So it seems that Ron Paul just had the following exchange with one of the moderators at the Republican Party primary debate, because of Paul’s opposition to the Iraq War and his proposals to withdraw American soldiers from both Iraq and the broader Middle East:
Chris Wallace: So Congressman Paul, … you’re basically saying that we should take our marching orders from Al-Qaeda …?
Ron Paul: No! I’m saying we should take our marching orders from our Constitution!
Max Raskin of the anti-war, anti-state,
pro-secession LewRockwell.com Blog calls Paul’s retort Heroic!
(exclamation point his). I call it cowardly.
Ron Paul is perfectly capable of making sharp moral arguments against the war. He does during the course of the debate, as in his later exchange with Mike Huckabee. But he doesn’t do it here, and that’s a damn shame. Taking a moral stand against domination and senseless slaughter, in the face of bellowing blowhards such as these takes courage. But instead Ron Paul makes a legal argument, which amounts to ignoring the demands of human decency in order to throw a scrap of paper in their faces and making legalistic excuses. (Would a formal declaration of war, which would certainly have been granted if Presidents were still in the habit of asking for such things, have somehow excused the killing, maiming, and ruining of hundreds of thousands of innocent people by this war?)
For the record, here is what a heroic stance on bloody oppression and the Constitution looks like:
There is much declamation about the sacredness of the compact which was formed between the
free and slave states, on the adoption of the Constitution. A sacred compact, forsooth! We
pronounce it the most bloody and heaven-daring arrangement ever made by men for the continuance
and protection of a system of the most atrocious villany ever exhibited on earth. Yes—we
recognize the compact, but with feelings of shame and indignation, and it will be held in everlasting
infamy by the friends of justice and humanity throughout the world. It was a compact formed at the
sacrifice of the bodies and souls of millions of our race, for the sake of achieving a political
object—an unblushing and monstrous coalition to do evil that good might come. Such a
compact was, in the nature of things and according to the law of God, null and void from the
beginning. No body of men ever had the right to guarantee the holding of human beings in bondage.
Who or what were the framers of our government, that they should dare confirm and authorise such
high-handed villany—such flagrant robbery of the inalienable rights of man—such a
glaring violation of all the precepts and injunctions of the gospel—such a savage war upon a
sixth part of our whole population?—They were men, like ourselves—as fallible, as sinful,
as weak, as ourselves. By the infamous bargain which they made between themselves, they virtually
dethroned the Most High God, and trampled beneath their feet their own solemn and heaven-attested
Declaration, that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable
rights—among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They had no lawful power to
bind themselves, or their posterity, for one hour—for one moment—by such an unholy
alliance. It was not valid then—it is not valid now. Still they persisted in maintaining
it—and still do their successors, the people of Massachussetts, of New-England, and of the
twelve free States, persist in maintaining it. A sacred compact! A sacred compact! What, then, is
wicked and ignominious?
… It is said that if you agitate this question, you will divide the Union. Believe it not; but should
disunion follow, the fault will not be yours. You must perform your duty, faithfully, fearlessly and
promptly, and leave the consequences to God: that duty clearly is, to cease from giving countenance
and protection to southern kidnappers. Let them separate, if they can muster courage
enough—and the liberation of their slaves is certain. Be assured that slavery will very speedily
destroy this Union, if it be left alone; but even if the Union can be preserved by treading
upon the necks, spilling the blood, and destroying the souls of millions of your race, we say it is not
worth a price like this, and that it is in the highest degree criminal for you to continue the present
compact. Let the pillars thereof fall—let the superstructure crumble into dust—if it must
be upheld by robbery and oppression.
— William Lloyd Garrison, The Liberator (1832-12-29): On the Constitution and the Union
And also this:
The practical difficulty with our government has been, that most of those who have administered it, have taken it
for granted that the Constitution, as it is written, was a thing of no importance; that it neither said what it meant,
nor meant what it said; that it was gotten up by swindlers, (as many of its authors doubtless were,) who said a
great many good things, which they did not mean, and meant a great many bad things, which they dared not say;
that these men, under the false pretence of a government resting on the consent of the whole people, designed
to entrap them into a government of a part; who should be powerful and fraudulent enough to cheat the weaker
portion out of all the good things that were said, but not meant, and subject them to all the bad things that were
meant, but not said. And most of those who have administered the government, have assumed that all these
swindling intentions were to be carried into effect, in the place of the written Constitution. Of all these swindles,
the treason swindle is the most flagitious. It is the most flagitious, because it is equally flagitious, in principle, with
any; and it includes all the others. It is the instrumentality by which all the others are mode effective. A
government that can at pleasure accuse, shoot, and hang men, as traitors, for the one general offence of
refusing to surrender themselves and their property unreservedly to its arbitrary will, can practice any and all
special and particular oppressions it pleases.
The result — and a natural one — has been that we have had governments, State and national, devoted to nearly
every grade and species of crime that governments have ever practised upon their victims; and these crimes
have culminated in a war that has cost a million of lives; a war carried on, upon one side, for chattel slavery, and
on the other for political slavery; upon neither for liberty, justice, or truth. And these crimes have been committed,
and this war waged, by men, and the descendants of men, who, less than a hundred years ago, said that all men
were equal, and could owe neither service to individuals, nor allegiance to governments, except with their own
consent.
… Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore
never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever
hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is
perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to
say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by
false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and
almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written
much, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the Constitution really be one
thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has
been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.
–Lysander Spooner, No Treason No. 2 and No. 6
There’s no heroism in begging the Warfare State to live up to its better nature, or in trying to recommend your position by its connections with power and tradition. Peace, reason, and humanity are good enough to stand on their own, and if the law doesn’t recognize it, then we need to say To hell with the law!
not look around for a Super-Duper Law that will supposedly give some marching orders
for a principle that never needed them in the first place.
In related news, there are only 12 more ranting days before International Ignore the Constitution Day.
