TheAgitator.com
Depends on Your Definition of “Strict Constructionism”
Thursday, December 20th, 2007Over at NRO, Jonah Goldberg posts part of his National Review magazine harangue on Ron Paul. I’m not going to quibble with an excerpt from a magazine piece I don’t have in front of me. But the following bit on Paul’s aversion to war is typical of the rest of the passage:
In the 1980s, as Reagan supported rollback, Paul favored roll-up. He wanted the U.S. to leave NATO and abandon Japan. On Grenada he was more nuanced, but he aimed his fire at Reagan’s decision not to seek a declaration of war from Congress (a frequent safe harbor from which Paul criticizes nearly every military engagement).
What Goldberg smugly deems a “frequent safe harbor” is also sometimes referred to as, “Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.”
The founders correctly believed it unwise to give one man the sole power to unilaterally wage war on other countries. Such decisions ought to be subject to public debate, and at the very least to a vote from Congress. Paul’s deference to the Constitution on such matters isn’t some lame attempt at finding a “safe harbor” from which he can avoid taking controversial positions, as Goldberg suggests. The guy’s entire career in Congress is one big, controversial position. Rather, Paul’s position recognizes and respects the wisdom the founders relayed in the Constitution when it comes to making war. It also recognizes that the Constitution is…what it is it, again? Oh yes. It’s our founding government document, and ought to be, you know, obeyed.
I think somebody needs to come up with something akin to Godwin’s Law which says that whenever a Republican/conservative uses Reagan as the benchmark for correct policy (whether it’s “Good candidate supports X, just like Reagan did,” or “Bad candidate wants to do X unlike Reagan, who did Y”) they automatically lose. And it’s not that I have particularly strong feelings about Reagan one way or another. I’m just sick of conservative pundits (and Republican presidential candidates) using comparisons to Reagan as a substitute for independent and critical thought.
If more politicians followed the letter and spirit of the Constitution, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are now (financially, politically, and as a society).
Ron Paul has tapped into a wellspring of sentiment, a sentiment that suggests that we as a people should be free and adhere to the Constitution. This is a novelty in the world of political shenanigans and government hijinx we have become accustomed to. Ron Paul is a kooky guy, but it is always the kooks on the side of freedom anymore.
This is great news. Jonah Goldberg, for better or worse, is widely publicized and joins the increasing ranks of MSM members bashing Ron Paul. This is all part of the process of going from the “Other Candidates” group to getting your own name recognition.
First they ignore you…
Then they laugh at you…
Then they attack you…
Then they lose.
s. carlson,
I can’t for the life of me figure out why people think that Ron Paul is kooky! To me, people who say things like: “if we don’t fight them over there, they will come over here” are the kooky ones.
Romney is kooky for saying that he would consult lawyers rather than Congress about declaring war. Giuliani is kooky for erroneously conflating looking stern and walking with determination in front of cameras on 9-11 with real leadership. Huckabee is the biggest kook of them all for professing to be a Christian while wilfully ignoring the fact that the Bible clearly mandates very narrow powers for civil government and for committing idolatry by worshiping government over God.
It is very sad to me that a man who considers leadership to include teaching people about economics, liberty and monetary policy–rather than making pandering sound bites–is considered “kooky”.
I was in Freeport for Dr. Paul’s birthday party. In his speech to the crowd, he proclaimed that he did not want to be elected to amass and use power and that those who believe this shows weakness are wrong. He said that it takes real strength to resist accumulating and using power.
How is such a man a kook?
So I was watching some of the videos from the lamestream media today, wherein they were interviewing Dr. Paul about his $6 million day. One question kept reappearing ( in different wording but you know what I mean ). After the interview is ended the spunky female talker throws it over to the serious male MC with this:
“But can all this internet money turn into votes?”
There is an old concept called “skin in the game” or “dog in the fight.” 200,000+ different people have contributed to Dr. Paul’s campaign this year. Median contribution approx $50, average approx $105. Thousands more put up signs, go to meat-space meetups and work or parade or campaign for him. 5000+ stood around the Liberty Bell for several hours to hear him speak in miserable weather. His supporters do “flashmobs” and wave his banners and signs at other candidates.
Opensecrets.org shows he takes in about $ 0 from PACS and lawyers and special interest groups.
To my obviously blinkered way of thinking, there is a whole lot of “skin in the game” already for Dr. Paul. Somehow I don’t see all that skin staying home on primary day, or caucus day.
Dr. Paul is in it to win it. He might not have started that way but that is where it is now. He has the money in the bank to compete well beyond super Tuesday. ( What other tropes can I use here….oh yeah : Dr. Paul has the boots on the ground. )
That pesky constitution just keeps getting in the way of the way these folks want to run things. Maybe they should just ignore the document and do what they want….wait….nevermind.
Constitution? We don’t need no constitution, we here indentured servants have got us a “Decider”.
Hard to say….does smug equal “frequent safe harbor” or ““Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution”? Isn’t this debate just a wee more complicated than that? Seems like we have smart constitutional minds on either side of this issue. Does the constitution require wording from Congress that says “we declare war”? Or does voting on a resolution authorizing the president to use force cover it? Furthermore isn’t it the war powers act the reason why whoever is president doesn’t try to get a actual “we declare war” statement?
Johan Goldberg and those who think like him love Regan because they buy into the myth, while conveniently forgetting the reality. They latch onto a few speeches and clever quips, while ignoring the deficit spending, Iran-Contra, that whole thing with Afghanistan (how’d that work out for us?) and on and on.
I believe Jonah Goldberg is incapable of understanding why someone like Ron Paul would want to respect the Constitution, because the Constitution was written by people who had Authoritarians like Goldberg and those he supports in mind.
The last time I donated money to a candidate was Roger McBride. I haven’t yet sent anything to Dr Paul, but I very well might yet.
But I plan to vote for him early and often.
Buzz, the War Powers Act only covers 60 days. Article I, Section 8 is very clear. One of the specifically enumerated powers of Congress is “to declare war.” How is this confusing? Since we’re clearly at war, the vote for authorization of the President to use force must be legal. I only hear the craziest left-wing nuts say the war is illegal. What we question is why the President along with Congress went about it in such an assbackwards way.
Ron Paul signs autographs and takes pictures with White Supremacists:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28353_Ron_Pauls_Photo-Op_with_Stormfront&only
Goldberg is a douchebag, that should be obvious by now.
Sydney, do you know if Paul knew who those people are? That’s probably just a silly detail to most of the reflexive loyalists at Little Green Footballs, but I think it does matter.
“Romney is kooky for saying that he would consult lawyers rather than Congress about declaring war.”
And the difference would be? I mean since the majority of congress is made up of so called lawyers anyway…….
BTW: what is this Constitution thing anyway? Everybody already knows that such is but some old ideas that need to be updated to better agree with the patriot act right?
As far as pics of RP, wanna see many of Hillarious and Bubba with known criminals and folks that murder thousands as well? They as well exist.
I don’t know, just a couple weeks ago, Goldberg wrote this:
But there’s something weird going on when Paul, the small-government constitutionalist, is considered the extremist in the Republican party, while Huckabee, the statist, is the lovable underdog. It’s even weirder because it’s probably true: Huckabee is much closer to the mainstream. And that’s what scares me about Huckabee and the mainstream alike.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzcxNWRmZWMyYmFiZTgxM2Q2ZjIzOTAxYWM3MmEyMDM=
Well, John Derbyshire’s straight up endoresement of Ron Paul helps to balance Jonah Goldbergs continued criticism, I guess.