Paul on the issues

I've noticed some of Rand Paul's supporters arguing that Paul's radical views on federal regulation don't matter because he won't have to vote on things like repealing the Civil Rights Act, or, as Conor Friedersdorf says, repealing the minimum wage or a bill allowing employers to hire as many illegal immigrants as they want.

But that's confusing the issue. Paul will almost certainly have to vote on changes to the minimum wage and policies enforcing the prohibition on hiring illegal immigrants. If he thinks both enterprises are illegitimate, that's probably going to affect how he votes. And if it's not, if his position is going to be that "I don't think the federal government should bar the hiring of illegal immigrants but so long as it is, let's all get biometric ID cards so it's effective," then let him tell us that.

Update: Speaking of which, it looks like Paul is already getting -- and dodging -- questions on the minimum wage. "It's not a question of whether they can or cannot," he says. "I think that's decided." Pointedly, he doesn't say if he thinks it was decided correctly.

One argument Friedersdorf makes in his post is that states rights and federal regulation matter a lot less these days than things like the PATRIOT Act. But the PATRIOT Act, of course, was a response to an unexpected event. The national agenda can change very rapidly, but senators don't stand for reelection very often. So the fact that Paul won't answer these questions is a serious problem. After all, he's not saying he'll recuse himself from voting on these issues, so it's not appropriate for him to refuse to answer straightforward questions on these issues.