I love Rand Paul, but with love also comes "tough love" which is something that many conservatives seem to have forgotten. Alan Keyes wrote a column last week which called Rand Paul out for his "birther" comments in regards to Senator Ted Cruz. Though I understand that Cruz is one of the good guys in D.C., and it breaks my heart that he is not a "natural born citizen" by the intent of the definition, the facts are the facts. Ted Cruz cannot legally be president. We must all make the decision if we are to support the constitution all of the time or only when it is convenient.
I have had my chops busted on this before and surely will again, but as my friend Bret Copley says, "The constitution is not a ****ing Chinese Buffet." You don't get to pick the parts that you like and ignore the parts you do not like and that goes for Rand Paul as much as the rest of us. So I report this today not because I don't like Rand Paul, but more so because he needs to grow into the rabid constitutionalist that we need him to be. He is truly the closest thing we have to a constitutionalist already. But that does not mean he cannot improve some of his interpretations.
Alan Keyes writes:
Trending: We Are Going Back To Hillary’s
Sen. Rand Paul just "sidestepped questions about fellow Sen. Ted Cruz's (R-Texas) eligibility to run for president, saying he was not a 'birther.'" Paul's contempt for the requirements of the Constitution comes as no surprise to me, despite the fact that his supporters frequently pretend he is a staunch "constitutionist." But a staunch constitutionist would be careful to remember Joseph Story's admonition that acceptable constitutional construction "can never abrogate the text; it can never fritter away its obvious sense; it can never narrow down its limitations; it can never enlarge its natural boundaries."
Like almost everyone else who collaborates with the current two-party sham, Sen. Paul has chosen to abrogate the Constitution's natural-born citizen requirement when it comes to Barack Obama's eligibility. Now he thinks to prove his fair-mindedness by showing the same disregard for that constitutional requirement when it comes to Republicans. Apparently he thinks that both parties should have the prerogative to disregard the words of the Constitution when it serves their partisan aims.
But respecting the authority of the U.S. Constitution's provisions serves the common good of the American people. It has been the key to the orderly conduct of their affairs since the nation was founded. Is it fair to the nation to permit abrogations of that authority so long as political parties are given equal license to engage in them? Is it worthy of someone who claims, as a matter of principle, to respect the Constitution?
I would highly recommend following the link to finish the article on RenewAmerica.com
I can understand Rand Paul's apprehension to throw Ted Cruz under the bus but he is looking at this totally wrong. The truth is that guys like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Mike Lee have very few allies, but there is a reason for that.
There is an old saying that goes something like this… Leaders are like eagles. They don't travel in flocks. You find them one at a time.
The reason that we respect these men is because they have backbones and will stand alone when they must.
Rand if you start getting overly wishy-washy about the constitution then you will lose the only base you currently have.
These are grown men. If Ted Cruz cannot accept Rand Paul's interpretation of the law then that would be silly.
So which is it Rand? Do you not understand what a "natural born citizen" is? Or are you going soft on your buddy?
We aren't doing anyone favors by soft-peddling the constitution. We already have at least 95 senators who do an excellent job of that.
"It's not a ****ing Chinese Buffet." Those words may be harsh but that is exactly what I was told when I was looking at things the wrong way. Sometimes a little extra shock value goes a long way. In my case, I needed to hear those words at the time I did.
By the way, to state that the Constitution does not fully define "natural born citizen" is a truthful statement but it is also a cop out. Do some research. The law of this land is not about loopholes. Statements were made in our very first congress to support the definition of "natural born citizen" and that goes to the intent of the framers. The 2013 definition is very much like people who change the meaning of The Bible over time.
The truth that was in 33 A.D. is the truth now.
The truth that was in 1790 is the truth now.
That's how it is. If I were allowed to custom fit a constitution around my lifestyle it would certainly violate the liberties of a lot of people. The law is in place for a reason.
Rand Paul is wrong this time. It's not the first time and probably won't be the last.
He is human and he is still very much one of the best we've got, in my opinion.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.