In a profile of Ron and Rand Paul, TIME?s Michael Crowley offers us this nugget:
For years, Paul was something of a running joke in Congress. Adopting a highly literal view of the Constitution ? including the argument that the government should do almost nothing beyond providing basic safety and security ? he opposed most spending bills, the Medicare and Medicaid programs, federal drug laws, the CIA and nearly all U.S. military action overseas. Nicknamed “Dr. No,” Paul even opposed relief for Hurricane Katrina victims.
Implicit in Crowley?s commentary is the notion that a ?highly literal? view of the Constitution is laughable. That?s unfortunate, since the Constitution is supposed to determine what government can and cannot do. As originalists understand, only a reliance on the words of the Constitution ? in other words, a ?highly literal? view ? is appropriate in limiting government to its proper role.
