For the purposes of answering this question I will only be referring to Ron Paul’s domestic policy. His opinions about foreign policy are complicated, and I will save that debate for another time.
If you have been watching the recent Republican debates you have probably noticed that Ron Paul has a slightly different take on domestic policy than his fellow candidates for the Republican nomination. Of course by “slightly different” I mean the way that Rosy O’Donnell is slightly different than Condoleezza Rice. It seems that while other candidates want to rock the boat Ron Paul wants to sink the boat, give everyone life jackets, and tell them to learn to swim.
I will be the first to admit that Ron Paul does tend to give off a “Crazy Old Man” vibe. Somehow when he talks about the dollar losing its value, he ends up sounding like that angry guy who lives alone at the end of your street sounds when he yells at kids to get off his yard. This is unfortunate, because I was reading the Constitution the other day, and I found something kind of odd.
Ron Paul is actually right about a lot of what he says. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Federal Government has the right to regulate education, drug or alcohol use, abortion, health care, how much businesses pay their employees, “safety” in the work place (OSHA), air travel, car emissions/fuel efficiency, and the list goes on. Feel free to look, its not there. Of course, there is the “elastic clause” aka Section 8 of article 1 which says that congress has the power “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”
If you look closely this does not actually give the federal government more power. What it says is that congress (not the courts) can make laws “which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers” (foregoing(a): especially of writing or speech; going before ) So basically the Constitution says that congress can make laws to carry out the powers that it was just given. It does NOT say that congress can have any powers it can dream up.
I would also like to point out one other vital part of our founding document. The 10th Amendment: “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.” This is the part that is supposed keep the Federal Government from doing all the things I mentioned before.
In a lot of ways it makes sense that the founders set up our system of government this way. The smaller the area/population that is being governed, the more say each person has in the way things go down. This means that more power to the states = more power to the people. The Federal Government is a massive festering bureaucracy that wastes millions of our hard-earned dollars every year. The massive expansion of the Federal Government has given us higher taxes, a lower standard of living, and more governmental intrusion into our daily lives. The fact is that if abortion were left up to the states some states would legalize it, but most wouldn’t. Most states would outlaw marijuana, crack, LSD, meth, heroin, and other narcotics, but some wouldn’t. According to the United States Constitution the debate about these and other issues needs to be happening in your state capitol, not Washington DC.
For the record I am NOT in favor of drug use, prostitution, abortion, or the abuse of the little guy at the hands of a major corporation. In fact, I do beleive that the government should regulate all of these things. The difference is that I see that the states should be in charge. I could argue all day about why I think that this is a better idea, but at the end of the day it really doesn’t matter what you think, and it doesn’t matter what I think, what matters is what the Constitution says.
The moment congress decided to ignore the Constitution and pass laws they had no business passing it declared that the Constitution was irrelevant and impotent.So ask yourself: If the Constitution is no longer limiting the power if my government, what is?
Loading ...
4 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.
First off, most of the nit-picky things that the government regulates, particularly concerning large corporations, fall under the international/interstate commerce clause. So a lot of Paul’s whining about unconstitutional regulations is unfounded.
Second, on issues such as abortion and healthcare, the government has a foundational moral duty (re: “secure the blessings of Liberty”) to assure the well-being of its citizens if the state fails to do so.
Third, the only thing worse than one big government bungling things up is fifty little govenments bungling things fifty different ways. If Katrina taught us anything, it’s that state governments aren’t always better than Washington.
The Interstate Commerce clause was intended to limit the power of the states, not to expand the power of the federal government. Just because the courts decided that any business using any product sold, assembled, or used in any other state falls under that clause doesn’t mean that was the founders intent. Also, I wouldn’t call a minimum wage that chokes the life out of small businesses, increases unemployment, and damages the economy “nit-picky”
Second, the moral responsibility to regulate anything that might be detrimental to a citizen is an awful lot of power to give to the federal government. Following that logic the Federal government should be regulating trans fats, sugar, caffeine, soda, boxing, and celebrity marriages. We would also have to outlaw alcohol, tobacco,teenage drivers, and watching The View.
Who is going to decide where this intrusion stops? The benevolent federal government is not given a right to stop me from screwing up my own life in the constitution. “Secure the Blessings of Liberty”? Liberty is guaranteed not by government restrictions on citizens, but rather by restraints placed on government interference in our daily lives.
A simple rule of life is that the bigger the bureaucracy, the worse something is run. I’m not saying that the Constitution is perfect, I’m just saying that its the highest law in the land and we should follow it.
I actually had the opportunity to hear Ron Paul speak while I was in Columbia with Student Legislature. (Who knew he’d take time to come speak to a bunch of argumentative college kids who were pretending to be politicians?) Anyways, while he definitely gave off the crazy vibe (if memory serves, he was wearing what looked like black tennis shoes with his suit), he made a lot of sense. I’m a bit of a political cynic, who would gladly go back and live in the early 1800s. Ideally, I’d be all for isolationism and all this good stuff, but logistically, it doesn’t work in today’s world. Its too late to go back. I mean, let’s face it. As an at least quasi-Conservative, I don’t like the idea of welfare. However, if it came down to nothing between my family and starvation/poverty, I would definitely be wanting the government to step in and help me. Locke (not so much Hobbes, but still) has a point: We did form government for a reason: to gain some level of protection rather than simply fending only for ourselves.
I mean, Ron Paul’s ideas sound like fantastic ones. He’s probably even right in saying we should kill the income tax, among other things. However, we would have to elect him dictator for the remainder of his life in order to accomplish these things. He would have to fight Congress tooth and nail on everything he’s promising, and more than half of it simply wouldn’t get done. Great ideas, but its just not going to work like that. So, in effect, it’d be a wasted vote. It doesn’t look like there’s enough people behind him to make it all work.
The one thing I find amusing about Ron Paul is that he seems to think that if here were somehow able to achieve his (ostensibly) lifelong dream and miraculously make it to the presidency, he would be able to significantly alter all these various policies and regulations within the best-case scenario of eight years. If anything makes his come across with crazy vibes, it’s that.
Dadgum kids always trompin’ around on my nice green grass…
You must be logged in to post a comment.