When Fox News' Mike Huckabee hosted a forum for the GOP presidential candidates December 3, few expected that Texas Congressman Ron Paul would field what may have been the toughest question for a constitutional purist: Why would he say Social Security is unconstitutional and at the same time say that as a constitutional purist he would vote to continue the program?

The question posed to Paul during the December 3 forum seems impossible to answer, since the U.S. Constitution fails to enumerate a power of the federal government to create anything remotely resembling an old-age pension fund for all Americans. Panelist and Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli asked Paul: "Congressman, you are very clear. You think they are unconstitutional. Why would you sign a budget you think contains something unconstitutional?"

Paul responded: "Because you have two choices. You either can work our way out of this, or you have to wait until it collapses and we have to rebuild it."

But the question remains: Is Rep. Paul succumbing to practical politics? Is Rep. Paul a hypocrite for claiming he'd continue to pay Social Security recipients while at the same time claiming to be a strict constitutionalist?

Actually, no, he isn't.

While there's no explicit (or, for that matter, implicit) authority under the U.S. Constitution to create a Social Security or Medicare program, once a federal commitment to pay a benefit in exchange for a fee is made, another provision of the U.S. Constitution comes into play: Congress has the power and duty under Article I, Section 8 to "to pay the debts ... of the United States." Social Security includes an implied contract with people who have paid into Social Security for many years. Cutting Social Security payments would be analogous to cutting the pension of a federal employee who had worked for an unconstitutional agency, or cutting bond payments to Treasury bill owners who helped deficit finance the TARP bailout plan.

Rep. Paul stressed in the debate that he intended to propose to Congress major spending cuts in his first year. "If we want to save this country, we have to cut. So I have a plan to cut $1 trillion." He also tried to stress that the federal commitment to pay existing Social Security recipients doesn't mean the constitutional approach means keeping the program as is forever. "To cut that off and think you can do that over night," Paul told Cuccinelli, "no, you can't do that. So you have to have a transition program."

So here's the verdict: Rep. Paul remains constitutionally pure.

Fox News broadcast the December 3 debate live, and it featured all of the six major GOP candidates for President: former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Texas Governor Rick Perry, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, and Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann. Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman elected not to attend the debate, and businessman Herman Cain dropped out of the race earlier in the day.

The forum allowed 11 minutes of one-on-one talk between each candidate and the panelists, which included three Republican Attorneys-General: Scott Pruitt (Oklahoma) Pam Bondi (Florida) and Ken Cuccinelli (Virginia).

Rep. Paul also railed against the Patriot Act in the debate, stressing that "If that had been called the 'Repeal of the Fourth Amendment Act,' it wouldn't have passed." And Paul, who is also an obstetrician who delivered 4,000 babies, suggested to the state attorneys-general that states revive the Jeffersonian principle of nullification, which was coined in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798. "I would respond in a favorable way of reinstituting the principle of nullification. The states have to be able to nullify this. This would reverse the trend. And this would stop the usurpation of all the powers and privileges from the states to the Federal government."

"We've turned the constitution on its head," Rep. Paul concluded. "Today, the federal government is very big and the states are very little and it is a consequence of our carelessness with the Constitution."

Related article:

Gingrich Favors Juries, but Not for Americans ... Just for Illegal Aliens

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (8)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Louise said:

It's too bad It's too bad that most of what Dr. Paul said when over the heads of "average" Americans. To tell you the truth, if I didn't know where he was coming from -- I wouldn't know where he was coming from -- but nonetheless, I have done my homework and Dr. Paul is the only one in this election cycle (and probably in my lifetime) worthy of my vote. God Bless you (and your family) Ron Paul!

December 04, 2011

Why not? said:

... Those collecting social security in retirement paid into the system. Those same people also paid taxes for the government worker's salaries and pensions. Thus comparing social security payments to government pension payments makes no sense. In fact, I wouldn't be opposed to cutting pensions of those who worked for unconstitutional agencies or cutting bond payments to Treasury bill owners who helped deficit finance the TARP bailout plan. Why are public beneficiaries less vulnerable than those in the private sector to economic realities? There really is no need to apologize for Ron Paul's answer. He is clearly succumbing to practical politics. After all, he is in the business of politics.

December 04, 2011

Pat Riot said:

Thank you! This was an excellent article that should be spread far and wide. Ron Paul is the only consistent candidate even when the lame stream media tried its best to set him up

December 04, 2011

Jim said:

... This whole Social Security mess, the $61.6 trillion in unfunded government liabilities (now $534,000 per household), and the horrendous debt and deficit in general is like someone whose home is located on a flood plain and they see the torrential rains are going to cause the river to rise and sweep their home away along with everything they hold dear, and they sit there and don't evacuate and don't build a dike or do anything to protect themselves and their property. Capitalism thrives on investment, but government is taking trillions of dollars out of the system and tossing it down every socialistic rat hole imaginable and giving it away all over the world to those nations hostile to our own and/or to countries that compete with us in the market place. To paraphrase Jefferson's thoughts in the Declaration of Independence, "Government has become destructive to the very ends of everything it was put in place to preserve."

December 04, 2011

Cato said:

Don't try to make this into something it isn't ... Ron Paul said what he said because the President isn't a king. He doesn't have the constitutional authority to unilaterally make laws or to terminate programs created by congress whether they are constitutional or not. He wants to end Social Security. But, as he said, he can't just end it. That would be unconstitutional and he is a constitutionalist. Social Security must be ended through a constitutional process.

December 04, 2011

Phil said:

The Practical Reality is that when Paul is elected, he will have far more on his plate than merely Social Security. You think the Republicrats have conspired to obstruct the President's agenda up till now? We aint seen nothing yet.

December 04, 2011

Rosco1776 said:

I can't wait! He would phase it out not just end it. SS was supposed to be voluntary, I don't have a choice, do you? He would save trillions overseas and shore up our programs at home until they could be fixed or repealed. Ron Paul is the only choice again this election but people are still drunk with the government handouts that will come crashing down soon and can't see the forest for the trees. Ron Paul 2012 or BU$T !!

December 04, 2011

George Tolhurst said:

... God Bless you Doctor Ron Paul for being the smartest, most honorable, honest and hardest working candidate in this race.

December 07, 2011