Ron Paul Reality Check
Can Passionate Ron Paul Supporters Face Some Ugly Facts?
Paul clearly recognizes the many failures of the federal government. Maybe as a member of Congress he just does not have the courage to confess that he too has been part of a long-standing refusal by Congress to obey Article V of the Constitution. Why don't passionate Paul supporters see his lack of integrity, guts and consistency?
Support for using the Article V convention option should be a litmus test for any presidential candidate, which is reasonable considering that Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt supported it.
First, let's be clear that Paul has no problem in seeing the need for constitutional amendments. For example, he has been a proponent of an amendment that would not allow children born in the USA from illegal parents to become citizens. Second, he has maintained throughout his career his love and respect for our Constitution. Third, he has carefully refused to publicly state his views on the provision in Article V of the Constitution for the use of a convention of state delegates to make proposed amendments as the alternative to Congress proposing amendments (the only procedure used for 220 years). Fourth, he has made no attempt to pass any law that would modify, clarify or expand the single requirement now in Article V for a convention. How can a champion of the Constitution remain so silent on Congress' refusal to honor over 500 applications from all 50 states for a convention that more than satisfies the one and only requirement in Article V?
Anyone who studies the history of attempts to get the first Article V convention will learn that it has consistently been opposed by people and groups on the political left and right that are part of the nation's elitist political status quo establishment. So here is Ron Paul, supposedly an honest non-elitist political maverick that does not fit into the political establishment, yet too cowardly to stand up to the political establishment by backing the use of the Article V convention option. Paul has had virtually no real impact on what Congress has done, yet he does not support the convention option that would circumvent the power of Congress. What does he have to lose?
Of course, if all the passionate supporters of Paul would spend more time investigating all his congressional activities, they would find a lot more to seriously question. A chief example is that he has routinely inserted earmarks for pork spending to make constituents in his district happy. Then he hides behind his votes against the spending bills containing his earmark spending items. But those earmarks remain in those spending bills passed by Congress. Tell me, is that really virtuous behavior? His earmarks increase federal activities and spending. Many have been for projects by the Army Corps of Engineers, many to funnel money to the Texas Department of Transportation (including one for repairs to the Galveston Trolley system), and one for Texas A&M University/Galveston Campus to convert the Texas Clipper for educational purposes; maybe this was the $30 million for the Texas Maritime Academy to refurbish a ship. And then there was the $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to pay for research into shrimp fishing. This seems like pretty conventional Republican politics. This year Paul has requested about $400 million worth of federal spending for his district - not exactly consistent with Paul's rhetoric on reducing federal spending and taxing. His duty is to inform his constituents about the wrongness of earmarks, not capitulate to their requests.
There is still time for Paul to search his soul and find the courage to either to support use of the Article V convention as the route to achieving deep political reforms that Congress itself will never have the integrity to propose through constitutional amendments, or to step up and make the case for an amendment that would remove the never-used Article V convention option.
Here is some irony: With our thoroughly corrupt and rigged political system Ron Paul has absolutely zero chance of becoming the Republican presidential nominee, regardless of his high level of grassroots support. Odd then that Paul has not supported the one and only route to profoundly changing this awful political system. It is the method our Founders gave us with the Article V convention option. Indeed, his lack of support for using the Article V convention option seems to makes him a part of the political establishment, which is consistent with his recent announcement that if he does not get the Republican nomination he will not run as a third party candidate.
[Joel S. Hirschhorn can be reached through www.delusionaldemocracy.com and is a co-founder of Friends of the Article V Convention at www.foavc.org.]
Published by Joel Hirschhorn
Author: Delusional Democracy, Prosperity Without Pollution & Sprawl Kills. Senior official Congressional Office of Technology Assessment & National Governors Assn; full prof Univ. of Wisc. Publishing regul... View profile
- Ron Paul is Gaining in Money and Momentum!What's the buzz on Ron Paul? He is garnering money and support from blue collar workers, college kids, the world of the Internet. Why? Read on for who Ron Paul is, how he's voted and what he believes in for America.
The CNN Utube Debates in Wichita, Kansas - Ron Paul Grass Roots Meeting Review of Ron Paul Meeting during the Utube CNN Republican debate.- Hello Ron Paul or Goodbye ReadersNewspapers have ignored the Ron Paul Presidential campaign in spite of its dramatic fundraising success and grassroots support and newsworthiness. By ignoring Ron Paul, newspapers are losing credibility with their re...
Presidential Candidate Ron Paul Has a BlimpSupporters of Presidential candidate Ron Paul announced December 7, 2007, the
launch of a privately funded Ron Paul blimp. The idea began as merely a web site comment and in le...
Ron Paul Known by 51% of AmericansInternet phenomenon Ron Paul gains exposure as primaries near.
- Analysis: Canadian Company Leads in Ron Paul Coverage
- Is Ron Paul the Subject of a Google Bomb?
- Ron Paul Draws Large, Diverse Crowd in Pittsburgh
- Ron Paul: The Candidate with the Golden Dollar
- Ron Paul is on His Way to Raising 12 Million
- Ron Paul Captures the Blogosphere
- Presidential Candidate Ron Paul Goes International
- Ron Paul has put in for $400 million worth of earmarks - congressional pork spending - this year.
11 Comments
Post a CommentThe purpose of the Con-Con is to be able to limit government power but to enact it could quite possibly enable those same officials to entitle themselves limitless power. The con-con is a double negitive in nature due to the fact that the only persons controlling the agenda (at the closed door meeting) are specifically elected government officials citizens are rebeling against in the first place.
A Constitutional Convention is dangerous unless your side wins. You can't convene when the weather isn't in your favor, or there is a chance that we wouldn't recognize our beloved constitution. You won't be able to control it, unless there is only ONE amendment under consideration.
Another pithy and legitimate critique from Joel Hirschhorn. Would someone bring it to Ron's attention so that, perhaps, he might answer?
OK, Name the members out of the 535 Congresspeople who do support a Constitutional Convention? I'll bet you have more fingers on one hand than the number who do. I don't support a Constitutional Convention to amend the Constitution because it would open up a whole can of worms. Dr. Ron Paul is correct in not supporting one.
OK, Name the members out of the 535 Congresspeople who do support a Constitutional Convention? I'll bet you have more fingers on one hand than the number who do. I don't support a Constitutional Convention to amend the Constitution because it would open up a whole can of worms. Dr. Ron Paul is correct in not supporting one.
There are certain individuals selected by the-powers-that-be to pretend to support legitimate protest but are really only "black holes" in which all complaints received simply disappear forever while the protestor lays back assuming his complaint is being resolved or pursued. I hope Ron is not one of these characters. But his refusal to back a Constitutional Convention represents a violation of his oath of office. He is joined by the entire establishment in this violation of an oath to protect the people's rights by a support of the Constitution. They have all disgraced themselves by doing this. The Supreme court also showed their stripes by refusing to review the constitutionality of this violation. They too violated their oaths of office. I only wonder which these officeholders(and oathtakers) disdain the most, the Constitution or their God.
The Constituttion is not a Chinese menu, where you can pick one from column A and two from column B. All articles have equal weight and ,
http://foavc.org/file.php/1/Articles/FAQ.htm#Q8.4
#01 U.S. v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941): "Where there are several possible meanings of the words of the constitution, that meaning which will defeat rather than effectuate the constitutional purpose cannot rightly be preferred."
#02 Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816): "Where the text of the constitution is clear and distinct, no restriction on its plain and obvious import should be admitted unless the inference is irresistible."
#03 Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816): "Words of [the] Constitution are to be taken in natural and obvious sense, and not in sense unreasonably restricted or enlarged."
#04 U.S. v Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931): "Where intention of words and phrases used in Constitution is clear, there is no room for construction [re-interpretation] and no excuse for interpolation."
#05 Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. 213 (1827): "Where provision in United States Constitution is unambiguous and its meaning is entirely free from doubt, th
An Article V convention would mean the ability of special interests to throw out or rewrite any part or parts of the Constitution - including the restrictions of Article I, Section IX and the Bill of Rights - they wished. It would be a serious mistake to throw out the one we have to be replaced by whatever the modern political class wants.
Also, last I heard, a number of states whose legislatures figured out their mistake have rescinded their applications for a Constitutional Convention leaving the number far below the requirement for one.
I've heard Dr. Paul address this before, though perhaps before the current campaign.
As far as earmarking goes, Paul votes against all those appropriations and tries to get his colleagues to do the same. When the money is appropriated anyway, it is his responsibility as a congressman to see to it that his constituents get as much of their tax money back as they can. The way he handles it now is surely better than leaving it up to the executi
Why does Ron Paul use earmarks?
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst061807.htm
Aspects of Ron Paul's platform are "radical" when held to the status quo but are conservative when looked at historically. I don't believe he'd play into all the media pundits desires to paint him as a fringe candidate even further by championing Article V at this time.
That being the case, he's the most likely candidate to call a convention after being elected. Trying to put him down and find fault with him when none of the other establishment candidates would even in a million years call a convention doesn't make sense to me. If he can't win, as you say, why attack him then? If article V supporters want him to discuss it, perhaps he'd be more inclined in all the Article V supporters supported him... just a thought.