|
The Revolution: A Manifesto
David Gordon
Lew
Rockwell.com
Thursday, June 5, 2008
The Revolution: A Manifesto. By Ron Paul. Grand Central Publishing,
2008. Xi + 173 pages.
In his historic campaign for president, Ron Paul again and again
held up the Constitution as a benchmark to judge the policies
of the American government. For this, some libertarians criticized
him. Was Paul not guilty of "constitution worship"?
What has a document that began as an effort to replace the Articles
of Confederation with a more effective and powerful central government
to do with libertarianism? Indeed, some of his most severe critics
claimed, Ron Paul did not qualify as a libertarian at all.
In The Revolution: A Manifesto, Ron Paul responds magnificently
to this false and irresponsible charge. He is well aware of the
limited value of the Constitution: it is a far from ideal arrangement.
Nevertheless, it remains the fundamental law of the United States
and, if interpreted correctly, provides an excellent means to
check the depredations of a government that violates its provisions.
To be sure, the U.S. Constitution is not perfect. Few human
contrivances are. But it is a pretty good one, I [Paul] think,
and it defines and limits the scope of government. When we get
into the habit of disregarding it, … we do so at our peril.
(p. 67)
(Article continues below)
To say this at once raises a new question: how is the Constitution
to be interpreted? Paul answers that it must be read in a way
consistent with the underlying principle of the document, the
promotion of freedom. In this connection, he cites effectively
a speech by Daniel Webster that condemned conscription as unconstitutional.
The Constitution does not mention the subject at all: how then
could he be so sure that the government lacked this power? Webster
said that since the Constitution aims to promote freedom, no infringement
of freedom could possibly be constitutional unless the document
explicitly mandated it.
A free government with arbitrary means to administer it is
a contradiction; a free government without adequate provisions
for personal security is an absurdity; a free government, with
an uncontrolled power of military conscription, is a solecism,
at once the most ridiculous and abominable that ever entered
into the head of man. (p. 56, quoting Webster)
Webster's view, here adopted by Paul, closely resembles Lysander
Spooner's method of constitutional analysis, by which he controversially
attempted to show the unconstitutionality of slavery, long before
the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment.
|
INFOWARS:
BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND
|
|
