Yes, I've *heard* that, but I remain unconvinced that Ron Paul really has a clue about what a lot of the Constitution even says. Basically, his argument seems to be that whatever he think, is therefore "constitutional," therefore, his viewpoints are constitutional. Essentially, the argument is that whatever Ron Paul says must be constitutional, therefore if someone disagrees with Ron Paul and thinks he's a kook about some things, then they must not believe in the Constitution.
That's not a good argument. That's bullhockey.
Ron Paul is great on spending issues. He's great on sovereignty issues. But these are also NOT the issues that people on here call him a kook about.
Unfortunately, he's a kook because of his ridiculous opinions about foreign policy. And let us note - there is no such thing as a "constitutional" position on foreign policy. Isolationism is not demanded, nor even implied, by the Constitution. The Constitution never stipulates what sort of a foreign policy the United States are to conduct - it merely stipulates that the President conducts it, and Congress approves of it.
Yet, Ron Paul and his followers seem to think that his particular foreign policy viewpoints are demanded by the Constitution. They are not. As such, the claim "every single idea that he defends is written in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights" is patently incorrect. Likewise, the Constitution never demands that we be on a gold standard (though the position has merits and I *tend* to agree with RoPaul on that).
Look, I know a lot of folks on here are just jolly for Ron Paul. And I agree that on issues such as spending and federal overreach, national sovereignty, etc. he is good. But he is very, very bad on several important issues. That's simply the way it is, and is why he don't get no respect on FR.
Actually, when he is talking about the Constitution, he very often refers to it chapter and verse.
However, having said that, I realized that I did make an error -- in addition to RP's references to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I should have added "the writings of the Founding Fathers", which while not laws in and of themselves, do clearly state their positions and intentions of how and why certain portions of the Consitution were written.
And let us note - there is no such thing as a "constitutional" position on foreign policy. Isolationism is not demanded, nor even implied, by the Constitution.
As for the "Constitution and foreign policy" -- the powers allotted to the President and Congress were designed to avoid war, because war was profitable only to a few while created suffering and reduced prosperity for the rest of the country. There are many quotes by the Founding Fathers to attest to this. So you are correct in that "isolationism" was not written into the Constitution, but many of the Founding Fathers writings seemed to suggest that they saw the US as a sort of "Switzerland" -- armed to the teeth in defense of our own country, while holding the money and prosperity when European countries were killing each other:
Washington's Farewell Address:
...Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.
Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense, but in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.
Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.
Again, these are the Founding Father's "opinions", not just Ron' Paul's, and they are not laws, but they provided the world view of how the Constitution was written and administered at the founding of our country.
Personally, I think that America has every right to defend and protect itself the best of it ability. But I've yet to discover why I should pay for defending every country in the known world and send my son to defend people who should be defending themselves.
In earlier times, countries went to war with one another and America let in only the best of the refugees. If a despot became unbearable, his own people overthrew him -- it cost America nothing and some Americans helping to rebuild it, might even profit from it. In short, Americans wanted to live in peace and freedom -- and profit.
But today, we seem to think that "our government knows best". We let -- even encourage -- our government to plant their big foot on foreign soil and use our sons to do it to fight for other people's peace freedom & profit, instead of our own. We let government and big business set up the war scenarios that allow their cronies to profit, while we even pay for their trouble with our taxes. Our mindset has changed radically from that of our ancestors -- they were more concerned about themselves and their own honor & prosperity, while we are more arrogant, assuming that we know what's best for the world.
Criticize him if you will, but I don't think that it does our country harm to remember the original intentions of the Founding Fathers and if Ron Paul is the reminder, well then good for him.