Ron Paul - Not a Strict Constructionist
The 2008 presidential campaign puts before us many perceptions of what the
presidential candidates are - their beliefs and values. These projected beliefs
and values are made by the candidates themselves, the candidates’ publicists,
campaigns, supporters, opponents, and the press. One such belief I have read of
is the purported concept that candidate Ron Paul’s supporters call a strict
Strict constitutionalist appears to
me to be one of those new touchy-feely catch phrases
that tries to imply that you are something that you are not. The catch
phrase, strict constitutionalist, appears to me to be something that clever
wordsmiths coined to put one over on the people, that is when you are not a
strict constructionist as to the application of penned words of the Constitution
and claim to be one, you can be easily challenged and proven to be a fraud.
Strict constitutionalist is nothing more than a pretense of one who wants you to
believe he is a faithful servant of the constitution.
From this fear of being exposed as an impostor, should one claim to be a
strict constructionist, comes the need for the catch phrase strict
constitutionalist. Using the phrase, strict constitutionalist, you get to
razzle-dazzle the people and hope all the while the people do not find out that
you are a fraud.
When I hear presidential candidate Ron Paul called a strict constitutionalist
it causes me great uneasiness. Paul’s speeches and writings are quite contrary
to the strict constructionist’s simple classical libertarian theory that was
penned to the Constitution. Paul's writings cause me to question his wisdom. It
was written by one of our founding strict constructionist that you will be
careful, if you are wise; How you touch men's Religion, or credit or eyes.
Paul's writings appear to me to touch men's religions in such a manner as to be
in direct conflict with the 1791 penned words:
Freedom of Religion, of Speech, and of the Press. -- Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
government for a redress of grievances.
U.S. Constitution U.S. Con. 1st Amd. (1791)
If I were to take at face value statements that declare that Paul is a
"strict constitutionalist" and all the while Paul fails to denounce
that claim, I would have to look at Paul and his supporters as individuals who
use words as weapons in any way possible to further their own interests, and are
a threat to the great ideals inherent in law. To me, the
First Amendment cannot be interpreted to allow religions to be disrespected, no
matter what. The intentions of
those who wrote the clause were clearly against such a notion. Yes,
words have wiggle room, but to exploit them would weaken the foundations we all
depend on. Anyone who doesn't like what the First Amendment stands for is free
to try to amend it and pick new words, else their view hasn't earned
consideration. It might not be efficient, but at least words--and more
importantly, our rights--will mean something.