I’ve always thought that Ron Paul, while misguided on foreign policy, had the constitution and the rule of law above any ideology. He at least would attempt to defend his choices with the constitution. This is what I’ve always seen from the candidate.

In this election cycle I have seen two things that have made me doubt my view of him further. First, he talks as if, in debates, that congress is not needed to make his agenda come to fruition. I at one point would have just chalked it up for a ballooned faith in the bully pulpit ignorant to the fact that even with a full republican house would not guarantee his agenda coming to fruition. The second thing, is this inherent insistence that if elected he will pardon all drug crimes, and stop raids of marijuana clinics etc. Now, Ron Paul the candidate has never gone this far, but it has been widespread on the internet.

Now, I see this as an abuse of power and a disregard for the rule of law the same way that I see Obama not enforcing immigration laws is to him. Would he flaunt the laws on the books prior to his success in changing the laws on the books? At first I dismissed it as impossible, but every time I see another claim trying to get people to vote for Ron Paul by switching parties, registering as a republican that has never been before either his supporters are setting him up for failure worse then Obama set himself up, or there is something more to it.

Are his supporters right on what he would do? Am I right in my previous belief that he would uphold the rule of law even if he didn’t agree with it ideologically? If he wouldn’t then I would classify him as more of a problem then a solution, as it will set a precedent that will be used by both parties forever increasing the power of the executive that is already far too powerful. Imagine if someone pardoned all people in jail for not having proper licensing of a firearm before the law was changed.