Ron Paul and his supporters assure us they will "reinstate" the US Constitution. And indeed, such an idea is welcomed by many of us, especially in this age where the executive branch (e.g. the EPA) and the judiciary are both creating legislation.

So why on earth would I be wary, as I am, of Ron Paul's promises to "bring back" the Constitution? Because a close examination of his views draws me to conclude he's either never read it, or suffers from severe reading comprehension problems. (And if a man doesn't know what's actually in the Constitution, how could I trust his promise to defend it or enact its precepts?)

Today's Exhibit A is this article by Ron Paul in which he argues, amazingly, that the US Constitution does not put the executive branch in charge of determining how war is to be conducted! In fact, he goes even further and also states that "the notion that presidents should establish our broader foreign policy is dangerous and wrong." (emph added) These are truly remarkable assertions and deserve some examination.

Concerning the first question, who should decide how to conduct a war, I would claim that I'm at least passingly familliar with the English language, enough to know that "executive" refers to the carrying out of things, sometimes functioning as a synonym of "conduct." So I naturally find it strange that Dr. Paul arrives at the conclusion that the Executive branch cannot Constitutionally decide how to execute (that is, conduct) a given war.

Next, although I'm certainly no Constitutional expert, I have at least glanced at this document from time to time, and noted that it tells us "The President shall be Commander in Chief" of the armed forces. I also can't help but note that military officers make decisions about how to conduct wars and battles -- how then can we argue their Commander in Chief (the word "chief" meaning there is none above him) should not also have such power?

But nonetheless here it is, from Ron Paul's own pen or keyboard (emph added):

Congress is charged not only with deciding when to go to war, but also how to conduct – and bring to a conclusion – properly declared wars.... No single individual should be entrusted with the awesome responsibility of deciding when to send our troops abroad, how to employ them once abroad, and when to bring them home.

Now, I want to be clear: I have no disagreement with the idea that Congress should generally authorize major wars, and should be able to halt them should things go wrong. (And indeed, this power has not been lost: Congress could stop, for example, the Iraq war simply by de-funding it, should they choose to.)

No: my beef is that Ron Paul is using these legitimate points to sell us a entirely unconstitutional one: that Congress should be in charge of conducting the war. No, sorry, Ron (and supporters), there's something called "separation of powers", and your view violates it by handing executive power to Congress.

So how does Ron Paul justify such an absurd stance? By quoting, and misunderstanding, the words of James Madison (emph added by Paul):

"Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded..."

Now, clearly Madison has just called the Executive Branch "those who are to conduct a war." But, amazingly, Ron Paul interprets Madison as saying just the opposite -- that the Executive Branch is NOT authorized to determine how to "conduct" an ongoing war -- only Congress can do that!

So Congress is charged not only with deciding when to go to war, but also how to conduct... properly declared wars. [emph added]

He makes this absolutely explicit when he says Congress should decide "how to employ [our troops] once abroad" -- and in so doing, he actually violates the very point of Madison's statement: that the people in charge of conducting cannot be the same ones in charge of starting wars. Yet Ron Paul would vigorously undermine Madison's warning by placing both powers in the exact same set of hands, thus undermining these important checks and balances!

And this is a man many want to elect President? What other important documents will he misread, once he has gotten done mangling the Constitution, and the words of the Founding Fathers? To what other horrifying effects?

And what of Ron Paul's assertion that the President should not "establish our broader foreign policy?" Again, I would simply refer interested readers to the US Constitution itself, specifically Section 2:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States...

The picture here not of Congress deciding, say, what our policy towards France should be. The picture is of the President entering negotiations with France, listening to Congress's input, and then bringing back a document with actions that Congress may accept or reject.

Again, look clearly at the President's roles here: he gets to choose our foreign ambassadors, "make" (not merely carry out) treaties, and Congress is only given the role of "Advice" (before and during) and to "Consent" or "concur" (or not) to the result. And we can no more argue "Advice and Consent" means ultimate control over foreign policy than we can argue it means ultimate control over the process of choosing judicial appointments and ambassadors: it is, at most, the power to veto.

But Ron Paul apparently believes they do have such powers, and wants to change the Constitution's clear statement that the President shall "make Treaties" into him only having "some role to play in making treaties" -- presumably to bring refreshments to Congress as they're making the hard decisions, talking with foreign leaders, and writing up the text!

Sorry, Ron, "make" (in the Constitution) is not at all the same as "some role in making" (your assertion as to what it says): the former authorizes primary power, the latter can imply secondary or even tertiary involvement. Even a letter courier can have "some role" in making a treaty, if they carry the document.

As I said before, we live in an era of Constitutional Confusion, with one branch doing another's function. But I don't see how we can alleviate by electing, as President, a man who would also abrogate his actual Constitutionally-appointed duties, and hand them over to the wrong branch of government! I'm all for tossing out the bathwater, but please, let's not toss out the Constitutional baby in the process.

It doesn't bother me much that Ron Paul -- or any other individual, even an elected office-holder -- seems clueless about the Constitution. You always get some fringe elements.

What bothers me is that for so many, he resonates -- and that his many supporters (who claim to ardently care about the Constitution) aren't even apparently as curious about his views as I am, and don't appear to have taken the time to double-check his work to see if he even understands what it says about the very office he seeks to hold.

How can they, or he, ever hope to live under the Constitution if they aren't even passingly familliar with its contents -- familliar enough to spot gross violations like the two I'm pointing out above? And again: what other important documents will he, and they, misread?

I'm starting to have a more-than-sneaking suspicion that Ron Paul is not at all what people think he is.