Is Ron Paul a true constitutionalist?

[TheUniverse]

Ron Paul's central theme of his campaign is that he is the only true constitutionalist. But is that true? I've been looking at his website and I have been noticing some strange issues.


http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/

"I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn."


Since when does the United States congress have the constitutional right to tell the Supreme Court what cases they can rule on? I must have missed that part of the constitution.


http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border-security-and-immigration-reform/


"End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong. "


One of his campaign issues is that he will end birthright citizenship for children of immigrants who came here illegally. But the 14th amendment says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." So anybody born in America has the constitutional right to be a citizen of USA. The only way to change that is with a constitutional amendment, which the president has no say in. Why is he saying on his website that he will end birthright citizenship as president, if he does not have the constitutional to do it? Is this man really the constitutional warrior he says he is?

[MADem]

1. Yep--those jumped out at me as well. He's a Cafeteria Constitutionalist!!!!

Which makes him....a big, fat, HYPOCRITE!!!!!!

Edit, because my keyboard is a mess!

[dsc]

2. actually the Constitution does permit, explicitly, the removal of jurisidiction

of Federal Courts by Congress. It hasn't ever been done for obvious reasons but it is a power explicitly given to Congress.

[blondeatlast]

3. Excellent find. I can't wait for the DU RP contingent to chime in on this--if they have the guts.

I won't hold my breath.

[cali]

4. no. not even close.

he believes in the Constitution circa 1789. he doesn't believe in a living document. That was clearly the founders intent.

[MonkeyFunk]

5. Article III, Section 2 says (in part)

"In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

Right-to-Lifers want this to mean that Congress can remove jurisdiction from the court on any issue they choose. However, to read it that way means that Congress could remove ALL jurisdiction from the Court, thus removing the Judicial Branch entirely.

A more reasonable reading is that the exceptions and regulations mentioned means that Congress could ADD other areas to the SC's original jurisdiction.

It seems quite unlikely the founders envisioned removing the court's jurisdiction entirely. It's more likely they were making distinctions between original and appellate jurisdiction.

[Breeze54]

6. Who

cares? ;)