All Of The Constitution Please…

English: Detail of Preamble to Constitution of...

Over the last couple of years, particularly as I have begun to identify more and more with being a “moderate conservative,” I have listened more and more to those who interpret the Constitution in a more literal way. Similar to the Bible, each has a context to be sure, and fights forever go onward as to who is interpreting either of these highly important societal documents correctly.  And obviously in both cases it makes a huge difference to say the least.

One of the persons I have followed with interest has been Texas Representative and Presidential candidate Ron Paul. His biggest claim to fame is his ruggedly literal and almost Herculean approach to bringing our nations back to the roots of state and local rights, limited government, and onward.  I have respected his approach too, knowing that many do not listen or have not listened to him in the past on the topics he doggedly presents over and over at each debate (at least when he is allowed to speak that is!) and, being from Minnesota, I almost think of him as the Paul Wellstone (late Senator from my great state), of the “right” that is, or Representative Dennis Kucinich from Ohio, neither of whom seemed to ever care too much what others thought but who stand/stood and spoke from their own convictions.  And we need such men in both parties to be sure. Often those are the ones laughed at during their time and sainted in later periods of history, because they see a horizon the rest of us tend to miss by our day-by-day living.

This is why I am so sorely disappointed in the latest revelations about his apparent racism in, not the distant past of the 1940s or 50s when segregation was rule, but in the middle to late 1980s.

Before you ignore this as “leftist propaganda” since it is in the Washington Post, I will say that I am first to admit that newspapers and networks do, all of them, have a “slant” in one direction or the other.  Fair and balanced will only come when we hopefully enter heaven and Jesus Himself controls the media there.  While on this earth, both sides are influenced by money, sex, and power, and not necessarily in that order.  But facts are facts, and these seem quite hard to refute:

Representative Paul, you have brought the Constitution back into focus for many of us.  Isn’t it time you read and followed the 13th and 14th Amendments to it? In case you or the readers of this blog have missed it, they are as follows and printed in full below:


Section 1.Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[2]



Section 1.All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Further information on the background and purpose of each are linked here:

Ron Paul, member of the United States House of...
Image via Wikipedia



5 Replies to “All Of The Constitution Please…”

  1. Hello!
    I found your blog through a link from a link posted by a friend, and I have read several posts so far and greatly enjoy reading what you have to say. I will also briefly point out that I am not (at least at this time) Roman Catholic, but I was baptized as an infant and remain close to the Church (especially with many in my family members of the clergy). I attend a small non-denominational church with my wife. Now that you know a little more about me, to the point of my comment!

    I think perhaps everyone is being a little harsh on Ron Paul (I am personally not sure how I feel about him as a politician one way or another, just so you are aware). After reading through the linked article (and a couple others), I must point out that most of the issues raised occurred during 1992, and the article even states that most of the racial comments come from one article. It almost seems as if he is telling the truth that he did not write those comments. It could be that they brought somebody in/allowed an employee to take over writing duties for a short time. After realizing things they were saying, those responsible for the words were removed from that duty.

    Another option could even be that, as I have seen Ron Paul demonstrate in the past, he said something without considering others’ understanding of his thinking context (or whoever could have written the alleged racist comments) thus causing a misunderstanding of meaning. I remember a few times during the the 2008 election cycle his saying something and needing to clarify days or even hours later what he meant. Many people forget or do not know what or how his libertarian view affects decisions. (Hence the confusion with his not voting for Rosa Parks to receive the Gold Medal. He also voted against Mother Teresa and JPII. His reasoning being that he did not believe taxpayers should foot the bill for the award.)

    All I am saying is that, regardless of the reporting agency, he could be misunderstood and misconstrued. I am also only speaking on this one issue!

    Thanks for letting me go on for a bit, and I am pleased to have found this blog!



    1. First of all a hearty welcome and well thought out comment Daniel…I re-read the Post article and it was a bit vague as to its sources from Paul’s writings in the 1980s and 90s, so you may certainly be correct. However they did make it sound like it was from several articles rather than one, and I would be interested to know if that is true, and also what the other ones say. I am also scared of his isolationist ideas so that is a whole separate issue of course, but this one does deserve more digging. If I find I am wrong I will apologize and remove this post. Still I am glad you found my page through it! God bless you much, and know you are welcome to post anytime.


  2. I believe that our best shot at defeating the money in politics is to abandon the traditiona-l party system completely and just demand that our economy be fixed and made equitable to the working class or we turn over every office in the country. This gives politician-s 4 years to work together to accomplish something “meaningfu-l” or they’re gone. No regard for party or ideology, just one shot at it or you’re outta here.tera gold


Comments are closed.