Dr. Ron Paul today…

Today, Dr. Paul had an article published in the New Hampshire Union Leader, and he made some interesting comments and some things I think should be clarified.

His first comment regards the Founding Fathers:

The question, therefore, before readers — and soon voters — is the same question I have asked for almost 20 years in Congress: by what superior wisdom have we now declared Jefferson, Washington, and Madison to be “unrealistic and dangerous”? Why do we insist on throwing away their most considered warnings?

And then there is this comment further down:

It is not we non-interventionists who are isolationsists. The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders.

To begin with Dr. Paul says that Jefferson and Madison are men of wisdom and that their policies should be emulated, and his non-intereventionist policy is a mirror of theirs; however, both Jefferson and Madison called for and enacted policies of embargo against nations with whose policies they disagreed. How does Dr. Paul reconcile his romanticization of their policies and their real actions?

Furthermore, both Jefferson and Madison, indeed the Democratic-Republican clubs in general, were opposed to Washington’s Proclamation of Neutrality, which kept U.S. out of involvement in the European wars resulting from the French Revolution, even though there was agitation, and support, on the part of the Democratic-Republicans to entangle the U.S. in those conflicts on behalf of the new French Republic.

The Founding Fathers were not members of an echo chamber for intellectual circle jerking. They were men with diverse views and ideas, and two of the men Dr. Paul cites as non-interventionists are actually men who were in practice interventionists and, by his own standard, isolationists.

I am going to contact the Paul campaign to get their explanation of this inconsistency between romanticization and deed, and if they repsond, I’ll be sure to post their answer.

Still no reply from the Ron Paul campaign.

VABC Passes Constitutional Muster

According to an Associated Press article in the Examiner, the Supreme Court has upheld a ruling by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, regarding possible violations of the Commerce Clause in the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Code.

Two of the laws in question were 1) that customers cannot transport more than 1 gallon (or 4 litres) of alcohol across state lines and 2) that only Virginia wines may be sold in state-rin liquor stores.

In Brooks v. Vassar, the 4th Circuit found that the only question which was not moot was the question of personal import exception found in VABC 4.1-130:

The provisions of this chapter shall not prohibit any person from bringing, in his personal possession, or through United States Customs in his accompanying baggage, into the Commonwealth not for resale, alcoholic beverages in an amount not to exceed one gallon or four litres if any part of the alcoholic beverages being transported is held in metric sized containers.

The heart of the 4th Circuit’s opinion rests upon their assertion that the importation restriction of 1 gallon does not place a restriction on out-of-state sales or purchases, and thus, does not violate the Commerce Clause:

It provides a de minimis exception to Virginia’s import regulations, allowing consumers to import one gallon or four litres of wine for personal consumption. Under no economic construct could such a provision be considered economic protectionism of local industry.

However, by placing a restriction on the importation of out-of-state purchases, the restriction places a limit on out-of-state sales, because if you cannot bring more than 1 gallon (or 4 litres) back, then your purchase is limited to 1 gallon (or 4 litres). Thus, there is an element of protectionism in this exception.

At least one justice on the 4th Circuit has such common sense. In his dissent, Judge Goodwin made this statement:

In reality, however, because Virginian’s may not carry more than a gallon of what they buy into Virginia, they are denied access to other States’ markets on equal terms with other customers.

According to Judge Goodwin, for a consumer to have “meaningful market access,” they must not only be able to purchase a product, but also use it.

Refreshing, a judge who lives in the real world.

This law turns any Virginia citizen who crosses statelines into a bootlegger and denies them access to other markets.