March 4, 2024

Point of Order

hammer to fall header

I have an addiction. I try hard to avoid it. I don’t know why it fascinates me so. I don’t know when it began, and I don’t know that I will ever get over it. I’m addicted to process– the order of things.

Maybe it’s because I “invented” one too many ways to play card games with my grandmother growing up, or perhaps it’s because I always wanted to be “the one that knew the rules”, but I’ve always liked and have been fascinated with knowing what the rules are.

That’s one of the reasons that I would actually give Ron Paul the time of day in my brain. That’s why I like reading about people like Sen. Tom Coburn from Oklahoma. I like people who stand for the side of the rule of law and want to do things in the right order.

But I’m also a realist.

You see, I was the Chairmen of the Deacons at my local church during an especially difficult time. They say that you really get to know your church Constitution only when you need to and this was one of those circumstances.

Church Government

You see, without getting into details, it became very important very quickly to understand exactly what was in our church constitution and what was not. Most of the people that attended the church were surprised that the document was written in such a way that we were a Pastor-run church when we all thought we were congregationally run.

Why the confusion? Because we’d not been following the rules– like many bodies of government tend to do when things are going well.

So– How does this relate to the Federal Government?

There’s been a lot said how Rep. Paul is the “Dr. No” in the House of Representatives– basically, if it isn’t in the Constitution, he doesn’t vote for it. All of us can support a man of principle, even if we disagree with him. For what he does here, I can support him.

The problem comes into play when we start to talk about the Presidential Election.

You see Congress has neglected the true intent of the Constitution that it no longer really knows what the Constitution is. They’ve eroded the rules to the point that they can justify anything through twisted readings and applications and they’ve run away with it– and I’m not sure it’ll ever be able to go back.

That’s pretty defeatist of you

It’s blunt, yes. But people that have taken power are loath to give it up. The only way that I can see it going back is through revolution or a systematic giving up of power after people see that they have a problem. It would take many changes in the people that run the government for them to want to go back.

There are truly two schools of thought about this country, but it’s not as much the red states/blue states or rich/poor problem, it’s more about how much government we want and what its role in our lives should be.

I’m not sure that those that want big government are ever going away, as I don’t think those that want a small government are either.

No one plays by the rules

Which brings me back to my point. No one is going to play by the rules. Right now, there’s disagreement to what the rules even are. And there’s going to be no agreement to write new ones. So, as much as I could agree with Rep. Paul’s desire to adhere to the rules– and would probably follow his lead to a large extent– I cannot say that he is the best candidate for President.

You would need a whole lot more grass roots support for him than he is currently getting for him to be the right man for the job– and that’s not even covering my disagreement with him over Iraq and legalized prostitution.

Until the people wake up and see the rules– or care about them– we need someone who will be able to work to wake the people up to see their problem and want to change it. In the meantime, we need someone with the desire to lead toward that end with the wisdom to take us there in an indirect method.

(Visited 18 times, 1 visits today)

6 thoughts on “Point of Order

  1. Obviously, as you can tell over at my blog, I’m a Paul supporter. But here’s a dirty little secret.  I don’t expect him to win.  But his candidacy, and my support of him, as well as the support of thousands of volunteers and donors, has raised awareness of the issues of liberty to the national level.I do believe he is the best choice for President, but I agree that there needs to be a much larger movement before any of the things he talks about are possible.  However, I don’t find the issue of electability to be of any consequence.  Primaries aren’t about electability, they are about nomination, and are one of our only chances to be proactive in forming the future.General elections are about the lesser of two evils.  But do enough research and you’ll find that neither side is really any less evil than the other.

  2. Great article, thanks for sharing your thoughts on Ron Paul from this aspect. But do explain your side comments about “legalized prostitution” and “the war in Iraq”…is he for or against these things? Glad you are back, I missed your blogging~!

    Mary’s last blog post..God is Good, All the Time

  3. Though Nathan would be a better one to talk about what Ron Paul actually believes, I’ll take a stab at it and hope he corrects me if I’m wrong.

    Ron Paul is a non-interventionalist. I believe that he would advocate that we remove all our forward bases from across the globe– not just Iraq. He believes (rightly, in my opinion) that we should have a strong defense, but does not believe (wrongly, in my opinion) that this includes having bases in places like Germany, Saudi Arabia, etc. I’m not a global expert. I do know that many have used these bases as an excuse for aggression, but I don’t know that removing them is the best policy, and I know that he wants out of Iraq ASAP and I’m not for that.

    Ron Paul doesn’t necessarily support legalized prostitution as much as he doesn’t see a Constitutional reason why it should be criminalized. (There is a group of prostitutes supporting his run for President.) Basically, being a strict Constitution guy and a libertarian, he believes that if the prohibition is not in the Constitution then it shouldn’t have been mandated by the federal government. And this applies to things like earmarks, etc. But when it comes to some social things, he believes that the federal government should stay out of it and let the states handle it. In theory, I don’t disagree, except I have a problem with saying that some of these things should be left up to the states because of who I am and what I believe. For instance, I believe that he supports ending the war on drugs… I can understand the position, and even appreciate the strict following of the law, but I don’t know that I can support it– I’m not there yet.

  4. MIn,You essentially got it right on Paul.  He does indeed want to remove military bases from the countries we have them in.He also does indeed believe that, while he thinks it’s very sad and discouraging that people would choose to sell their bodies or harm them with drugs, there isn’t a single provision in the constitution for the federal government to regulate those things.So, here’s my commentary :-)Are you aware that out of 190 countries on earth, the United States has fully functional military bases in 130 of them?  Did you know that these military bases cost us over half a  trillion dollars per year (over half of the FY2007 budget)?Now, if China or Russia wanted to put a fully functional (including weapons and bombs) military base on our land, I think we’d get bent out of shape.We’re no longer acting like a sovereign nation. We’re moving toward becoming an empire (if we’re not already there), with our hands in the middle of all foreign affairs.The founders were clear in their advice against this sort of activity, and George Bush ran, in 2000, on a humble foreign policy with no nation building.  Then, 3 years later, we removed the Iraq government and built a new one.Concerning the drug and prostitution thing … I can understand your position.  If you’re not there yet, then you’re not there yet.  But I can see that you at least see it as the most constitutional position, so you’ll come around 🙂

  5. That’s strange, Nathan.Maybe it’s the fact that you’re using OS X.  Can you try editing your comment (if you get back here in time) and I can see what it’s doing?Otherwise, I can try to put the paragraph breaks back in for you!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge