Wow! Why the tea party doesn't like Ron Paul

[Ray Kirkus]

Very interesting story..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/why-doesnt-t...

[Ray Kirkus]

But they vote for him?

How Santorum Rejects the Constitution

More than anything else, the U.S. Constitution is an outline of the concept of federalism. Federalism is the very basis, or is supposed to be the very basis, of American government. This doesn’t register one bit with Rick Santorum. Writes Ann Coulter:

Even when I agree with Rick Santorum, listening to him argue the point almost makes me change my mind.

I also wonder why he’s running for president, rather than governor, when the issues closest to his heart are family-oriented matters about which the federal government can, and should, do very little. 

It’s strange that Santorum doesn’t seem to understand the crucial state-federal divide bequeathed to us by the framers of our Constitution, inasmuch as it is precisely that difference that underlies his own point that states could ban contraception.

Of course they can. States could outlaw purple hats or Gummi bears under our Constitution!

State constitutions, laws, judicial rulings or the people themselves, voting democratically, tend to prevent such silly state bans from arising. But the Constitution written by James Madison, et al, does not prevent a state’s elected representatives from enacting them.

The Constitution mostly places limits on what the federal government can do. Only in a few instances does it restrict what states can do. 

A state cannot, for example, infringe on the people’s right to bear arms or to engage in the free exercise of religion. A state can’t send a senator to the U.S. Congress if he is under 30 years old. But with rare exceptions, the Constitution leaves states free to govern themselves as they see fit.

In New York City, they can have live sex clubs and abortion on demand, but no salt or smoking sections. In Tennessee, they can ban abortion, but have salt, creches and 80 mph highways. At least that’s how it’s supposed to work.

And yet when Santorum tried to explain why states could ban contraception to Bill O’Reilly back in January, not once did he use the words “Constitution,” “constitutionally,” “federalism,” their synonyms or derivatives. Lawyers who are well familiar with the Constitution had no idea what Santorum was talking about.

He genuinely does not seem to understand the Constitution’s federalist framework,except as a brief talking point on the way to saying states can ban contraception…

If he truly believed in the Constitution, Santorum wouldn’t be promoting big social programs out of the federal government, such as tripling the child tax credit exemption and voting for “No Child Left Behind.” 

No federalist can support this man. 

For those who claim to be “constitutional conservatives” supporting Santorum basically renders that label meaningless. Santorum has repeatedly attacked the 10th amendment, which most of the Founders considered the strongest emphasis possible of what the entire Constitution was really all about. I made this  same point about Santorum, his ignorance of the Constitution and his rejection of federalism at The Daily Callerearlier this week.

[Gordie WH]

You bring out some excellent points Ray IMHO.   I touched on the federalist issue in my blog post “Hamilton vs Jefferson”.

I think your post points to an ideological divide in the Tea Party.   On one side are closet-Libertarians who tend to support Ron Paul;   strict constitutionalists, constitutionally limited federal government (Madison, George Mason, Jefferson), free market Austrian economics.

One the other side there are the “core values” of Biblical based social conservatives.   Constitutional religious freedom and Federalism seem of less concern to them than proselytizing the King James Version of the Bible.  Kay Clymer’s comments in the Washington Post link you provide reveal, at least to me, the Puritan version of the post-millennial movement.  This view tends to favor a strong monolithic federal government, Islamophobia, and the messages of Gingrich and Santorum.

Ray Kirkus said:

But they vote for him?

How Santorum Rejects the Constitution

More than anything else, the U.S. Constitution is an outline of the concept of federalism. Federalism is the very basis, or is supposed to be the very basis, of American government. This doesn’t register one bit with Rick Santorum. Writes Ann Coulter:

Even when I agree with Rick Santorum, listening to him argue the point almost makes me change my mind.

I also wonder why he’s running for president, rather than governor, when the issues closest to his heart are family-oriented matters about which the federal government can, and should, do very little. 

It’s strange that Santorum doesn’t seem to understand the crucial state-federal divide bequeathed to us by the framers of our Constitution, inasmuch as it is precisely that difference that underlies his own point that states could ban contraception.

Of course they can. States could outlaw purple hats or Gummi bears under our Constitution!

State constitutions, laws, judicial rulings or the people themselves, voting democratically, tend to prevent such silly state bans from arising. But the Constitution written by James Madison, et al, does not prevent a state’s elected representatives from enacting them.

The Constitution mostly places limits on what the federal government can do. Only in a few instances does it restrict what states can do. 

A state cannot, for example, infringe on the people’s right to bear arms or to engage in the free exercise of religion. A state can’t send a senator to the U.S. Congress if he is under 30 years old. But with rare exceptions, the Constitution leaves states free to govern themselves as they see fit.

In New York City, they can have live sex clubs and abortion on demand, but no salt or smoking sections. In Tennessee, they can ban abortion, but have salt, creches and 80 mph highways. At least that’s how it’s supposed to work.

And yet when Santorum tried to explain why states could ban contraception to Bill O’Reilly back in January, not once did he use the words “Constitution,” “constitutionally,” “federalism,” their synonyms or derivatives. Lawyers who are well familiar with the Constitution had no idea what Santorum was talking about.

He genuinely does not seem to understand the Constitution’s federalist framework,except as a brief talking point on the way to saying states can ban contraception…

If he truly believed in the Constitution, Santorum wouldn’t be promoting big social programs out of the federal government, such as tripling the child tax credit exemption and voting for “No Child Left Behind.” 

No federalist can support this man. 

For those who claim to be “constitutional conservatives” supporting Santorum basically renders that label meaningless. Santorum has repeatedly attacked the 10th amendment, which most of the Founders considered the strongest emphasis possible of what the entire Constitution was really all about. I made this  same point about Santorum, his ignorance of the Constitution and his rejection of federalism at The Daily Callerearlier this week.

[Scott McPhail]

Well I can tell you why I don't like Ron Paul and it mainly stems from his associations. People like Lew Rockwell and more importantly Murry Rothbard. RP considered Rothbard as one of the great thinkers of the Libertarian movement.

If you don't know who Rothbard you should look him up. He considered him self a paleolibertarian, which is a anarchist. He believed that the protection of a country should be left to the private sector among other things.

It makes sense why Ron Paul ran on the Libertarian ticket (and lost)....cause he is not a conservative, never has been, never will be. He's a Libertarian....and I would say a paleolibertarian at that. Even people in the Libertarian party and other libertarian think tanks (Reason Mag) have distanced themselves from RP.

Look I am fine with supporting whomever you want. I know most true Paulbots will support their savior to the end and that's fine. But what annoys me is that if you don't agree with the savior (RP) on every single issue you're labeled as a neo-con, part of the NWO, and are marginalized.

I would love to explain more but it's pizza night! Enjoy the weekend and sorry your candidate lost again.

[Ray Kirkus]

Yeah Scott. I'm sorry too. I guess we'll watch America burn together,,,I see the Keynesian model of economics, joined with globalism, endless war and the loss of civil liberties by both parties is the same. So more of the same will continue as the fuse burns toward the inevitable.. No need to explain, you'll get to live it soon enough.

[Gordie WH]

I agree with Scott that Ron Paul is not a conservative.   Paul is a classical liberal.   To the degree that any party, Libertarian, Republican, or Tea, represents the tenants of classical liberalism, there can be found Ron Paul.   He does not strictly adhere to the platform of any of these three parties.
Economically Paul is in the Austrian camp and anti-Keynesian.   No political party has a monopoly on either of those economic theories.  There is plenty of historical and empirical evidence to argue either side.   However, I would submit that the Austrians have virtually won that argument based on the results of  70+ years of Keynesianism.