[fortheDeclaration]

[No, returning to the Constitution is a return to the rule of law.]

Except most of the Paulistinians seem to think that the Constitution does not protect life or authorize the commander-in-chief to protect the country. They also seem to overlook the reality that the Founding Fathers who went on to become presidents did not seem to have a problem with entering into armed conflict without congressional approval.

Ron Paul states that the Constitution does protect life, but that it should be done on the State level, where criminal laws are enforced.

As for warfare, Ron Paul accepts the view that military actions can be undertaken when immediately needed to protect U.S. lives and property.

That is not an excuse for Congress to abrogate its responsibility in declaring war when it is justified.

I think an attack on our cities would be considered justified.

[George W. Bush]

Ron Paul states that the Constitution does protect life, but that it should be done on the State level, where criminal laws are enforced.

It is a measure of a candidate's real commitment to federalism. Any real consitutionalist and conservative opposes the nationalization of fundamental criminal law. This only contributes to the enlargement of the federal government and its operations and always at the expense of state sovereignty under the Constitution.

Ron Paul does very well by this measure. For that matter, Fred Thompson has the right instincts on federalism too. I'm not sure that Fred is as much the purist that RP is on federalism though.

[wagglebee]

Ron Paul states that the Constitution does protect life, but that it should be done on the State level, where criminal laws are enforced.

So, should other constitutional rights be determined at the state and not federal levels?