Glenn Greenwald is one of the few people writing for the media who seems to get the Ron Paul phenomenon.

I appreciate that he pointed out that abiding by the Constitution is not about whether various programs or agencies are good. It is about whether they are constitutional. If they are not constitutional and they are desirable, then we should amend the Constitution.

Once we cease to abide by the Constitution, we cease to be the republic we claim to be.

The only just reason to create a government is to protect the liberty of the people. It is not a valid function of government to steal from one person and give to another, or to mandate or prohibit activities which do not violate the rights of other people. Such behavior from government is antithetical to freedom. Our republic was designed to protect the liberty and rights of the individual from the majority.

Disregard of the Constitution leads to tyranny and bankruptcy. It may be a slow process or it may not be, but it is inevitable.

I agree with Mr. Greenwald that many of Paul's supporters disagree with some of Paul's views, perhaps very strongly in some instances, but we see the overarching issue of respecting our Constitution and defending our disappearing liberties as far more urgent.

We can no longer afford the ridiculous and unconstitutional entitlement programs and leviathan government agencies that we have had for so long. These things are not only unconstitutional in many, if not most, cases, they are taking this country to bankruptcy. (How is it that one citizen is "entitled" to the money belonging to another citizen?)

Good or bad is irrelevant if you cannot afford the thing in question. Good or bad is irrelevant if the thing in question is unconstitutional.

Mr. Greenwald stated that he does not necessarily support Ron Paul. When I hear people say this, I always want to ask them "What it is about the Constitution and individual liberty that you don't like?"

I think everyone should support Ron Paul. The alternative is continuing down the road to ruin.

Some posts claim that Ron Paul is inconsistent because he claims to defend the Constitution yet opposes certain constitutional treaties, laws, etc... Aside from the fact that many things that people believe are constitutional are actually not, this is mixing two issues. One issue is whether a thing is constitutional. The other issue is whether that thing should be supported.

Constitutional laws and treaties can be philosophically opposed and the person opposing them still be a Constitutionalist.

Any treaty which we entered into, for example, we can choose to exit from.

Many people opposed alcohol prohibition, and, eventually, we repealed the Constitutional Amendment which established prohibition. This type of situation is in no way inconsistent with respect for the Constitution. There is a proper, constitutional, way to do things.

Take the war in Iraq. Ron Paul opposes it for two reasons. One, war was never constitutionally declared. Two, it was a bad idea.

Congress voted to let the president decide at some future time to go to war if he chose to do so. That is not a constitutional declaration of war. It is a violation of checks and balances by unconstitutionally transferring legislative power to the exectuive branch. Imagine if the Supreme Court voted to let the president decide Supreme Court cases if he chose to do so!

If you are looking for a perfect candidate, you will never find one. But Ron Paul is in a league by himself insofar as he advocates principles which would head us in the right direction again.

I am confused by UPDATE V.

Ron Paul has stated categorically that he wishes to let the states decide the abortion issue.

Glenn, why don't you simply contact the campaign and ask to interview Ron Paul yourself? If you just have one or two quick questions, why would they object? It doesn't hurt to ask. I have pesonally heard Ron Paul say that he believes abortion should be left to the states to decide in several interviews, which are probably on YouTube, but I cannot cite specific videos.

He does not wish to define marriage, so I see no reason why he would wish to define life. When I have seen him speak, he says that marriage is defined in the dictionary and we do not need a law or government to define marriage.

The problem with abortion is that there are libertarian arguments on both sides of the issue -- and either side can argue that the other side is not "libertarian" enough. It comes down to whether you support the right of the mother to control whatever is in her body, including another human being, or the right of the fetus to live.

If the mother can kill the fetus, why can't the fetus kill the mother? At what point does the fetus become a "person?" Who gets to decide? Women say they want to control their own bodies, but doesn't the unborn get to control it's body, too? Or is it fair game because it is defenseless?

These are not questions that people are likely to agree on anytime soon.

Fortunately, I think scientific advances will make unwanted pregnancy a thing of the past in the near future and this issue will be moot. Let's hope.