Editor’s Note: Below is a transcript of Rep. Paul Ryan’s speech today at Hillsdale College in commemoration of Constitution Day.
Thanks very much for your kind introduction. It’s always a pleasure for me to speak to Hillsdale folks. Your mission here at the Kirby Center is a great example of what Hillsdale College is all about — that is, in the words of James Madison, “liberty and learning, each leaning on the other for their mutual and surest support.”
In addition to those of you who’ve joined us today, I’m told that these remarks are being webcast live for the benefit of Hillsdale students back in Michigan, where it is currently 8:30 a.m. — or, as most college students call it, the crack of dawn. Your scholarly passion for human freedom must be powerful indeed.
Advertisement
This Saturday, we celebrate the 224th birthday of the Constitution written by the Framers in Philadelphia. In paying tribute to this inspired document, I want to talk about how we should think about the Constitution, and why that matters.
Usually, our defense of the Constitution is presented as a defense of America’s founding principles and values, and rightfully so. But our constitutional system is not just a collection of principles; it embodies an approach to government with profound practical implications for both our freedom and our prosperity. When that system is threatened, both freedom and prosperity suffer.
Freedom is lost by degrees, and the deepest erosions usually take place during times of economic hardship, when those who favor expanding the sphere of government abuse a crisis to persuade free citizens that they should trade in a little of their liberty for empty promises of greater economic security.
We all remember what Benjamin Franklin said about that trade — that those who would make it deserve neither liberty nor security. But in such cases, when liberty is lost, it is our fault as champions of the Constitution for failing to mount a sufficiently persuasive and effective defense. And I believe our defense falls short when we fail to connect our timeless principles and values to the urgent economic issues facing the factory worker in Janesville, Wis., who is suddenly unable to provide for his family, or, in your case, the recent college graduate who finds herself in one of the worst job markets in recent memory.
We can strengthen our defense of liberty if we remember to keep in mind those who are struggling to make ends meet. What makes our Constitution such an extraordinary document is that, in making the United States the freest civilization in history, the Founders guaranteed that it would become the most prosperous as well. The American system of limited government, low taxes, sound money, and the rule of law has done more to help the poor than any other economic system ever designed.
I want to talk today in particular about the last of those — the rule of law, which is absolutely essential to all the other benefits of our system, to the prosperity and freedom of our country, and to the well being of all Americans, especially the most vulnerable.
What is the rule of law? When the Declaration of Independence cited as justification “the laws of nature and of nature’s God,” the Founders were channeling Aristotle, who wrote that the rule of law in principle means that, quote, “God and intellect alone rule.”
Aristotle defined the law as “intellect without appetite,” by which he meant justice untainted by the self-interest of those in power.
The great difficulty we encounter in striving to meet Aristotle’s ideal was best summed up by James Madison: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. And if angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”
But, as Madison reminded us, men are no angels, and government is “administered by men over men.” Grounded in a proper understanding of human nature, our Founders tackled this challenge head-on with a brilliant Constitution and a healthy separation of powers, binding all men to the same set of laws and preventing any one man or group of men from gaining enough power to declare themselves above the law.
The Constitution secures other rights long understood to be essential to the rule of law, such as the right to due process, meaning that the laws of the land must be transparent, consistent, and equally applied to all men, so that no man may be arbitrarily deprived of life, liberty, or property.
I saw Rep Ryan on 'Morning Joe' today. Prior to his segment, the usual cast of MJ pundits were grousing about how President Obama is proposing things and the Republicans in Congress were simply obstructing without proposing their own alternatives.
In a very clear, civil, and convincing way, Rep Ryan articulated an alternative vision to that of the administration and clear set of actions to achieve that vision (a very difficult thing to do in such a forum where pundits sling inane commentary in the guise of questions).
Paul Ryan, for me, is the antidote for political cynicism. He and a few others give me hope that there are ‘adults’ in the room that have the Nation’s best interests at heart. He gives no indication of the aristocratic disease that ultimately afflicts most Washington politicians.
We need more of this kind of talent and leadership.
Brilliantly stated. Very timely for me, as I'm studying "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat, and "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman.
What is due next, is a rewriting of the concepts presented in this Op-Ed, at a third grade level, so that me might begin to make some progress with today's crop of American Leftists.
When a representative government forgets that it is first and foremost a nation of laws it inevitably becomes a nation of men. As long as men are governed by both intellect and passion there will be a strong current that moves governments to be ruled by men. Unfortunately that lesson is rarely taught these days. Mr. Ryan would do well by reminding us all of this at every opportunity. I truly wish he was saying these very things on a presidential candidate stage. The country would be better for it.
To really reduce the scope, size and power of the federal leviathan we need to restore the original constitutional limits on the federal government. Given the power of vested interests in Congress and the depth of Supreme Court precedents stripping away the Constitution's limits on the federal government, the only way I can see to do that is constitutional amendments restoring the Constitution’s original meaning and structure. However, the federal Congress is not going to approve by two-thirds vote constitutional amendments limiting federal power.
If Congressional Republicans like Representative Ryan want to do something really useful, they should amend the amendment process itself to eliminate the unnecessary convention now required by Article V and permit States to directly initiate amendment proposals. This will break the current de facto federal congressional and judicial monopoly on interpreting the Constitution, and permit grassroots patriots on the state level to restore the Constitution by amendment without having to wait on the vagaries of Capitol Hill politics. See External Link
We have an old saying... and Paul Ryan is full of it. For someone quoting the US Constitution, Paul Ryan has violated it numerous times. He's just as much a corrupt politician and bailout queen, as any member supporting the crony Obama administration. Rule of Law, HAH! The immorality of the US Federal government takes hypocrisy to the highest levels today. It doesn't matter whether it's Dubya Bush or Marxist Obama, government across all 4 branches(Corporate Media is the new 4th branch), across all political parties and branches, it protects itself first and foremost from laws and threats to their racketeering regimes.
Ryan is NOT a statesman and by far not even close to following the US Constitution.
This article with "Ryan's Hope" should be on the comedy channel.
Would you like to support anything you said, or is it so painfully obvious that only the backward hicks such as myself, and others perhaps living in "flyover country" can't ever comprehend? Not being in the "in" crowd, I suppose I am destined to never benefit from your pop psychology wisdom.
We have an old saying, and you haven't put up, so you should just shut up. Rather like your namesake, your invective is trite, dated, and out of touch with all but a select few partaking of the same rarified air from whence you come. Or, to put it in the vernacular, crawl off, you twit.
This is exactly the kind of message that America needs to hear. If people would simply stop and think about these concepts and then realize that the best way to help ourselves is to be responsible for ourselves, then some of the madness we've seen over the past 50 years can possibly be overcome.
But, I expect all we'll hear is inane, compulsive responses like "Shun all Ayn Rand acolytes". Fear of intelligent discussion is a sure sign of an indefensible position.
This is why I think it is critically important for the House to impeach the President for his lawless activity.
The Congress simply must reassert it's authority as the law making authority in the Country and reclaim all of the authority it has un-onstitutionally delegated to the Executive.
The President and the executive must be held to account for the laws they have failed to enforce and the regulations they have implemented without Congressional authority.
Congress itself must be taken to task for substituting a legislative veto in the place of constitutional legislative enactment.
Kudos to Rep. Ryan for discussing the constitution. At least he has studied that document, and evidently believes in it. However, this constitutional conservative cannot help but read his remarks with a jaundiced eye, for like many of our elected leaders, Ryan speaks in a lofty rhetoric, but fails to act upon it much of the time.
A case in point: the current occupant of the Oval Office, Barack Obama, is there in contravention of the natural-born citizen clause, aka article 2, section 1 - which stipulates that in order to be president, one must be the child of two U.S. citizens. Obama's father was Kenyan, and a subject of the British Empire, at the time of his birth. What is he doing in the Oval Office?
Now, many people believe that the NBC clause is antiquated and should be abolished. Fair enough, even though I do not agree... but isn't the proper means for doing so by use of the amendment process, and not legal maneuvering and political gamesmanship? A bi-partisan coalition of Senators, in the run-up to the 2008 election, passed SR511 by roll-call vote, which neatly allowed Obama to by-pass the constitution - sans public debate, let alone a national discussion on the topic.
Representative Ryan, my question for you concerns the applicability of the constitution. Should elected officials govern according to it, all of the time, or not? For, in my view, using the constitution part of the time is like being "half-pregnant" - it doesn't work. As the foregoing example illustrates, our govt. apparently regards the constitution as a set of suggestions, not the supreme law of the land. Viewed in this light, it is hard to be less than cynical regarding "constitution day" celebrations by elected officials.
Until I see more evidence that you and your colleagues actually plan to govern according to that document, I will continue to regard pieces such as this as pro forma displays of allegiance and nothing more.
Please prove me wrong; nothing would please me more...
