Question for Ron Paul supporters

R

revance

New member
First, let me just say I'm not looking for an argument of whether people agree with Ron Paul's ideas. I like a lot of his ideas and while he may not be my first choice he is definitely at the top of my list.

My question:

A coworker of mine was talking about how he supports Ron Paul, so I joined the discussion. At some point in the discussion someone brought up RP wanting to eliminate many government agencies (FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, etc.). Then this coworker claims he has never heard any such thing. Even said he has never heard anyone talk about him suggesting that. I informed him that it was indeed true and that as a true constitutionalist, Ron Paul believes the fed gov should only do what it has power to do granted in the Constitution.

He still doesn't believe me. I even directed him towards a google search and pages and pages of people discussing this. However since I haven't produced a quote from the horses mouth he refuses to believe this. Given the huge amount of Ron Paul talk on the internet, its difficult to find specific things.

Do any of the supporters here know where I can find his official stance on this? It really ticks me off that someone who claims to have done research on a candidate can be so naive of what a candidate stands for (whether you like it or not).
 
You can find out all you want about Ron Paul at his web site, Google will tell you where that is.

You can also go to The Ron Paul File to read in depth all his positions. Dr. Paul has been writing about his positions for more than 20 years. I don't see any of his basic positions changing in the future, they haven't in the past. They're extremely well thought out.
 
Yup, Paul has said several times how he wants to get rid of the alphabet soup agencies including the CIA.

What bothers me isn't that Paul wants to get rid of these agencies. (well actually it does because at this time in history its the height of ignorance) What does bother me is that Paul thinks that these agencies are somehow unconstitutional. I suppose thats what you get from having doctor practice law.
 
Stage 2: again, I really didn't want to start arguments about whether its a good idea or not. I just wanted to find where he actually said it. I know it used to be on his site because that is where I first read it when I first started reading about him.

However it seems he is trying to tuck it away and not draw much attention to it now. He probably realizes its not something that can be accomplished in one presidency. I did send my coworker a link to the debate where the moderator said "in the past you have said you want to dissolve the... blahblahblah" and while he listed the agencies, Ron Paul applauded. He then explained why without any kind of argument to the question. Apparently that wasn't enough to convince this guy at work since Ron Paul didn't actually come out and say it.

It just ticks me off that someone claiming to be paying such close attention to the presidential race could claim he has never heard such a thing and then argue it so fiercely.
 
Ron Paul DOES in fact want to do away with what these agencies do, and if there's no Constitutional authorization for what they've done in the past, then they'd not be reconstituted. Keep in mind that defending America is Constitutional, and collecting intelligence is a valuable part of that. Needless to say, the CIA has been involved in much more than that during its lifespan.

The IRS is only authorized to collect tariffs. The EPA has no Constitutional authorization whatsoever, neither does the DEA or the FBI.

For those that think the FBI has a Constitutional basis, I'd ask them to provide evidence of that. Their existence does is not a proof.
 
For those that think the FBI has a Constitutional basis, I'd ask them to provide evidence of that. Their existence does is not a proof.
Click to expand...

The FBI and the DEA as well as most of the other alphabet soup agencies are executive agencies under various departments. The FBI falls under the DOJ. Article 2 section2 is what allows the president the power to create executive departments. The FBI's specific authority to investigate crimes come from congress under title 28 of the USC.

If Paul is suggesting that the FBI is unconstitutional, then he has to explain why the constitution specifically mentions executive departments. He will also have to explain how the framers intended for the federal government to pass laws but then have no agency to enforce them if federal agencies weren't intended.

While the FBI is sort of recent, the former US customs service was up until its (incredibly stupid and insulting) reorganization the oldest law enforcement group in america, dating back to 1789. Clearly the framers didn't have a problem with federal law enforcement. Why does Paul?
 
The president can only have departments under his authorized powers. As you may know, the first 10-20 years of the FBI's existence was under executive order, a very tenuous one at that. When the advantage gained in having a tax funded agency that could amass information on political operatives was realized, it was finally given Congressional approval. Most of us understand how J. E. Hoover remained as the head of the FBI for all those years. There is no authorized police power of the type the FBI practices. Collecting taxes is Constitutional provided the tax itself is Constitutional. As we know, a great many taxes are not. The tax on machine guns and NFA weapons is clearly not Constitutional, for example.

A modern example of how the FBI is a failed agency is their total incompetence demonstrated by the attacks of 9/11/2001. Despite a mountain of evidence laid at their feet, they failed in their sworn duties.

The police power is held by the states, alone.
 
Clearly the framers didn't have a problem with federal law enforcement. Why does Paul?
Click to expand...

Because Ron Paul possesses a fundamental misunderstanding of constitutional law, and his grasp on reality appears to be just as bad. No CIA, huh? Perhaps Ron Paul intends to gather intelligence by floating around in a blimp and peering at the ground through a big telescope. And he'll be a wonderful leader of the executive branch when he eliminates the FBI and no longer enforces federal law.

Revance, when you ask your friend why Ron Paul wants to eliminate the FBI and the CIA, you'll get a vague response that those agencies are "unconstitutional", and then you'll be told how Ron Paul is the most "constitutional" candidate. My guess is that your friend won't provide a specific reason that the FBI/CIA are "unconstitutional", and he won't want to specifically tell you how Ron Paul intends to gather domestic or foreign intelligence when the CIA and FBI are eliminated.

Good luck. :rolleyes:
 
The president can only have departments under his authorized powers. As you may know, the first 10-20 years of the FBI's existence was under executive order, a very tenuous one at that. When the advantage gained in having a tax funded agency that could amass information on political operatives was realized, it was finally given Congressional approval. Most of us understand how J. E. Hoover remained as the head of the FBI for all those years. There is no authorized police power of the type the FBI practices. Collecting taxes is Constitutional provided the tax itself is Constitutional. As we know, a great many taxes are not. The tax on machine guns and NFA weapons is clearly not Constitutional, for example.
Click to expand...

Thats not the argument that Paul is making nor the one you started out with.

The fbi as an agency is either constitutional or not. Whether it does unconstitutional things or enforces unconstitutional laws is a separate issue.
 
Clearly the framers didn't have a problem with federal law enforcement. Why does Paul?
Click to expand...

Well, I'll pick on the EPA for an example. During his confirmation hearings as Chief Justice, it came out that Roberts had once stated in a ruling that he did not believe indigenous California toads affected interstate commerce.

Pull the commerce clause rug from under lots of federal agencies, and watch them topple. DEA? Homegrown cannabis for personal consumption is interstate commerce. ATF? Homegrown machine guns for personal consumption - also interstate commerce.

If you don't see the problem yet, you're not going to see it, but lots of us do, and we're giving our dollars and our energy to the one politician who shares our view.
 
Pull the commerce clause rug from under lots of federal agencies, and watch them topple. DEA? Homegrown cannabis for personal consumption is interstate commerce. ATF? Homegrown machine guns for personal consumption - also interstate commerce.
Click to expand...

Again, you miss the point. The executive isn't bound by the restrictions on congress as to the departments he creates. The laws these various agencies can enforce is subject to these restrictions, but their existence is not.

While homegrown canniabis might not be in interstate commerce, pot that comes across the border certianly is and is subject to the jurisdiction of the feds.

If you don't see the problem yet, you're not going to see it, but lots of us do, and we're giving our dollars and our energy to the one politician who shares our view.
Click to expand...

I see the problem, and its the fact that Paul has again demonstrated a lack of understanding of the constitution. If he thinks these agencies are defacto unconstitutional then has no understanding of the document.
 
The executive creates agencies to execute laws, which are created by Congress and (in theory, if no longer in practice) subject to some limitations.

Getting back to my first example, the EPA, why was it created? Just a demonstration of raw executive agency-conjuring power? No, it was created to enforce laws. Laws based on the commerce clause.

And we wind up arguing in our courts about whether an indigenous California toad affects interstate commerce. It's a silly question, and demonstrates how far our government has grown beyond the intended bounds of the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
The executive creates agencies to execute laws, which are created by Congress and (in theory, if no longer in practice) subject to some limitations.

Getting back to my first example, the EPA, why was it created? Just a demonstration of raw executive agency-conjuring power? No, it was created to enforce laws. Laws based on the commerce clause.

And we wind up arguing in our courts about whether an indigenous California toad affects interstate commerce. It's a silly question, and demonstrates how far our government has grown beyond the intended bounds of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Apples, meet oranges. I don't really care about someone's interpretation of the commerce clause for the purpose of this argument. Its wholly irrelevant.

The issue in this case is whether or not the FBI, DEA, ATF, CIA or whoever else is unconstitutional. Paul thinks they are. The constitution says otherwise.

The constitution places no restrictions on the number or type of departments the president creates. While I grant you that creating a department that would serve no constitutional purpose would be useless, its still perfectably acceptable for the executive to do so.

Thats the issue here. Not whether the commerce clause is too broad.
 
The issue in this case is whether or not the FBI, DEA, ATF, CIA or whoever else is unconstitutional. Paul thinks they are. The constitution says otherwise.
Click to expand...
My copy of the Constitution says that the President can only establish these offices with the advice and consent of the Senate, and the funding of said offices is only by the consent of the House of Representatives, who shall not establish or fund any office not in support of their limited powers.

Looks like Ron Paul may know about the Constitution than you do.

The Constitution was set up to have the House of Representatives as the strongest part of the federal government, with the Senate representing the States through election by the state legislatures. The next strongest branch was to be the Judiciary, but only in judging cases within the narrow confines of the Constitution, no redefinition of the Constitution was permited. The weakest branch of the federal government was to be the presidency, who job it was to carry out the wishes of the Senate and House of Representatives, unless it was a job he didn't want to do, upon which he was authorized to cast a NO vote.

I can't find any authorization in the Constitution for the president to create any "office" he wishes to create out of whole cloth.
 
My copy of the Constitution says that the President can only establish these offices with the advice and consent of the Senate, and the funding of said offices is only by the consent of the House of Representatives, who shall not establish or fund any office not in support of their limited powers.

Looks like Ron Paul may know about the Constitution than you do.
Click to expand...

Ron Paul doesn't know more than the United States Supreme Court which, for decades, has held that Congress may delegate power to executive agencies:

Despite some dicta to the contrary, it appears that there is no power Congress cannot delegate. ''[A] constitutional power implies a power of delegation of authority under it sufficient to effect its purposes.'' 97 Denying that it had ever suggested that the taxing power was nondelegable, the Court has placed that congressional authority on the same plane of permissible delegation. 98 Nor is there a problem with the fact that in exercising a delegated power the President or another officer may effectively suspend or rescind a law passed by Congress. A rule or regulation properly promulgated under authority received from Congress is law and under the supremacy clause of the Constitution can preempt state law, 99 and likewise it can supersede a federal statute. Early cases sustained giving the President upon the finding of certain facts to revive or suspend a law, 100 and the President's power to raise or lower tariff rates equipped him to alter statutory law. 101 Similarly, in Opp Cotton Mills v. Administrator, 102 Congress' decision to delegate to the Wage and Hour Administrator of the Labor Department the authority, after hearings and findings by an industry committee appointed by him, to establish a minimum wage in particular industries greater than the statutory minimum but no higher than a prescribed figure was sustained. Congress has not often expressly addressed the issue of repeals or supersessions, but in authorizing the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of civil and criminal proce dure and of evidence it directed that such rules supersede previously enacted statutes with which they conflicted. 103


Recent concerns in the scholarly literature with respect to the scope of the delegation doctrine, 104 have been reflected within the judicial writings of some of the Justices. 105 Nonetheless, the Court's most recent decisions evidence no doubt of the constitutional propriety of very broad delegations, 106 and the practice will doubtlessly remain settled.
Click to expand...
That's from a Findlaw article about the constitution. Perhaps Ron Paul ought to learn something about, oh, say the last 70 years or so of agency law. :rolleyes:

These departments exist because congress has approved them, funded them, and delegated power to them. They are constitutional. Except to Ron Paul supporters, who make wild, unsupported claims that are belied by decades of Supreme Court precedent.

If Ron Paul wants to be the commander in chief, he'd better start explaining how he's going to protect the country after he eliminates the CIA and the FBI. Or perhaps information about terrorism, and the investigation and enforcement of federal laws that prohibit (for example) the passing of fake US currency, are simply presidential duties that don't interest Ron Paul.
 
My copy of the Constitution says that the President can only establish these offices with the advice and consent of the Senate, and the funding of said offices is only by the consent of the House of Representatives, who shall not establish or fund any office not in support of their limited powers.
Click to expand...

Then your copy is wrong. From article 2 section 2...

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

Nowhere in there does it say anything about establishing these departments with the advise and consent of anybody.

I can't find any authorization in the Constitution for the president to create any "office" he wishes to create out of whole cloth.
Click to expand...

It doesn't say anything explicitly about creating various executive departments either, however if the president has the power to request opinions from the heads of executive departments, then it is obvious that having executive departments is constitutional and creating them is as well.

The framers were smart guys, but they also didn't feel the need to spell every single teeny tiny thing out, especially when the implication is pretty clear.
 
The constitution places no restrictions on the number or type of departments the president creates. While I grant you that creating a department that would serve no constitutional purpose would be useless, its still perfectably acceptable for the executive to do so.
Click to expand...

I'd say "arguably constitutional" and not "perfectly acceptable."

Suppose you're President, and Congress passes a law saying all private guns must be rounded up. They override your veto, which I assume would be forthcoming. Is it perfectly acceptable for you to create an agency or use an existing one to execute such a law? Is it your duty to do so?

While the Congress is the branch stepping outside the Constitution, doesn't any of that taint spill over onto the executive if he enforces an unconstitutional law?

Where did the executive get the authority to create the Department of Education? From Congress. OK, but where did they get it? The answer must be "from the Constitution." And that leads me to ask, which part? (Try to answer without reference to the commerce clause, since it is wholly irrelevant.) What part of Article 1, Section 8 gives them that power?
 
Can you find a specific quote from Ron Paul stating that a specific agency is "unconstitutional" before you bash his understanding of the Constitution?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top