Ron Paul’s Refreshing Originalism; Still He’s Nuts on the War
On Rep. Ron Paul’s debate-that-wasn’t performance Ed Morrissey writes,
Ron Paul also showed that he should depart the race as quickly as possible. He gave one-note answers about federalism and the original intent of the founders for every question asked of him. He looked outraged all night long, but he put the rest of us to sleep.
I still haven’t watched the debate so I don’t know how monotonous Paul’s answers were. Opposing government activities based on its unconstitutionality is refreshing. No Republican has used that argument in decades, and it’s been absent from the Democrats’ playbook since President Grover Cleveland.
I’m a constitutionalist so I cheer whenever a politician goes to that founding document to support themselves. Many parts of the constitution have been ignored, and government has swelled as a result. Our nation needs more answers employing federalism and original intent, not less. For that Paul deserves praise.
My problem with Paul is he sounds as nutty as a Kossite on the Iraq War. He argues the war is unconstitutional because Congress didn’t formally declare it. But Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq. Common sense says Congress can declare war without having to use the word “declare.” Since I can’t trust Paul to fight the Iraq War I question his foreign policy judgement when the U.S. faces future threats.
On domestic policy Paul’s great. It’s when he crosses the ocean he becomes a problem.
Oh yeah. Paul’s nuts because he doesn’t back a war against a country that never attacked nor posed a threat to the US; because he opposed a war based on the lie that Iraq was behind 9/11; because he’s opposed to bankrupting the US in pointless military blunders around the world that serve to earn the hatred of the world against the US; because he points out the Demopulican push for empire undermines the liberties of Americans as well as the hapless citizens of US client regimes littering the globe.