::::::::
Ron Paul supporters seem to have the thinnest of skins about any critique of their hero by anyone who is not a fellow fanatic, as I learned from their reactions to a post I made recently. Hopefully, this article will toughen their skin just a tad.I never wrote in my post "Ron Paul is no Savior" that Paul didn't make any statements about the constitutional fiasco surrounding the 2000 presidential election. When he did make a statement Dec. 4, 2000, he only attacked Florida Supreme Court judges for making a recount decision he didn't like, raising the false canard that judges "legislate from the bench" when they rule for an argument conservatives dislike. The great SCOTUS Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said (will paraphrase here since I haven't seen the quote in several years) that "an untrained mind will assume a concept it doesn't like is unconstitutional, while a concept it does like is automatically deemed constitutional." In his statement, Paul claimed the Bush v Gore decision violated state election law and the Constitution, but never said how. Incidentally, since the case is titled "Bush v. Gore" not "Gore v. Bush" it proves Bush was the one pushing the issue to the US Supreme Court, not Gore, as righties falsely claim.
I wrote that, "I don't recall Paul coming out to oppose George Bush's ascendancy to the presidency over the rightful winner in 2000 nor do I remember him siding with John Kerry in the 2004 election when this nation had its best chance of ridding itself of the George W. Bush cancer." Making a statement in opposition to a recount order by the Florida court, as Paul did, and opposing the ascendancy by Bush without a thorough recount, as I wrote, is a distinction missed by Paulites and Paulettes who challenged the statement and apparently can't read competently.
First off; let's make one correction to common knowledge and get it out of the way. The United States Supreme Court didn't make George W. Bush President of the United States. But the Supreme Court did prevent the rightful winner from being President.
The delegates to the Electoral College put Bush into the White House. That is where Paul showed, that by failing to support the rightful winner, he is no constitutionalist and has not the love or understanding for that document that he claims.
Article II of the Constitution says that electors shall meet in their respective states and vote for president. The results shall be forwarded to the US Senate where the president of the Senate shall open the certificates and count the votes in the presence of the senators and representatives. Only then is a President elected.
This is where Paul could have demonstrated his love of the Constitution he and his supports claim he champions. He could have demonstrated constitutional integrity by protesting the illegally secured Florida votes for Bush. He was a member of the House at the counting, but apparently remained silent when he easily could have made a motion to not count Florida's votes until the rightful winner was determined by a legal and thorough recount. He did nothing.
Paul was more than willing to remain silent in order to play partisan Republican politics by installing a totally unfit buffoon of a man to the presidency. Standing up for constitutionalism probably would have done little except demonstrate that Paul cares for the Constitution, as he claims.
But, when bark came to bite we didn't get as much as a "grr" out of Paul, who preferred to put his tail between his legs and slink back to his kennel.
If he really cared about the Constitution he would have been shoulder to shoulder with Laurence Tribe, constitutional professor at Harvard University; Paul Krugman, New York Times columnist, and hundreds of other constitutional experts and scholars protesting this travesty.
In fact, if any Republican would have protested this constitutional subversion, the mini-minded minions of the mainstream media would have picked it up and broadcast it everywhere, would have printed it all front pages, it would have been common information and all would know. The fact that not a single Republican stood up for constitutional integrity indicates there was no concern for the Constitution over a hijacked election.
Most Republicans seem not to care about the Constitution, but it is Paul and his fanatical supporters who claim he champions the Constitution ~ as opposed to the rest of us ~ and is the only presidential candidate capable of restoring the Constitution to its rightful place, and that is why he is singled out for scrutiny. Paul's silence betrayed him.
Dear Paulites and Paulettes, prove me wrong.
