Roberto Benitez
The flatlands of Nebraska
- 55 comments
- 17 likes given
- 21 likes received
Son of career Army doctor and civilian nurse and moved around the world and the country a lot. Served 20 years as a "naviguesser" in the Air Force. Had 5 children with a wonderful woman. Undergraduate college degree in mathematics and Masters work in political science and history. Now a retired disable veteran.
KansasBright, my main point is that the Militia Act of 1903 is null and void and anyway the interpretation of it is erroneous. I contend that the army doesn't have to be disbanded or put into a reserve status after two years as long as Congress appropriates funds. The limitations are on the length of time that the appropriations cover. Of course I'm not referring to the accounting games the federal government has often used.
As for your implications of what individual and States can own, I agree. At one time citizens did own big guns, really big guns. That's largely not allowed today but I don't see the constitutional reason for banning that. My view is that citizens have a right to own weapons, but if they misuse them the state should come down with both feet on them
My reference to the Air Force, which by the way I'm retired from, is due to those who use the Militia Act as an absolute restriction on the government. The government can't willy nilly create new departments without the approval of Congress. A new type military wouldn't be in keeping with some peoples' interpretation of the Militia Act. Of course we won't mention what Mr. Obama has done.
Speaking of Mr. (intentional) Obama, you've got that correct. Despite our long posts. without bric a-bracs being thrown :-), we both could post long and numerous reasons why Obama should be imnpeached as a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER to the Republic that would be longer. But like you wrote, that's another discussion.
@KansasBright This is what scares me about a some so-called conservatives. They take an eisegetical approach to interpreting the Constitution. Please show me specifically by Article, Section, and Clause where the Constitution FORBIDS a standing army. You won't find it in the Constitution.
What the Constitution CLEARLY states in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 12 is that, "Congress shall have Power To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years." This means we can have standing armies, HOWEVER, Congress CANNOT fund them for longer than TWO years BEFORE having to appropriate funds again. So Congress can't constitutionally fund the army for a 5 year period. There's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the Constitution that says that for Congress to again appropriate money for another 2 years WE HAVE TO BE IN A WAR. The purpose isn't to FORBID a standing army but to forbid the president from having the funds over more than 2 years to use it as he sees fit. One could fairly argue it tends to discourage a standing army, particularly a large one during peacetime.
PS; Could that be the reason why Mr. (intentional) Obama is using DHS to build a quasi-private executive branch para-military force?
As for federal control of the military, that's done through the COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, the president. Article 2 Section 2 Clause 1 states, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States" Notice it mentions the Army, the Navy, AND the militia of the several States. That clearly indicates that the militia isn't the primary means of defending the country, the Navy and the Army are and that the US ARMY ISN'T a MILITIA.
By the way, by your interpretation we have no constitutional authority for an Air Force as it's not mentioned in the Constitution or the Militia Act.
The Militia Act of 1903 is no longer in force - PERIOD. Furthermore, as I stated, NO LAW is IMMUNE from being REPEALED, not even a Constitutional Amendment. So your comment that the militia "encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45 (NOW EVERY ABLE-BODIED PERSON)" is nonsensical as you stated the Militia Act can't be changed or repealed. You can't have it both ways.
Justice Story, one of my favorite defenders of the reason for the 2nd Amendment, wasn't referring to the formal militia or the army in the quote you posted but to the very reason for the 2nd Amendment. As you point out, he was saying the opposite of what progressives say today, that only the army, i.e., organized militia has a right to keep and bear arms, not individual people. He was pointing out that the 2nd Amendment wasn't for hunting, for self defense, or for sport, it was to take on and overthrow government officials and governments that violated the Constitution. Tell that to a progressive and they go postal. He was essentially saying that if the people didn't have the right to bear arms then none of the rest of the Bill of Rights mattered as there'd be no way to enforce it against a tyrannical government. However, tell progressives Jefferson and Madison said the same thing and they'll call you a prevaricator and a right-wing lunatic.
In short, Congress CANNOT limit the right of INDIVIDUAL people to own arms. That means if I want to own and can afford it I can have a fully automatic M-16 and I need not register it or get the government's approval to have it.
By the way, I also posted another site that supports what Snopes said. I really don't think you read what Snopes said or the other site as they don't support your preconceived notions about the Militia Act.
Part 2 o 2
Claim _____
It also divides the militia into 3 distinct and separate entities ... the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard (NG) of the State, Territory and District of Columbia (DC), the unorganized militia and the regular army.
Fact _____
Under current public law, the militia of the US comprises 2 classes, not 3: the organized militia, which consists of the NG and the Naval Militia; and the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the NG or the Naval Militia. The "regular army" (i.e., the US Army) is not a class of militia.
Claim _____
All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
Fact ____________________
Nothing in the Dick Act or any other item of US legislation states that all members of the unorganized militia have an "absolute personal right to keep and bear arms of any type." The term "unorganized militia" simply refers to a subset of private individuals (i.e., men between the ages of 17 and 45 who are not part of the NG or the Naval Militia). Those persons are subject to the same legislative limitations on firearm ownership and possession as any other private individuals: the existence and enforcement of modern laws limiting the ownership of certain types of firearms is prima facie evidence that those laws have not been "invalidated" by a piece of legislation enacted back in 1903. (And even if such a claim were true, then the unfettered right to keep and bear arms would not apply to men over the age of 45 or to any women, as neither of those groups falls within the legal definition of "unorganized militia.")
Claim _____
The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Fact _______
No legislation is immune from being repealed, and in fact much of the content of the Dick Act has effectively been repealed through the passage of subsequent modifying legislation such as the Militia Act of 1908, the National Defense Act of 1916, and the National Defense Act of 1920. Moreover, "bills of attainder" and "ex post facto laws" have nothing to do with a supposed prohibition on the repeal of legislation: the former is a legislative act pronouncing a person guilty of a crime without trial, and the latter refers to laws which retroactively impose punishments for actions that were legal prior to the passage of those laws.
Claim ______
The President of the US has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the NG to serve outside of their State borders.
Fact __________________
Although it was true at one time, it is not now the case that "the President of the US has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the NG to serve outside of their state borders."
The Dick Act authorized the federal callup of NG units for 9 months (with the restriction that they serve within US borders), and a 1908 amendment to the Dick Act eliminated both the 9 month callup limit and the restriction on NG units serving outside the US. However, US AG George Wickersham declared in 1912 that authorizing the use of the NG for overseas service was unconstitutional. As noted in I Am the Guard, though, that 1912 restriction was lifted by legislation enacted in 1933 which provided that those who enlisted in a state NG unit simultaneously enlisted in the NG of the US and thereby became deployable assets of the US Army:
Even as late as 1912, serious questions lingered over the legality of NG service overseas. Sec. of War Henry Stimson asked Army Judge Advocate General Crowder to study the issue. Crowder found that the Guard was bound in its operations by the specific language of the Constitution and was not a substitute for a federal reserve force. He also opined that Congress had erred in the Militia Act of 1908 by authorizing the Guard’s use abroad.
Sec. Stimson forwarded Crowder's findings to the DOJ for a formal legal opinion. On 02-12-1912, US AG Wickersham rendered an opinion that was potentially devastating to the Guard. Wickersham followed a strict interpretation of the Constitution and ruled that the federal government was forbidden from employing the NG for purposes beyond those enumerated in the Constitution's militia clauses. The AGl declared that provisions of the Militia Act of 1908 authorizing the Guard’s overseas service were unconstitutional, and furthermore, that the Guard could not serve as part of an army of occupation on foreign soil “under conditions short of actual warfare.” The Wickersham decision meant that the federal government could not order State troops overseas as long as they retained their status in the NG. In the War Dept., the AG's ruling destroyed the Guard's value as a viable federal reserve.
An important amendment to previous NG legislation came in 1933. Since the passage of the Dick Act 30 years prior, the Guard’s dual nature — its role as both a State and federal force — had confused and confounded many soldiers and legislators alike. Under the leadership of Milton Reckord, NGAUS and Guard supporters drafted and passed into law an amendment to the National Defense Act of 1916 that defined and institutionalized the Guard's unique status. The legislation established the "NG of the US" as a permanent "reserve component" of the Army consisting of federally recognized NG units. At the same time, the law identified the "NG of the several States" [as] consisting of the voluntary members of the State militias that served under the Governors. In simplest terms, the "NG of the US" pertained to the Guard’s federal role as a deployable asset of the Army, while the "NG of the several States" recognized the role of Guardsmen on State active duty. Henceforth, officers would take a dual oath to both the nation and their State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also look up http://americanlivewire.com/the-dick-act-gun-control/.
If we're to restore this country to a democratic Republic under Constitutional Law then we have to think rationally. We must stop posting rumors, conspiracies, and half-baked constitutional theories.
In addition, we must challenge the progressives over their beliefs that the Establishment, Proper and Necessary, Commerce, and Supremacy Clauses give the Federal government unlimited power over the States and the people.
Let's stop adopting the tactics of the progressives of posting patently false theories.
Going Insane: Part 1 of 2:
It's time we conservatives and libertarians stop posting urban legends. The claim that ANY law other than God's Law is perpetual is patently false. Such a law would be declared unconstitutional in a New York minute. Not even a Constitutional Amendment is unrevokable. PERIOD. Nor is ANY crime in the US punishable by summary execution, not even treason. People, please put on your thinking caps!
The claims about the so-called "Dick Act of 1902", actually the Militia Act of 1903, are false. In addition, the Act says nothing about gun control laws whatsoever.
But to give a detailed description of the falsehood of the claims about the "Dick Act," here is an article that explains it in detail.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Dick Act of 1902
Snopes.com
3 February 2013
Sources: Doubler, Michael D. I Am the Guard: A History of the National Guard, 1636-2000. U.S. Government Printing Office, 2001. ISBN 0-160-66449-7.
Claim: The Dick Act passed in 1903 "invalidates all gun control laws" in the U.S.
Example: The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.
The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army.
The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.
Origins: The American experience with the Spanish-American War of 1898 and its aftermath demonstrated the need for reform of the U.S. military. In an attempt to balance the competing interests of those who wanted the U.S. to maintain a much larger standing army and those who felt an expanded peacetime army was both too expensive and contrary to American tradition, in 1903 Congress passed the Militia Act of 1903 (also known as the Dick Militia Act or the Dick Act, named for Ohio Congressman Charles Dick) which established the National Guard as the Army's primary organized reserve.
According to I Am the Guard, a history of the Army National Guard:
The Militia Act of 1903 was benchmark legislation that repealed the antiquated Militia Act of 1792 and converted the volunteer militia into the National Guard. In simplest terms, Guard units received increased funding and equipment, and in return, they were to conform to federal standards for training and organization within five years. The law recognized two classes of militia; the Organized Militia (National Guard) under joint federal-State control and the Reserve Militia, the mass of 18-45 year old males otherwise available for military service. The Dick Act required Guardsmen to attend twenty-four drill periods per year and five days of summer camp. For the first time, Guardsmen received pay for summer camp but not for drill periods. The law called for Guard units to conduct maneuvers with the Army and to receive training assistance and formal inspections from Regulars. The Guard was subject to federal callups for nine months, though its service was restricted to within U.S. borders. The participation of Guard members in national callups was no longer discretionary; any soldier not reporting to his armory during a federal mobilization was subject to court martial.
It is hard to overstate the significance of the Dick Act for the National Guard. The practices of the volunteer militia as a self-supporting and largely independent entity gave way to a new military force with significant federal funding and subject to the administrative controls of the War Department.
Fact ___________________
Most everything stated about the Dick Act in the example quoted above is erroneous, however:
That was a lot to wade through but it was WELL worth it. The following paragraph to me perhaps was the most pertinent. As a former military officer I took the oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. Though now retired I still hold to that oath as binding.
You wrote, "The three branches of our government, ALL the military, ALL law enforcement, ALL the heads of the States, ALL federal employees are lawfully REQUIRED to take an Oath to support and defend the Constitution and NOT an individual leader, ruler, office, or entity. Once given, the Oath is binding for life, unless renounced, refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office or of discharge."
Thank you for stating the meaning, importance, and permanence of that oath.
R. E. Benitez
USAF, Major, USAF, Retired
@DanielVincentKelley I agree. However the progressives believe in an eisigetical interpretation of the Constitution rather than an exegetical one. Therein lies the crisis.
The progressive have completely misused the Establishment, Proper and Necessary, Commerce, and Supremacy Clause in an attempt to establish a national government and national Constitution rather than a federal government and Constitution.
It's not that Obama or Holder are ignorant, it's that they oppose the concept of federalism, a constitutional Republic, and a free market capitalist economy. They are following Saul Alinsky's and the Cloward-Piven plan and are succeeding.
The federal government is rapidly creating the manpower to enforce its ruling, i.e., through the buildup of the DHS into Obama's NKVD. Also Obama could declare that a state of insurrection existed in KS and send in federal troops.
So how do we resist? First, other states should pass similar laws. Also, it's time to remove the Dictator and his minions from positions of authority. Impeach Obama and Holder NOW!
@NavyJR You're quite correct. I'm glad someone see the implication.
Naturalization only refers to the process in which an immigrant becomes a citizen. The Constitution gives the Federal government absolute authority in defining who qualifies to become a citizen and how they can go about it.
Nothing is said about immigration, the process where foreigners move into our country to live. People forget that in our early Republic that was the province of the States.
So why is it now considered exclusively a federal matter by the Federal government, other than as a matter of power? In 1976 the SCOTUS ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration in the case of Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88. They stated that just because the Constitution lacks the word immigration does not mean that it lacks the concept of immigration.
Personally I believe that the 10th Amendment gives the power to the States as both Jefferson and Madison said the Federal government was limited to the ENUMERATED POWERS.
CONSIDER:
Thomas Jefferson - "It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It [the Constitution] was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect."
James Madison - "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents... If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one... The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. ... There are more
instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.
Supreme Court - Abelman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1858), at 519 - The sovereignty to be created was to be limited in its powers of legislation, and if it passed a law not authorized by its enumerated powers, it was not to be regarded as the supreme law of the land, nor were the State judges bound to carry it into execution.
@hawkeye1937 Like I said, i agree with your sentiments. The problem is, how doe we make them effective? That's what I've been trying to get at.
Why have I gone about in the manner I did? My Bachelor's Degree was in mathematics with a minor in history and economics. My graduate work is in political science.
Because of that I've studied the Constitution and the history that led to it. As I'm sure you know the Founders couldn't anticipate all eventualities. However, Franklin wrote of his fear that what we're seeing today, a people ignorant of the Constitution and its principles, corrupt and craven politicians, and people more concerned with security than liberty, would come. He was quite prophetic. The answer is eternal vigilance.
Believe it or not, and I'm sure you do, the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 was a pretty raucous affair. Many issues remained unsettled. Perhaps the biggest was slavery and that led to the Civil War. Also debated but not settled was what is the definition of a Natural Born Citizen. Hence the crisis over Obama's eligibility. Another one was what could the Sovereign States do if the Federal government ran roughshod over the Constitution and them. Jefferson favored nullification, and in an extreme case, secession. But the former was never codified in the Constitution and the Civil War answered the latter.
That's why I see a great deal of danger in treaties, as important as they are, and why we need a mechanism to prevent the Constitution from being negated by one. The Preamble gives the raison d'être for the Constitution, but doesn't act as an enforcement tool. That's why liberals are wrong in trying to use the Establishment Clause, along with the Commerce, Necessary and proper, and Supremacy Clauses to push just about anything they want to for the "public good."
You seem to see the principles in the Preamble as self evident. I agree with you. but all too many don't and I simply don't trust them. So we have to make sure they can't resort to mischief.
In other words, the Constitution says what it means and means what it says and we should nail that down.
By the way, I do appreciate the discussion.
Thanks, Bob
@NavyJR @findingthetruth I thought the Democrats with Clinton said that character was unimportant. It seems with Obama it's that past unsavory associations don't matter.
Our founders understood from a Biblical point of view that men were corrupted, so they developed a system of checks and balances. That's what we need to return to.
As Jefferson wrote, "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
He also wrote "The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."
How do we do this? If need be, dust off the Declaration of Independence and take it to heart with a vengeance.
Remember, Justice Joseph Story, who was appointed to the SCOTUS by the Constitution’s principal author, James Madison, wrote, "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
@NavyJR I dare say that none of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights are intact save the Third Amendment -- so far.
Go to Article 1 Section 8 Paragraph 4 and tell me why if says "Congress shall have the Power To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization and Immigration..." Or does it?
Does naturalization and immigration mean the same thing? A previous SCOTUS thought so. I don't and I don't think you do either.
@hawkeye1937 I agree with your sentiment, but that's all it is, a sentiment with no basis in constitutional law. Either you take the constitution at its word or you don't.
Not one of the Founders, particularly Jefferson or Madison, would agree with you. The nature of the Constitution can be changed thru the Amendment process so your statement, "I consider any person who attempts to destroy our nation, any portion or Article of our Constitution, our unalienable, inherent rights, and/or our republican form of government such an enemy," is nothing more than your personal opinion. We've already seen the damage that can be done thru the 16th, 17th (which does injure the concept of a republican form or government), and 18th Amendments and perhaps the 26th. Just kidding about the last one.
Please go back and read your constitutional history. How did the Constitution come about? We already had one called the Articles of Confederation which allowed for constitutional conventions so the States did so to modify it. There was no intention to discard it. Nevertheless the States believed it was so flawed they threw it out and came up with the current Constitution, and even that has AMENDMENTS which have drastically changed Articles of the Constitution. Consider Amendments 20, 22, 23, and 25. All are good but they changed Articles significantly. So are you saying all Amendments after the first Ten Amendments were a matter of treason?
As I said, i agree with your sentiments and I'm being a little harsh so I apologize for the latter. What I'm trying to say is that treaties can be so dangerous to the very nature of our Constitution that we need an Amendment to prevent any treaty from overriding the provisions of the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights.
For example, Muslim nations are pushing a treaty to outlaw criticism by citizens of nations from criticizing Islam. That'd negate much of the 1st Amendment if we signed AND ratified it. Personally I'd call for the impeachment of any president who would sign such a treaty or any Secretary of State who recommended it.
Why do you think Mr. Obama studied the Constitution? Do you think it was to faithfully execute it? My friend, Mr. Obama is a Fabian socialist who is trying to work around, obfuscate, and override the Constitution according to the Saul Alinsky and Cloward-Piven plans. We mustn't allow him and the Socialist Democrats extinguish what's left of a democratic Republic under the rule of constitutional law.
@hawkeye1937 It's something I've heard before and is useless except to those who want to lose their property or go to prison. The so-called people's courts of law can't enforce anything and should they try it would only get people killed.
The concept is right up there with those who don't believe we should pay federal income taxes or that we went to the moon.
I'm not saying we shouldn't change our laws to reflect your view, which I like, but until we do your only recourse if your refuse is to the gun.
@hawkeye1937 The supremacy clause is absolute. There's no wiggle room. Just because another section precedes it doesn't invalidate it.
Should a treaty be signed and ratified stating that all signature countries must have a parliamentary democracy then that part providing for republican (small r) form of government would be negated.
The only recourse for the people then would be to revert to the Declaration of Independence, and that's what it might well come to, particularly if Mr. Obama is reelected..
Also, please go back to Article 3 Section 3. It states, "TREASON against the United States, shall consist ONLY in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." (Again, emphasis mine) It's very definitive. A treaty requiring the federal government to confiscate guns, which is what the UN Small Arms Treaty could do, would not fall under the definition, unfortunately.
Hence, we need an Amendment that would prevent a craven president and senate from committing such an atrocity against the people.
By the way, Jefferson wrote about nullification by States. It's another concept for an Amendment we should consider.
@findingthetruth But pettifoggers, oops, lawyers are paid by the hour and it would seem by the word. Do you want to deprive them of a living? ;-)
@hawkeye1937 I wish you were right but I believe the CONSTITUTION is quite clear on the matter. We conservatives castigate the Left for taking an eisegesist view of the CONSTITUTION, yet we seem ready to do it ourselves at times.
Article 6 Paragraph 2 of the CONSTITUTION states unequivocally, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and ALL TREATIES made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the SUPREME LAW of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, ANY THING in the CONSTITUTION or laws of any State TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING." (emphasis mine) If you believe in an exegetical interpretation of the CONSTITUTION, I can see no other meaning that if we sign a treaty that invalidates some portion of the CONSTITUTION then that portion becomes null and void as if it were an Amendment, but without the States approval, amending the CONSTITUTION.
So, even if the SCOTUS were to state a treaty was unconstitutional, such wouldn't overrule the signature of a president with the ratification of the Senate. The people and the States have no say over treaties other than protesting to their senators or taking up arms.
Thus a number of States and constitutionalists are concerned enough that proposals have been made for an Amendment that would void any treaty that violated any part of the Constitution. I might add, it's not just a problem with the UN. We could sign a treaty with other organizations or a single country that could be dangerous. So I believe such an Amendment has merit.
By the way, why do you think progressives during the time of Pres. Teddy Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson passed the 17th Amendment electing Senators by popular vote? It was another nail in the coffin of States Rights. It enabled the Federal government to appeal to the masses of a state and go over the head of State legislatures.
@DanChristopher I can understand your concern for the Constitution. What I don't understand is your disrespect of the Bible. It seems you have a hatred for those who are called the apple of God's eye, the Jews. And please remember, Jesus was a Jew.
@WereAllScrewed Rand Paul is a Republican constitutionalist. Ron Paul is a Libertarian anarchist. I mean anarchist in the good sense of the word referring to those who believe people are basically good and can govern themselves without the need for government except perhaps at the local level.
By the way, I find it hard to excuse Ron Paul's support of racist comments in his old newsletters.