geeee I wonder why that would be?
Takes about 30 min to read and just may get you to the point where you may be able to, some day persuade me you have any idea what you are talking about.
That's nice and all, but we also have the Commerce clause, the equal protections clause and a number of ammendments to consider. The constitution is a living document, not a Bible, that's why we have an ammendment process and why we have judicial review. The Constitution was not created at a time when we had a need for NASA, an industrial sector the economy or even a modern education system. I was a political science major in college, went in a Republican and came out a Democrat. I probably understand more about this nations history than you do.
Ron Paul's solution to everything: go back to the way the founders did it...is that what you're saying. Sorry, won't happen. It must be nice to run a homogenious society, based in agriculture, where only white male land owners can vote and hold public office. Now, we don't have that luxury. Thankfully the founding fathers, I think, knew this and wrote a pretty vague document. "Life", "liberty" and the "pursuit" of happiness or even what a "right" is, is never clearly defined in the constitution. Sure, you can read Jefferson's letters and find out he had a pretty clear picture of what Government was supposed to be...but then again Jefferson also wanted an entirely new constitution and Government formed every twenty years...and we're still using the original.
The Founding Fathers wanted many things: they wanted an executive who never spoke before Congress. That reminded them too much of kings before parliament. They wanted a country with no standing armies, ever. They felt it gave the executive too much power, when militia's would suffice. They wanted blacks and women to be second class citizens, because they lacked the mental and physical capacities of men...although Jefferson slowly began to abandon that belief. They also wanted an executive who
wasn't elected by the people, but rather appointed by Congress. Neither Washington, nor Adams, nor Jefferson were elected in any way similar to today's method. So I don't see how Ron Paul literalists seem to want a literally interpreted constitution in only some regards.
You see the reason the powers of the Federal Government have been expanded IS because of the constitution being interpreted correctly in changing times. Yes, one could argue that certain adminstrations have abused this power, but I guess you could also argue states abuse their rights when they withhold blacks from attending school with white students. The commerce clause protects the Federal Government's right to regulate goods that are produced in one state but consumed by many, or another. Think about this in a modern era context.
Education: originally it was a commody consumed by one state. You probably, or at least in most cases, were educated in one state, grew up in that state, and held employment in that state. Now a days the likelyhood you will settle where you grew up is pretty slim, and it is in the best interest of the Government to make sure your rights are protected if you move from one state to another to ensure you can get the same quality education. Imagine if you move from one state to another, only to find they educated their residents completely differently. That would be pretty troublesome, wouldn't it?
Or perhaps another example. the environment. If you pollute does it affect just you? No, as we've planely seen it effects everyone. Not just in your state, but now as far north as the polar ice caps and as far south as Santa's workshop. The Government has a vested interest in making sure the pollution made by California doesn't effect the clear skies of Nevada, Colorado or Utah: all of which can potentially be affected.
Am I a proponent of big Government, I suppose a Ron Paul supporter would say I am. I like to think though I understand the world is slightly more complex than Ron Paul would make it. Property right's will not stop people from polluting, it will harbor it in fact. State's rights will not protect gay's, mexican's or minorities, it will create a country divided, as it did in the past. The Government's job, first and foremost, according to the Constitution you keep quoting is to protect both the rights of it's citizens, and protect our country from attack. If you think you can accomplish these things with strict constructionalism in today's era, with non interventionalist foreign policy, with low taxes (especially in the current economic climate) you're very much entitled to that belief.
The problem with Ron Paul is all his solutions are the same to me: turn back the clock. Want to fix education, get rid of the DOE and go back to the constitution. Want to fix terrorism, pull all our forces out of the middle east and pretend we never interviewed, we shouldn't be there in the first place. But guess what? we are. Ron Paul lives to criticize the world we are in, not fix it. You will NEVER GO BACK to the way the founding father's intended. It's not going to happen. It wasn't going to happen when Lincoln took office, and it sure as sh** ain't happening now.
, like at all. He picked up 5 states yesterday, after THE MEDIA completely wrote him off in favor of Romney who JUST DROPPED OUT. Everyone thought Huckabee would win SC, he didn't. Now, after he was sidelined in the last debate, he comes back and carries the south.
