Does The U.S. Constitution Really Limit Federal Power As Ron Paul Claims?
Congressman Ron Paul shines like a beacon of hope in the midst of a Congress that has totally lost its grip on the concept of limited government. Sadly, even he fails to comprehend the foundation of our liberty in his campaign manifesto, “The Revolution,” published by Grand Central Publishing in 2008.
The cover of the book declares Ron Paul to be the leading advocate of freedom in our nation’s capital. He has in fact been nicknamed “Dr. No” by his colleagues because he always votes for the perceived limitations of power in the U.S. Constitution.
Ron Paul Fails To Grasp The Threat
But in the very act of embracing the Constitution Dr. Paul has ironically rejected the true Source of American liberty. He fails to understand why Patrick Henry and other anti-Federalists rejected the Constitution itself as an attack on liberty.
The reason is his inability to understand that the Constitution placed virtually no effective limits on centralized power. He believes that Article I, Section 8 limits Federal power simply because it enumerates those powers, when 200+ years of history has proven just the opposite.
The states gave away everything but their political underwear in the Constitution of 1787. According to Patrick Henry, they left themselves particularly vulnerable to tyranny by combining the power of purse and sword.
On the other hand, Dr. Paul asserts that “The limitations the Constitution placed on the federal government had to be taken seriously if we expected to maintain a free society” (p45). To that we respond with Patrick Henry, “what limitations?”
Ron Paul even points out that “Patrick Henry raised precisely this concern…in Virginia.” That is the concern that ‘general welfare’ was a dangerously open-ended phrase that would permit the federal government to do whatever it wanted. But then he simply concludes that the ratifying convention rejected Henry’s objection, as if their wisdom cannot be challenged. But history has proven beyond question that Patrick Henry was right.
Abuse of Power
As an example of Ron Paul’s tendency to view the Constitution with rose-colored glasses he denies the threat inherent in the power to raise armies. With a totally straight face he protests that it was “not a power to force people into the army” (p57).
On June 16, 1788 in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, Patrick Henry minced no words about the power of conscription being granted to Congress. In reference to the power to raise armies, Henry asserted “It is a government of force, and the genius of despotism expressly.”
What Ron Paul fails to realize is that the Constitution was dead on arrival in 1787. It was completely unable to protect us from tyranny from its inception.
Dr. Paul leaves us with a final exhortation: “It is not too late to rally and recall our people to the constitution, the rule of law, and our traditional American republic” (p67). But notice the thoroughly secular nature of this challenge.
There is no word of an offended God or the need to return to His law. Only to that document which declared itself to be the “supreme law of the land” and thus rejected God’s law in the first place.
For more on the unbiblical nature of the U S Constitution see the America Betrayed website. Webmaster at “America Betrayed” is Oliver Woods, who also is the headmaster at King’s Way Classical Academy an internet, classical, Christian school for grades 7-12.
No related posts.