@ John James
It's my understanding that it's not "if" he mounts a legal defense, but that he already has. I'm not saying he's been criminally charged, just that someone has shelled out a lot of money to protect him.
"If he did actually get in some legal trouble at some point he would get pardoned or acquitted or anything to make it so there is no real proceeding."
Well to get pardoned or acquitted there would have already been a proceeding. Would you go through that risk, that trouble, even if you were 100% sure of acquittal, or would you just spend the 20 bucks?
"And even if there were a proceeding...you seriously think the money would come out of Obama's personal pocket?"
And I'm naive? It doesn't matter if Obama is footing the bill. Somebody will have to pay something, and I'm quite sure that person, regardless of how wealthy they may be, would much rather just say "Hey Barack, lets just print the certificate already."
NidStyles: The birth certificate issue should be irrelevant to libertarians. Why?
The birth certificate issue should be irrelevant to libertarians.
Why?
NidStyles: If being a Libertarian mean's you are beholden to the rule of law, and that law being of Constitutional orgin in the USA, then why?
If being a Libertarian mean's you are beholden to the rule of law, and that law being of Constitutional orgin in the USA, then why?
The rule of law is a myth:
http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
FleetCenturion wrote the following post at 05-15-2011 7:16 AM:
Anton:Could anybody explain what was the case with birth certificate during Obama''s campaign?
It was originally an invention of the Hillary Clinton campaign (big surprise!). Since then, it's made its way into every dark corner of the internet, just like every 9/11 and JFK conspiracy theory-- unbacked, unsupported, and downright silly. The origin of his birth would have been well documented before he entered the Senate, when Obama was a much smaller fish.
These days, the "Birthers" are useful to Obama in the same way that the "Truthers" were useful to Bush. It's a way assert that anyone who opposes your policies must be either insane or beneath contempt. It is also something to distract from the fact that Bush and Obama have the exact same agenda, just different rhetoric.
In my experience, people that talk like this know next to nothing about what they're talking about. Of course if you bunch together the birth certificate problem and 911 with JFK and "conspiracy theorists" you wont have to look into their claims or learn anything for yourself. You then, interestingly enough suggest a conspiracy that both the "birthers" and the "truthers" were created or used for political purposes. If you are at all interested, which I doubt, in 911 feel free to look into the peer reviewed paper by Dr. Jones and associates claiming that there was thermitic material in the dust of the world trade centers. http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM Also, to get both sides of the debate. Watch the Natural Geographic documentary Science and Conspiracy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR30IhksVVk Then watch The Great Thermate Debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g As for the birth certificate problem. It is admittedly convoluted due to strange legal practices. In a normal world, you'd look at the natural born citizen qualification and say, "What did our founding fathers mean when they said, 'Natural born citizen?'" then you would find out they meant "A person born on United States soil, whos parents are both United States citizens." Obama's father was not a United States citizen (No one argues this.). However, the term "natural born citizen" was changed retroactively without amending the constitution. He is still not legally a natural born citizen but the arguments, again, get very convoluted. Something that should get sorted out in a court of law, and something I don't really feel like getting into right now. It might interest you to know, that Mccain was similarly accused of not being a Natural Born citizen, since he was born in the "panama canal zone". However, he produced his full long form birth certificate and rightly said that the "panama canal zone" was considered a US territory at the time. Obama however, in response, has produced a short form "certification of live birth" that has vastly less information on it then the long form birth certificate, and is an obvious forgery. To add insult to injury, he has refused to produce his long form birth certificate and has paid out an incredibly amount in legal fees to make sure the case does not see the light of day. He has also locked up his college records, which likely show that he recieved financial aid as a foreign student. http://obamacrimes.com/ If you watch nothing else watch this! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI
Whole birth certificate thing looks just a trick to make people criticize "left-wingers" from everything else expect their economic policies which are copy from Republican ones.
Prime:It's my understanding that it's not "if" he mounts a legal defense, but that he already has. I'm not saying he's been criminally charged, just that someone has shelled out a lot of money to protect him.
You'll have to be more specific. Protect him from what? Who shelled out money? How has he been protected?
I still don't understand where this $20 is coming from. Are you saying that's the fee for obtaining your birth certificate from the state? Or are you claiming that's what it costs in 2011 to create a birth certificate that's a geniune 1960s Hawaii original?
My comment about who pays was in reference to prateek sanjay who posted right below your post. (Go look). He said the money doesn't matter because Obama is a millionaire and he can recoup whatever he spends by doing public speaking events after he's out of office.
To be honest I'm not even sure what you're arguing here.
Seraiah:In my experience, people that talk like this know next to nothing about what they're talking about.
+1
"If you believe that the constitution is a compact between the states that prevents the Federal government from exercising the most tyrranical powers throughout history, then it's obvious why it matters. After all, if the Federal government can obey or disobey the constitution at its discretion, then what use is the document?"
Indeed. What use is the document when it is interrupted by the Federal government? So I guess I should ask again...who cares?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
" I didn't define anything. I asked for clarification on what a Libertarian was to him. If you go by the Ron Paul style of Libertarian then you follow Constitutional Law. In reality the Constitutional Law is actually a set of Priciples that place limitation's on what the Federal Government is actually allowed to do, but it's not like anyone pay's attention to what it actually say's."
There is no "Ron Paul style of Libertarian." Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist. They aren't Libertarians even if Libertarianism is defined solely by the NAP. Ron Paul likes liberty, hooray for that but it isn't to the extent of what consistutes a Libertarian.
Andrew Cain:There is no "Ron Paul style of Libertarian." Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist. They aren't Libertarians even if Libertarianism is defined solely by the NAP. Ron Paul likes liberty, hooray for that but it isn't to the extent of what consistutes a Libertarian.
1) Go here to learn how to quote.
2) Ron Paul admits he is a voluntarist. [1] [2]
3) I was under the impression all you had to do to be a "Libertarian" (capital 'L') was register to be a member of the party.
4) If you meant Ron Paul isn't "libertarian" (little 'l') enough to be "libertarian", I'd like to know how one does qualify.
' Go here to learn how to quote."
Thanks but I like my system better.
"Ron Paul admits he is a voluntarist. [1] [2]"
Well then I see his message as either confused or disingenuous. Ron Paul believes that the Constitution should be a decisive factor in the running of the American government. You can see this in Chapter 3 of his work The Revolution: A Manifesto. Yet how is the Constitution voluntary in any way? Instead of having the nonsensical statement of "If you don't like how America is run, you can leave," we now have the nonsensical statement of "If you don't like how [Insert State Name Here] is run then you can leave." The 10th amendment might protect states against the Federal level but it doesn't protect the individuals from the state or local level. So by fostering this fetish towards the Constitution, is Ron Paul REALLY being a voluntarist? Unless we all voluntarily declare our explicit consent to the Constitution and those who deny it are not coerced into leaving their property then I don't think that constitutes voluntarism. If Ron Paul wants to run things as status quo but merely a change in the size of government then again I don't think that is voluntarism. Now it could be that Ron Paul is merely using the Constitution as a means of achieving a voluntary society and while I am all for finding various methods of disproving the necessity of the state, why use the Constitution which is really nothing more then paper? If it is for the image of small government then why not utilize the Articles of Confederation? Why utilize the Constitution in a manner which incites nationalistic fervor? This very mentality of American greatness was one of the impasses for the current foreign policy of this country. To paraphrase Garet Garrett it is the language of power and empire. He seems so focused on stopping AT the Constitution that I wonder if he would ever go beyond it and its not as if the mass of his followers are more fervent in their desire for more liberty that they are going beyond the Constitution. They stop at the Constitution also leaving a glaring inconsistency that I'm honestly surprised hasn't been exploited yet for why is small government any different in principle then big government? It's the arbitrary setting of lines. If people can vote to establish government then why is it wrong for them to vote for government to give out free basic necessities? Well maybe because it's in the Constitution one might add but the Constitution can be changed. It can be amended. So this "small government, more liberty" motif only works if you have a static cultural outlook toward government. If Democrats were suddenly able to introduce an amendment that in some way expanded government and it passed. What would you say then? No fair? The Constitution is about limited government? Ron Paul and his supporters put all their faith in this document that through American history has been at best benign and at worse useless. What good is such an avenue of approach? It is almost sisyphean.
" If you meant Ron Paul isn't "libertarian" (little 'l') enough to be "libertarian", I'd like to know how one does qualify."
Well it depends on who you talk to in order to understand what it means to be a Libertarian. I think a definition that both thick and thin Libertarians can agree on or at least believe is a main tenet is the preaching and practicing of the non-aggression principle (NAP). If there is more to Libertarianism then that is still debated.
Andrew Cain: They aren't Libertarians even if Libertarianism is defined solely by the NAP.[...] ...it depends on who you talk to in order to understand what it means to be a Libertarian. I think a definition that both thick and thin Libertarians can agree on or at least believe is a main tenet is the preaching and practicing of the non-aggression principle (NAP). If there is more to Libertarianism then that is still debated.
They aren't Libertarians even if Libertarianism is defined solely by the NAP.[...]
...it depends on who you talk to in order to understand what it means to be a Libertarian. I think a definition that both thick and thin Libertarians can agree on or at least believe is a main tenet is the preaching and practicing of the non-aggression principle (NAP). If there is more to Libertarianism then that is still debated.
Uh. Okay. So, how do you define what a "Libertarian" is? Again, I have to assume you are meaning that with a lower-case 'l' but keep using uppercase for some reason.
The 10th amendment might protect states against the Federal level but it doesn't protect the individuals from the state or local level.
Perhaps you should read down a little further...like, maybe the 14th Amendment.
Ron Paul believes that the Constitution should be a decisive factor in the running of the American government. You can see this in Chapter 3 of his work The Revolution: A Manifesto. Yet how is the Constitution voluntary in any way? Instead of having the nonsensical statement of "If you don't like how America is run, you can leave," we now have the nonsensical statement of "If you don't like how [Insert State Name Here] is run then you can leave."
No one who understood anything about the Constituiton made any sort of argument like "well if you don't like it, you can leave." Perhaps you should watch this.
Andrew Cain wrote the following post at 05-15-2011 8:43 PM:
The Federal goverment is like a thousand pound gorilla bound by the chains of the Constitution. This gorilla has been shown throughout history to be sadistic, destructive, and cruel. This gorilla is slowly coming loose of its chains. I'm the person saying, "lets fix those chains, then get rid of the gorilla." you're the one saying, "Lets get rid of the chains and try to get rid of the gorilla." Which of us is being more practical?
the ''chains'are already broken through and the gorilla is doing whatever it pleases...
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
Never cared much about Obama's birth certificate. But I guess if somebody could actually prove it was a fake, it would be fun to watch what happens. And although I'm not a constitutionalist, I think it's great if you can use the government's document against it. With that said, I really think people should be FAR, FAR more outraged about Obama's attack on Libya, which I think is clearly unconstitutional , and not very many people seem to care about that. So yeah, throw him out of office because he attacked Libya, or because hes bombing people.
If I remember right, in Ron Pauls newest book, he said it would have been better if the US still used the Articles of Confederation...But he thinks it's hard enough just to get back to the constitution..Don't remember the exact quote or which page.
I think putting faith in the constitution is a mistake too. But I still think Ron Paul is a great person to have out there. I started off as a Ron Paul supporter interested in the constitution, limited government etc. like so many others. But it was Ron Paul that lead me to the right literature that helped me reach the conclusions I have now. I used to think Ron Paul was some kind of closet anarchist...But that's just speculation. Can't read his mind. Either way, I know he helped lead a lot of people towards anti-statism whether on purpose or not.
Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo:the ''chains'are already broken through and the gorilla is doing whatever it pleases...
But the vast majority of people still believe it's there, for the most part, protecting them. You have a much easier time (i.e. are much more effective) at getting them to see the behavior and convincing them of a need to put the chains back in place, before you'll convince them to get rid of the gorilla entirely. To think otherwise is just as naive as communist ideology.
In just the same way statists would never be able to take away all freedoms at once, anarchists are never going to convince the masses to give up all their government at once. And simply digging your feet in the ground and saying nothing other than "the state is illegitimate and should be abolished", is never going to get you anywhere. Going around saying things like "there is no such thing as a president" may be great for making yourself feel intellectually superior and masturbating in your own little corner of self-righteousness and sophistication, but it does nothing other than confuse people and turn them completely off to anything you have to say (not to mention possibly make them resent you personally, whether they should or not.) And of course, whether you care is another matter entirely...but most of us would actually prefer to live in a less statist world, and the key to having that happen is more people agreeing with our philosophy...not in how many people you can use as a scoreboard for your own personal debate tally.
Simply speaking a language they understand and are comfortable with, to pique their curiousity and get them to open to new ideas is not being "non-libertarian". It's a matter of effective persuasion, and even if your ultimate goal is to have someone ultimately be convinced that the state is illegitimate and/or unnecessary, there is nothing wrong with helping to bring them to that point by simply saying—
"Hey look, you believe power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, right? You don't believe totalitarianism and absolute power is a good thing, right? So you believe there should be limits on government, don't you? Well, here's a set of rules that do just that...they limit the government. That's their entire purpose. It's called the Constitution. It was written and ratified for a reason...and you agree these kinds of rules are necessary, don't you? You're not going to say the 1st amendment is useless, are you? Great. So is it so crazy to simply suggest that we actually enforce these rules that put a check on government power?"
It's a linear process. Very few people can get from A to D without having to go through B and C. I don't understand how people can be so unforgiving of individuals who simply haven't gotten there yet. They obviously haven't had the education most of us here have. And what's so ironic is that so many of these people with almost no patience for anyone who doesn't voice 100% anarchy 100% of the time, had to go through the exact same journey that they are effectively seeming to refuse others. How quickly we forget what it was like to be ignorant of liberty, and how impossibly difficult it was to imagine a stateless society.
Ron Paul has done more to push the world closer to a stateless existence than likely anyone here ever will, and he didn't do that by walking around pissing people off or implying how stupid they were for thinking there was a legitimate role for government. (And just because he doesn't do that doesn't mean he's ignorant and thinks there is one...it means he's wise enough to know that's not how you reach people.) There is nothing wrong or inconsistent with simply saying (and getting people to come around to the idea) that we should enforce the restraints we are already supposed to have on government, before you start talking at everyone about abolishing government.
Watch any broadcast in which he is interviewed and listen to the questions he gets asked and the reactions he gets from his answers. And people argue he's not libertarian enough? He's had a difficult enough time over the last three decades just getting people to accept the idea that the government shouldn't be able to do whatever it wants. And people around here are saying he's not anarchist enough. And again, the ironic thing is, a large number (if not the majority) of these people who berate him for basically being a Constitutionalist pussy owe their own current insight and knowledge to him in one way or another.
I'm not saying no one should ever talk about anarchist ideas or write about how statelessness would or could work and share those things with others. Obviously the more of that the better. The point is there is a time and way in which to present those things that is much more effective than others. And to belittle someone like Paul, and to suggest that he's not libertarian just because he doesn't advance liberty the way you personally think it should be done, is just pompous and actually quite rude.
And I'll tell you what. Let's have Ron Paul keep doing what he's doing, and you keep doing whatever the hell you're doing, and we'll just see who's responsible for more people being persuaded to voluntarism over the next 5 years.
:EDIT:
Case in point: directly above.
Seraiah:In my experience, people that talk like this know next to nothing about what they're talking about. Of course if you bunch together the birth certificate problem and 911 with JFK and "conspiracy theorists" you wont have to look into their claims or learn anything for yourself.You then, interestingly enough suggest a conspiracy that both the "birthers" and the "truthers" were created or used for political purposes. If you are at all interested, which I doubt, in 911...
If you are at all interested, which I doubt, in 911...
Truthers and Birthers weren't created for political purposes (well, Birthers were, I suppose, by Hillary's campaign). Wild conspiracy theories are, unfortunately, self-perpetuating. With very little encouragement, you can even get otherwise sane and respectable people to jump on the bandwagon-- if Donald Trump can be termed "respectable".
And, you are right. Frankly, I have no interest in the debate with Truthers, Birthers, or JFK conspiracy theorists, or people who believe the CIA is beaming microwaves into their heads. Yes, I am truly not interested in arguing half-baked, unprovable theories from the looniest fringe of the left and the right. Even when their crackpot ideas are disproven beyond a doubt, they just widen the conspiracy to include those who show the evidence. Sad, really.
I do , however, agree with the definition you present of a "natural born citizen". Someone running for any high political office should at least have both parents who are citizens (before or after his immediate birth, I don't particularly care) and he should officially renounce any dual citizenship he could previously claim.
To all the uber-libertarians who want to claim that anyone should be able to run for office anywhere, I encourage them to go and find a country with a Constitution that allows for that. Our Founding Fathers were some of the most radical libertarians I know of, and they seemed to think that citizenship was pretty important.
Good web researcher..
Software Development Company
FleetCenturion wrote the following post at 05-16-2011 5:31 AM:
Seraiah:In my experience, people that talk like this know next to nothing about what they're talking about. Of course if you bunch together the birth certificate problem and 911 with JFK and "conspiracy theorists" you wont have to look into their claims or learn anything for yourself. You then, interestingly enough suggest a conspiracy that both the "birthers" and the "truthers" were created or used for political purposes. If you are at all interested, which I doubt, in 911...
Haha. Well no use arguing with you then. I'm glad you at least see the importance of the Natural Born Citizen mandate. Having a single person in power of the most powerful military in the world is insane enough, but having one that has allegiances to a different country/goverment takes a whole new step into the crazy and bizzarre. That said, I don't actually think the "Natural Born Citizen Mandate" is what gets me involved in the issue. It's really the idea that people can just ignore the Consitution when its inconvenient for them. It's the same mentality that has brought about other, much more severe, assaults on the Consitution.
I am sure Ron Paul takes what Spooner had to say about State law seriously. That said, I believe Ron Paul only uses the constitution to show just how hypocritical government is by not even following their own doctrine. But overall, It is nothing more than a sheet of paper. This piece of paper is just as legitimate as the fiat money provided by the State.
So you are basing your contention on what you assume to be true rather than what is already evident by his action's and very clearly defined speeches on the issue. Might I suggest you learn to use what you have available in front of you, and refrain from making assumption's that are contrary to current evidence. It's far more logically consistent that way, and it sort of makes your argument's that much harder to contend with. Ron Paul takes this approach as well.
Having met the guy, and having heard some of his speeches, I can say you might be correct, but I do not presume to know what another man think's when I haven't had the chance to confirm it. Either way, I think if a society is going to exist it should have some certain law's that restrict it's chosen form of Government. Not law's on the Individual's within, but laws that ban the state from encroaching and coercion of the Individual's that are not part of the state itself. Otherwise Society should be relegated to the same situation as the state itself, into the nothingness that it was derived from. For the most part Ron Paul seem's more of a Minarchist than an Anarcho-style Libertarian if his background is of consideration.
@NidStyles
I never said he was in favor of anarchy or had an anarcho view (if i remembered correctly, a year or two ago, in a debate on this forum on the topic on whether Paul is an anarchist, I was actually labeled as being ignorant for not accepting the 'fact that Paul is an anarchist') ... what I am saying is that he does not take the constitution as serious as what he claims to mainstream media. But I'll say this, whenever he knows his audience is of a anarcho or voluntaryist, he doesn't even mention the constitution as much as when he is talking in mainstream media or general audiences.
But in his new book, on the section on Democracy, he throws in a little Spooner to make the claim that no American has consented with the constitution. And he says, that while an interesting point, it would not make good headway at this stage of time. but by saying 'at this stage', he is merely implying that this claim can be used later on, once the movement has a better stance, right? or else why would he put 'at this stage', if he is for the validity of the constitution, why not just flat out say that such a claim against the constitution is not valid or sound. He is clearly not denying the claim's legitimacy at all, he is merely saying that currently he chooses to focus on another claim to make headway. And in the footnotes, he goes on to say that Spooner is worth studying and he lists Lysander Spooner Reader as a good source.
If he is a constitutionalist, then he does a very bad job at defending that stance, especially by quoting such anti-constitution intellectuals like Spooner and by having anti-constitutionalists like T.Woods, L. Rockwell, and W. Block working for him as editors or advisors.
"Uh. Okay. So, how do you define what a "Libertarian" is? Again, I have to assume you are meaning that with a lower-case 'l' but keep using uppercase for some reason."
How do I, meaning just me, defined what Libertarianism means? Well I would define it as following the NAP, a respect for human life, some sense of benevolence, free-market ideals. What it really comes down to for me is that Libertarians should be at the very least followers and believers of the NAP. I think there are implicit behaviors to foster a free society such as free market ideals, charitability, respect but I consider myself a thick libertarian.
"Perhaps you should read down a little further...like, maybe the 14th Amendment."
Ok, and what in the 14th amendment defuses my comment of individuals not having protection from state or local government?
"No one who understood anything about the Constituiton made any sort of argument like "well if you don't like it, you can leave." Perhaps you should watch this."
I could be wrong but isn't this a Scotsman fallacy? Please don't forget to comment on my statements about Ron Paul being a voluntarist. I'd very much like to hear what you have to say about that. Also my comment about the size of government being voted on by citizens and my comment asking why we need the Constitution and not the Articles of Confederation. Jeez you actually missed a lot of what I wrote.
"The Federal goverment is like a thousand pound gorilla bound by the chains of the Constitution. This gorilla has been shown throughout history to be sadistic, destructive, and cruel. This gorilla is slowly coming loose of its chains. I'm the person saying, "lets fix those chains, then get rid of the gorilla." you're the one saying, "Lets get rid of the chains and try to get rid of the gorilla."
Which of us is being more practical?"
No where we differ in this matter is you thinking the gorilla is still in the chains and I think it is running free. It has been for several centuries.
The "conspiracists" say the Birth Certificate must be a forgery, because the digital file is in layers, and because certain text elements are of a different quality compared to adjacent text elements, indicating that it had undergone additional processing.
The "official story" is that Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software generated the layers in the digital file.
The truth is that neither explanation fits the facts. The digital file released by the White House is very very interesting. The file is not only separated into layers, but bizarre layers. The Background layer is merged with a ghostly white outline from some of the text. While it is true that OCR software can generate layers that were not in the original scan, it is impossible that it would create this ghosting effect.
However, it also makes no sense as an imcompetent forgery. They could create a perfect forgery if they wanted to, trust me. Besides, the anamolies do not match what would be expected in a sloppy forgery. Again, the ghostly white outline of the text would not occur, and the text would all match.
Thinking critically, and understanding the software at play, leads me to conclude that this birth certificate was intentionally edited, in this bizarre fashion, precisely for the purpose of generating a "conspiracy theory", while maintaining a plausible sounding official explanation. No other narrative fits the facts.
Drab Thor: Thinking critically, and understanding the software at play, leads me to conclude that this birth certificate was intentionally edited, in this bizarre fashion, precisely for the purpose of generating a "conspiracy theory", while maintaining a plausible sounding official explanation. No other narrative fits the facts.
A conspiracy in a conspiracy! Brilliant!
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
It's an Inception, MaikU.
Andrew Cain:...what in the 14th amendment defuses my comment of individuals not having protection from state or local government?
Perhaps the part that says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
I could be wrong but isn't this a Scotsman fallacy?
No, what I'm saying is this "well you could just move out of the country" thing is basically a strawman argument. There is virtually no one who actually uses that as a response to claims like the one you made. The only reason I put the qualifier on there in the first place is because I'm sure someone somewhere at some point in time has thrown out that kind of statement, but that doesn't make it a legitimate argument worth pointing to just so you have something to knock down.
Jeez you actually missed a lot of what I wrote.
Honestly I really didn't feel like trying to wade through your run-on paragraph and wasting time trying to make heads or tails of it. If you're not even going to bother making what you write graphically legible you shouldn't get all whiny when people don't respond to every single thing you've jammed into a 1000 word paragraph.
But feel free to read my latest post before this one, as a decent amount of it was more or less directed at you.
I don't presume to know what the man think's, but from the speeches and the direct questions I have asked him, he does not hint as much.
I would take anyone calling you ignorant on any matter with a grain of salt. No single Individual or even group on Individual's has a monopoly of knowledge or awareness about what another completely seperate Individual think's within his own mind.
But in his new book, on the section on Democracy, he throws in a little Spooner to make the claim that no American has consented with the constitution. And he says, that while an interesting point, it would not make good headway at this stage of time. but by saying 'at this stage', he is merely implying that this claim can be used later on, once the movement has a better stance, right? or else why would he put 'at this stage', if he is for the validity of the constitution, why not just flat out say that such a claim against the constitution is not valid or sound. He is clearly not denying the claim's legitimacy at all, he is merely saying that currently he chooses to focus on another claim to make headway. And in the footnotes, he goes on to say that Spooner is worth studying and he lists Lysander Spooner Reader as a good source. If he is a constitutionalist, then he does a very bad job at defending that stance, especially by quoting such anti-constitution intellectuals like Spooner and by having anti-constitutionalists like T.Woods, L. Rockwell, and W. Block working for him as editors or advisors.
I haven't read his new book, due to lack of fund's and time. I've been buying silver like crazy lately thank's to it being on sale recently. With that in mind I can not directly comment on the content's of that book.
I would have to say from at this point without having read that portion that you are mentioning, that Paul would be more of the Rationalist or the Individualist of Anarchist's. Which would mean he is not opposed to the Constitution, but would support it if it was treated rationally rather than a political point scoring tool as it is more commonly these day's. This based on how times he has said, "that if we are going to follow the Constitution", like statements.
My personal view some of those ardent anti-Constitutionalist's themselves have their own fault's. I would say the Constitutionalist's have more fault's, but then again, I'm an Individualist, and find that agreeing with any one lone Individual 100% will lead you away from being yourself.
My main point with using Ron Paul tyoes of Libertarian's was directed to those that are full Minarchist, and follow Paul's more public stances. Not to say that Ron Paul was directly not one of these types. In light of what you have said, it's obvious that he's a person that can appeal to a larger portion of those that fall into the Libertarian types, than anyone else I know of. Either way, even being an Individualist, I will still check his box or write him in. Yes, I still vote, because it's part of my feel good action's that I enjoy doing.