PAUL: I’m not for profiling people on the color of their skin, or on their religion, but I would take into account where they’ve been traveling and perhaps, you might have to indirectly take into account whether or not they’ve been going to radical political speeches by religious leaders. It wouldn’t be that they are Islamic. But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after — they should be deported or put in prison.Wow. People should be imprisoned for attending speeches? So Rand Paul isn't in favor of the freedom of assembly and freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment? So much for Libertarians being staunch defenders of the Constitution.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Why does Rand Paul hate the Constitution?
While I was happy to see Rand Paul stand up in favor of not extending the Patriot Act last week, he apparently has a much more problematic solution to our security problems.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Rand Paul is not a Libertarian.
Do you have any evidence that Libertarians are not “staunch defenders of the Constitution”? Rand Paul, who is not a Libertarian, doesn’t count.
Rand's beliefs are a mixture of Republican and Libertarian beliefs. He's not strictly 100% Libertarian, probably because he had to get elected. Newsweek calls his brand of Libertarianism, "Conservative Libertarianism".
http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/05/20/the-difference-between-rand-paul-s-libertarianism-and-traditional-segregationism.html
As far as Libertarian beliefs go, the belief that Social Security, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Medicare and other social programs are unconstitutional does not make you a staunch defender of the Constitution, as the Constitution clearly allows for those types of laws (as the courts have repeatedly found).
Libertarian with an uppercase “L” generally means a member of the Libertarian Party.
Rand's beliefs are a mixture of Republican and Libertarian beliefs.
If his beliefs (why beliefs, rather than opinions, positions, ideals, or stands?) are a mixture of Republican and libertarian, why are you presenting him as representative of libertarians? Paul himself has said he is not a libertarian. The Newsweek article you cite, even in its simplistic overview of libertarianism (libertarians are a pretty diverse group), points out that there are libertarians who don’t agree with Paul, a point you completely ignore in your post (you could at least have said, “So much for conservative libertarians…”). Several of the libertarian writers I read were quick to criticize Paul for what he said.
As far as Libertarian beliefs go, the belief that Social Security, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Medicare and other social programs are unconstitutional does not make you a staunch defender of the Constitution,…
(Here we go with the “beliefs” again…) Is it your position that one must agree with every court decision in order to be a staunch defender of the Constitution? If one disagrees with the decision in Kelo v. New London, or in Gonzales v. Raich, is one automatically disqualified from being a staunch defender of the Constitution?
I'm a little confused by your focus on what I called his "beliefs". Beliefs, opinions, positions, they pretty much mean the same thing in this context.
As far as Libertarians being a diverse group, I agree. They span the range of beliefs from A to B.
As far as I've seen, Libertarians have two core beliefs: they want the free market to act unfettered and want government reduced to its very basic components. This would mean no FDA, SEC, EPA, FTC, FEMA, HHS, or any other government agency that provides important social or regulatory services to the people of the US.
Libertarianism seems to me to be a supremely unrealistic way to view governing a nation of over 300 million people and powerful corporations that have proved time and again that, not surprisingly, they will put profit over the welfare of people.
No, disagreeing with some Supreme Court cases doesn't mean you aren't a defender of the Constitution, but disagreeing with two centuries of Supreme Court rulings, and the very idea of the General Welfare clause, that affirm that government social programs are Constitutional does raise doubts that you really support the actual Constitution and not some fictional version that you'd rather it be.
I appreciate that some Libertarians have called Paul out on his statements. I agree that the statements weren't very Libertarian.
There’s much in your statement that is debatable; let me just say libertarians are far more diverse than you’re allowing for. In any case, even if everything you said were unquestionably true, it’s still not right to criticize an entire group for what one person has said.
If someone in 1898 disagreed with Plessy v. Ferguson and said it was an incorrect interpretation of the constitution, would that make him not a staunch defender of the constitution?
Post a Comment