Below The Beltway

Congressman Ron Paul participated in a live internet chat at The Washington Post yesterday.

Here are a few of the highlights:

Keokuk, Iowa: How does your view on Roe v. Wade square with your passion for a limited state? Is there a right to privacy in the Constitution?

Rep. Ron Paul: Yeah, there’s a a right to privacy for all individuals and all who have legal rights — and that includes the unborn. As an obstetrician, if I cause any harm to a fetus, I will be sued. If someone kills or harms a fetus they’re liable in a court of law. Being opposed to Roe v. Wade has nothing to do with privacy, it has to do with state’s rights. We don’t deal with any other acts of violence at the federal level — these are local and state issues and that’s where these should be taken care of.

On this point, Paul is absolutely correct. The idea that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided has nothing to do with the question of whether or not abortion is right or wrong, and everything to do with the idea that the Federal Government really has no business getting involved in something that, absent a Constitutional Amendment, should be left to the states.

However, as one questioner pointed out, Paul’s position on Roe seems to be at odds with his vote on a Federal ban on partial birth abortion:

Los Angeles: You voted for the federal ban on partial-birth abortion. Where in the Constitution does it grant the federal government the power to regulate medical procedures?

Rep. Ron Paul: I think that’s a good point, because I don’t brag about that vote. People could argue that there’s a contradiction there. My only argument was that abortion-on-demand nationally was created by a court order, not Congress, so I was trying to reverse that. I would not argue, though, that it was a perfect way of doing that. If the court had not already ruled and legalized it, I would not have voted that way.

I’ve read that answer two or three times and I still don’t get it. If the Supreme Court was wrong to federalize abortion in 1973, then why wasn’t it wrong for Congress to try to federalize a specific medical procedure ?

Jonesboro, Ark.: Congressman, although I admire many of your stances (not all), I do not understand how you will be allowed to accomplish most of those plans as president. How will you overcome the opposition of Congress on issues such as the IRS, the FED or the “war on drugs”?

Rep. Ron Paul: Not easily. On the war on drugs though you probably could do more than getting rid of the IRS. It’s about the way you enforce these laws — I never would force the Justice Department to go to California and arrest people getting medical marijuana, when that’s the law there. Gov. Romney was asked about medical marijuana by someone in a wheelchair recently who uses it, and he couldn’t even look them in the face and tell them he wouldn’t have them arrested.

But with the IRS and the Fed you have to get congressional approval. But if you get elected to the presidency, that suggests a shift in sentiment in the country, and a lot of Congress tends to go with the flow, and if they perceive the country supports it they may well do i

I like this response because it reflects a degree of realism I haven’t seen from the most ardent of Paul’s supporters. A President Ron Paul faced with a Democratic majority in Congress wouldn’t be able to accomplish much without compromise on both sides, and the kind of change that Paul’s supporters really want to see, most of which I completely agree with, won’t come until there are more people like Ron Paul in Congress.