“# Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.“
Sounds like what many say about Ron Paul and his ideas.
From the very beginning there have been two ways to interpret the Constitution: Hamiltonian loose constructionism and Jeffersonian strict constructionism. Even the people who wrote it roughly divided into these two groups.
Ron Paul is a strict constructionist. Just because one rejects this one tradition of Constitutional interpretation in favor of the other one which is just as old (and which was held by George Washington, btw) does not mean one is rejecting the Constitution.
Plus "palaeolibertarians" are a bizarre species whose only purpose appears to be the adaptation of European fascism to local American conditions. Otherwise how does one adapt religious orthodoxy to libertarianism? And why would any "libertarian" advocate bringing back jim crow laws (not that Rep. Paul does, but there are "libertarians" who do)?
"Palaeolibertarians" are like our leftwing "anarchists." They consider the US government dictatorial but they admire foreign dictators who are a zillion times worse. The only difference between the two groups is the names of the dictators they admire.
Well there is the third way which most elected officials and judges seem to use today. Ignore it.
I’ll quote Henry Hyde.
“There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to a modern society. Why declare war if you don’t have to? We are
saying to the President, use your judgment. So, to demand that we declare war is to strengthen something to death. You have got a hammerlock on this situation, and it is not called for. Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn’t done anymore.”