But couldn’t it be that he’s embraced the short version professionally for exactly those connotations, despite its noneuphoniousness? “Randal Paul” and even “Randy Paul” are easier to say, and have a warmer feel, too. “Rand Paul” connotes fantasy ideologuism and a touch of hostility to mere humans.
ISTM that libertarianism is ideologically neutral on the centralization/decentralization axis and has no ideological commitment whatsoever to American federalism as a constitutional tradition. Libertarians are, like Communists, rationalist radicals, not traditionalists.
And technocracy, i.e., the RAND Corporation.
Well, they are busy working to deny the vote to 20% (or more) of black people (and brown, and poor, etc.) – eliminating their votes for the Democratic nominee has the same effect on the results.
American libertarians are more often than not constitutionalists.
Liberals are more often than not ‘constitutionalists’. Every political affiliation, pretty much, claims to be ‘constitutionalists’. And, subjectively speaking, they all are. Every group interprets the Constitution, and every group claims that their interpretation is the best one. Scalia may claim he’s a strict Constitutionalist, or a constitutional originalist, but there’s nothing objective about either claim. He interprets the Constitution as much as anyone. There’s no way to apply it to the modern world without interpretation.
Well, he is prophesized to duel the Dark One at Tarmon Gai’don. I think it’s legitimate to ask if that’s going to interfere with his ability to execute the responsibilities of his office.
I don’t know that that’s true. Liberals are perfectly willing to wrap themselves in the Constitution when it suits their policy preferences, but when the Constitution doesn’t, you get things like Ezra Klein saying, “The Constitution is like, more than a hundred years old.” Or even worse, a liberal will say, “The Constitution was written by slaveholding white men.” I even had to argue with some right here on this board that the Constitution was even binding law!
Of course it’s true that all political groups believe the Constitution allows what they want it to allow, but there’s a big difference in disagreements over interpretation and active hostility to the concept of constraints on federal power, the very reason for the Constitution.
And you also hear conservatives say ridiculous stuff like “the first amendment only applies to Christians”. I wouldn’t wager too much on the ‘which side says stupider stuff about the Constitution’ side-bet.
All sides have been guilty of this at various times.
Comparing the rubes isn’t really enlightening. I’d prefer to compare the intelligent people on the subject. Like Ezra Klein, Herbert Croly, FDR, Woodrow Wilson, etc.
All sides are guilty of thinking the Constitution endorses their worldview. Only one is actively hostile to the Constitution itself from time to time. Only one seeks to change it by any means necessary, including court packing or amendments that would reduce judicial review power. When conservatives get pissed, they seek to amend the Constitution the proper way.
Either side can say this about the other. If this could be a factual statement (short of people who actually advocate for getting rid of the Constitution), we wouldn’t need courts to interpret it.
The court-packing didn’t happen and is overblown. And you mention amendments in a negative way… which you go on to contradict in your next paragraph:
It’s awfully convenient and self-serving that conservatives amend the Constitution the “proper way”, but when liberals want to amend it it’s “change by any means necessary”.
Amendments are fine. If you have a problem with a particular part of the Constitution, amend it. However, an amendment to reduce judicial review is like a genie giving you one wish and you using that wish to get unlimited wishes.
“Vote for me! I spoke to some black people, once!”
Oh, like when they wanted to change the Constitution to specifically forbid gay marriage? Taking away the popular vote for the Senate? Outlawing abortion?
Back when the civil rights movement was boiling, they didn’t want to change the Constitution, they just insisted that state’s rights demanded that the Federal gov’t not interfere with the internal politics of the states, thaf if Mississippi decided blacks should not vote, then the Feds were obliged to butt out. They had a point, certainly the Constitution could be read that way.
And if it were, and we slavishly surrendered to it, then civil rights would have come about only through a great deal more misery and violence. A lot more! Maybe asserting Federal power overriding state’s rights was wrong, that’s possible.
But it was necessary. Period. Full stop.
It was necessary in that case, and it was expressly allowed in the Constitution by the passing of the 14th amendment.
As a general principle, the concept of state sovereignty is still quite valid, although again, many liberals act like this is shocking news that just can’t be true. One Doper even said repeatedly(I think it was Brain Glutton), “The issue was settled in 1865.” Someone tell the Supreme Court, because the Medicaid expansion was ruled to be quite optional despite Grant v. Lee.
Or W saying, “It’s just a piece of paper!”
No, quite the reverse, the very reason for the Constitution was to create the strong federal power that was absent from the Articles of Confederation.
Sure, that’s possible, I suppose. And that’s about all we can really say about that.
And - I’m not a fan of the man - but c’mon. “Randy Paul” sounds better to you than “Rand Paul?” That’s just crazy talk.
Stronger, but still very limited. The states did not surrender their sovereignty, but it was better than the Articles of Confederation, which were about as strong as the United Nations.
C’mon, man.
:rolleyes:
adaher, you’re only saying that because the most egregious cases of conservatives misinterpreting the Constitution are ones where their interpretation agrees with yours. I’ve yet to see a conservative propose an amendment to repeal the “well-regulated” clause of the Second Amendment, for instance, despite them all pretending that it’s not there. Their treatment of the Ninth Amendment is even worse: Most conservatives claim to be upholding the Ninth by doing exactly what it says Shall Not be Done.