Who is this Ron Paul Character? (Part 2)

In the first edition to this series I posed the 'big question' which you see in the titles of that post, and again in this one: Who is this Ron Paul Character? In addition, I gave you some bit of insight as to what you might expect in this as well as future editions to this series. And of course you'll recall my mentioning that the series itself, once completed to my satisfaction, would likely contain anywhere from three to five separate entries or more.

But before we get on with the meat of the subject let me also make you aware that I'll be embedding links from post to post in the series to assist anyone who happens to link up to a single entry, yet is unaware that there are others in the series. The 'Part 1,' Part 2,' and etc., designations should help us in that regard, but I imagine that before all is said and done here there will be the distance of days as well as unrelated topics separating the connected entries. Therefore, if you happen to be a regular reader, just ignore the minor inconvenience this presents you. Otherwise, use the provided links when needed, that's what they're there for.

And now, let us begin our investigation into who this Ron Paul Character truly is, as opposed perhaps to who we've been led to believe he is by himself and/or by others...

It seems like as good a place to start as any to open our investigation by attempting to answer one question which I posed in Part 1 of this series: Is Ron Paul really who he says he is? And a good place to open that investigation up would be, it would appear, to determine what it is that Ron Paul is saying about Ron Paul, as opposed to what others are saying about him. As to that latter part, we will most assuredly get to it later. But for this entry let us concentrate our efforts overall, once again, on what the man is saying about himself publicly.

In the opening paragraph to Part 1 of this series you may recall that I described Ron Paul as a "self-styled Champion of the Constitution," and that I later made a second mention of this designation. My source for that information about Rep. Paul, as well as other information about the man destined to make its way into this series directly or indirectly, is a site which I provided a link to in one of my posts a couple of weeks back. If you'll click on the link to that site provided here again for your convenience, it's just a matter of properly navigating the site (which I'll leave to you to do) to get to that revelation of Mr. Paul about himself.

I'll admit here that I'm rather turned off by individuals claiming to themselves such distinctive attributes as Mr. Paul chose to do at the late Presidential debate in June of this year. Truly it seems more appropriate to me to allow others to make these bold claims about oneself while the designee himself concentrates his efforts on supporting the claim rather than asserting it. It may just be a matter of a display of improper decorum, but it still tends to raise suspicions in me as it has something of an offensive quality to it. To be fair to Paul though, I understand the desire and the need to separate and distinguish oneself from the rest of the pack in a public debate between Republican Presidential contenders wherein one might find himself, as Paul, a relative unknown certainly must have - little recognized. Still, the traditionalist in me finds it somewhat distasteful for a 'bonified leader' under virtually any circumstances to engage himself in such self-promotional displays as Paul here did. My idea of a 'true leader' in this regard being someone possessing internal qualities of character which would rather tend to resist such impulses, strong as they may be under certain circumstances. But I can let that slide if in fact Paul truly is what he says he is - "The Champion of the Constitution." So is he? Is Ron Paul truly THE champion of the Constitution as he says? That's the question before us, and to answer it properly we must take our investigation of the man to yet another level.

Of course the preceding paragraph reveals, if nothing else, that to this point in my own investigation of Rep. Paul he's rather behind the eight ball so to speak given that he has at least one strike against him and none as yet for. So, for our purposes here our subject (Paul) has some ground to make up. This shouldn't present him with too much of a problem given that his career in public service has been rather marked, if I may say so, by this very 'champion of the Constitution' description afforded himself. And in point of fact this very thing is what has led to some of his Congressional colleagues casting other laudable characteristics at his feet. Ron Paul has been referred to (among his colleagues mind you), among other things, as 'the most principled man in Congress.' Further, it is said of Mr. Paul that he simply will not vote for a bill which is not specifically authorized by the Constitution. And there's certainly something respectable to be said of that quality which he seems to possess in a much superior way to the vast majority of his Congressional peers. While it may be said of the majority of his colleagues that 'they rarely saw a bill they wouldn't vote for,' it might be said of Ron in contrast that 'he never saw a bill that didn't raise suspicions as to its specific authorization by the Constitution.' As for me, that latter is a truly distinguishing mark that at very least evens the score for Ron once more.

Having now brought our investigation back, in fairness to Ron, to more of an even keel let us proceed by investigating Ron's principled stand on some of the key issues. Once again I would direct your attentions to the link provided above. Having successfully navigated the site to Paul's page, and under the heading "Ron Paul on Principles and Values," we find Congressman Paul's 'principled' belief as pertains to the first amendment.

The question is posed:

"You ran for president once before as a Libertarian. What do you say about this whole issue of church and state and these issues that are coming forward right now?"

And here is Paul's answer:

"I think we should read the First Amendment, where it says, "Congress shall write no law." And we should write a lot less laws regarding this matter. It shouldn't be a matter of the president or the Congress. It should be local people, local officials--we just don't need more laws determining religious things or prayer in school. We should allow people at the local level. That's what the Constitution tells us. We don't need somebody in Washington telling us what we can do, because we don't have perfect knowledge. And that's the magnificence of our Constitution and our republic. We sort out the difficult problems at local levels and we don't have one case fit all. That's why we shouldn't have it at a central level."

Ignoring the obvious misquote of the first amendment, assuming that Paul is simply paraphrasing here, I'll concentrate more on the meat of what he's saying. If I understand him correctly he seems to be saying that he believes that the 'establishment clause' in the first amendment should be read and applied more literally than seems to be the habit of that body as well as that sphere of government which he finds himself a member, albeit an often dissenting member of. On this point I would agree with Paul wholeheartedly, and notably to this investigation on this very point he seems to hold indeed to the distinguishing designation: Champion of the Constitution. However, this to me is something of an oddly simplistic view coming from a man having been the particular recipient of such accolades from different quarters of being a 'true intellectual.' I think to get a true and accurate reading of exactly where Congressman Paul stands on this issue of church and state we need the question to be posed in a more particular sense. Since the context of a Presidential debate does not necessarily lend itself to expounding upon a stated view of a given subject, we must ultimately take our investigation elsewhere.

However, Congressman Paul has given us herein enough of an insight into his overall view of the subject to warrant, in my opinion, some measure of breaking down the elements of his answer in that context in order to assist us in answering our own questions which may well come to mind in reading his answer. As an example my mind was naturally led to ask, given the fact that we do have laws in place restricting the exercise of religion, would Paul consider it appropriate for the Congress to 'write' laws consistent with the non-prohibition clause of the first amendment? In other words, if the first amendment may be read in part as "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion..." and in light of the first amendment's express prohibition on Congress to 'make no law respecting an "establishment" of same,' would Congressman Paul consider it proper (or 'constitutional) of the federal Congress to write laws which tend to encourage and assist in Congress' resisting the apparently overwhelming urge among its members to create laws in actuality restricting the 'free exercise of religion?' And if so, should that 'writing of such laws' at the federal level tend to reflect the general sense of the People, or should it tend more to protect 'the free expression of' minority religions represented by relatively small segments of this society at the expense of the majority and the 'free expression' of its religion? What little I'm able to glean from his statement leads me to believe that he thinks it improper of Congress, and perhaps actually "unconstitutional" to write and pass any law 'respecting' religion period, effecting an 'establishment' thereof or otherwise.

I think Paul more or less answers these questions of ours, though, when he offers his thoughts on how best and at what level of government these questions should be dealt with generally speaking. Here again I tend to agree with Paul on the idea that these questions should be dealt with in more particular ways at the State and local levels of government. But that's just not the reality of our situation at present. You have to have a strong federal stucture in place to support this idea, and that we just don't currently have. More often than not these questions when dealt with in a more appropriate way at the lower levels are challenged in the courts and at length the federal government decides the issue on a grand scale. And in this process the central authority tends rather to side with the minority (often a very small and insignificant minority) on this question of the free exercise of one's religion.

By virtue of this fact we are rather left with bare remnants of the original design of this government which cannot be said to have possessed any appreciable fear or determination that it should arm itself and its minority citizens against encroachments on its powers and their rights via restrictions on the free exercise of the Christian Religion in particular. While it is all well and good to remind ourselves from time to time of the original intent of the founding generation in demanding a 'bill of rights' be attached to the Constitution, we should also, and in compliance with the underlying reasons for those reminders of ours, seek out practical means for returning our government to that original intent while in the meantime working to halt the degenerative process so pervading our government and her institutions. In this sense I think it possible that Ron Paul may more accurately be said to be something less than 'THE champion of the Constitution,' for a true and a committed 'top of the food chain champion' of anything or any worthy cause, would firmly adhere to the genuine sense in which the cause in question is to be maintained and furthered. And I think it may be said of the first amendment that a genuine reading of same would yield that indeed the federal Congress, while being expressly forbidden from 'making any law respecting an establishment of religion,' is rather encouraged to, than being prohibited from making laws of a non-prohibitionary type with respect to the 'free exercise thereof.' For what good is the statement "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion..." without the force of law to uphold and guarantee it against violations of the principle? Some may claim that the Constitutional provision itself is enough. But this does not square with the reality that the provision of the first amendment has proven to be of little use in prohibiting the actual practice thereof.

These laws should of course, as I said, reflect the general sense of the citizenry while taking into account the necessity of preserving our form of government in very particular ways as it cannot be stated too often nor too forcefully the irrefutable fact that the general consists itself in particulars. So, while I tend to agree with Paul's approach as stated, that these questions should be dealt with at more of a local level under a 'more perfect' scenario, I should think that given our current situation on this question the reality evinces that Paul's approach to addressing this question, as stated above, while it may have been an appropriate and a capable one 150 years ago is certainly less than so now. I should further think that such an approach, once more, given our current situation, would rather tend to provide opponents of the Constitution inroads to overthrowing its sacred principles which we must maintain at all costs.

If Congress is considered by its members and by the People in authority over them authorized by the Constitution to 'write laws' on questions of religion and morality, which I certainly think may well be said to be the case, and if in fact a proper reading of the Constitution itself does yield that conclusion to be consistent with the truth of the matter (not necessarily with the way it is applied) then to me the better, not to mention the more 'Constitutionally consistent' approach is to place less emphasis on what one considers a prohibition on that authorization, and rather to use one's 'pulpit' to emphasize the duty of Congress to write such laws adhering to the true sense of the Constitution, and to the general sense of the population under its governance. Does it rise to the level of an 'establishment of religion' for the federal Congress to acknowledge by law the right of the State and local authorities to themselves authorize prayers in the local schools? Or is it rather that such laws strictly adhere to that clause of the first amendment which has in it an implicit authority for the federal Congress to guarantee by law that it (the federal Congress) shall never write or endorse a law 'prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' in schools or elsewhere? Is this not the genuine sense in which the first amendment is to be read? Is this not the restriction on itself that the federal Congress is bound to acknowledge lawfully as inplicit in the first amendment? If indeed it is, and if Paul holds a view contrary to this, then it follows that it must be said of Paul on this issue that he is wrong. And if that is the case, then we have at least one reason to believe that Congressman Paul is not the 'champion of the Constitution' that he claims himself to be, as well as further calling into question his qualifications for being the next President of the United States. On the other hand, if this is the case, and if Paul's statement reflects a view consistent with the genuine sense in which the first amendment is to be read, as well as lawfully applied, then it may be said of Paul that he is in this particular truly what he says he is - THE Champion of the Constitution - as well as securing to himself his rightful place among the Presidential contenders.

In the foregoing discourse we have endeavored to discover whether Ron Paul, while certainly being rightly denominated in some sense "A" 'champion of the Constitution,' may be wrongly denominating himself "The" champion of the same, at least in the sense that we've investigated the matter here. As I said before I can forgive Paul for what I consider to be an inappropriate display of self-promotion IF indeed he can truly be said to be what he claims to himself, though I would certainly advise him against restating the offensive gesture too forcefully as well as too often. During the course of this investigation, and for the reasons offered here among others we will surely cover, my mind is led to question and further investigate whether Ron Paul may truly be said to be all he says he is. Therefore, my conclusion to this point in our investigation is that Paul inadvisedly expressed something of a rather high opinion of himself as well as of his own sense of self-importance in his introduction of himself at the late debate, unnecessarily raising doubts in the minds of some, including myself. And while I'm sure that this conclusion of mine is likely to bring some unfavorable comments my way, nonetheless this is my conclusion. But as I said in Part 1 of this ongoing series now well underway, I welcome your input as my conclusions about Paul and his statements may certainly prove to be misguided as well as misplaced.

In any event I would once again encourage you to leave a thoughtful comment to this post whether you happen to agree with the conclusions I've drawn or not. And also that you would return to read the third edition to this series which will be coming shortly. In the meantime, and if you haven't done so yet, do utilize the link I've provided here to further educate yourself on this man, Congressman Ron Paul. I look forward to your participation as certainly and as has been promised, this series while being paused for the moment, is most assuredly:

To be continued....

-DW