Evaluation of Ron Paul - Part 2

An answer to comments. . .

In his comments on my first post, Lawrence raised some very interesting questions and points about Ron Paul. Before I go further in addressing other candidates, I felt the need to respond to some things that I may not have made very clear in my first post.

On the issue of spending:

You stated that my list of things that Ron Paul would cut didn’t include the programs of welfare and social security. The list I posted was not intended to be a complete list of programs he would cut – that list would be far longer than what I’d care to type out! I did not mean to imply that these were all good or all bad programs. I do believe that some of them do have value.

While ending unnecessary programs over time is a good thing, Ron Paul’s objective of simply pulling the plug on nearly everything would leave the country in shambles. While it would reduce government spending, eliminating everything would be irresponsible and have serious consequences. Not only do citizens rely on a lot of these programs, but several are needed by the government as well. One example would be the CIA (which would no longer exist under Ron Paul.) I believe that the CIA is essential to our national security.

Eliminating unnecessary programs is a good goal, but Ron Paul wants to eliminate more than necessary. What we don’t need is someone who will try to take government down to the size it was when it started. The country has grown, and our moral as well as legal obligations have also grown (more on that in my next post, though.) A lot of the programs may not be listed in the Constitution specifically, but then, a lot of the problems we face today were non-existent at the time that the Constitution was written.

Let’s get back to the practicality of eliminating all the departments. Without a new way to have, for example, foreign intelligence, things like the CIA cannot be taken away without harming this nation. Think of it like the game of Jinga (where you take blocks out, one by one, and hope not to be the one to pull out the most crucial support) – if you continually take things out that have come to be relied on, eventually the structure will collapse.

As for Foreign Policy, I would like to clarify my position on international organizations.

Some are only diplomatic tools, and definitely have extreme flaws - for example, the United Nations. Others, like NATO, are essential for our security. My statement about not wanting to debate whether we should or should not have joined those organizations in the first place was not because I do not wish to defend the merits of every international organization, but merely for the sake of time.

However, you did raise two issues for which I’d like to give a response:

1. That these international organizations reduce our National Sovereignty

I agree that some of these organizations give us obligations. However, having debated both sides of Abolishing NATO for a year, I’d like to use that as an example. Addressing sovereignty and NATO, the first thing I’d like to present is Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty:

“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”

Notice the words “each of them …will assist the party or parties so attacked by taking … such action as it deems necessary”

The North Atlantic Treaty was specially crafted so that no nation would be forced to take any action which their governments did not approve through their Constitutional processes. This was obviously the intent, because on March 18, 1949, almost a month before we ratified the North Atlantic Treaty, Dean Acheson, Secretary of State under President Truman, said:

“We would be bound to take promptly the action which we deemed necessary to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. That decision would be taken in accordance with our Constitutional procedures.”

Other organizations such as the United Nations also had language in their charters which was intended to protect each nation’s sovereignty. For example, Article 43 of the U.N. Charter says:

“All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security. …

…The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.”

Look at the last sentence. In order to make any resources available for the United Nations, it must be ratified by our government through our Constitutional processes.

Let me clarify, I am in no way supporting the United Nations as an organization, nor am I supporting any of their policies (gun control, child “rights,” etc.) I am merely pointing out that these international organizations make an effort even within their charters to protect sovereignty.

You may be wondering then, why we haven’t had Congressional approval for everything sent to an organization like NATO? Well some think that we must give whatever is asked to any international organization we are a member of. But in the founding documents of those organizations, our sovereignty is protected by us being guaranteed the opportunity to say “no” to anything that Congress does not approve.

Our government must reclaim the power to decide what we give to organizations. But we should not send the message to the world that we are no longer interested in partnerships - especially when any “problems” within those organizations can be solved while still remaining active in the international community.

2. As for drain of resources, look once again at the arguments outlined above. Every single penny given to any of these organizations is voluntary. It’s very simple, the United States has realized for nearly 60 years (ever since the attempt to create the League of Nations) that international organizations provide security for their member nations.

Finally, let’s address the issue of Abortion and the Federal Government.

Our government was not founded on only one document. The purpose of our government is not derived from the Constitution, either. The purpose of our government is laid out in the Declaration of Independence, and the methods for achieving that purpose are outlined in the Constitution.

So let’s look first at the original stated purpose of our government:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…”

It can be broken down as follows:

1. Everyone has the right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
2. Government exists to protect those rights for the people

The Constitution is there for the purpose of limiting the methods that the government may use – but keep in mind the ultimate purpose of government: to protect those rights.

With that said, allow me to bring up what you said was my strongest argument: the 14^th Amendment.

You stated that in the opinion of Dr. Paul as well as you personally, abortion is not a Constitutional issue and never has been until the Supreme Court became involved.

On the contrary, the Constitution mandates one very important thing in the 14^th Amendment:

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Notice how many times the word “any” is used.

"Nor shall ANY State deprive ANY person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to ANY person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Once again, this means that no state may EVER deprive anyone of Life without due process of law. I’ll ask the same question: What crimes have the unborn committed? They haven’t. This means that there is in fact a federal law against allowing murder in the United States, whether on federal lands or not. It is in the Constitution itself.

If you believe that the unborn are as much a part of “anyone” as you and I, then very clearly the Constitution prohibits states from allowing abortion.

You stated that Ron Paul supported bills in the past that would “outlaw” abortion. But whether he supported the bills or not, look at what he has said:

“Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.” (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul301.html)

His first sentence is correct. If something is not addressed in the Constitution, it should remain with the states. However, if Dr. Paul believes the unborn to be a part of that “anyone” in the 14^th Amendment, then his second and third sentences is a contradiction of his supposed viewpoints.

You stated that the Supreme Court’s decisions were based on the woman’s right to privacy and individual liberty, as well as definitions of life. I have a few responses:

1. Will Ron Paul follow what he believes life to be, or what the Supreme Court said it is? If he will follow what he believes life to be, then allowing states to decide on abortion is an unconstitutional position. If he will follow what the Supreme Court defined life to be in that case (Roe v. Wade), then we are in a whole lot of trouble if we elect him.

2. The “right” to privacy and individual liberty is not an end-all. Just like my “right” to punch someone in the face stops at the end of their nose, a woman’s “right to individual liberty” stops when it would result in the killing of innocents. That’s the second part of the amendment, about equal protection of the laws.

I was a Ron Paul supporter for a long time before he decided to run for President, but seeing and hearing more from him as the race has continued has only changed my mind.

Thank you for your interest in this blog, and I appreciate your feedback.

I enjoyed reading your response to my original post; however, I will probably not have a chance to give a real response to any further analysis of Congressman Paul at this time. My plan is to move through each of the Republican candidates and their stances on the issues.

God Bless!

- Andy Hudson