0 votes

How Ron Paul Can Greatly Expand His Supporters

As self-professed champion of the Constitution presidential candidate Ron Paul has missed a monumental opportunity to educate Americans about the criminal behavior of Congress in violating their oath of office. Even more important, he has not taken advantage of his 15 minutes of fame to promote the nation’s first-time use of what the Founders gave us in the Constitution in case the public lost confidence in the federal government.

Paul clearly recognizes the many failures of the federal government. Maybe as a member of Congress he just does not have the courage to confess that he too has been part of a long-standing refusal by Congress to obey Article V of the Constitution. Why don’t passionate Paul supporters see his lack of integrity, guts and consistency?

First, let’s be clear that Paul has no problem in seeing the need for constitutional amendments. For example, he has been a proponent of an amendment that would not allow children born in the USA from illegal parents to become citizens. Second, he has maintained throughout his career his love and respect for our Constitution. Third, he has carefully refused to publicly state his views on the provision in Article V of the Constitution for the use of a convention of state delegates to make proposed amendments as the alternative to Congress proposing amendments (the only procedure used for 220 years). Fourth, he has made no attempt to pass any law that would modify, clarify or expand the single requirement now in Article V for a convention. How can a champion of the Constitution remain so silent on Congress’ refusal to honor over 500 applications from all 50 states for a convention that more than satisfies the one and only requirement in Article V?

Anyone who studies the history of attempts to get the first Article V convention will learn that it has consistently been opposed by people and groups on the political left and right that are part of the nation’s elitist political status quo establishment. So here is Ron Paul, supposedly an honest non-elitist political maverick that does not fit into the political establishment, yet too cowardly to stand up to the political establishment by backing the use of the Article V convention option. Paul has had virtually no real impact on what Congress has done, yet he does not support the convention option that would circumvent the power of Congress. What does he have to lose?

Of course, if all the passionate supporters of Paul would spend more time investigating all his congressional activities, they would find a lot more to seriously question. A chief example is that he has routinely inserted earmarks for pork spending to make constituents in his district happy. Then he hides behind his votes against the spending bills containing his earmark spending items. But those earmarks remain in those spending bills passed by Congress. Tell me, is that really virtuous behavior?

There is still time for Paul to search his soul and find the courage to either to support use of the Article V convention as the route to achieving deep political reforms that Congress itself will never have the integrity to propose through constitutional amendments, or to step up and make the case for an amendment that would remove the never-used Article V convention option.

I have predicted that with our thoroughly corrupt and rigged political system Ron Paul has absolutely zero chance of becoming the Republican presidential nominee, no matter what his level of grassroots support is. And that may be justified for another reason. The one and only route to profoundly changing this awful political system – that our Founders gave us with the Article V convention option – is not passionately embraced by Paul. That alone, apart from the all the nasty realities of the political system, is reason enough for why Paul should not become the Republican nominee. After all, with his lack of consistent constitutional respect he really does not offer the kind of rescue for our sick political system that his supporters think he offers.

Indeed, his lack of support for using the Article V convention option kind of makes him a part of the political establishment, which is consistent with his recent announcement that if he does not get the Republican nomination he will not run as a third party candidate.

[Joel S. Hirschhorn can be reached through www.delusionaldemocracy.com and is a co-founder of Friends of the Article V Convention at www.foavc.org.]

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Nope

the Texas Republican Platform says NO to this.

Copied from the platform

Constitutional Convention – We oppose a Constitutional Convention or “Conference of the States” to rewrite the United States Constitution. Furthermore, we demand the Texas Legislature immediately rescind the State’s 1977 vote sent to the United States Congress calling for a Constitutional Convention. We also call upon other states to rescind their votes for a Constitutional Convention.

http://www.texasgop.org/site/DocServer/Platform_Updated.pdf?...

Be wary..

I am always suspect of those suggesting ConCons.

Jane Aitken, 35-Year Veteran Teacher
Ron Paul 2008 Consultant
GOP Woman of the Year 2009
Founder NH Tea Party Coalition (NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY FAKE 2009 GROUP)
Founder USPEINetwork @ Yahoo (Nat'l Edu Activism Group)
Board Coalition of NH Taxpayers

To what purpose

You reveal yourself bringing up "earmarks". Paul is not enamored of them but as he and others have explained - at least it allows representatives to focus money in their own districts. The alternative is bureaucrats in the Executive branch decide where all the money goes. Further, Ron has constituants to satisfy. What's teh problem with puttig in earmarks, given the alternative, especially when in the end he vogtes against them. He is thereby not advancing state power.

As to Article V, what do you think it will acheive? Given the intellectual level of Congress - almost all members of which have no clue what's in the Consititution - all we'd end up with is a slew of asinine proposed amendments such as the anti-flag burning proposal. Any such amendments will only be as good (or bad) as the qualityof representatives. That being the case, the last thing I'd want to see is Congress take action pursuant to Article V. Working for a return to the Articles of Confederation would be a good first step for meaningful change.

marlow

marlow

I don't know if it's crap.

However, this is the second time he's tried to push his agenda into the Ron Paul grassroots movement. The last time was an open letter to Ron Paul. Same stuff.

Joel, why don't you throw your support to Dr. Paul for President and then once he's elected and sworn in as President you can bring this up. I would think that you have a better chance of pushing for a people's constitutional assembly once the people have elected a President that submits to the authority of the people over the state and actually would uphold his oath of office.

Just a thought.

Join the revolution. You know you want to.

Statusquobuster

A traitor to America, a true slimebag. Perhaps you'd have the bravery to state your true name here, but I'm sure you won't as worms never do. Move back to the sewer where you belong.

Bob W., Naples, FL

Tisk, tisk...

Now Bob, I know that felt nice to write that I am sure, .... lets not break Manny's rules.

Fact 1) Ron Paul is not perfect as his record clearly shows; it just shines next to the other 534 members.
Fact 2) No one can predict the future Primary or General election, life is full of random events.
Fact 3) Ron Paul has his reasons for not supporting this.
Fact 4) My own reasons are that it would open up a Pandora's box of changes that none will be good. I suspect Paul thinks that as well.
Fact 5) Ok not a fact, a guess on Human Nature: If on the other hand, we inure Marshall Law, suffer heavily, that Constitutional option will be good fast way to produce a very good document because people will then be concerned with restraining government and protecting their freedoms and property and privacy.

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

GTFO

you dropped your crap in the wrong place troll.
____ _____ _____ _____ ______ ______ _____ ___
"The time is near at hand which we must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves."

George Washington
First President of the USA.

≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make
violent revolution inevitable."
John F. Kennedy