Apr
10
Oh come on
April 10, 2008 | 2 Comments
It’s true that the vote was largely symbolic and meaningless, but that doesn’t make Ron Paul any less of an attention-getting hound by being the sole dissenting vote in a resolution condemning China over Tibet. To make matters worse, it’s not as though Ron Paul has consistently voted against such measures, as AllahPundit and comment JohnTant point out in the body of the post.
Sillier still is one commenter’s defense of Ron Paul:
Um, hes right folks.
Its the EXECUTIVE Branch which is supposed to run Foreign Relations… not the Congress.
Later adding:
Nice snark, but I notice you did not answer my question. What Congresional power from the Constitution gives CONGRES the power to do this?
Remember, unless it is specified in the Constitution that Congress HAS that power, then it DOES NOT.
That’s all well and good, but I seem to be missing that part of the Constitution that gives the executive the sole power over foreign affairs.
Sorry kids, it’s not there. The idea that Congress has such a limited say in foreign policy is ludicrous. Yes, the fact that the President can speak with a single voice does give him some advantage over the legislative branch of government, and I don’t necessarily have a problem with the President taking the lead role. But this sort of attitude would have the Congress sit on its hands and do nothing, letting the President of the United States become little more than a dictator when it comes to foreign policy. That notion is a far greater betrayal of the Framers’ intent than voting for a meaningless resolution.
Also, originalist though I am, let’s not treat the Constitution as a legislative code. Would Alexander Hamilton or even James Madison have agreed with the idea that “unless it is specified in the Constitution that Congress HAS that power, then it DOES NOT?” Certainly not. There are implied powers, and the Framers did not want to handcuff Congress by laying out every specific power in the Constitution. As I have said time and again, remember that the Constitution was written in order to strengthen the Federal government.
This is of course not a warrent to run rampant over the Constitution, but I reject the treatment of the Constitution as a mere legal code.
Update: Modified the opening paragraph slightly to make it a little less ad hominem.
Comments
2 Comments so far
Kind of reminds me of the Dick Cheney being opposed to a resolution criticizing the South African government’s imprisonment of Nelson Mandela. This sort of thing happens when people favor vague “principles” over harsh reality.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=dick+cheney+apartheid&spell=1
[...] Today, Cranky wrote a post regarding Ron Paul’s vote against a resolution that condemns China for their treatment of Tibet. Here is a quick excerpt: It’s true that the vote was largely symbolic and meaningless, but that doesn’t make Ron Paul any… [...]