The Constitutional Remnant

How a 229-year-old document disrupted both major-party conventions


Rand Paul had the relaxed, casual glow of someone who had recently spent some significant time on a beach somewhere decompressing. It was July 15 in Las Vegas at the libertarian gathering FreedomFest, three days before the start of the Republican National Convention (RNC) in Cleveland, and the Kentucky senator was strolling across the stage in white pants and white shoes, delivering a confident, off-the-cuff spiel about how Congress needs to stop abdicating its constitutional responsibility to trim the sails of presidential power. He didn't mention Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton by name, but he didn't have to.

"Have you heard any of the candidates saying…that there is too much power that has gravitated to the presidency?" the 2016 presidential flameout asked. "I'm hearing the opposite. I'm hearing people say 'Give me more power, and I'll fix it! We'll be great again if you can give me power! By the sheer might of my will we will make things better!'

"But really there's a lesson of history that we don't want to forget," Paul continued. "The lesson of history is that power corrupts, that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and we don't want to fool ourselves into thinking it just means we've got to give the power to our guy, or our girl."

Paul, who spent convention week 560 miles away in Paducah, Kentucky, performing pro bono surgeries to restore sight in blind patients, clearly did not seek to be the face of the opposition to the Republican Party's power-hungry, anti-trade standard-bearer. As he said in Vegas, "I don't see it as my job now" to endorse Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson, particularly after having signed a pledge as presidential candidate to eschew third parties and support the eventual nominee. But in a year where the GOP's bewildered, perpetually outmaneuvered #NeverTrump bloc was most represented in the media by the likes of Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, it was the Paulite faction of constitutional conservatives, not the old guard of neoconservatives or disaffected social cons, that emerged as Trump's in-your-face opposition.

Four days later in Cleveland, I stumbled on a hotbed of Rand Paul and Ron Paul fans. This wasn't at an explicitly ideological gathering. Instead, it was a meeting of the Republican Youth Caucus, in which the only qualification for membership was being born after 1980. Delegate after delegate volunteered their politics as "libertarian," said openly they preferred Gary Johnson to Donald Trump, and were fired up about issues such as rolling back foreign intervention, legalizing medical marijuana, eliminating workplace licensure, and blocking gun control measures.

"I think one of the concerns that a lot of libertarians have with Donald Trump is, of all the candidates we had out there, I don't know that there's anyone who looks more authoritarian," said 34-year-old Vermont State Rep. Paul Dane.

Speaking that day to this cadre of GOP youth was Sen. Mike Lee (R–Utah), who 24 hours earlier had become the opening-day focal point of Trump opposition at the RNC, when he loudly shouted "Noooooo!" from the Utah delegation during a controversial voice vote. (It's a complicated story, but basically Utah and eight other states wanted a full roll-call vote on changes to the convention rules. Pro-Trump RNC operatives then went around twisting arms to make sure such a vote never took place, for fear of showcasing dissension in the ranks to the viewers back home.)

Lee's talk to the GOP millennials was striking in its frank pessimism about the youth vote ("We could go the way of MySpace," he warned), but also in its 100 percent true assumption that any gathering of under-35 Republicans would be interested and fluent in the "liberty message" and in the kind of microscopic constitutional wonkery that mostly law professors could love. The future of the party, in other words, is filled with openly libertarian kids who speak Constitutional Conservatese.

"Look, I'm a Republican," Sen. Lee told me after his remarks, when I asked him whether he was voting for Gary Johnson. "I have always voted for Republicans, I have never anticipated voting for anyone who is not a Republican, particularly in a presidential contest…I've made no…secret about the fact that I have concerns with Mr. Trump, he has yet to win me over. I'd love to be won over, and there are a whole lot of people like me who would like to be won over, but I'm not there yet."

The next day Lee's close personal friend Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas), the Republican primary runner-up, created the convention's biggest stir by declining to endorse Trump during a masterful speech that drew boos for urging voters to back candidates who support the Constitution.

"We deserve leaders who stand for principle, who unite us all behind shared values, who cast aside anger for love," Cruz said. "That is the standard we should expect from everybody. And, to those listening, please don't stay home in November. If you love our country and love our children as much as you do, stand, and speak, and vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket who you trust to defend our freedom, and to be faithful to the Constitution."

As Atlantic senior editor and committed #NeverTrumper David Frum told me the next day, Trump could have chosen that moment to lead applause, rather than orchestrate boos, under the argument that, hey, he's the guy you can trust to defend our freedom and be faithful to first principles! But instead Trump's chorus chose to interpret a robust defense of the Constitution as an ad hominem attack.

Encouragingly, the same can be said, if in a less consistent way, about the Democratic National Convention (DNC). There, though it wasn't particularly visible or audible to viewers back home, there was a four-day push and pull between DNC organizers and a rump bloc of Bernie Sanders delegates who were infuriated over their inability to express support for Sanders' ideas or their opposition to Hillary Clinton's. At one point they walked out about 300 strong with duct tape and American flags over their mouths.

Delegates I talked to were incensed by threats of having their signs confiscated, being escorted out, or even getting arrested if they showed too much Bernie enthusiasm or Hillary antagonism to the folks back home. "People doing these chants have a First Amendment right!" an exasperated North Dakota delegate, Mike Lopez, told me. "That was kind of the tipping point for me, where you claim to be a party of inclusion, you claim to value the values of the Constitution—as I do—and you can't have political dissent, which of course is crucial to the functioning of democracy!"

Sadly, that reverence for the Constitution doesn't include the Supreme Court's current First Amendment jurisprudence; Bernie delegates even more than the convention as a whole despised the 2010 Citizens United decision, which they saw as enabling corporations rather than unshackling political speech. The current interpretation of the Second Amendment as protecting individual rights was equally unpopular in Philadelphia.

And yet it matters that the DNC's signature moment came when Khizr Khan, father of the slain immigrant Army Capt. Humayun Khan, looked into the camera, addressed Donald Trump, and pulled out his pocket Constitution. "Let me ask you: Have you even read the United States Constitution?" Khan said. "I will gladly lend you my copy. In this document, look for the words 'liberty' and 'equal protection of law.'"

In a political season marked by authoritarianism from both major parties, it's at least some small comfort to see opposition anchored in the Constitution. It may be the Republicans' and Democrats' last, best hope.

NEXT: Brickbat: Born to Be Wild

Constitution Election 2016 Authoritarianism Rand Paul Mike Lee Libertarianism

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

21 responses to “The Constitutional Remnant

  1. “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”

    It appears the Constitution is becoming the placeholder for patriotism.

    1. I am making $92/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $14 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website…go to this website and click to Tech tab for more work details…

  2. All I got to say is that I have no intention of voting for the power-hungry fatheaded lying crooked old fraud for President.

    1. You’re gonna have to be more specific than that.

    1. It served as a prop for HRC, who has zero respect for the Constitution’s limits on federal power.

      1. I heard she asked her nurse why the Khans were talking about her health when everyone was forbidden to.

  3. “I think one of the concerns that a lot of libertarians have with Donald Trump is, of all the candidates we had out there, I don’t know that there’s anyone who looks more authoritarian,”…

    Let’s not fool ourselves. They both are very authoritarian.

    1. And which one is more liable to be held in check (just a bit, anyway) by Congress and the media?

    2. No one who looks more authoritarian. That really is stunning.

  4. committed #NeverTrumper David Frum


  5. my co-worker’s ex-wife makes $72 every hour on the computer . She has been fired for eight months but last month her paycheck was $21092 just working on the computer for a few hours. pop over here@@


  6. To the promoted comment: “As a libertarian, I’m pretty sure that Muslims don’t have any Constitutional rights, because Sharia. Also because Rotherham, Paris, San Bernardino, and those icky burkas. If Muslims want to be Americans they can convert to Christianity. If the mysticism of Christ is good enough for Mike Huckabee, it’s good enough for Mohammed.”

    I don’t really care who you are, what you believe, what you wear, etc. but having a great Constitution that works is a two way street. If your want to destroy America and our freedoms, then fuck you and we don’t want you to come here. If you are an American and are actively trying to useful idiot for tyranny, then fuck you and don’t be surprised when Americans make you a social pariah.

    1. It’s Kizone Kaprow, a malicious, psychopathic troll that spends most of its day obsessing over libertarians in general and Reason in particular.

  7. Brandon . I can see what your saying… Victor `s rep0rt is good, last wednesday I bought a great Audi Quattro since I been making $5790 this past 5 weeks and just over ten-k this past munth . it’s by-far the most rewarding I have ever had . I actually started five months/ago and almost immediately brought home over $82, p/h .

  8. From a famous speech by another famous progressive about handing more power to the federal executive branch:

    Only the creation of true national community, rising above the interests and contradictions of social classes and special interests, can put the nation back on the right path.
    The intent of the Enabling Act is not to abolish the states. However, the [federal] government must be able to override state authority in order to be able to implement necessary political changes across the nation. It is for this purpose that we are proposing the Enabling Act.
    Some of necessary and important actions we intend to take would [otherwise] require supermajorities in parliament in order to change the constitution. It would contradict the desired purpose of government if the government had to come to parliament every time it wanted to implement such policies and had to deal with negotiating permission from parliament.
    Therefore, our goal with the Enabling Act is not to abolish parliament; to the contrary, the government will continue to inform and ask for permission from parliament as it sees fit.
    The government will make use of the Enabling Act only to the degree it is necessary to implement essential, life-saving measures for the nation.

    Note that that other famous progressive was also deliberately vague on the distinction between “government”, “the state”, “the government”, “the executive branch”, “the chancellor”, etc.

  9. Ah, a pic of the great Khizr Khan!

    Khan claims that Trump does not understand the Constitution, but as an immigration lawyer should mention that the Immigration Act of 1952 gives the President the power to exclude “any class of people”. And Khan also has a history of writing favorably about Sharia law and implying that it will supersede the Constitution.…..haria-law/


    Khizr Khan … has previously written in a law journal about Islamic law. He specifically wrote about the purity of the Quran and the Sunnah over all other texts and interpretations.

    1. Khan was going to throw the pocket Constitution in a Sharia sponsored bonfire but then realized he was on American tv.

  10. Meh. Every single candidate we had to choose from — including Rand Paul and Gary Johnson — is authoritarian for what he considers the “right” causes.

Comments are closed.