- Oct 7, 2011
- 38,401
- 4,162
- 1,130
Intertesting take from Jack Hunter.
Mark Levin is one of the most intelligent talk radio hosts in the business. He is also one of the most philosophically inconsistent. This is especially true when it comes to interpreting the U.S. Constitution. It is even truer when Levin criticizes Ron Paul.
Last week, Levin told The Daily Callers Jamie Weinstein that if Paul won the GOP nomination and faced President Obama in Novembers general election, he would have to write somebody in because Ron Pauls foreign policy is so antithetical to traditional conservative foreign policy. He added: I have other problems with [Paul]. I dont think his interpretation of the Constitution is always accurate
Being within the Republican mainstream on foreign policy is not the same thing as being a constitutionalist. Ron Pauls foreign policy position is that of the Founders not necessarily the Republican one, or the Democrat one, but the constitutional one. There was a time when the constitutional position on anything was also considered the conservative position.
Levins willingness to circumvent the Constitution when it doesnt jibe with his foreign policy views was highlighted well last year when the talk host defended President Obamas right to send troops to Libya without consulting Congress.
When Obama decided to intervene militarily in Libya, some Capitol Hill leaders in both parties decided to question whether the president had the authority to do so. Ron Paul was one of them. Not surprisingly, when George W. Bush was president, Obama was one of them too. In 2007, then-Senator Obama said, The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
Read more: Ron Paul | Mark Levin | Mark Levin's liberal constitutional arguments | The Daily Caller
Mark Levin is one of the most intelligent talk radio hosts in the business. He is also one of the most philosophically inconsistent. This is especially true when it comes to interpreting the U.S. Constitution. It is even truer when Levin criticizes Ron Paul.
Last week, Levin told The Daily Callers Jamie Weinstein that if Paul won the GOP nomination and faced President Obama in Novembers general election, he would have to write somebody in because Ron Pauls foreign policy is so antithetical to traditional conservative foreign policy. He added: I have other problems with [Paul]. I dont think his interpretation of the Constitution is always accurate
Being within the Republican mainstream on foreign policy is not the same thing as being a constitutionalist. Ron Pauls foreign policy position is that of the Founders not necessarily the Republican one, or the Democrat one, but the constitutional one. There was a time when the constitutional position on anything was also considered the conservative position.
Levins willingness to circumvent the Constitution when it doesnt jibe with his foreign policy views was highlighted well last year when the talk host defended President Obamas right to send troops to Libya without consulting Congress.
When Obama decided to intervene militarily in Libya, some Capitol Hill leaders in both parties decided to question whether the president had the authority to do so. Ron Paul was one of them. Not surprisingly, when George W. Bush was president, Obama was one of them too. In 2007, then-Senator Obama said, The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
Read more: Ron Paul | Mark Levin | Mark Levin's liberal constitutional arguments | The Daily Caller
