Ron Paul on Presidential Power

by slenderdog | January 13, 2008 at 03:27 pm

893 views | 0 Recommendations | 5 comments

Representative Ron Paul, Republican of Texas, has a reputation as a "gadfly." And he has consistently advocated a strict adherence to the Constitution deeply unpopular with conventional thinkers and politicians alike. After all, the implications of Paul's positions are the end of government largesse, and he is bound to make enemies of the hogs whose troughs would be emptied. And they are legion.
On presidential power, Paul takes a strictly constitutional view--though his answer on Congress' power on troop deployments seemed out of character--which many find puzzling, but many others find refreshing. Some of his answers are rambling and inarticulate--apparently he answered these questions in an interview--as is his style. He seems so impatient to get his point across that he often interrupts himself.

3. Does the Constitution empower the president to disregard a congressional statute limiting the deployment of troops -- either by capping the number of troops that may be deployed to a particular country or by setting minimum home-stays between deployments? In other words, is that level of deployment management beyond the constitutional power of Congress to regulate?

You know this might require a little bit of qualification. I have not voted to [restrict] the president on troop movements. So my thinking is if the president has some type of authority or he assumes it, I don’t want the solution to be by capping the number of troops or setting any type of troop movement. The solution there for me would be to remove the authority and defund it, not to micromanage troop movement.

At least the thing that I follow on some of these votes in the Congress, when the Democrats come up with restricting troop movements or saying you have to move so many out by so many months, unless the bill is complex that is a basic premise I try to follow. I do not like to vote for, and have voted against, micromanaging troop movements.

Dr Paul appears to be asserting the President's prerogative as Commander in Chief of the armed forces, but why did he not just answer the question? He jumps all over the place and refers to how he votes, but the question is whether the President can ignore Congress on these matters. He appears to say yes--uncharacteristically, we think. He seems to be willing to play to the Republican base, at least on some issues, to win support.

6. Does executive privilege cover testimony or documents about decision-making within the executive branch not involving confidential advice communicated directly to the president himself?

No I want to make sure I understand it. Personal papers would be exempt. I would argue for and make sure an administration would be very, very open.

After some forthright answers regarding signing statements and the detention of enemy combatants, Dr Paul comes up with this gem. Understand what? He really needs to work on his presentation skills because his message is garbled.

8. Under what circumstances, if any, is the president, when operating overseas as commander-in-chief, free to disregard international human rights treaties that the Senate has ratified?

Well, he never has the right to violate any human rights, but because he should obey the constitution, not because of the international treaty. But so I would get to that point but not because of the treaty but because of the Constitution.

Is Dr Paul making the point that the Constitution prevents the President from violating human rights, or that the treaties only have force because they have been ratified in accord with the Constitution? We think he is trying to assert that international law is subordinate to the Constitution, but we just can't be sure.

2 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

LukeGordon1

at 16:43 on January 13th, 2008

The eve of the NH Primary, John McCain was across Elm Street, the main drag of Manchester, and for a few days in January, the Main Street of American Politics.

LukeGordon1 has contributed a photo to this story.

sirnadroj

at 17:35 on January 13th, 2008

Vote Ron Paul 08'!

He is the only candidate who cares about the U.S.' monetary policy, which I feel is a very important issue. Gold is not backing up our currency. In the immortal words of Dr. Paul: "How do we stop inflation with more inflation?"

sirnadroj has contributed a photo to this story.

jimhankey

at 18:43 on January 13th, 2008

This is not a particularly fair commentary on Ron Paul's powers of articulation and/or persuasion. The author has cherry-picked a few answers from a much lengthier set of questions and answers to show some places where Dr. Paul's responses to a newspaper survey could have been clearer, ignoring the many other places and times in which Dr. Paul's advocacy for freedom was direct, clear and extremely powerful.

But if you look at the original story, from which this piece derives, you'll see mostly clear and direct responses. For example, asked whether the president would have authority to attack Iran to disrupt construction of a nuclear weapon in a non-emergency situation, Dr. Paul responded: "No." When asked under what circumstances it is acceptable for a president to sign a bill into law but issue a signing statement that offers an interpretation of the law indicating reservations about the law as written, Dr. Paul's response was: "None."

Regarding the question mentioned at the end of this piece, on the subject of treaties and human rights, the writer of this piece is straining at gnats -- and, frankly, being less than honest with readers -- with the assertion that Dr. Paul is not clear about whether the constitution trumps a treaty. Dr. Paul made it clear that, as president, he would not violate human rights even if a treaty left him free to do so. In the original story, a follow-up question points out that the constitution does not necessarily apply overseas and the original question assumes a case of an overseas operation. Dr. Paul responded that he would not allow his presidency to be involved in overseas adventures, but for purposes of the question, the president should abide by the treaty and not violate human rights pursuant to the treaty.

slenderdog

at 06:54 on January 23rd, 2008

I don't mean to be overly critical of Dr Paul--I think he is right about most issues and his answers were forthright in several cases. I think, though, he sometimes strains himself trying to translate his views to a more "mainstream" audience. It is more a presentational weakness than the conventional dishonesty we expect from our typical politicians. If anything, he should be more forthright in his rejection of the international groupthink that animates candidates like Mrs Clinton. Frankly I think he is masking his views in this area so as not to drive away moderates. Not blatant dishonesty, but he doesn't wear it well because it doesn't suit him to alter his message. I think that's exactly the quality a president needs--he should step up and shed the doubletalk.

BenRose3d

at 19:43 on January 13th, 2008

The Ron Paul blimp flys over Charleston, SC. Joel Evans (pictured) and I are there to enjoy the sight. Joel Evans is running for congress to represent the first district of South Carolina in the House of Representatives.

I agree that people should read the original story and all items they can find on Ron Paul. I'm not sure if quoting an interview and inserting a few lines of reaction really qualifies as anything more than a blog, but anyways.

BenRose3d has contributed a photo to this story.