Ron Paul's strict adherence to the Constitution has led to some individual votes where he is the lone voice in opposition. He voted against giving a Congressional medal to Ronald Reagan, despite being a longtime friend and supporter, and against similar medals for other deserving figures. Whenever such a request comes up, Dr. Paul offers to contribute one hundred dollars of his own money, if the other Congressmen will do the same. Invariably, his offer is refused, and taxpayer funds are used instead.
Ron Paul contends that Congress has no Constitutional authority to grant medals of that type, since it is not among their enumerated powers, and that if they truly wish to honor those individuals they should do so with their own money. As he says, "It is, of course, very easy to be generous with the people's money." Ron Paul reminds us that under the Constitution, the "government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges." His view may be all too rare in Congress, but it was shared by another famous Congressman in our past, Davy Crockett.
Before his heroic death at the Alamo, Davy Crockett was a legendary frontiersman in Tennessee, and his fame led to his election to Congress in 1826. Like Ron Paul, he was noted for voting his conscience, and not the party line, as evidenced by this quote:
I have always supported measures and principles and not men. I have acted fearless and independent and I will never regret my course. I would rather be politically buried than to be hypocritically immortalized.
It was Davy Crockett's adherence to the Constitutional limits of government that led to one of his most famous speeches, "Not Yours to Give." Congress was considering a bill to provide financial assistance to the widow of a distinguished naval officer. The bill was headed for easy passage, until Colonel Crockett voiced his objections.
I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it.
We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money....
We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.
Congressmen in the 1820's apparently had a clearer understanding of the Constitution than those today, and the measure was defeated following Crockett's speech. They weren't entirely different from the politicians we know from our day, however, as Davy Crockett explained to his supporters back home:
There are in that House many very wealthy men – men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it.... Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.
Like Ron Paul, Congressman Crockett occasionally faced opposition from the leaders of his own party for his independent streak and his adherence to the Constitution. During his second term, he opposed President Jackson's Indian Removal Act, leading to his defeat in seeking a third term. He was reelected later, before being defeated once again. He explained that he hadn't abandoned his principles, the party had.
Although our great man at the head of the nation, has changed his course, I will not change mine... I have suffered myself to be politically sacrificed to save my country from ruin and disgrace and if I am never again elected I will have the gratification to know that I have done my duty.
Two more Crockett quotes form a more fitting conclusion to this comparison to Ron Paul:
Be always sure you are right - then go ahead.
Liberty and independence forever.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Ron Paul's allegedly respect for the Constitution
Sorry to rubbish the Ron Paul cult but earmarks for theater renovations are not Constitutional and Paul put in the request to have those added to the budget. He did the same for numerous other projects.
His opposition to the separation of church and state is poor Constitutional theory though it does play well with the social conservatives like Paul.
His articles claiming the Constitution is filled with references to God shows you the man has no idea what the Constitution actually says since God is not mentioned once.
A conservative is a conservative. And a conservative is NOT a libertarian.
I won't even mention the billions he voted to spend walling in America or the hundreds of cases of eminent domain that Wall will require.
Earmarks are preallocated
Earmarks are preallocated funds. They will be spent regardless. Paul puts in earmarks approximately the amount his district pays in federal taxes as to get the money back. He always votes against the actual spending bill.
There is no separation between the church and state except through tradition. The Constitution, specifically the 1st Amendment, only says that Congress shall not establish a state religion.
The Declaration of Independence surely does mention God. Much of the writing does around the Constitution does also. If you could point to these articles of Paul's which claim that God is referred to explicitly in the Constitution I'd appreciate it.
A conservative isn't a libertarian... but Paul doesn't claim to be a full libertarian... not that I think there is such a thing. There is a collection of libertarian beliefs. He claims to be a Constitutionalist and the Constitution has libertarian ideas.
He supports 'walling in America' because that is in fact something the federal government has authority to do. Protect the nation. He has also said the primary reason to do such a thing currently is because we offer too many social programs. If we got rid of the welfare state we could be more open. Sometimes you need to address the symptom before you can work on the cause.