Ron Paul: ‘No’ on Census Support: 409-1

....to note that there seems to be a fairly popular view here that principle should be applied sparingly, and only when politically expedient.

If indeed the enumerated powers and the 9th and 10th Amendments work together to mandate that Congress does only what is specifically authorized in the Constitution, then there is little room for disagreement. Even so, the "fuzzy math" of pragmatism seems to have taken hold of this country.

Surely if they were coming door to door to count heads and to steal all our cash, someone would object that this is "unconstitutional", since the stealing of our money is nowhere authorized. Similarly, if they came to count heads and demanded all our email accounts and passwords while they were at our houses, we would also object that this was "unconstitutional", since the Constitution authorizes no such demands for information.

If we are now reduced to arguing, however, over whether asking about infant mortality is a worthy violation/excess of the enumerated powers, we unwittingly expose our grand ignorance and lack of principle to the world. We have somehow mistaken the question of fact with the question of tolerable pragmatism.

"Yes, it may be technically illegal", we might reason, "but it's not causing any harm." And in such utterances we expose ourselves as the clueless consumers we have come to be, for we believe now that everything is--more or less---a matter of opinion. Indeed, we unwittingly promote and propagate the errant notion that public opinion is law. And in so doing, we show our utter ignorance of the wisdom of the rule of law over the rule of popular opinion.

We pride ourselves on our "open-mindedness" as we amiably nod our approval to one governmental excess of power after another---all because we deem these excesses to be of pragmatic value, even if they are "technically" illegal. We lack the sense, however, to realize that on any other day, we are cursing the government for seizing other powers not granted to it by the Constitution---where we perceive harm done. We are duplicitous in this way, yet we assume that we hold the golden wisdom of knowing when government SHOULD break the law and when it should not. And all who disagree with us are tyrants and scoundrels, of course. Surely they should know better, we reason. And we wonder why we just can't agree....as if all people of common sense SHOULD be able to reach a consensus on all matters political.

But this nation will never reach any meaningful consensus as long as it is behaving in the irrational realm of pretending that "violation" does not mean "violation", and "excess of power" doesn't mean "excess of power". Indeed, who is his right mind should EVER expect irrational people to reach broad and reasoned agreement?

All along, however, the FACT of law has stood starkly in view for all who would but acknowledge its self-evidential nature. It is a fact that we have a Constitution. It is a fact that this Constitution was intended to define and to limit our national government. And it is a fact that a great number of that government's present practices are neither found nor reasonably implied anywhere in that Constitution.

These are facts, and they are indisputable by rational means. Only the irrational need venture any further with this discussion.

To defend, therefore, that some particular, unauthorized act of Congress is not worthy of repeal on the grounds that it is an unauthorized act, is simply ignorant of the whole point of "a government of laws--and not of men." (John Adams)

James Fennimore Cooper was quite right when he observed:
"It is a besetting vice of democracies to substitute public opinion for law. This is the usual form in which masses of men exhibit their tyranny." (Yes, I know that we are not a "democracy".)

Indeed, we suffer from such tyranny every day, for the ailments that WE might stand up and fight against are often being promoted and defended by the public opinion. Yes, it is our own countrymen who daily support such a government as will violate our rights one after the other and tax us to bankruptcy. Therefore, it is not the government who is our ultimate enemy, but our fellow citizens who outnumber us with their dullard conventions.

How ironic, then, that we should join them--if even in one instance--in the ignorant notions that governmental indiscretions that are "not that bad" should be tolerated, and principle suspended for more important matters.

Principle never takes a holiday; it is always important to pure government, just as it is to matters of life and death. People are not so diligent, however, and they prefer to vacation often--even from the defense of the principles they claim to hold most dear.

I believe it was in the ghastly Confederate prison at Andersonville where the term "deadline" was invented. The prison had little by way of fences or walls. It simply had a white chalk line along the ground around the holding area, and all the prisoners were instructed to stay within that line. Any who crossed it were shot.

Undoubtedly, this was a principle that those prisoners learned quickly....for as long as it was enforced.

And so with our government. While they live mostly outside of the lines, we who are supposed to be their guards bicker amongst ourselves as to matters of FACT that could be easily verified by reading the very document about which we are arguing.

So what if...?

What if we read it and honestly observed that asking questions beyond a head count in the Census is NOT authorized by the Constitution? Would there be any danger to us in acknowledging a simple matter of FACT?

Would we not be free to AMEND the Constitution in order to allow for more if 3/4 of the States would sign off on it? Indeed, we would.

Or have we come so far down the slippery slope that we no longer think that the whole 3/4 ratification thing is a good idea? Are we now so dull as to opine that whatever the public will put up with is as-good-as-ratified?

Indeed, we have slipped into a greatly-ironic position, for Jefferson wrote of governments that they "deriv(e) their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."

Have we not practically acquiesced, therefore, and agreed that the Constitution is no longer in effect, and that our government is rightly empowered to do as it wills, since we more or less consent to the majority of its Constitutional excesses? Since we are neither voting them out of office nor "storming the castle", are we not in fact CONSENTING to this tyranny?

We are sick with pragmatism and devoid of principle. We lack the sense to begin with fact. We would rather FEEL our way into national reform---that reform being constituted of intangibles and mood changes, rather than by observable and measurable rectifications of what has gone wrong. Or others among us are tempted to MANIPULATE our way into reform, playing the game of being Constitutionalists in Republican clothing. But this always backfires, obfuscating the stark difference between truth/principle and the observable Republican paradigm.

We don't want the country fixed; we just want it "back"....whatever that is supposed to mean. We don't want a government of laws; we just want more people to agree with us. We don't want a government that has to obey the rules; we just want a "kinder, gentler" mob rule paradigm. We don't want to avoid lawlessness; we want to avoid "legalism". We don't want to attack the excesses of power; we want to attack what we consider to be excesses of reason and principle! We defend those who usurp too much while criticizing those who CARE too much. We excuse those ruled by lawlessness while criticizing those ruled by principle.

When a society sees unswerving principle as a vice, isn't its corruption obvious and indisputable?

If Congress would cut our taxes in half and cut the wars in half, this country would be tickled pink. They'd go another hundred years riding this stupid two-party pendulum back and forth and lying to themselves that they have fulfilled their ultimate duty to society by voting bi-annually for those officially-approved candidates who are put forth for their approval.

No wonder we have never fixed our Constitution where its weaknesses have been exploited. No wonder we continue to put up with the abuses.

If we haven't the sense to recognize that a good principle is always worthy of defending, then we do not deserve to live in a principled society.

It's very simple, folks; if it's not in the Constitution, it's an illegal act of the Federal Government. And if we think some particular new act is a GOOD idea, then we need to pass an amendment by one of the Constitutionally-prescribed methods. And if you don't think following this rule of law is a good idea now, just wait until a few more of your rights are infringed.

There can be no general limit to government; all limits must be specific ones.

"OK, don't cross that line, or I'll shoot. Hey, buddy, I meant that, now you get back over that line or I'm going to shoot you. OK, look, you've got to quit walking toward me and get back over there or I promise I'm gonna shoot you. Hey, you better bring my musket back here right now!"

Some guards, we. And stupid.

just got a letter yesterday addressed to "Resident". Seeing how "Resident" is not my name, perhaps I can opt out? ;-)

It was just a resolution with no effect in law. Ron Paul says the current census is unconstitutional.
How constitutional is a resolution? Where is that in the Constitution? Did RP violate the Constitution by voting?
If he runs in 2012 he'll hear the question,"you voted against supporting the census. Doesn't that put you outside the mainstream of the Republican Party"? The honest answer is yes.
Most people see this vote as just "nutty". It's votes like this that make me doubt his seriousness. All this does is lessen his credibility on issues vastly more important.