- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Paul has already stated that if there was a conflict over pollution, then a person would need to prove that the "pollution" really was pollution. How many private citizens have the wherewithal to fight a corporation over pollution? Not many, but Paul doesn't care. He would gut the EPA and all government programs he feels are not laid out in the Constitution. The problem is that it is up to Paul's interpretation of the Constitution that would come into play despite the claims that he is a strict Constitutionalist.
Paul claims that the US was founded as a Christian Nation despite the various treaties decrying the notion and the no official religion portion of the Constitution. When people claim that Paul is all about freedom and returning to the Constitution as the prime document, I point to his stance on religion in the US, and I point to his stance on the Pledge of Allegiance in regards to God. If Paul was a strict Constituionalist, then he would decry the inclusion of God in the Pledge. But, he does not. And, this tells me that he will interpret the Constitution as he wishes just like everyone else. Hence, he is no different in practice than other politicians - the main different is his outlandish and unworkable ideas regarding the income tax (part of the Constitution strangely enough) and government's role.
