ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel


Updated on May 16, 2011

"We the people...,"

To admit that somebody will come on national TV to make a mockery of himself or herself will be extremely infantile, particularly, if you do not really know that person.

However, many people, in reference to the Republican Party, have elected to become candidates for the 2012 presidential election, to cause President Barack Obama's ouster, and none looks more comical than Congressman Ron Paul; and believe me, not from his looks, but from what he says.

He has deliberately decided to be disdainful of all that can be described as good and meaningful in the U.S. Constitution; as he takes to task of what is said about "the poor" or, in modern terms, about 40% of the American people, who live under the poverty line; a specific demographic demarcation line, which has federal statistics to prove its existence.

He is saying in essence that they (the poor) do not deserve any privileges; namely, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other programs that are commonly referred to as entitlements. According to the constitution's interpretation, "these entitlements" do not exist; he maintains, during one of his media interviews yesterday (Sunday 15th, 2011).

He starts by saying that these programs are not necessary, because the U.S. Constitution does not make provision for them. They are additional social responsibilities that have been formulated or concocted over the years to increase the burden that the federal government must bear.

He strips the constitution to the point where it means that, whatever help, given by the federal government in the way of relief to citizens who have been struck by natural disasters, such as hurricanes, floods and tornadoes must not be allowed; because they are not deserving to obtain any such help. They are just out of luck; and that their problems must not be the responsibility of any government.

In other words, people are liable for their own safety and upkeep; and even for their own protection, constitutionally, of course.

As it is said earlier, on the one hand, not everybody knows him personally, and it will rather be preposterous to malign him in any way; while on the other hand, everybody knows where he is coming from. He is a Libertarian, and he must carry his platform with him wherever he goes.

Yet, he is way out of line to say that the U.S. Constitution does not cater to persons, but provides only the basic directions of how they must be governed. He makes it sound like the constitution does mention everything else, but people. Thus, in one sense, it (constitution) is completely abstract and without sentiment, even though its preamble begins with the words,

"We the people...".

With that coming from learned man, as he is, makes present day political discourse void of ordinary commonsense, and completely derisive; especially at a time, when many people are literally struggling to keep their heads above water in society.

He is liable to stick to his beliefs of maximum freedom and minimum government; however, with all due respect, and many Americans will agree that, the constitution is structured with the people firmly and securely in mind; and there must be a part of it that addresses their needs, even if those needs are not specifically stated.

Even when he is confronted with a piece of the U.S. Constitution that makes reference of "the welfare of the people" in one of his interviews, he pooh-poohs it, and says that it is taken out of context, or that it does not mean what it says; thus insulting the intelligence of the writers of the constitution.

Nobody opposes his candidacy for the presidency of the United States; however, it will make very little sense to vote for a man who will cast out 40% of the people, who in his view, are a liability to a nation he intends to lead.

In fact, no amount of convincing will compel him "to protect and defend", that unfortunate section of the American people, although the constitution demands him to do so. Thus, in another sense, the people are beneficiaries, whose rights are fully endowed in that precious parchment, which every President must swear to "protect and defend".

Therefore, his attempts to make the U.S. Constitution inadequate must not be overlooked by the voting public.

He has been doing so for many years, to disavow its contents; however, that is no excuse for him to continue in his empty rhetoric and cynical effusions, of which many, many Americans tend to disagree, with respect to "We the people..." 's constitution.

P.S. I, myself, am 76 years old.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image

      Howard Schneider 7 years ago from Parsippany, New Jersey

      Ron Paul is an example of what happens when a person adopts a philosophy strictly without wavering. Libertarianism in and of itself is fine. Promoting individual freedoms is good. But when taken to extremes is ridiculous. Eliminating all social programs would drive us into revolution in this country. FDR started these programs to stave off revolution in the 1930's. Capitalism is a great system but is flawed by greed. Government needs to remediate its excesses. His constitutional argument is garbage and is trotted out by the Far Right crazies on every issue. The Constitution could not address every issue and it was up to subsequent governments to do that. That is why the 9th amendment was passed. Great Hub.


    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: ""