Ron Paul vs. Patrick Henry
A Critique Of ”The Revolution”

As stated on the dust cover of his book, “The Revolution” (Grand Central Publishing, 2008), Ron Paul...

a ten-term congressman from Texas, is the leading advocate of freedom in our nation’s capital. He has devoted his political career to the defense of individual liberty, sound money, and a noninterventionist foreign policy.

Dr. Paul never votes against the Constitution. As such he is often the lone vote against Congress’ gargantuan spending proposals and has earned the nickname, “Dr. No”.

Ron Paul Fails
To Grasp The Threat

Nonetheless, Congressman Ron Paul has failed to grasp the magnitude of the threat to liberty posed by the United States Constitution. On the contrary, he holds the naive and dangerous belief that the Constitution is the bulwark of American liberty.

“The Revolution” contains chapters on both foreign policy and domestic matters such as economic freedom and monetary policy. While these are very insightful, our review focuses on the central chapter entitled simply, “The Constitution.”

Early in this chapter Ron Paul states that “Americans must remember that the Constitution was designed … to limit the federal government’s overall scope. Article I, Section 8, lists the powers of Congress” (p44). This oft-repeated bromide is hopelessly naive, when we consider the sweeping powers that are enumerated in this section.

The states gave up everything but their political underwear and were left virtually naked before the monolith of federal power. As Patrick Henry warned, "the powers of both sword and purse are granted to Congress, which is an open invitation to tyranny" (June 14, 1788).

Dr. Paul follows with the conclusion that “The limitations the Constitution placed on the federal government had to be taken seriously if we expected to maintain a free society” (p45). As Patrick Henry so plaintively lamented, “what limitations?”

“’Patrick Henry raised precisely this concern…in Virginia: wasn’t “general welfare” a dangerously open-ended phrase that would permit the federal government to do whatever it wanted, since government officials could blandly claim that all its measures were intended to promote the general welfare?’

According to Ron Paul, Supporters of the Constitution gave Henry a definitive answer: no, ‘general welfare’ did not and could not have such a broad meaning” (p48).

From our vantage point in history, it should be abundantly obvious that supporters of the Constitution were definitively wrong and Henry was emphatically right. But Dr. Paul fails to draw this obvious conclusion.

Abuse of Power

He goes on to argue that the Constitution’s power to raise armies is innocuous. “’The power to raise armies is not a power to force people into the army,’ as Webster put it” (p57). But that is special pleading which denies the plain meaning of the English language.

Patrick Henry clearly foresaw and warned of the danger in the Virginia Ratifying Convention on June 16, 1788. “To me this appears to be a very alarming power, when unlimited (power of raising armies). This unlimited authority is a most dangerous power: its principles are despotic. It is a government of force, and the genius of despotism expressly.” Patrick Henry had no illusions about the proposed Constitution being a fountain head of liberty.

But Ron Paul is oblivious to the true nature of the Constitution, “That’s why on this issue I agree with historian Kevin Gutzman, who says that those who would give us a “living” Constitution are actually giving us a dead Constitution, since such a thing is completely unable to protect us against the encroachments of government power.” (p49).

What Ron Paul fails to realize is that the Constitution was dead on arrival in 1787, completely unable to protect us from its inception. In and of itself it was an egregious encroachment of government power that left the states and people dreadfully exposed to tyranny. That should be abundantly obvious when we survey the despotism that has been gradually imposed on Americans throughout the 20th Century.

In the words of Patrick Henry in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, "I look on that paper as the most fatal plan that could possibly be conceived to enslave a free people, he concludes, "If such be your rage for novelty, take it...."

Misuse Of Power

Abortion is a prime example, but Dr. Paul would deny the federal government the right to defend innocent life. “The federal government should not play any role in the abortion issue, according to the Constitution” (p60). This would be akin to saying that Moses had no responsibility for deciding murder cases in ancient Israel because it was a matter left to the tribes.

On the contrary, every level of government has a responsibility for upholding the law of God. But since the U.S. Constitution has rejected the law of God, its defenders can shirk its responsibility with nonsense statements like the above.

There is a strange inconsistency at play here, that springs from Dr. Paul’s libertarian philosophy. This philosophy is not informed by Biblical principles of government.

“Our Constitution delegates relative few tasks to the federal government, so it should almost be a matter of indifference who is elected” (p66). This is an appallingly naïve view of the enormous power granted to the federal government under the Constitution.

Ron Paul fashions himself the leader of a Revolution, but he fails to recognize the revolution that occurred in 1787. Patrick Henry saw it clearly, "Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: and cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case?"

In the closing sentence of the chapter, Ron Paul issues this call to action. “It is not too late to rally and recall our people to the constitution, the rule of law, and our traditional American republic” (p67). Notice the totally secular nature of this appeal. It is a call to return to the scene of the crime and repeat the crime all over again.

There is no call to repentance before God and submission to His government. Rather there is the futile call to return to the very document by which America rejected government under God.

Custom Search