As self-professed champion of the Constitution presidential candidate Ron Paul has missed a monumental opportunity to educate Americans about the criminal behavior of Congress in violating their oath of office. Even more important, he has not taken advantage of his 15 minutes of fame to promote the nation’s first-time use of what the Founders gave us in the Constitution in case the public lost confidence in the federal government.
Paul clearly recognizes the many failures of the federal government. Maybe as a member of Congress he just does not have the courage to confess that he too has been part of a long-standing refusal by Congress to obey Article V of the Constitution. Why don’t passionate Paul supporters see his lack of integrity, guts and consistency?
First, let’s be clear that Paul has no problem in seeing the need for constitutional amendments. For example, he has been a proponent of an amendment that would not allow children born in the USA from illegal parents to become citizens. Second, he has maintained throughout his career his love and respect for our Constitution. Third, he has carefully refused to publicly state his views on the provision in Article V of the Constitution for the use of a convention of state delegates to make proposed amendments as the alternative to Congress proposing amendments (the only procedure used for 220 years). Fourth, he has made no attempt to pass any law that would modify, clarify or expand the single requirement now in Article V for a convention. How can a champion of the Constitution remain so silent on Congress’ refusal to honor over 500 applications from all 50 states for a convention that more than satisfies the one and only requirement in Article V?
Anyone who studies the history of attempts to get the first Article V convention will learn that it has consistently been opposed by people and groups on the political left and right that are part of the nation’s elitist political status quo establishment. So here is Ron Paul, supposedly an honest non-elitist political maverick that does not fit into the political establishment, yet too cowardly to stand up to the political establishment by backing the use of the Article V convention option. Paul has had virtually no real impact on what Congress has done, yet he does not support the convention option that would circumvent the power of Congress. What does he have to lose?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Darrell KC
Is that the best you could do?
In the 200 years before Paul first won a seat in Congress Article V had not been acknowledged. Now you are out to condemn him for not raising a stink about it?
These have been fairly eventful times, did you ever think that there were bigger fish to fry? Maybe adding another variable to the Political process seemed counterproductive?
I have read various opinions on why Article V has been ignored, mainly due to its unpredictable nature.
What I gather is it's a bit of a power struggle, Congress is unwilling to share that power with the State for fear the State may destroy the Constitution. (as if the Fed isn't doing a good job of that all on it's own!)
I personally give Paul a pass on article V.
Earmarks are nothing new to Congress, though I have read the exact opposite of that which you have stated. Who am I to believe? Sources work wonders when attempting to make a point. Maybe name a particular Bill?
Anyhow, the fact remains that this is but a spoonful of dirt compared to the mountains that could be dug up on most other Presidential contenders.
Hardly enough to call the man's Credability and integrity into question.
2 - Sam
I don't know about that Article V. thing, it may be he just was never asked about it. However his voters are very aware of the earmarking, he explained clearly and well. He stated that if his constitutants HAD to give money it's only right that they get some of it back.
3 - Mark
Here is a quote from Ron Paul: "Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy."
Having a Second Constitutional Convention sounds like a good idea but those pushing the idea are also talking about repealing the Second Amendment. I think this is where Ron Paul gets off the boat. The right to bear arms is fundamental, putting it up for grabs in a Constitutional Convention is a hard sell to those who love and cherish liberty over democracy.
Personally, I want to see us get rid of the Federal Reserve and the IRS before we have a Second Constitutional Convention. Ron Paul is the only man who can get us to that point. Therefore, I think of him as the Father of the Second American Revolution.
BTW--Ron Paul has the courage to challenge the money masters (people have been killed for less) so I don't think you have any reason to call him a coward.
/mark
4 - Kevin Parker
Gee, I don't know. Have you asked him?
5 - Graham Nayler
Very passionate and well written, I enjoyed reading it.
First off I'd like to ask what 15 minutes of fame you are talking about?
Secondly I am very curious about this statement, "How can a champion of the Constitution remain so silent on Congress' refusal to honor over 500 applications from all 50 states for a convention that more than satisfies the one and only requirement in Article V?” To be honest I was unaware that there were such applications that have not been recognized; though I really don't doubt you, I will have to research that to confirm obviously since you have provided no sources for this information. Perhaps you could include some links to information about that for other readers who might be similarly ignorant? Maybe you should also ask him about this issue personally since you seem to know something about it, I am confident that if you could demonstrate to him that the constitutional requirements for the conventions had been met that he would call for the rule of law to be obeyed and the conventions to be held. I wholeheartedly agree with you that this nation needs a constitutional convention and I would like to see Ron Paul talk about his views on the subject. I also certainly agree that if such proper applications have been put forth for a convention then we should have one immediately and Ron Paul should speak out on this subject.
The thing that I think is important to recognize though is that the constitution itself is not the problem so much as people (politicians, judges, policemen, military, jurymembers etc.) refusing to obey the law is (combined and exacerbated of course by the general ignorance of the meaning of the law, for example I would venture to guess that very few people reading this can tell me what a 'bill of attainder' is for example despite the fact that it is an extremely important term found in the federal constitution). Changing the constitution is all well and good but if our representatives continue to thumb their nose at it then it means nothing. Citizens of this country need to stand up and start enforcing the constitution, but first they have to read and understand it.
Also while I don't doubt that perhaps Ron Paul did propose the insertion of spending provisions for things in his district (which seems reasonable to me as he is a representative of his constituents) in bills he eventually voted against, I think you should provide a little more meat by citing examples rather than simply stating that he "has routinely inserted earmarks for pork spending". Just what was this "pork spending" he "inserted"? You kind of make it sound as if he just went it and changed the bill by himself, surely it was a collaborative effort at the very least the house has to vote on proposed changes in bills is that not correct? You've piqued my curiosity and I really do want to look into this more, but considering the extreme level of corruption in the other candidates I'm sticking with Ron Paul even if I find that he did give some help to his district's constituents in a perhaps somewhat surreptitious manner.
While I support Ron Paul I do not agree with his stance on amending the constitution to remove birthright citizenship. I think there is a good reason why that was written into the constitution and I see no reason why it should be changed.
I also disagree with his immigration views, I think for the most part that people who come here illegally are probably helping our economy and I've seen studies that show they actually pay more in taxes than they get in services. I think we should make it easier to come here legally.
Despite these disagreements I am sticking with Ron Paul because I see no other candidates who are committed to upholding the constitution. By the way, if not Paul, who do you think should become the Republican nominee? My girlfriend said to me tonight after seeing some of the other candidates in a debate that they are "really scary", and to me Ron Paul is the only guy I see making any sense at all.
I mean seriously, come on, give the guy some credit, who else have you seen on television saying that the federal reserve is unconstitutional?
This guy is doing a lot of good I don't see anyone else out there doing anything like he is and gaining the momentum he has (I just attended a straw poll in Lakewood, Washington where he has won now 3 months in a row now with steadily increasing margins).
I’m going to try to organize my precinct to support him and see what happens, I think it’s better to do that than it is to do nothing.
Anyways keep up the good work...but don’t be afraid to cite a few sources.
6 - Ron
I liked the above responses better than the original article. The best response was:
"Gee, I don't know. Have you asked him?"
That might be a good place to start instead of condemning him for his unknown stance on one obscure issue.
7 - Dane
"A chief example is that he has routinely inserted earmarks for pork spending to make constituents in his district happy. Then he hides behind his votes against the spending bills containing his earmark spending items. But those earmarks remain in those spending bills passed by Congress. Tell me, is that really virtuous behavior?"
Having a spotless record in voting against ALL unconstitutional spending bills sounds pretty virtuous to me. The way I understand Dr. Paul's philosophy on this topic is that he has a responsibility to represent his district IF spending bills are bound to be passed in congress. So he inserts funding requests for his district, but due to his Constitutional beliefs, he then votes AGAINST any of the spending bills actually passing (as you point out)! How many other politicians can you find who have a near perfect record voting against unconstitutional spending bills? Dr. Paul is a man of incredible integrity and his voting record proves it.
8 - Brett
There's nothing wrong with using and working within the legal limits of the system to effect change. When Ron Paul earmarks legislation, he is doing nothing wrong so long as earmarks are legal. The fact that he votes against those very bills speaks volumes. Maybe he is making a statement that earmarks are wrong by inserting them and then voting against him. To that I would have to congratulate and appluad Ron Paul. If junk legislation is going to pass that is unfair, you might as well stick something in there to make it more fair for the people you represent and vote against it. If it passes, then you have done something for those you represent. Go Ron Paul...way to work the system :-)
9 - Leland Thomas Faegre
This is probably the most direct assault on the Framers intent imaginable. Can you imagine what would be left after such a Constitutional Convention? The elites would leave us a parliamentary system that would comport with their design of regional, hemispherical authority as a transcendent step to an authoritarian supranational order.
Other that Paul, there are no Jeffersons or Madisons who remain who still believe in the nation-state. I wonder if this author is an insider who understands very well what such a convention would accomplish? We should all remember the intrigue of the last time such a convention took place--supplanting the Articles of Confederation...
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin.
10 - Vince
Less Government.
More Liberty.
RonPaul2008.com
11 - Joel S. Hirschhorn
For those of you who care about facts; go to this link and you will see actual copies of Paul's countless earmark requests.
It is pure hypocrisy to get more federal funding for constituents and then expect public praise for voting against spending bills.
Note please that Paul has never made any argument against using the Article V convention. And yes I have attempted to directly get Paul to comment on this, but without success. If he really fears an Article V convention and IF he really is the champion of the Constitution, then he should publicly propose an amendment removing that option from the Constitution.
12 - brett
Joel:
Okay, I looked at some of them. Which funding earmarks are Unconstitutional. They all looked clean to me. There's nothing wrong with putting Constitutional spending earmarks on a bill you don't want to pass so that if it passes there is something worthwile on it.
Hypocrisy - How is he pretending to believe or practice what he does not by voting against these bills? He's merely using the system to get equal distribution of funds for his area of influence. Can you show where he actually votes for any of these bills? If so, then you might have a case for hypocrisy...If not, then you don't. Let me know if you get this research under your belt.
13 - Lance
I think Joel put it perfectly. In my opinion Dr Paul is one of the few "politicians" who is NOT a hypocrite.
14 - Dave Nalle
As I've pointed out before, the Article V argument is entirely meaningless.
Every time we've come close to having one passed by the state legislatures Congress has stepped in and addressed the issue with legislation of their own, so in fact the system does work exactly as provided for in the constitution.
Dave
15 - Bill Moore
On the earmark thing, it's already been explained by the campaign. He has his staff put the earmarks together for his constituents because his constituents are paying into the system, they should get their share back. He then votes against it, obviously he'd rather nobody have any earmarks. Imagine if all those against earmarks never provided any for their constituents and those that were for it got money for theirs. Would those who were getting the money care that others were opposed to it? They're getting money while those who oppose them are getting none...
As far as Article V, have two thirds of the states called for a convention for proposing amendments while Ron Paul was in office? If so, please site this instance, if not, then why not also call Ron Paul out on his silence on Congress's involvement in so many other misdeeds throughout its history?
Also, I'm sure you've written similar articles about the other candidates views on Article V of the Constitution. Can't wait to hear their responses.
16 - Justin Offermann
There's is also a difference between inserting an earmark and inserting spending. Earmarking simply takes money already in the budget and specifies it for a certain use. With or without the earmark, the exact same amount of money will be spent. I don't really see the hypocrisy.
It's similar to how Paul does it with Medicare and Social Security benefits. Though he'd like to (eventually, after a transition period) abolish these programs, he also works tirelessly to make sure that his constituents get them. After all, they paid taxes that go to these programs, so they are entitled to those benefits.
17 - craig
Dunno, is it the same reason democrats ignore the 2nd, 9th, & 10th amendments?
18 - Jive Dadson
The alternative to earmarks is to leave the allocation of the funds entirely to the bureaucrats. Congress should earmark every penny they spend.
Dr. Paul routinely passes all ear-mark requests from his constituents through -- and why not? He reports all his earmarks. Most importantly, he does not decide which earmarks to ask for based on who has bribed him. Ron Paul cannot be bought. Period.
The problem is the amount of spending, not who decides where bits and pieces of discretionary spending goes.
19 - Joseph Le
Okay, with issues aside. A few campaign ago; we preached “character and accountability”. How come no discussion? Or is it to extreme. My opinion should be in top of the list…
So then, with current candidates in the running, could you then share with us your view, who do you think is most likely to possess these qualities? Say trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring and good citizenship.
Am I too naive to inquire for these qualities in a politician?
20 - Anthony
Ron Paul is most likely one of our last hopes should we wish to restore our Republic. Keep on discrediting the only one likely to help us rediscover our optimal national identity. Let's keep our Empire going...
21 - Keith Halderman
The underlying premise of your piece is that an article five convention would bring about good changes to the Constitution. When I look at the intensely fearful America electorate composed of many compulsive busybodies obsessed with the likes of Paris Hilton and woefully ignorant of civic responsibility, I do not see how your premise is valid. You may argue that it would be the state legislators that would have the most influence but you should remember that most of them aspire to be eventual federal office holders, because of the power and privilege that resides there now. Hopefully, the Ron Paul campaign and presidency will be a significant catalyst for a change in the political sophistication of the citizens in the direction of the founding fathers. After some time, then, the country might be ready for such a convention. Ron Paul is right not to bring it up now.
22 - A.K. Smith
The premise of your article is flawed. As flawed a document as the constitution is, a constitutional convention would be worse than simply amending the document every once in a while.
I do not want to see another constitutional convention, ever. Every time a state has one, such as PA in 1968, we get more professional, career politicians and more complex, less freedom oriented documents. So, please feel free to push for your convention. But know that it will never happen and if Ron Paul supported such a disaster, I would no longer support him.
Talk about a counterproductive time waster. Sheesh. And to take him to task when you know darn well that no other candidate even knows what a constitutional convention is is just sheer nonsense.
23 - RJ
A new Constitutional Convention would likely lead to the utter destruction of whatever protections and rights the American people still have left. The First Amendment - amended. The Second Amendment - amended. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments - amended or repealed. Endless tinkering with amendments on abortion, pornography, "hate" speech, and private property ownership. Magically-created new "rights" like a "living wage" and "free" health care. It would be a disaster, an abomination, the end of the United States as we know it.
And that is why Ron Paul has wisely chosen not to support such a convention. Remember: A new Constitutional Convention is an option provided by the Founding Fathers; it is not an obligation. And quite frankly, the only thing standing in the way of our country collapsing into complete and total federal tyranny is the Constitution, as is.
24 - Dave Nalle
The last 3 comments should be enshrined for everyone who brings up this topic to read. They express beautifully in 3 different voices why an Article V convention would be such an incredibly awful idea.
I've got my issues with Ron Paul, but I think it's very much to his credit that he realizes that enforcing our existing constitution rigorously will solve problems while a new constitutional convention would make us incredibly vulnerable.
Dave
25 - RJ
"actual copies of Paul's countless earmark requests."
Good research. But if the worst thing you can come up with against Dr. Paul is that he does what virtually EVERY SINGLE CONGRESSMAN HAS DONE FOR DECADES, then you don't have an issue with much, ah, traction.