2011-03-07-Ron-PaulYesterday Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) spoke at Pella Christian High School in Pella, IA for the second installment of The FAMiLY Leader’s Presidential Lecture Series.  Afterwards there was a Q&A time where Bob Vander Plaats and Chuck Hurley asked questions they were given by members of the audience.

His speech itself was fine.  Congressman Paul brought up 1 Samuel 8 in his comments in relation to the U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section 8 that deals with the enumerated powers of Congress that limits its powers.  As a former pastor I found that interesting that he compared Israel’s desire for a king with the encroaching power of the Federal government saying that we as a culture have made the Government our king.

Not sure I’d go there with that passage. He did bring up his earlier statement condemning President Obama’s decision to abandon his defense of DOMA.  He said that marriage is a state’s right issue, “I see that as an act that was prohibiting the move to nationalize it and force Iowa to accept the rules of Massachusetts or whatever.”  He also defended Iowa voters’ right to oust the judges.  Beyond that it was a standard Ron Paul speech.  He spend a lot of time on the fed, individual rights, protecting liberty and reminding the audience where their rights come from.

During the press conference he was asked if he supported the Iowa Supreme Court’s ability to legalize gay marriage.  He appeared confused by the question.  He said he supported it constitutionally, “every state has that right.”  One of his aides tried to provide him some guidance and Paul then said, “he was asking about the ruling, not the justices.”  He then went on to say, “I support the state of Iowa voting to get rid of the justices and write laws dealing with marriage, not the federal government.”  He said that marriage is “a personal, spiritual matter and individuals should make that determination.”

Except that unfortunately for him, government is involved and we have a crisis on our hands, and while he defends Iowans right to oust the justices he also just defended the very reason the justices were ousted in the first place.  I’m shocked that a constitutionalist like Congressman Paul would be fine with judicial review by the Iowa Supreme Court being viewed as equal with codified law.  Our legislature didn’t codify gay marriage, the Iowa Supreme Court decreed it.

Update: Congressman Paul’s camp offers a clarification… in a nutshell, he is not in favor of judges legislating from the bench.  Go here to read his political director, Jesse Benton’s whole statement.

You can watch his speech below.

You can watch the press conference below.

Subscribe For Latest Updates

Sign up to receive stimulating conservative Christian commentary in your inbox.

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
  1. He certainly seems as confused as was when the administration first changed course on DOMA.

    But Shane, what “crisis” is there?

  2. I don’t think that is all what Ron Paul was saying. If the Supreme Court Justices have overstepped their boundaries, he is saying throw them out. He is not defending SCJ’s to essentially write law as you have described. Dr. Paul is pretty consistent on his positions.

    Furthermore, Dr. Paul doesn’t think marriage should have government involvement. However, he will be quick to point out states rights as a means of protection should their be Federal involvement.

    This article is misleading and trying to make something out of nothing.

      1. I understand your objection, but I think the following is Ron Paul’s position:

        Philosophically, the government should not be involved in marriage at all, period (federal, state, or local).

        However, speaking as a representative of the federal government, a state has the constitutional right to write whatever laws it wants regarding marriage, and he supports their right to do so. (But, of course, he would encourage every state to choose to not be involved).

        I can see how you might think he’s contradicting himself, but he’s not. He’s asserting states rights, even states rights to do things he disagrees with.

  3. “As a former pastor I found that interesting that he compared Israel’s desire for a king with the encroaching power of the Federal government saying that we as a culture have made the Government our king. Not sure I’d go there with that passage.”

    Ron Paul was spot on. We as a Christian nation (at least tens of millions) are worshipping the idol of state. Ron Paul is saying, correctly, that we should rely on God, family, and individual faith to solve our problems, NOT the state. The state is seeking to assert itself as our god, from cradle to grave. That’s what state power does.

    We are in a battle, it’s slavery vs. freedom. Either you are for Liberty or against it. And, as you should know as a former pastor, the spirit of Liberty is the spirit of God. Thus if you are a true Christian, you will support a federal government bound by the chains of the Constitution.

    To argue against Ron Paul is to argue against Freedom and argue for tyranny. Is there any dispute?

    If there is, it’s because you haven’t unplugged yourself from the propaganda machine of the MSM, and are putting your faith in men (gov’t) who say they know better than you and your trust in God’s promises.

    1. Let me correct your wording there. Ron is completely against BIG government meddling in peoples lives. He’s for SMALL government because in reality that’s all that is needed. The rest is excess flab.

  4. Where do you get the similiarity of enumerated powers and 1 Sam 8?

    Samuel is talking about Republicanism, which is where the framers got it from. Matter of fact, Ben Franklin quoted that in the Constitutional Convention.

    Ron Paul is indicative of libertarianism and contrary to Divine and Natural Law. The framers clearly stated anything that violates the Scriptures is null and void.

  5. It is true that Dr. Paul did “fumble” in his answer to the question on the Iowa State Supreme Court ruling. He will need to prepare himself with the internal matters of Iowa (and every other state he is speaking in) to be able to answer every question without the help of his staff.

    Dr. Paul has only ever been elected to Federal office, never to state office. He’s preparing to run for another Federal office, and his entire being is opposed to Federal intrusion into the internal matters of states. That’s why he hasn’t studied up on internal state matters enough to be able to answer such a question.

    As President, will he be getting involved in the internal matters of states?

    Do you want a President who takes sides in the internal matters of states?
    I don’t.

Comments are closed.

You May Also Like

Internal Democrat Poll Shows Ernst Leading Potential Challengers

An internal Democrat poll shows that U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, leads prospective Democratic challengers Eddie Mauro and Theresa Greenfield by double digits.

Our Commitment to Transparency as We Cover 2016

Shane Vander Hart explains Caffeinated Thoughts’ commitment to transparency in our election coverage and fairness in the commentary we provide.