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 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.
Further information on the background and purpose of each are linked here:
- Ron Paul: I Wouldn’t Risk US Troops to Stop the Holocaust (minx.cc)
- Ron Paul: U.S. Shouldn’t Have Fought Hitler Just to Save Jews From Holocaust (atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com)
- Ron Paul: Bush Happy Over 911 Attack (dakotavoice.com)
- Andrew Sullivan Rethinking Ron Paul Endorsement (lezgetreal.com)