I understand why Ron Paul's quixotic campaigns for the presidency excite people.
I like most of what Ron Paul says, especially his emphasis on the Constitution as the law of the land.
But Ron Paul's libertarian materialism is his downfall with me. In addition, his failure to emphasize the unconstitutional excesses of the courts, not just those of Congress, render some of his positions untenable and hopelessly utopian.
Let me give you two examples of what I mean.
In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court exceeded its constitutional authority with the Roe v. Wade decision. It was simply that the activist court overreached by looking to the "penumbra" of the Constitution rather than the clear, written words of the document. The court also ignored the clear, written words and spirit of the Constitution.
The oft-overlooked preamble to the Constitution, which offers a direct tie to the foundation for U.S. governance provided by the Declaration of Independence and its concern for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," was never mentioned as relevant to the Roe v. Wade case – even in the dissents.
Here's what was overlooked by that court: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Note the words in italics. The protections of the Constitution were designed not just for the born, but the unborn. That's what is literally meant by the framers here. Were you born when the Constitution was ratified? No.
No one alive today was born at that time, yet we are all the "posterity" of the framers. That is our heritage as citizens of the constitutional republic. It is also the heritage of future generations now unborn.
An accurate and literal interpretation of the Constitution simply cannot ignore this fact. But the activist U.S. Supreme Court of 1973 did just that. In so doing, a branch of the federal government violated the Constitution by denying the most basic right to life to tens of millions of the founders' posterity.
I admire Ron Paul for his devotion to the Constitution. But it is simply not complete because of oversights like this.
Here's another one.
Ron Paul doesn't want the federal government involving itself with the institution of marriage. I would agree if the federal government had not already involved itself by helping to destroy the institution through federal court decisions. When the courts exceed their authority, Congress not only has power to correct them, it has the absolute duty to do so.
There is only one reason the marriage laws of the several states have been rewritten – because of state and federal courts that involved themselves in legislating rather than adjudicating.
It started in 2003 with the Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court case that struck down anti-sodomy laws in a sovereign republic. It continued in Massachusetts when the Supreme Judicial Court ordered the Massachusetts legislature to legalize same-sex marriage. (It continued, by the way, when then-Gov. Mitt Romney capitulated to the out-of-control court by ordering state and county employees to begin performing those marriages instead of challenging the court's egregious excesses.) It continued again when an activist federal judge (one whom, as a homosexual living with a same-sex partner, had a recusable conflict of interest in the outcome of the case) overruled the express will of the people of California by overturning Proposition 8, which affirmed marriage as an institution between one man and one woman.
Instead of recognizing the federal courts' destructive role in the marriage issue, Ron Paul retreats to a libertarian position that denies 6,000 years of human history by saying government shouldn't involve itself in marriage. I'm afraid you just can't put the genie back in the bottle. Government has been involved in marriage for thousands of years – and in the United States since its founding.
I could continue with more examples of Ron Paul's ostrich-like constitutional views.
Don't get me wrong. He's an asset in the presidential campaign. He raises excellent points – like the destructiveness of the Federal Reserve, the forgotten meaning of property rights and outrageous extra-constitutional abuses of Congress and the presidency.
But when the federal government is actively involved in destroying life, rather than defending it, and destroying marriage, rather than defending it, it is not only Congress' right to intercede, it's Congress duty to do so.