FULL SPEECH: Sen. Rand Paul speaks at Howard University

I wish we wouldn’t keep talking about him…

I like Rand a whole lot, but much of what he said was not true concerning the republican party right now. The history is good, but they are not living or acting like their historical forefathers would have. Republicans are just as pro war as the democrats, and the “party” is not looking to change that. Rand would like it to change, and maybe he will be an agent of change, but I think that his speech was a bit presumptive. 
His message about drugs represents a desire to legalize them, and let people choose their own path. His use of the word “violence” is the exact use that Libertarians use when they say that government has no right to regulate personal behavior unless “violence” toward another is present. Ideologically speaking, most conservatives don’t agree with this.

Senator Paul is brilliant. To be able to answer all the questions of those university students – some freshmen, some graduate students – with what I consider reasonable answers and due respect to his audience was superb. Many times, he complimented the questions posed to him. He did not cast aspersions or call anyone names.

I agree with Senator Paul entirely. Many times government doesn’t know when to stop. Consider the income tax, what it was when it was first introduced to what it is today. (By the way, it was originally designed to make the rich “pay their fair share” and connected with Prohibition, not for World War I.) Today, the income tax is an abomination, unfair to all taxpayers, and so are many of the other agencies that the U.S. federal government has created. The original intention may very well be honourable (e.g., the Clean Water Act) but, many times, it quickly becomes uncontrollable (e.g., the TSA) and tyrannical. That is why the Constitution was written the way it was, to put shackles around government so that it does not turn into something tyrannical. Indeed, the federal government, with the IRS as the leading edge, has devolved into “guilty until proven innocent”, instead of “innocent until proven guilty”.
That is why it is important to have both limited government and the assurance that it is indeed limited. As much as businesses and corporations need limits – making a profit, government oversight – so does government. Thus the Constitution.
As a result, the approach must not be “If the Constitution doesn’t prevent it, then government can do it.” but “These are the only powers that the government has and no more.”