Replies

By ignoring the strict constitutional limits placed on the federal government and bulldozing states’ rights, federal judges opened the door to the growth of wildly extra-constitutional government in the 20th century

Of course he's right...the federal government has very limited powers and that is fundamentally what the Constitution is...a framework document by which the states delegated limited powers to the federal government they created...98% of the federal bureaucratic apparatus today is unconstitutional

Unfortunately, I've lost quite a bit of respect for Dr. Paul...he has been a lone voice for years in calling for adherence to the Constitution's limits on the federal government. But, a couple of weeks ago, he wrote a piece in Texas Straight Talk calling for the federal government to send money to his hurricane-ravaged district in Texas...housing and welfare assistance, etc....all things beyond the legal Constitutional authority of the federal government...as Dr. Paul has so many times reminded us.

But, a couple of weeks ago, he wrote a piece in Texas Straight Talk calling for the federal government to send money to his hurricane-ravaged district in Texas...housing and welfare assistance, etc....all things beyond the legal Constitutional authority of the federal government...as Dr. Paul has so many times reminded us.

I think there's a fine line on some of these issues that Ron Paul likes to walk. On the one hand, he recognizes the unconstitutionality of programs like Social Security, but on the other hand he believes that the government must honor its commitment to provide SS benefits to people have already paid into it rather than unconditionally terminating the program.

I assume he'd use similar reasoning here, arguing that the citizens of the United States are entitled to receive certain funds that they've already paid even if such spending is (like SS) ultimately unconstitutional. A cursory look at Dr. Paul's voting record shows support for quite a bit of Federal spending for which Constitutional enumeration is subtle at best.

There's a fine line between "returning" funds to a district and straight-up pork barrel politics that Ron Paul claims to abhor, but his principled stand on most constitutional issues and lone "no" votes on all manner of Congressional mischief allows him the benefit of a doubt as far as I'm concerned. I find solace in the assurance that Ron Paul's voting record is by far the most fiscally austere of modern day Congresscritters.