RP Editorial in the Texan

[MBA2008]

http://media.www.dailytexanonline.c...06/Opinion/Ron-Pauls.Many.Faces-2912151.shtml

I will be writing in response to this.

It looks like the liberal backlash is finally starting. It's funny how people on the left (and right) pick and choose which parts of the Constitution they think we have to follow.

"The same Ron Ron Paul who opposes foreign interventionism also opposes all forms of foreign aid."

That's right. Both are unconstitutional. You don't get to have it both ways. Foreign aid IS intervention. Ron Paul is now being attacked for being consistent.

 

[lucky]

Yes

I read that a bit ago. They are very Liberal and is run by students at U of T. Would expect nothing less of them. Did see some facts that were just plain wrong.

 

[Gee]

Foreign interventionism isn't really unconstitutional... Though nowhere is the word "offense" used in the constitution, it does not specify reasons for which congress can declare war.

 

[MBA2008]

You're right that is isn't unconstitutional in that it's not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. I am saying that it's unconstitutional in the context that foreign intervention as it is today is typically military, and without a formal declaration of war by the Congress.

Nevertheless, I should be more clear. A better way to express my thought is to say that foreign interventionism as it exists today is counter to the principles that underly the Constitution.

 

[IrrigatedPancake]

"The same Ron Ron Paul who opposes foreign interventionism also opposes all forms of foreign aid."

He opposes forceful foreign intervention when not expressly approved by congress, the body to which the people give the responsibility to determine if force is necessary to defend them and states, because if congress does not approve it then authority over the military means of defense is being assumed by entities whom the people did not empower with that responsibility.

His opposition to foreign intervention with money collected from the people is probably not on a constitutional basis, but more because there is so much that money could be used for in the US and much of the time, money given as charity to foreign countries is squandered by foreign leaders and does little to help their people. A better alternative is something like The Peace Corps through which individuals voluntarily go to the places where people need help and offer it directly to them. People in the US can also offer their own money to such groups if they trust it will be used well. (this last part is my opinion based on what I've heard and read about Ron Paul's views.)

 

[X_805]

"Libertarians of Paul's ilk have always fit somewhere between the Republican/Democrat duopoly in American politics."

What? Not always. The Republican party left its principles. Sometimes I think the Libertarian party is actually the true Republican base, just abandoned.

 

[Spatch67]

That is very, maybe, probably, definitly the absolute worst article I've ever read. I don't think I've ever seen a more blatant misrepresentation of facts. Wow! It's almost as if they had to put a lot of effort into getting it wrong.

 

[Kuldebar]

What? Not always. The Republican party left its principles. Sometimes I think the Libertarian party is actually the true Republican base, just abandoned.

I agree with that to a large degree. Generally, though, I feel that libertarianism is the original American political position and all parties descended from it.

 

[Kuldebar]

Foreign interventionism isn't really unconstitutional... Though nowhere is the word "offense" used in the constitution, it does not specify reasons for which congress can declare war.

Actually, it is unconstitutional: Undeclared wars and the fiat currency systems to fund it, would be the big things you need to run an empire.

 

[kylejack]

Actually, it is unconstitutional: Undeclared wars and the fiat currency systems to fund it, would be the big things you need to run an empire.

Yeah, but you can have a declared war with commodity based currency and it could still be interventionism. Interventionism is not unconstitutional.

 

[wwycher]

I liked the comments on this article. I have socialist friends who believe the same globalist dribble. Free Market Bad. The rich people will screw us, the little guy, they say. Don't be so hard on them, the schools have been teaching us this shit for years. Patient and well informed debate will win the war.

 

[Kuldebar]

Yeah, but you can have a declared war with commodity based currency and it could still be interventionism. Interventionism is not unconstitutional.

I concede you the technical point.

I just don't think a government with an intrusive foreign policy can be compatible with the idea of being a republic under the US Constitution. I don't believe that the two can co-exist. One gives way to the other.

Legitimate national defense doesn't mean intervention. It may mean war, blockades, sanctions or condemnations; but it doesn't mean stationing troops permanently throughout the world or covertly overthrowing the governments of other nations.