1. I’ve seen most of the South Carolina thing on a Ron Paul supporter’s YouTube channel so apologies to Paul supporters for later comments. I didn’t watch Cain’s comments. Time (and life) is too short.
2. It was a bad night for the loudly self-proclaimed constitutionalists. Paul seemed to be surprised at the existence and relevance of those parts of the 14th Amendment that read “ 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.” and “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
3. Bachmann had trouble after she finished the 1-2 minute answer that would have sufficed in a normal debate. There were times when she seemed uncertain and surprised that the panelists wanted her to keep talking without further prompting. There was a point where Steve King had to spoon feed her answers about the “pillars [Pillars?] of American Exceptionalism.” Maybe the low point of the Freedom Forum came a few minutes after she asserted that, as President, she would “Make the case and make the defense why the Constitution of the United States must be observed.” She was asked by Robert George (and I love him for this) what provision of the Constitution prohibited a state from imposing an individual health insurance purchase mandate. She admitted she didn’t know what provision of the Constitution that might be and hoped that Robert George or someone would tell her. No, I’m not making that up (though I am mocking.) We need a better class of constitutionalist.
4. Romney looked pretty good when he was talking about how some regulations (I forget which ones) were preventing job creation by middle-level businesses from growing while giving established big businesses an unfair competitive advantage. I don’t really remember it that clearly, but it sounded good.
5. People still don’t know how to ask Romney an effective question on Obamneycare. It isn’t just that both laws had health insurance purchase mandates. It is a whole model of financing health care. Here is one (wordy) way to ask the question:
“Governor Romney, your law in Massachusetts kept in place a rule that insurers had to offer health insurance to all applicants regardless of health status. That was in the President’s law too. Your law kept in place a rule that forced insurers to charge premiums based on a person’s age and residence rather than their individual case. That was in the President’s plan. Your law imposed over two dozen mandates that told insurers what to cover and banned insurers from giving people the option of buying cheaper insurance that didn’t cover Chiropractic services. The President’s law also included significant coverage mandates. Under your law, consumers had to purchase a government-approved health insurance policy or pay a fine. Same thing with the President’s law. Why does your law look so much more like what a Democrat-dominated Congress and President Obama have enacted than what conservatives like Paul Ryan have proposed?”
6. The format worked great for Gingrich. Bachmann gave her standard debate responses and then had to ramble to fill the time. Gingrich told stories with beginnings, middles, and ends. He has spent his public life crafting attractive right-friendly narratives with sharp hooks. For every question, it was just plug and play a lecture he had already given a bunch of times. There were also the tough choice-free crowd pleasing answers that he knew would get him cheers and cast him in a heroic light. So there was cutting the corporate income tax to 12.5% to that tax dodging, Obama-aligned corporations would pay more. He suggested though did not outright say that cutting the corporate income tax to 12.5% would increase revenue. That is one reason I wish Douglas Holtz-Eakin were there to bring the CBO grilling to the candidates on the tax cuts. He also suggested abolishing the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and substituting “Solutions” with “Protection” in the name of the EPA (so that things would then become awesome or something.)
7. The dominant tax policy proposals seemed to be cutting the corporate income tax, and a tax holiday for corporations to bring in overseas revenue.
September 6th, 2011 | 8:20 pm
I thought Paul’s response to the 14th amendment question really made me think about the original intent of the founders to delegate more power to the state rather than a centralized federal government. When you think about it, it’s really in line with what Paul was taking about for years. It would be interesting to see Demint and Paul discuss more of this in a format that let us delve into the subject with a little more focus.
September 6th, 2011 | 8:24 pm
And yet there the 14th Amendment is, right there in the Constitution and George’s question was about whether and how Congress might use the powers granted to Congress by that Amendment to protect individual rights (though I share Carl’s concerns in a below thread.)
September 6th, 2011 | 8:50 pm
Ron Paul wasn’t remotely ‘surprised’ by the terms of the 14th amendment, he disagreed with George’s interpretation, and explained why, in detail, with reference to other sections absolutely enforced in accordance with his own reading until the Roe v Wade court changed interpretations. Ron Paul is a strict interpretation Constitutionalist.
Those who want the 14th to impose their own pet views on the nation would be the very ones to most hate it imposing the pet views of ‘the other side’ on the nation.
September 6th, 2011 | 9:18 pm
14th amendment was not new. The original bill of rights that was submitted had 12 amendments. 2 of them were rejected/not ratified, the 14th amendment was one of them.
I do not know the reason why, but the house ratified it, but the senate did not.
However, I do not understand why the 14th amendment is needed. Not so much that it’s bad/wrong, but rather that it seems to me that the 10th amendment combined with the supremacy clause of the constitution establishes the same thing.
And the supreme court was striking down state laws before we even the 1800′s, much less after the 14th amendment.
The 10th amendment states that all things not delegated to the states, nor prohibited by it are transferred to the states or to the people(personal choice/freedom).
The supremacy clause establishes the constitution as the law of the land. It says directly that the judges of each state are bound to it.
So how could the states legally do those things to begin with? Even before the amendment the supreme court was ruling against states that would discriminate in such ways.
As such, is the amendment in itself not irrelevant? I mean it’s not unconstitutional because it doesn’t take away previous rights, and by listing it like that, it makes it more in the spotlight for the layman. However, as the powers existed already, is it not actually irrelevant?
September 6th, 2011 | 10:43 pm
I’m still trying to figure out if that might be the first-ever question dodge on the part of Ron Paul. I am a huge Ron Paul fan, but I think the criticism offered up here is justified. I can’t believe there was an exchange here that actually made me think, let alone change my mind on something. Upon further consideration, I now think the federalist position on abortion is inconsistent with the argument that abortion is murder. I do, however, think the solution offered by Paul is preferable to the current situation and is more politically viable than a federal abortion ban.
I was a little stunned to see Ron Paul bested (IMO), but there’s still no doubt in my mind that he’s the best man for the job.
September 6th, 2011 | 11:43 pm
Hearing Paul explain how we got into this mess is always enlightening, and not something for a thinking person to miss. I think it is also quite instructive to hear the also rans, by which I mean the Non-Paul candidates. I call them also rans because there is frankly no need to hear their ideas, since they are all the same idea. Let’s blame the big bad Democrats, Republicans would have brought heaven to earth.
Paul acknowledges the Republican Party has NOT done as it should have, and has not done as the Republican Platform specifies. Ron Paul’s contention is, if Republicans were really Republicans, a whole lot of the people who call themselves liberals would actually find out they prefer a Republican President.
Let’s just start with bringing the troops home. If you believe in keeping America safe, you should want the troops home. If, on the other hand, you are a bully and like the thought of us over there terrorizing countries that could no more defend against us than against the Almighty, then please at least just admit that that’s what you are, and move on.
Next, let’s do the next thing Paul always advocates – get rid of the FEDERAL layer of bureaucracy. See, people are always so busy asking Dr. Paul what he BELIEVES, no one ever asks what he’d actually DO, given the limitations of the presidency. When Dr. Paul advocates doing away with the War On Drugs, he BELIEVES there should be no laws regarding drugs use. What the Presidency can actually DO, is just get rid of the FEDERAL layer of bureaucracy. Drugs are still illegal (and still enforced) on the STATE level, it’s just that you’re not PAYING A WHOLE OTHER POLICE FORCE to track them down. One is enough.
Same thing applies to DOE, it doesn’t mean no education, just means no FEDERAL duplication of what already exists at the state level.
Same thing with Homeland Security – hey we already GOT police.
Same thing with a hundred other federal agencies whose work is duplicated at the state level. You’re not getting one thing less, you’re just paying only ONE bureaucracy instead of two.
That’s not so bad is it? Nothing is changed, all the same laws are still being enforced. Only thing is, there’s only one group of police instead of two. Only one investigation, instead of two. Only one battering ram, instead of two. Only one tank, instead of two.
Isn’t that enough, especially when you consider your brother, who gives his life for you, will be back home – safe until he’s really NEEDED?
September 7th, 2011 | 12:39 am
If you currently have pre-existing conditions like me that have prevented you from being able to qualify for health insurance for at least six months you will have coverage options under new health care. Check “Penny Health” to find how to get quality insurance for dollars.
September 7th, 2011 | 3:54 am
KJ, “Ron Paul wasn’t remotely ‘surprised’ by the terms of the 14th amendment, he disagreed with George’s interpretation,” Paul was surprised/seemed to deny that the the 14th Amendment could be used to protect groups by radical violations of their rights by state governments in general (like George’s example of the state withdrawing the protection of the murder laws from a certain group and not just the unborn.)
September 7th, 2011 | 10:08 am
Pete: I don’t think Dr. Paul was stumped or that he did not believe it could be used to protect people. Notice that the 14th Amendment states that no ‘person’ should be treated any differently under the laws of the land. That inherently, even if it doesn’t do so EXPLICITLY, protect ‘groups’, as any law that targets a group or class of people will necessarily cause them to be treated differently under the law compared to others. The main objection that Dr. Paul seemed to have was using this as a justification to ban abortion, classifying it as allowing murder of a class of people, namely those in the first few months of gestation. The problem here is that we have yet to clearly classify the unborn as ‘people’ in a legal sense. A person who murders a woman who is pregnant, at any point in the pregnancy, can be charged with a double homicide (implying the fetus IS a person), but that same woman is allowed to have an abortion within the first trimester (indicating that the fetus IS NOT a person, otherwise it would be murder). The 14th Amendment can only be applied in this way once fetuses are officially declared as ‘people’, which is probably not going to happen anytime soon. To ask Ron Paul if, as President, he would use the 14th this way is to ask if he would use it to enforce his personal belief without having a clear legal backing to do so. Obviously, this runs contrary to Ron Paul’s philosophy. I’ll admit it was a difficult question, but I think his answer was very consistent.
September 7th, 2011 | 10:55 am
I’m not so sure that Ron Paul dodged the answer or was stumped by the question. This warrants a closer look.
Ron Paul gave a long version of what HIS interpretation of the 14th Amendment is, and he framed it in terms of the Federal Govt’s overreach into the jurisdiction of the States. I also think the Professor’s argument for using the 14th to protect a specific group of individuals not protected by a state certainly makes sense. However, Ron Paul responded solidly to that by pointing to the dangers of the provision in terms of allowing the Federal police too much power, and in his view, allowing the Feds to enforce an abortion ban opens the door to more power overreach by the Feds.
This is absolutely in line with what Ron Paul has professed over the year, and I believe it is a very solid answer to the Professor.
I, for one, thought Ron Paul’s exchange with the Professor was a highlight of his appearance rather than a weakness. His depth of Constitutional knowledge was on par with that of the law Professor, and no other candidate even came close.
September 7th, 2011 | 1:12 pm
I always find it a cheap jab to throw a section of reference that one did not specifically refer to as “evidence” that they “forgot” about it. I’m sure you would not like this done to you. You cannot discuss the entire world in one sitting.
Having said that, I find it hard to believe that – given Paul’s rather straightforward answers to everything I have ever seen him questioned on, without occassion to pause – one would assume anyone else would listen to aforesaid “evidence.”
September 7th, 2011 | 4:55 pm
@USS Constitution: The original bill of rights that was submitted did have 12 amendments and 2 of them were not ratified, but the 14th amendment was NOT one of them. Article The Second, which became the 27th amendment was one of them, and the other was Article The First, which was an unusual scheme of apportioning the House of Representatives that would result in as many as 6000 representatives today.
September 7th, 2011 | 6:45 pm
Angelo, if Paul has confined himself to the answer that the Framers of the 14th Amendment had not considered the unborn persons for the purpose of federal protection under that amendment, and that the 14 Amendment left abortion policy to the states (and presumably the Congress under some circumstances), that would have been a quite plausible originalist interpretation – and one a I basically agree with. But when Robert George pressed Paul about what Congress might do under the 14 Amendment if a state legislature removed the penalties for murdering members of some group based on race or ethnicity (in effect creating a license to kill – he could have mentioned bans against testifying in court I guess), Paul responded with the non sequitur that the states differ among themselves in the severity of how they punish murder (death penalty etc.).
Dennis, What was Paul’s interpretation of the 14 Amendment in cases of say a state removing the protections of the law (like prohibitions against murder) based on race or ethnicity? My read is that Paul argued that Congress should not intervene in such cases and that doing so was an encroachment on state power (true in a sense, but, in cases of race and ethnicity and others, pretty much what the Framers of the 14 Amendment intended – like the prevention of the enforcement of the post-Civil War Black Codes.)
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact