Where Ron Paul and the Libertarians are wrong.

We have a lot of respect for libertarian principles around here, and we respect Ron Paul as a man of principle. But like many libertarians, he needs to learn where to back off. His interpretation of the Constitution is often so narrow as to give it no real meaning. Granted, liberals view the Constitution so broadly as to make it equally pointless: if the government or any particular individual can do absolutely anything then questions of law, even Supreme Law, are moot. But it is counterproductive, to say the least, if we veer from the sublime to the ridiculous in fighting that obviously airheaded belief. Ultimately, the Constitution means what it means, with our human reason applied to its intent. Further, reasonable men must concede that there is more to our debate on the question than whether something is constitutional or unconstitutional. There are the events we may call extraconstitutional, things beyond the aegis of any constitution which are inherent in the very nature of the political state. Indeed, our very Constitution recognized as much. The Necessary and Proper clause and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments exist for just such a purpose. So, Ron and you libertarians take note here, our very governing document concedes that governmental rights and obligations are not limited to what is expressed or implied by its words. Some very good and proper things are, shall we say, inspired by the words of the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence before it. What brings on this diatribe, Ron, are your remarks that Abraham Lincoln provoked the south into the Civil War. This is not only historically lame, Mr. Congressman (was the President of the United States not supposed to resupply a Federal outpost?), but wears the mark of a Constitutional and moral neanderthal. The Confederacy was not founded as a defense of States Rights, no matter how much some people may wish it so. It was founded to protect slavery, and to force unwilling people to protect that peculiar and evil institution along with them. It was founded on extraconstitutional principles. It had to be fought on extraconstitutional grounds. And our national government, as a moral person, has a right to make and act on legitimate and reasonable moral grounds. The issue of human chattel was most certainly a moral issue Washington had a right, even an obligation, to address. On another front, your desire to keep us out of theaters of foreign intrigue, while in some ways admirable, is also too narrow in scope. Citing President Washington’s famous words, you want to avoid ‘entangling foreign alliances.’ Fair enough; when such alliances are beyond the interests of the United States. But two things occur to us here. First, while what our noble First President said is worth remembering as a reference in debate, it is hardly a constitutional principle. And second, he was addressing the nation at his point in history, when any close relationship with any of the major powers at the time may have killed our new nation in its infancy, or subordinated her to international will. But we see no teachings in history that lead us to believe he was against any foreign involvements at all. We rather believe that if that great and truly Indispensable Man were alive today he would support the war on terror in its essence if not in detail, and would keep a wary eye on a nuclear Iran or North Korea, let alone a post-Putin Russia. In short, Mr. Paul, we support your very true assertion that the federal government has gotten too big, and that the several states have more rights and obligations than the current prevalent belief in the Constitution allows. But it is a mistake to insist on an explicit constitutional affirmation of every act of the national government as well. It reeks of a foolish consistency, which repels those who might support you if you were more reasonable. Such insistence stymies necessary extraconstitutional needs and weakens us as a nation. As a moral people. Without that, the words of the Constitution itself aren’t worth the ink they were written with.