The Philosophy of Liberty

It angers me when people (such as people that write for the Irregular Times) use the Constitution as a bolster for ridiculous claims even when the Constitution contradicts what they are saying, argues differently than what they are saying or, ultimately, just has no reference to their points.

It would be proper to suggest to those people to read the Constitution. However, the Constitution is vague enough that you have to actually understand the context of the Constitution. Required reading: Virginia Declaration of Rights, Declaration of Independence and John Locke's 2nd Treatise on Civil Government.

It saddens me that not enough people know enough about the Constitution to understand that these people are misusing it such a way. However, it is the responsibility of people that claim the be backed by the Constitution itself should spend more time understanding what the Constitution actually means.

A Response to "Anti Ron Paul" types

This is an article in response to a certain type of people that feel the need to discredit Ron Paul. Many of speculated as to why they do this: some say that they are afraid of Ron Paul's truths, some say that they are unscrupulously attempting to remove support from Ron Paul and yet others suggest that they just don't "get it." On such person wrote an article on MySpace under the name www.myspace.com/ronpaulsucks. He states that Ron Paul is against Amber Alert.

I'm going to give a brief history lesson about the Constitution ("Consti..what?.. Constitu.. Constitution?" says Jon Stewart). In 1776, the Declaration of Independence was signed and sent off to King George III. In 1777, the Articles of Confederation was established and the first national government for the 13 colonies was established. The war with Britain ended in 1783 and the now United States was free from the tyranny of the King.

Unfortunately, the Articles weren't working so well. Post-war conflicts between states sparked tension and, in one case, the seizing of a town hall by local farmers. Things were not good for the Confederacy (not the civil war one, either). Instead, the Framers created the Constitution that would go on to be the basis for the United States of America.

The Constitution was not well received by everyone (and, in fact, met heavy opposition in some states that led to it almost NOT being ratified). There were several Anti-Federalists that believed that the Constitution gave too much power to the central government. The Federalists argued back that there needed to be a strong, central government to handle affairs between states and other nations. Both, however, agreed that a strong federal government had no business in people's personal lives.

So, obviously, the document ended up being ratified and I am glad that it was. Unfortunately, most people don't understand this most essential document that all Americans should be required to read.

Specific to Ron Paul that everyone seems to have trouble comprehending is the federal system laid out by the Constitution. The Framers knew that a strong central government with all of the power in its hands would be slow, ineffective and dangerous. So, instead, it decided to delegate most of the federal government's power to the states or the people themselves. Ron Paul believes strongly in the Constitution and, thus, Federalism. For example, Ron Paul voted against the Amber Alert bill in Congress. "ronpaulsucks" claims that Ron did that because he was trying to protect sex offenders. Instead, Ron Paul was upholding the values of the Constitution because no where in the Constitution does it allow for an Amber Alert to be created. Instead, it is a power delegated to the states.

This is why Ron Paul voted nay; this is why I would have voted nay. A simple history lesson about your Constitution would do every single American a favor.