Ron Paul Supporters: Fighting Mad!

Related Post: Game Time: Name One Leading Country That Follows the Tea Party Model of Government



Huffington Post has reprinted my article, Five Reasons Why Ron Paul Should Never Become President. Although the article generated buzz on Dissenting Justice, it has caused quite a stir at Huffington. Over 450 persons, primarily fans of Paul, have expressed their opinion on the article (and the number of posts grows even as I complete this essay).



The responses generally fall into the following categories:



1. "This article is garbage, horrible, disgusting, terrible, blah blah blah blah blah."

2. This article completely misrepresents Paul (without citing to one word in the article that is an actual misrepresentation).

3. Paul does not oppose abortion; he just wants it to be decided by the states.

4. Paul is not a racist. He opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it is unconstitutional. Besides, it is no longer needed.

These posts are pretty silly. The first two categories are completely nonsubstantive. Perhaps these individuals are frustrated beyond all reason because it is highly unlikely that Paul, who first ran for president in 1988, will come close to winning the GOP nomination in 2012.



The third category distorts my blog post. Regardless of Paul's personal views on abortion, his belief that only the states should decide the issue would transform abortion from a constitutional right (which it presently is) and turn it into an option that women could exercise only subject to the laws in her state.

By contrast, constitutional rights apply throughout the country; states do not get to limit or expand them. Leaving this issue to the states implicitly means that it would no longer be a constitutionally protected right. There is no way to dispute this. It is a completely accurate statement of constitutional law.

The fourth category is dead wrong on the law. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of the civil rights legislation. Furthermore, Paul's arguments are simply a modern rehashing of the Dixiecrats' views in the 1960s -- regardless of whether he is a bigot or not. Also, many studies demonstrate that racial discrimination in employment continues -- despite the legislation. Removing it would free companies to do so without a legal deterrent. Finally, if the legislation is unnecessary, then why repeal it? If companies are no longer discriminating, then they should not worry about the existence of the law.



To their credit, other individuals (only a few) agree that the blog post fairly presents Paul's past statements. Nevertheless, they say this is precisely why they support him. In other words, they agree with Paul's positions on the issues without accusing me of some conspiracy to misportray him. At least these individuals are intellectually honest. I commend them.



To the rest: thanks for bringing attention to the article. As a result of your efforts, more folks than I ever expected have now read the article. Many have emailed me and thanked me for the post. Now, a lot more people have a clearer understanding of Paul and his ideas. I suspect a lot of them will also decline to vote for him.

Update: There is one additional strand of analysis from Paul supporters: As president, Paul could not implement many of his ideas that you find threatening because the president cannot enact or repeal legislation.

This is probably one of the most troublesome -- but easily refuted -- claims. Of course presidents cannot enact or repeal legislation. Nonetheless, they are influential in the legislative process. Conservatives know this; they describe the healthcare legislation as "Obamacare," rather than Congress-care.

Furthermore, the president is the legal head of the executive agencies. The agencies have a tremendous amount of power to interpret and execute federal statutes. Thus, Paul's view of statutory enactments and constitutional text is extraordinarily important. This is such a basic part of our political system. I am shocked that Paul's supporters would even make this style of argument.

An Insane Day of Sanity

Jon Stewart's Rally to Restore Sanity has come to a conclusion. As a resident of Washington, DC, I went to the rally, hoping to get a front row seat, but the size of the crowd was absolutely insane.



CBS News estimated that 215,000 people attended the rally. Other sources put the figure at 250,000. Either way, that's a lot of sanity.



I spent the day taking shots of signs and talking to rally-goers. Here is part of my photo collection. Click the photos to enlarge.



Definitely -- the Best Sign of the day comes from this poor newbie voter in South Carolina.







The best combination of costuming (a lot of people celebrated Halloween) and signage comes from this colonial soldier who wants to repeal the Third Amendment (the one about quartering of soldiers).







I also liked this take on "The Rent Is Too Damn High."







The Capitol building looked lovely on the crisp fall day.







A lot of folks carried signs advocating the legalization of marijuana. Some people used humor to convey the message.







I did not take this picture, but it shows the size of the crowd (I yanked this from a friend's Facebook page).







I could not get shots of some other great signs. One person carried a sign which said that "An old grizzly endorsing a constitutionally challenged witch cannot be good for politics" (very close paraphrase, alluding to Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell).



Finally, feel free to use these photos, but please say that you got them from Dissenting Justice. Happy Sanity!

State of the Union: 2010

Here is the prepared text (not an official transcript): SOTUA

It's about to start. What do you think? Post in the comments section.

Salon's Glenn Greenwald Says: Blame Obama, Rather Than Lieberman

Glenn Greenwald and I agree on political issues more often than not. His latest article does not change this.

Greenwald's most recent column seeks to debunk a narrative that portrays President Obama as the liberal "victim" of "centrist" Democrats in Congress who refuse to endorse more progressive healthcare reform measures, like the public plan. Greenwald argues that the proposed "compromise" legislation actually reflects the position the White House has always held on the subject of reform:

As was painfully predictable all along, the final bill will not have any form of public option, nor will it include the wildly popular expansion of Medicare coverage. Obama supporters are eager to depict the White House as nothing more than a helpless victim in all of this -- the President so deeply wanted a more progressive bill but was sadly thwarted in his noble efforts by those inhumane, corrupt Congressional "centrists." Right. The evidence was overwhelming from the start that the White House was not only indifferent, but opposed, to the provisions most important to progressives. The administration is getting the bill which they, more or less, wanted from the start -- the one that is a huge boon to the health insurance and pharmaceutical industry.

Apparently, Russ Feingold agrees with Greenwald's assessment of the White House position. And as I argued yesterday, I agree that liberals must hold the White House accountable on this issue:

Perhaps the chickens are indeed roosting -- at least according to several stories that appeared yesterday on many leading political blogs, including TPM, Huffington Post and Politico. According to these reports, Emanuel personally visited Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and demanded that he give Senator Joe Lieberman exactly what he wants regarding healthcare reform. Lieberman opposes a public plan and a buy-in option for Medicare. Lieberman has repeatedly vowed to filibuster any proposed healthcare reform legislation that contains either of these proposals. The recent reports which claim that Emanuel has told Reid to cater to Lieberman -- a claim the White House denies -- confirms the July statements of Maxine Waters.

Some careful readers will also remember that the White House intervened and allowed Lieberman to maintain his leadership positions on Senate committees, despite the fact that he ran as an Independent in 2006 and endorsed John McCain for president in 2008 during a speech he delivered at the Republican National Convention. Lieberman has threatened to kill the most important legislation that Congress has proposed in decades, and the White House continues to protect him politically and to cater to his interests.

What do you think?

Very Hot Air From "Hot Air" -- Regarding Healthcare Reform

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air has pumped out an essay defending the rightwing's largely unsuccessful effort to convince any reputable constitutional law scholar (on the right or left) that proposed healthcare reform would violate the Constitution. Morrissey's essay takes issue with my recent post that applauds Nancy Pelosi for dismissing a CNSNews reporter's question on the subject. Morrissey makes several arguments. I find none of them persuasive.

Conservatives Have Demanded "Absurdly Specific" Language Justifying Healthcare Reform
Morrissey says that "our argument has never been that Congress cannot pass laws, or that Congress cannot pass laws without some absurdly specific mention in the Constitution." This is disingenuous. On September 22, Hot Air posted a viral video (via CNSNews) that shows a high school "government" teacher pleading with Mark Warner for specific language in the Constitution authorizing the government to "run healthcare." Certainly, a citation to Article I, or even more specifically to the Commerce Clause or to the taxation and spending powers, would not have alleviated her anxiety. Nor would it have satisfied Hot Air and CNSNews.

Furthermore, the CNSNews article that served as the basis for the Hot Air piece ominously reported that Warner said "there is 'no place in the Constitution' that mentions health care. . . ." If conservatives are, as Morrissey claims, uninterested in absurdly specific text, then Warner's statement is not newsworthy. Clearly, the Constitution does not mention health care (or education, telephones, etc.). This silence, however, does not deprive Congress of any authority over the industry.

In addition, Morrissey himself has argued that unless the Constitution "covers" a power, then Congress must "butt out." He made this assertion in response to Representative Shea-Porter's rejection of a strict reading of the Constitution that would limit Congress to the exact wording of the text. If Morrissey is not demanding exact language regarding healthcare, then he should not have found Shea-Porter's argument worthy of discussion. Although Morrissey has been more flexible at times, he has (intentionally or unintentionally) pushed a method of constitutional interpretation that he now labels "absurd."

The Framers Did Not Know About Airplanes
Morrissey also takes issue with my argument that demanding specific text on a subject would nullify the government's authority to create the Air Force. Morrissey, of course, does not point to language in the Constitution that refers to the "Air Force" or even to airplanes. Instead, he cites to more generalized language empowering Congress to provide for the "common defence." This, however, is the exact same type of constitutional interpretation that should guide debates over the constitutionality of healthcare reform. Interstate commerce, taxation, spending, and "general welfare" come to mind as places to anchor healthcare reform. Conservatives, however, have demanded precise language from liberals, while embracing generalized provisions to justify policies they favor.

Furthermore, Morrissey completely ignores more difficult questions that the strict approach implicates. For example, he specifically evades the question of Medicare's constitutionality, and he is absolutely silent regarding federal bans on partial-birth abortion, crack cocaine, acts of terrorism and other issues my essay raises. I do not believe these laws necessarily fall outside of the scope of federal authority, but I have not approached the Constitution from the constrained perspective that conservatives have advanced.

The Tenth Amendment Does Not Make Healthcare Reform Unconstitutional
Finally, Morrissey's interpretation of the Tenth Amendment -- which other conservatives seem to share -- is also flawed. In a prior essay, Morrissey argues that:

The Constitution sets their power and circumscribes it rather clearly in Article I, Section 8 and Section 9 of the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment reserves all other powers to the states or to the people, underscoring the explicit limitation on Congressional power. . . .Therefore, when the Constitution does not “cover” a subject, it explicitly and expressly intends for Congress and the federal government to butt out.

The Tenth Amendment is a truism: every power that is not delegated to the federal government is retained by the states. The provision, however, does not tell us what is in fact delegated. Nor does it state that the text of Article I expressly "covers" the entirety of permissible federal authority.

Morrissey is stuck in the era of the repudiated and supplanted Articles of Confederation. Anyone who has read McCulloch v. Maryland should know that the Court rejected the notion that unless the power was "expressly" mentioned in Article I, then Congress lacked authority; this was the law under the Articles of Confederation. Under the Constitution, Congress (as Morrissey seems to concede) has implied powers. Accordingly, the Tenth Amendment does not provide any useful information about this subject.