he wants to limit the govt to do nothing but what is legally provisioned in the constitutionThat's essentially correct, but a bit of an oversimplification. A more accurate representation would be "he wants to limit the federal govt to do nothing but what is legally provisioned in the constitution". There are a number of things that he'd like to see the government do, but at a state or local level.
For example, he's strongly opposed to abortion, but he's also opposed to any federal legislation addressing the issue one way or the other (note that there's no federal law against murder, for example; this is dealt with by the states).
So your concerns about the agility of the organization are better handled through Paul's approach. The way the system works today, politicians make a choice, and then stick to it no matter the evidence (see the War on Drugs, NCLB, etc.). No matter what happens, they can't back down on their position because it weakens them politically. Given Paul's approach, the states can serve as mini laboratories, each trying out different approaches to solve problems, with the rest of the country able to watch what happens, and then pick the best results from the other states.
I'm very concerned with your statement:
the constitution was written over three hundred years ago, although I think it's paramount to protect the rights as allotted in the Bill of Rights I don't necessarily think that the constitution insomuch as it exists as a legally-binding document, needs to be adhered to without the consideration that iteration may need to be made on the intent of the original authors with respect to the ever-changing world.
The problem with this is in the interpretation of the "intent of the original authors". This is essentially what's happening today, and it means that whoever is in power gets to do whatever the hell they want, as long as they can come up with some plausible rationalization. When the document can be plastic in this way, it serves as only a very weak protection against runaway government.
That's essentially correct, but a bit of an oversimplification. A more accurate representation would be "he wants to limit the federal govt to do nothing but what is legally provisioned in the constitution". There are a number of things that he'd like to see the government do, but at a state or local level.
For example, he's strongly opposed to abortion, but he's also opposed to any federal legislation addressing the issue one way or the other (note that there's no federal law against murder, for example; this is dealt with by the states).
So your concerns about the agility of the organization are better handled through Paul's approach. The way the system works today, politicians make a choice, and then stick to it no matter the evidence (see the War on Drugs, NCLB, etc.). No matter what happens, they can't back down on their position because it weakens them politically. Given Paul's approach, the states can serve as mini laboratories, each trying out different approaches to solve problems, with the rest of the country able to watch what happens, and then pick the best results from the other states.
I'm very concerned with your statement:
the constitution was written over three hundred years ago, although I think it's paramount to protect the rights as allotted in the Bill of Rights I don't necessarily think that the constitution insomuch as it exists as a legally-binding document, needs to be adhered to without the consideration that iteration may need to be made on the intent of the original authors with respect to the ever-changing world.
The problem with this is in the interpretation of the "intent of the original authors". This is essentially what's happening today, and it means that whoever is in power gets to do whatever the hell they want, as long as they can come up with some plausible rationalization. When the document can be plastic in this way, it serves as only a very weak protection against runaway government.