[quote=pri_dk][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Be very, very careful about believing ONE man is the answer to ALL problems. History is replete with stories about this; go read some.[/quote]

This is a big reason why I am very wary of a Ron Paul presidency.

I like a lot of what he has to say. Heck, when he starts talking about defense spending and military policy I almost want to stand up and cheer.

But our government – our Constitution – was based on a system that governs us. A system of rules. Of course the system requires leaders, legislatures, judges, etc. But the specific people aren’t important in the long term. They will come and go, as they always have.

But Ron Paul loves the Constitution – he always says so!

Inherent in Ron Paul’s constant references to the Constitution is the idea is that he is the only one that understands it. His platform is based upon sweeping claims about the “unconstitutionality” of major laws and institutions in our history – laws that have been challenged before the Supreme Court and prevailed.

If Paul doesn’t respect the past decisions of our leaders, if he doesn’t even respect the rulings of the Supreme Court – the body that is defined by the Constitution to interpret the Constitution, then he really doesn’t respect the Constitution as much as he claims.

It seems that he believes that he, and only he, is qualified to interpret the rules. And that is pretty fleckin’ scary.[/quote]

Pri: Good post and you hit all the right notes. I get very tired of the “originalist” and “strict constructionist” nonsense, especially from people who clearly have no idea what they’re talking about.

Much like conflating evangelical Christianity with the Founding Fathers (they were Deists) to push the idea of theologically-driven America (from the likes of Michelle “God Made Me Run” Bachmann and Rick Santorum); you have Ron Paul espousing the notion that, until he arrived he on the scene, we as a nation had been effectively fucking it off for the last 200+ years. You then are forced to confront his posturing, know-it-all followers who obviously don’t know dick about the Constitution or the intent of the Founding Fathers that it be an iterative and dynamic (NOT static) document and thus stand the test of time. This completely debunks the “originalist” position, but that sort of logic seems to escape Paul and his acolytes.