Is it wise to accept or reject a candidate on the basis on a single position they may hold? I think Ron's position of never voting for something except as allowed by the Constitution is something all elected officials should follow, but why is Ron the only one?
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.
Here's an overview of Ron Paul:
Paul's nickname "Dr. No" reflects both his medical degree and his contrarian insistence on "never vot[ing] for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution." Paul adheres to the economic philosophy of the Austrian School of economics, which among other things, holds that government control over the money supply causes economic inefficiency and monetary instability. Paul has authored several books on the subject. He has pictures of classical liberal economists Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises hanging on his office wall.
Paul's foreign policy of nonintervention made him the only 2008 Republican presidential candidate to have voted against the Iraq War Resolution in 2002. He voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force in response to the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, but suggested war alternatives such as authorizing the president to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal targeting specific terrorists. He advocates withdrawal from the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for reasons of maintaining strong national sovereignty. Civil liberties concerns have led him to oppose the Patriot Act, a national ID card, federal government use of torture, domestic surveillance, and presidential autonomy; he supports free trade, rejecting membership in NAFTA and the World Trade Organization as "managed trade". He supports tighter border security and ending welfare benefits for illegal aliens, and opposes birthright citizenship and amnesty; he voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006.
Paul regularly votes against almost all proposals for new government spending, initiatives, or taxes. He has pledged never to raise taxes, and states he has never voted to approve an unbalanced budget. He has stated that abolishing the individual income tax, which collects about 42 percent of government revenue, would be possible without any additional source of federal income by cutting spending to the 2000 level. He has also stated that we could quickly pay off our foreign debt and return our nation to solvency, if we further reduced spending to the 1992 level.
Paul would like to substantially reduce the government's role in individual lives and in the functions of foreign and domestic states; he says Republicans have lost their commitment to limited government and have become the party of big government. Paul supports elimination of most federal government agencies, such as the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Administration, and the Interstate Commerce Commission, calling them unnecessary bureaucracies.
Paul opposes inflation, viewing it as an underhanded form of "taxation" due to the fact that it takes value away from the money that individuals hold without having to directly tax them. He said in one presidential debate that "a dollar today is worth 4 cents compared to a dollar in 1913 when the Federal Reserve got in." He argues that hard money, such as backed by gold or silver, are superior to fiat money, but says he does not advocate going back to the gold standard. Rather, he wishes to legalize gold and silver as legal tender, as called for in the Constitution, so that gold-backed notes issued from the private markets can compete with fiat Federal Reserve notes; this, he believes, will help restrain inflation as well as limit government spending and the expansion of government (since government would be deprived of the income derived from inflation). He advocates gradual elimination of the Federal Reserve central bank for a few reasons, arguing that economic volatility is decreased when the free market determines interest rates and money supply, and that the Federal Reserve allows government to grow unchecked, and involve itself in areas he believes it should not be involved in, by inflating the money supply when funds are needed to accomodate government spending.
Paul supports states' rights, gun ownership, habeas corpus for political detainees, jury nullification rights, and a Constitutional amendment allowing voluntary and unofficial school prayer; he also favors allowing workers to opt out of Social Security, expanding the free market in health care, recognizing private property rights for pollution prevention, and increasing ballot access. Paul opposes the draft, the federal War on Drugs, socialized health care, the welfare state, foreign aid, judicial activism, federal death penalties,, federal regulation of marriage, of education, and any bans on internet gambling. He supports revising enforcement of the military "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which he calls "decent", to focus on disruptive behavior and include members with heterosexual as well as homosexual behavior issues. He has voted against federal funding of joint adoption by unmarried couples, including same-sex adoption. Paul calls himself "an unshakable foe of abortion", and believes regulation of medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state level."