may not personally oppose some of these things. I can’t fault him for standing up for what he believes in. I understand that his ideal world includes no Amber alerts, gay marriage being left up to the states, legalized marijuana, cloning babies, etc. I know he wants the states to decide these things. I just don’t agree with his point of view.
The point of this post is that Ron Paul voted the way he did, for whatever reason, and I think people need to know that. Is that unreasonable?
July 26, 2007 at 3:46 am |
lew rockwell is a shill and only posts the writings he wishes to…if you want it all suzan go to vote-smart.org…they have literally everything the man has written for the last ten years, and a bunch of stuff from before that…if you have any trouble finding it i can give you exact links, but it is fairly easy to dig to once you are there
July 26, 2007 at 8:10 pm |
I agree with the reasoning for your post and on most of the issues. I’m certainly not a Ron Paul supporter. He makes some good points but he would also lead us back into the stone age of isolationism. I take issue with your argumentation. You seem to sometimes argue points from a basis that does not support your view, simply as an expediant method of arguing a point. Also, I thought comment on the 25th at 9:45am was off base as I explain below.
I understand your stance and your argument on universal healthcare. I’m not trying to make this a healthcare discussion, I’m trying to point out that your argumentation is flawed. You are right, your overall argument was not strictly contitutional, but you used that stance to discount healthcare as a right based on the constitution, while at the same time wanting a liberalized view on abortion. I’m not trying to make this a healthcare discussion, I was pointing out a discrepancy in your argumentation. I think we should drop it, however, as it appears that the use of that argument was an abberation and you do indeed have a firm grasp on the issue of Ron Paul’s beliefs.
I still think it was a cheap shot in your post on the 25th at 9:45am to equate Ron Paul with a world of rampant SPAM, no Amber alerts, rampant abortion, etc… You set up an ad hominim attack on him that was nothing but a straw man. The real issue is the power of the federal government in those decisions, not Ron Pauls personal moral stance on those issues. The only attack I can see that reflected directly on Ron Paul was his stance on drugs. I happen to agree with him that prohibition didn’t work in the 20’s and isn’t working now, but your argument is sound from a moral standpoint.
July 27, 2007 at 10:29 am |
Hi Braden,
Nice discussion you have here. I think it’s great the way Paul’s relatively pristine voting record attracts so much scrutiny. All I would ask is that we provided the same level of scrutiny to all candidates. Now, on with the show:
“I mean, if he opposes abortion, why not vote for the Unborn Victims of Violence Acts? If he opposes cloning, why not prohibit it? If he wants our children to be safer, why did he vote against the AMBER alert system? As for ending the war on drugs, he hasn’t really offered a solution to the problem that drugs are causing in this country.”
UVVA: http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=110493&keyword=&phrase=&contain=
Besides his standard argument that this is only a further Federal Gov’t power grab, he also adds a very philosophical statement: “However, Congress does more damage than just expanding the class to whom Federal murder and assault statutes apply-it further entrenches and seemingly concurs with the Roe v. Wade decision-the Court’s intrusion into rights of States and their previous attempts to protect by criminal statute the unborn’s right not to be aggressed against. By specifically exempting from prosecution both abortionists and the mothers of the unborn-as is the case with this legislation-Congress appears to say that protection of the unborn child is not only a Federal matter but conditioned upon motive.”
So in this example, do you see how voting for one thing can actually legitimize what you are working against? Same as his vote AGAINST the Net Neutrality Act. He argues that, by voting FOR “Net Neutrality,” the implication is that the gov’t has the right to regulate it to begin with.
A Federal Gay Marriage Ban is a perfect example of this. If this were to pass, it would legitimize the Fed’s role in this decision, and ironically make it easier to outlaw across the country once a new set of legislators came to power. Marriage has always been a very simple, local procedure handled by the counties (where you get marriage licenses). Allowing this to be a decision for the states or localities means gay marriage bans would actually be harder to overturn nationally because of the sheer number of states that may pass them. They would be legal in some states, and in the beauty of Federalism, YOU could decide if that is contributing factor in deciding where to raise your family.
“I understand that he thinks these issues should be left up to the states. I understand that he thinks some of these things are unconstitutional. But do any of you honestly believe that we’d be better off without the things he has voted against?”
This comes down to whether you, Braden, believe we should live by the Rule of Law or the Rule of Man. If you were elected, took the Constitutional Oath of Office, and then knowingly voted for something contrary to the Constitution just because you ‘thought’ we would be better off, you believe in the Rule of Man. Some think we would be ‘better off’ without the Freedom of Speech (less unrest in the nation), better off without guns (less violence), better off with nationalized health care (I’m sure Madison meant to include it), and we could do without all those Muslims (national security, you know), so we’ll ignore the Freedom of Religion, too.
To these statements you would naturally say, “but those are against the Constitution.” And I would say, ‘Yep. Now you get it.’
“I’m a small government conservative, but I like to keep things within reason. I think it’s incredibly disjointed that we allow gay marriage in one state, and oppose it in another. I think it’s important to make a stand for these issues on a federal level. And that’s where I must disagree with Dr. Paul. It’s not that I don’t understand his point of view. It’s not that I don’t understand states’ rights or the constitution. I just disagree with Ron Paul based on his voting record. And as you can tell from the fact that many of these measures did pass through the house, most Americans disagree with him as well.”
I love my country and its people very much. But I would bet you could find a majority of Americans who think the words ‘education,’ ‘health care,’ and the statement “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!” can be found in the Constitution. Most Americans are pretty practical people. When they hear RP wants to get rid of the Dept. of Education, they will inevitably say he’s against education, not realizing we didn’t even have the DoE before 1979. I firmly believe that if we had better Constitutional education in our schools, more people would a. know what it says and b. have more reverence for it.
As Romie says, thanks for the vine!
Peace be with you.
July 27, 2007 at 12:21 pm |
I still don’t see how any of these measures contradict the Constitution or the Rule of Law. Since Ron Paul believes that they do, I completely understand why he would vote against them.
I personally do believe that the federal government has the right to legislate issues like abortion and gay marriage. And I don’t understand how that can be unconstitutional.
July 27, 2007 at 9:32 pm |
cfountain72,
You’ve put up a well reasoned post on the justifications of RP’s votes. I think Braden has a point though. RP acts on a VERY conservative interpretation of the constitution. I don’t think most people view the document that way, they see it more as a living document which acts as a framework for laws passed by the federal government. After all, the Civil War set lots of precedents against states rights.
If you view the constitution from a living document perspective you realize that what is not spelled out in the consitution is not meant to limit the govenrment, but is rather space to be filled in. From Ron Paul’s perspective of the document these unanswered questions are seen as roadblocks to the powers of government.
It’s OK, it’s one interpretation, I just think most people see it the other way. Saying that teaching more constitutional history in schools would help is not really a solution. Then strict constitutionalism vs. other interpretations would take on the evolution vs. ID fight. It’s an interpretation issue, not black and white.
August 31, 2007 at 10:18 pm |
Dear Soldier for Truth,
Here is some truth for you – one must look deeper than conventional conservative rhetoric to determine if a vote on any issue is Constitutional. Ron Paul has not sworn to uphold the “conservative philosophy” but to uphold the Constitution – and that is exactly what he does.
A DEFENSE OF RON PAUL’S VOTING RECORD:
IN HIS OWN WORDS
By Bryan John Dini
http://thereconstitutionrevolution.blogspot.com/2007/07/defense-of-ron-pauls-voting-record-in.html
The trouble with most criticism of Paul’s voting record (especially on the popular leftist/liberal blogs like Daily Kos) is that it is very difficult to determine where Paul stands on the issues if one looks strictly in terms of the binary yes/no vote, without studying the underlying reasons for each particular vote, which may be completely contrary to first impressions. …
As soon as one engages in a serious study of Paul’s voting record, one begins to appreciate immediately the unrivaled transparency and depth of insight with which he probes these issues in their most fundamental and radical details–a philosophical consistency that clearly crosses party lines and challenges conventional …
In most cases it is a constitutional issue for Paul: does this piece of legislation a) appropriate federal funds or b) usurp states rights and local jurisdiction–in breach of the designated, enumerated powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution?
August 31, 2007 at 10:19 pm |
Since my comment is “awaiting moderation” just don’t post it. I won’t be back to this site to have the pleasure of being censored.
September 1, 2007 at 4:09 am |
I would like everyone to look at Carol’s comments here. The default setting on my blog is to let the moderator approve comments. I left it like that because sometimes you get spam that gets past the SpamGuard and other times people use bad language, but generally I approve EVERYBODY’S comments, whether they disagree with me or not, as you can plainly see from the rest of my posts.
I just got off work (that’s right, I work for a living, I can’t afford to check my blog all day like some people) and I find these two comments from her. Before I can even view her links or anything, she writes me off as some censoring Big Brother hack and says she’ll never return to my blog. Now you tell me who is the ignorant one: me or Carol.
So Carol, instead of having the pleasure of being censored, I decided to display both of your comments unedited for everyone to see how paranoid you are.
Folks, that’s the problem with a lot of Ron Paul supporters. They’re paranoid and wound so tight because they know for sure the government is out to get them and their only hope of salvation from a Big Brother/Orwellian government is to get Ron Paul elected.
I don’t buy into all that. So in the spirit of freedom of speech, I write this comment and display Carol’s paranoid delusions for all to see.
February 5, 2008 at 11:12 pm |
[...] candidates: If you’d like to know why I oppose Senator McCain, Congressman Paul, or Governor Huckabee, just click on the links provided. But for a quick note on each, I oppose [...]