I have a certain degree of respect for Doctor Ron Paul, and I find the characterization of his ideas as too crazy for America to be offensive. There are plenty of other candidates for the GOP nomination with ideas far crazier, the clearest example being Newt Gingrich. Gingrich wants the dictatorial power to be able to arrest judges with whom he disagrees, forcing them to “explain” or “defend” their legal reasoning (Ono, http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/gingrich-activist-judges-should-be-arrested/). Paul has no ideas that are that extreme.
To be fair, Gingrich would only reserve the power to arrest federal judges who are “activist,” the problem of course being that his definition of an activist judge is nothing more than one with whom he disagrees about constitutional interpretation. Of course he would deny this, claiming that only Article III judges that are ridiculously extreme would be arrested, but again the problem is that it would be Newt who would get to decide what constitutes this extremism.
The logical conclusion, by necessity, is that only Newt Gingrich’s constitutional interpretation could stand, and all federal judges would have to abandon their oaths of impartiality in order to adopt a perspective that says “never disagree with Newt.”
With all due respect to Mr. Gingrich (and not that much respect is due a would-be dictator), the right wing notion that he is a brilliant “ideas man” looks more and more like a fanciful conceit than an authentic compliment.
Returning to Doctor Paul, at least he starts with the point of departure that the constitution ought to be respected as it is, rather than as Newt Gingrich fantasizes it should be. The problem with Paul’s approach is his interpretation of the constitution. Everybody loves and respects the Constitution, and everybody has opponents that claim they disrespect the constitution. Paul’s libertarianism begins with the constitution as paramount, but there are fundamental constitutional rights and liberties he would put up for a vote and leave to the states, and this is wrong.
Justice Blackmun had it right in Roe v. Wade, but Paul would see this decision reversed and leave the matter of abortion to the states. Beyond abortion rights, Doctor Paul’s refusal to acknowledge a Constitutional right to privacy means that birth control can be outlawed by the states, and that certain kinds of sex between consenting adults can be outlawed as well (Paul, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/962110/posts). So long as it is not the federal government doing the outlawing, Paul believes it is acceptable.
These are just a few examples of how Paul gets the constitution wrong, but they are huge examples. In many ways, the Constitution is a Rorschach test, whereby individuals reveal much about what they consider bedrock societal principles. Unfortunately, Dr. Paul fails this test.
Gingrich: Activist Judges Should Be Arrested. Ono, Michael. 18 Dec. 2011. ABC News. 18 Dec. 2011 http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/gingrich-activist-judges-should-be-arrested/
Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution. Paul, Ron. 12 Aug. 2003. Free Republic. 18 Dec. 2011 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/962110/posts