LIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION: Would They Take A Bullet?

The Iowa Presidential debate included excellent signs of progress, and some very frustrating misconceptions about the Constitution. I was amazed and pleased to hear questions about the 10th Amendment and the role of government. Several times the debate moderators asked about the Constitution in relation to certain policy issues.


Folks, this is FABULOUS NEWS!! Never before in my lifetime has the Constitution been a significant part of a Presidential debate. The media and candidates are finally discussing the proper role of Federal government in the context of Constitutional limitations. I’m grateful for the efforts of the Tea Party movement, and people like you, for getting our so-called leaders to finally start asking the right questions.


Now for the frustrating part: The questions and answers last night revealed how far we have to go. I think we’ve gotten our proverbial ship turned in the right direction, but we’ve been off course for so long that it will take a while for us to get back to where we need to be. Several of the candidates discussed the 10th Amendment, state sovereignty, and Constitutional limits on the Federal government. However, they’re answers often revealed gaps in their understanding of these issues.


Let me pick on two of my favorite people as examples: Michele Bachmann was asked if it mattered whether or not an individual mandate was implemented by the Federal or State government in relation to the 10th Amendment. She answered "No" when actually it does matter. She could have used this question as an opportunity to show her Constitutional "chops". She understands that government at any level can't impose an individual mandate to purchase health insurance, however, her answer made it seem as if she didn’t understand the primary purpose of the 10th Amendment (to limit Federal powers and defend State authority). A more informative answer would have been, “Yes it matters. The 10th Amendment prevents the Federal government from implementing an individual mandate, it does not prevent States from doing so. However, other parts of the Constitution do protect individual Americans from such a mandate, even when it is a State attempting to force Americans to buy insurance.” Again, she may knows this, but she didn’t say it.


This may seem like picking nits, but it’s not. This is a VERY important point. Especially for a candidate like Bachmann. She’s running as a Constitutionalist. Her base voters are watching for signs that she can lead by example. Educating the American people about why and how the Constitution functions is a key job requirement.


Ron Paul answered essentially the same question next. He corrected Michele, by pointing out that States have the right under the Constitution to do “bad things.” He pointed out that the 10th Amendment protects States from Federal intrusion into State matters. However, he forgot the important point that the Constitution still requires the Federal government to protect certain fundamental rights of individual Americans against violation by government, even when it’s State government committing the violation. Again, Dr. Paul may know this, but his answer didn’t reflect such knowledge. Again, this is a VERY important point.


I know that candidate debates are stressful and it’s easy to give less-than-perfect answers. I’ve been a Congressional candidate and I’ve participated in televised candidate debates. I’ve certainly given an occasional answer that could have been better. But I also know that when it came to my core values, my answers were always dead on. They flowed from truths held deeply. I believe Dr. Paul’s and Mrs. Bachmann’s answers reflect understandings of the Constitution that are better than most, but still need some work.


The good news is that both of these answers reflect a quantum leap forward in the respect for the Constitution in our national debates. The fact that these issues were discussed at all is a victory for America. However, several answers in the Iowa debate reflect how far we have to go. Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann are two of the most sincere followers of the Constitution we have in Washington. I believe that they both truly desire to restore our Constitutional Republic. Yet even they apparently have some serious gaps in their understanding of how the Constitution is supposed to work, or have a difficult time articulating that understanding.


These gaps will be corrected, as long as we elect individuals who genuinely desire to follow the Constitution. If given the chance to run the country, either Michele or Ron will apply Constitutional principles to government. In doing so, they will continue to refine their own understanding of the Constitution.


So, the question for us is this: which candidates genuinely want to follow the Constitution? This question focuses on the deepest motives of the candidates. If you know what motivates a person, you can accurately predict what they will do under any circumstances. Pick a candidate that is willing to sacrifice themselves to protect the Constitution and you will find a candidate that will restore America’s greatness. They may make mistakes, but regardless of occasional mistakes, such a candidate would make great strides in the right direction.


Before you decide who to support in the upcoming elections ask yourself: “Would this candidate lay down their life for the country?” "Would they take a bullet?" We must support the candidate that is motivated by a genuine desire to save America, and is willing to give anything to achieve that goal. This is the first qualification that our next President must have. If they are also able to speak eloquently and motivate others, that would be great too, but it’s not as important as their proper motive to lead. All other “qualifications” are secondary to proper, self-sacrificial motives.


Countless soldiers have laid down their lives, often dying terrifying deaths far from home, in order to defend America. America has no chance to survive if we can’t find one Presidential candidate that has the same attitude toward his or her duty the country.


Based on personal knowledge I’m convinced that both Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann have the motives I’ve described here. I could be wrong. I don’t agree with either of them on every subject, and Michele has at least one vote that made me question her commitment to the Constitution. However, based upon what I know about her and Ron, I’m still convinced that their motives are pure.


I don’t know enough about all the other candidates to make the same judgment. I know MANY have proven that they are not motivated to restore the Constitution. Others may be. I simply don’t know yet. Whoever you decide to support, please consider their motives as the most important of qualifications. In Liberty,



Van Irion
Co-Founder, Lead Counsel
LIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION