Fans of Representative Ron Paul have recently begun to criticize the media. Paul's supporters believe that the media has unfairly neglected his perpetual bid to receive the presidential nomination for the Republican Party.
Perhaps Paul's supporters should reconsider their criticism of the media. For, if Paul actually received substantial scrutiny, his ideas would undoubtedly frighten most voters.
Paul is charismatic. He also comes across as a straight shooter. Some of his ideas -- like his opposition to militarism and the War on Drugs -- appeal to many voters, including liberals. His arguments about lower government spending and taxation sound good to folks who worry about budget deficits.
Paul's arguments, however, often lack an empirical basis. History has already demonstrated that many of Paul's proposed solutions will never work. Thus, while some of Paul's ideas sound solid in the abstract, they crumble once they are subjected to widely accepted theories about government and society.
Because Paul's ideas are faulty and dangerous, he would make a terrible president. Here are five reasons why Paul should never become president.
1. Paul would restrict abortion based on anecdotal "evidence," rather than science.
Ron Paul is pro-life. He says that he developed his views on abortion during his practice as an OB/GYN. Paul's official website
states that: "[D]uring his years in medicine, never once did [Paul] find an abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman." Paul's statement, however, is troubling for two reasons.
First, medical science -- as opposed to Paul's anecdotal "evidence" -- proves that abortions are sometimes necessary to protect the life of the mother. Second, Paul's statement also contradicts the constitutional test articulated by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade and many subsequent decisions. According to established Court doctrine, states generally must make abortion available to protect the life and health of the mother. Even if Paul never witnessed a scenario where a woman needed a life-saving abortion, it is not difficult to imagine a situation where a woman needed an abortion to preserve her health.
Furthermore, conservatives have been trying to eliminate the health exception, which they believe amounts to "abortion on demand." According to the Supreme Court, however, a health condition means a psychological or physical condition which the doctor and patient decide warrants an abortion. While many Republicans want to limit abortion to life-saving procedures, Paul believes even this extreme exception is unnecessary based on anecdotes.
2. Paul has dreadful views regarding personal liberty and fundamental rights
Because Paul opposes abortion and everything done by the federal government, he has proposed a
bill called the "We the People Act." This bill, if passed, would prohibit federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from deciding whether state or local laws violate the "the right of privacy, including issues of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction... or... the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation where based upon equal protection of the laws."
Essentially, Paul wants to remove federal courts from the business of deciding whether state laws violate the federal constitution! Contrary to Paul's vision of government, the Constitution secures certain rights enforceable against the national government and states. The Supreme Court has an important role in protecting those rights against invasion.
In the context of fundamental rights, Paul, however, wants to transfer this important federal judicial role to state courts exclusively. Undoubtedly, many state courts would sharply curtail liberties currently recognized by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, this proposal would produce a system where the substance of federal rights varied state-by-state.
In addition Paul wants to "repeal" Roe v. Wade. Since Roe is a judicial opinion, rather than a statute, he really wants a constitutional amendment reversing the ruling. Regardless, Paul's horrific proposals would endanger several personal liberties secured by the Constitution, including the right to terminate a pregnancy.
3. Paul would threaten the independence of the federal judiciary.Paul's proposals show a striking disregard for the independence of federal courts. Although public opinion and the actions of the political branches influence court decisions, the courts do not operate as representatives of the electorate. Instead, the Framers envisioned a court system that would operate as a check against unlawful action by the government.
Paul, however, would remove a lot of substantive issues from the jurisdiction of the courts (see above). The We the People Act, which Paul has proposed, would
also prevent the federal courts from "issuing any ruling that appropriates or expends money [or] imposes taxes. . . ." Supreme Court precedent, however, already prohibits courts from imposing taxes or expending money of the states. So Paul's proposal is unnecessary.
But Paul wants more than this. He also wants to prohibit any court ruling that "otherwise interferes with the legislative functions or administrative discretion of the states." This sweeping passage would virtually negate judicial enforcement of federal law -- including the Constitution (not to worry - this is what makes the proposal unconstitutional).
If a state passes a statute that mandated racial segregation in its public schools, a decision by the Supreme Court that enjoined enforcement of that law would interfere with the "legislative" and "administrative" function of the state. It does not take much analysis to discover the danger in this proposal.
4. Paul wants to repeal historic legislation that was responsible for curtailing racial and sex discrimination in the workplace and for prohibiting racial discrimination in places of public accommodation.
Ron Paul
opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The legislation prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin. Paul believes that the legislation violates the Constitution. Specifically, he argues that Congress lacks the power to pass the law and that the law violates the rights of employers.
The Supreme Court disagrees with Paul; so does the public. Americans have decided that they want a society in which employers cannot use race and sex as a basis for exclusion. Contrary to Paul's assertion, this vision is absolutely consistent with the Constitution, via both the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment.
Furthermore, Paul is simply rehashing the same arguments that Dixiecrats made as they struggled to maintain Jim Crow and white supremacy. People who lack knowledge of history might find Paul's statements about freedom to contract and association appealing, but they are simply a contemporary version of arguments that prevented women and persons of color from having economic opportunities. Paul would seek to reverse over five decades of social progress.
History proves that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was instrumental in achieving racial integration in southern schools. Until that act was passed, only about 1% of southern blacks went to school with whites -- despite the fact that the Supreme Court had decided Brown v. Board of Education ten years earlier. The legislation, however, tied federal funding for schools to antidiscrimination principles. The southern states sluggishly chose to integrate, rather than lose vital federal education assistance.
On the one hand, Paul opposes federal court enforcement of constitutional rights. At the same time, however, he opposes congressional remedies for racial and sex discrimination and enforcement of equal protection. Paul essentially wants to turn racial and gender equality over to the whims of the private sector and states. His ideas regarding civil rights are unsound, and they would undermine the nation's unfinished project of social justice.
5. Paul wants to erode the power of voters by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.
Over the course of history, the American people have amended the Constitution to provide greater power to voters and to enhance democratic participation. The Fifteenth Amendment allows people to vote regardless of race (although it took nearly a century to make this a reality). The Nineteenth Amendment allows people to vote regardless of sex. The Twenty-Sixth Amendment allows persons who have reached the age of eighteen to vote. Furthermore, the Seventeenth Amendment allows individual voters of each state to elect US Senators directly. Previously, the Constitution delegated this authority to state legislatures.
Paul and many other conservatives
want to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment. Although their arguments are not entirely coherent, most conservatives in this camp
claim that repealing the Seventeenth Amendment would help protect the states against the national government. Others blame the growth of the national government on the inability of state legislatures to elect senators.
This position is flawed for several reasons. First, the Seventeenth Amendment is an important tool of individual liberty and democracy. Repealing it would contradict important values of American political life.
Second, the connection between the Seventeenth Amendment and growth of the federal government is sheer speculation; it is also incorrect. The government has grown because voters have decided that they need the government to deliver important services that states alone cannot secure.
Furthermore, most of the spending programs that Congress creates for the nation are voluntary. If states do not want to comply with federal regulations tied to spending programs, they can refuse the money. But state lawmakers do not want to anger voters by depriving them of important benefits, like school funding, healthcare, and safe roads.
Repealing the Seventeenth Amendment would undo a major element of America's move toward democracy. For this reason alone, Paul is unfit for president.
Final Thought
I applaud the efforts of Paul's fans to attract media attention for the candidate they support. This attention could lead to greater awareness of Paul's views among the electorate. If people actually hear the policies that Paul supports along with critical analysis, they will undoubtedly disapprove of his candidacy.
AND was the author serious when he wrote, "2. Paul has dreadful views regarding personal liberty and fundamental rights" ?
I'll take Dr. Paul over all the rest of the Pols from either side of the aisle!
Thank you. You have proved what Ron Paul supporters already know, that MSM has sold out to special interests and supports the status quo, and believes Americans too intellectually lazy to do their own research. In many cases this may be an unfortunate truth, but more and more people are beginning to understand that both Democrat and Republican parties pander to the highest bidder.
Your masters have caused us enough pain. I am voting for the only honest man running - Ron Paul.
If you love America and value your way of life, learn about Ron Paul at these two links
http://youtu.be/ohKz9OeiI0g
http://youtu.be/48Gfzgxh3ZQ
Another thing i found misleading was that Mr Hutch makes it sound like Ron Paul is some kind of racist (just like the rest of the uncredible news sources) and that's why he want's to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which couldn't be farther from the truth. Racism is the act of treating individuals differently based on their race/color or creed. Therefore our own government is one of the biggest supporters of racism and the CR Act of 1964 only compounds the problem. Maybe in the past that Act was needed, but we've come a long way since then.
Our country can no longer afford to support corporatism and racism, For this reason alone, Darren Hutchinson is unfit to post trustworth and meaningful information.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5575883.ece
No trial by jury, no formal declaration of war. No apparent acknowledgement of the rule of law, Constitutional or otherwise. He apparently just went and did it.
Ron Paul's real threat is to the legitimacy of the federal government--or at least to the tyrannical monster it has become. And for those who worship power, this is unforgivable.
2.) Ron Paul believes in the US Constitution first and foremost. He also voted(votes) against the USAPATRIOT act and many other unjust acts of war this imperialist and foreign-policy-intervening nation we are a part of entrenches itself into regularly. This does not mean he doesn't believe in a strong national defense -- he voted to send Special Forces into Afghanistan to get bin Laden, but against the "conventional" wars (which are expensive and unnecessary). What should we think [as readers] when you exhibit such disdain for our founding fathers and their ideas? Is the Bill of Rights not one of the most enduring component to our freedoms?
(to be continued, below)
Re: your "states level" argument: The States have no right to do wrong. You think w/ the internet and media coverage the way it is, states would have more balls than the Feds currently do in stripping away our freedoms? They'd do a much better job of keeping them intact, I'd bet [as our founders did, but hey you say you know more than they do].
3.) No law made by a state can "negate the constitution." Not sure how much history you have torn through, but our nation ratified the Bill of Rights [3/4 signed] and each state accepted the basic tenets within -- many expanded further on the freedoms offered. The federal government is given many explicit powers [the necessary ones] used to keep our nation great -- the rest should be left up to the states. Diversity is not a bad thing -- it seems you are arguing for a homogeneous nation where we're all stupid and fat and glued to the TV and dependent upon our centralized (and massive) bureaucracy to keep us afloat... that's pretty un-American if you ask me, Darren.
To wrap this point up: federal courts decide federal law; state courts decide upon state law (like murder!)... Ron Paul wants to "readjust" the 'scope' of federal courts so that they focus on important constitutional issues and less on cases where their [supposedly necessary] authority in the issue is questionable.
(to be cont'd, below)
No, but prior to the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights only restricted the federal government, not state governments.
Paul's "readjustment" of the scope of the courts flies in the face of the intent of the 14th Amendment, as well as a century of case law since. I don't think anyone can claim to respect the Constitution and try to steamroll the courts so egregiously at the same time.
4.) Paul does not argue against the unfair [and institutionalized, at that time,] segregation that was omnipresent in the South. The only reason he said what he did about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was because of the property rights element in the law. It gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every single business in the country. For better or for worse, what he says is Constitutionally-accurate: the Act not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty, but it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society.
If you think society's not racist today ... I suggest you take a walk down the street or maybe head to your downtown area to see what the real world is like. The act was a piece of fluff -- just like so much other crap that makes its way through the chambers and gets the presidential slap of approval. You have to trust people to be ok by themselves -- why do we think we need to tell everybody else how they should live their lives? Golden rule, people. Golden rule.
(to be continued, below)
There are several other points I could make, but so many others have already done so here, and beautifully.
The author said no such thing. He spoke of policy and its historical context, including how such policies have worked out when they were in effect previously.
"Ron Paul is the ONLY presidential candidate (including President Obama) who voted against the Patriot Act,"
Obama was in the Illinois State Senate when the Patriot Act was passed.
"I think it is an important tool for us to continue dealing with an ongoing terrorist threat,"
Anyway, let me first say that I have several gay neighbors and friends, have zero against homosexuals, and think that people should be able to sleep with and/or marry whomever they wish, providing everyone is a consenting adult. IF Ron Paul personally
doesn't agree with the gay lifestyle, he still thinks that people should have the right to sleep with and/or marry whomever they wish, because it's none of the federal government's business. So it amounts to the same thing.
Ron Paul 2012 & 2016 if anything, for school choice!
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/homeschooling/
Ron Paul is the only honest politician running for president in 2012.
I don't agree with everything Ron Paul says or believes but I think he is consistent and honest about the planks in his platform, rather than pandering to whichever special interest group he's speaking to.
Ron Paul is the only candidate that understands the current economic crisis.
Ron Paul is the only candidate that cares about the governments constitutional authority.
Ron Paul is the only candidate that understand the damage the Federal Reserve Bank is doing to the American economy.
Ron Paul wants to end our illegal wars with Iraq and Afghanistan.
Real change, not Obama change, is required to reverse the negative trends of the United States but most voters are comfortable with the usual binary options - and that's it. Red or blue, there are no other possibilities.
I do not agree with Ron Paul about abortion. Social politics are garbage.
RON PAUL 2012!
Please Watch this Interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=u6S1IV0OlJk
Please now tell me you stand by your comment, "Paul is simply rehashing the same arguments that Dixiecrats made as they struggled to maintain Jim Crow and white supremacy."
http://www.huntingtonnews.net/8958. This is not a surprise. He has consistently led in minority support throughout this campaign as well as his 2008 campaign among Repub candidates.
Even Farrakhan himself has praised Paul a couple years ago regarding his position on the Fed; don't think he would extend credit to an individual who would be guilty of holding the views implied by Mr. Hutchinson
. To Mr. Hutchinson. "Fans of Representative Ron Paul have recently begun to criticize the media. Paul's supporters believe that the media has unfairly neglected his perpetual bid" (Hutchinson) This is because according to the Journalism.org "From January 1-August 14, Paul has been a dominant newsmaker in only 27 campaign stories. (To be considered a dominant newsmaker, someone must be featured in at least 50% of a story.) That is less than one-quarter of the media attention generated by former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (120 stories), who is the top newsmaker among Republican candidates. And he has received 25% as much coverage as Bachmann, the Minnesota Congresswoman (108 stories)." So, right away, instead of giving a well known fact you lay it as speculation confined only to the group of Ron Paul supporters already negatively affecting any argument that you are credible and not bias in some form. Moreover, stating "For, if Paul actually received substantial scrutiny, his ideas would undoubtedly frighten most voters." is not for you, a journalist, to decide since what you think is not true for most as evident by the majority of the responses in this ...