Ron Paul is the best republican candidate

On the constitution: I would have liked to discuss, given the resolution, the main reasons you disagree with Dr. Paul. It is often the case that one's most deeply held opinions on an issue or political figure are really the root of all of one's other views on the issue. A constitutionalist, for example, would be unlikely to object as you have to a principled stand for the constitution. I do thank you for stating: //"The most basic difference that I hold with him is that I am ok with an evolving constitution. I may be against some of the ways that it is changed today but I am ok with it changing". I agree, the constitution should be capable of change! The method to make such changes is amendment. For example, in order to enact a prohibition on alcohol, our representatives recognized that a constitutional amendment would be required. When prohibition was overturned, they passed another constitutional amendment striking the first down. By contrast, today's politicians believe they can pass all manner of unconstitutional laws without actually changing the constitution (e.g. warrantless wiretapping, expansive federal social programs). This is my principal objection. The constitution need not be a static document, but if we lack the respect to amend the constitution properly instead of ignoring it or reinterpreting it at will, the constitution becomes completely meaningless. Suppose we often played a board game, governed by clearly written rules. Over time, if we both agreed, we might make improvements to the rules, and insert these changes into the document. Changes are reasonable -- but would it be possible to play a game where the "rules" simply meant whatever I wanted them to mean -- one where I could modify them at will? This would be the same as a game with no rules. For good reason, our country is not a pure democracy, but a constitutional republic. In a democracy if the majority wish to enslave the minority, they can. In a constitutional republic, the rights of the minority are protected as more important than the desires of the majority. This protection is precisely the constitution, and if we continue to ignore it we will continue to devolve from a constitutional republic to a democracy, and with no respect for individual rights, further devolve to authoritarianism and the loss of representative government altogether. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On principles in government: Noticing the continual encroachment of government on our liberties, many have wondered if our country is more free only because it is younger -- because government has had less time to extend its reach into every corner of our lives. Why then is there a fear of government inaction? Given their approval ratings, I think many would agree that both the president and congress have done far more harm than good in recent years. Action is not good for action's sake, and much of our worst legislation has come through "compromise". It is true that even principled people can do damage. That is why the question of which principles one holds is as important is whether one holds principles at all. The correct response upon encountering faulty principles is to question the choice of principles, not the very idea of principles itself. Carter was ineffective because his principles of activist government were faulty. It may also be the case that his manner of governance was at fault, that he should have been willing to take small steps towards his goals. Current politicians, however, and the rest of the Republican presidential field, would not take our country in a direction towards more liberty. It is not that I believe their steps would not be large enough, it is that I believe their steps would be in the wrong direction entirely. Under this "Republican" president our debt has expanded to over 9 trillion dollars, the federal budget has gone into huge deficits, and we've added additional entitlements like prescription drug coverage that have further exacerbated the social security/medicare/medicaid crisis with now over 60 trillion dollars of obligations for which we have no means to pay. Furthermore, we've spend trillions of dollars on an interventionist foreign policy that has done us more harm than good. We do not need troops in 70 percent of all countries worldwide, especially when we are going broke. No Republican other than Paul has indicated that they would reverse these trends, or that they have any basic respect for our personal and economic liberty. Democrats have given every indication that they would only further accelerate our financial woes and further violate our economic liberty. Paul accepts imperfect bills if they would reduce the overall tax burden, and has shown that he is willing to accept even small steps towards liberty. No other politician has given any reason to believe that they will take any steps towards liberty at all, thus Paul is the best, and only option liberty loving Americans have. I repeat, if all he accomplished was to veto unconstitutional encroachments upon our liberties and expansions of federal powers, he would have done a great service to our country. The fact is that he could immediatly fix many of our foreign policy problems, revoke unconstitutional executive orders, and with the power of the veto and by working with congress, cut wasteful spending. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Our early leaders did not agree on everything, but they would be absolutely appalled at the state the country is currently in. Even those among them who favored slightly more central control and economic intervention could not have concieved of the monster our federal government has become -- one that violates the basic principles on which this country was founded. As Walter Williams said, "If the Framers of the Constitution were somehow to come back, Ron Paul is one of possibly only three people in Congress that they'd even talk to." Consider the quotes included in my second response, and these: For by small degrees has liberty in all nations been wrested from the hands of the people. -- Fischer Ames With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. -- James Madison I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, not longer susceptible of any definition. -- Thomas Jefferson Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all... The Nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest ... Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances, with any portion of the foreign world. - George Washington, Farewell Address, 17 Sept. 1796. Where liberty dwells, there is my country. --Benjamin Franklin Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with none. - Thomas Jefferson We must chose the only candidate who will work to restore the liberties our country was founded to protect, return us to a moral, fiscally responsible foreign policy, and renew our honor for the constitution. This candidate is Dr. Paul. I agree with your last line by the way, although it looks rather familiar ...