Barry Germansky: “And, [because the Pauls are strict constructionists] nothing [in the way of legislation] of course of any magnitude would have been suggested to be implemented [by Congress, or the President], as they [the Pauls] are advocating. It’s [any law enacted not pursuant to specific enumerations] not in the Constitution. And whenever they use this rebuttal they are hoping that you will not have read the Constitution so you will be unable to counter them. They want you to be afraid and to sort of be embarrassed, not want to make a fool out of yourself, so they go uncontested because not many people have read the Constitution.”
Henry Moore: If I understand your first sentence here correctly, then I understand your point and agree with it, but not any negative conclusions you draw from that point, such as “the Pauls are mistaken in their interpretation of the Constitution or dishonest about what it says.”
Regardless, I am confident that I have shown that either my interpretation (and therefore, that of the Pauls) is either the correct one or a reasonable one. Even the founders were not in complete agreement on the exact interpretations down to the slightest of subtleties in the text or its meaning. This does not take anything away from them. It does not make THEM “hypocritical” or “crazy.”
If it is true that the Pauls want people to be ignorant of the Constitution, then why would the Pauls want people who are even mildly influenced by the Pauls or “libertarianism” to read the Constitution, a document that may be easily used to support many of their arguments, as I have shown? I mean, how do you explain all the exhortations by those two men, in spoken and written word, to read the document in question, if in fact it is in their best interest to keep people in the dark in regards to what is written and the original intent? Is it a wink, wink, nod, nod thing just between “libertarians”? Is it part of some “vast right-wing conspiracy”?