Your end goal may be to say that the Constitution has no legitimate authority, therefore the federal government is not bound by it. If so, then my response would be that the Constitution is what gives the federal government its legitimate authority. Without the Constitution, there is no federal government.
Or you may be heading towards the other side, which is that the Constitution, like other contracts, can only bind those that have voluntarily taken part in it, and that the "limits" implied on the people by the Constitution (powers that the federal government has) do not apply to those of us living today. If this is where you're headed, then the answer is a bit more complex.
But the short answer is this. The original 13 states agreed to the Constitution, and each new state entering into the union thereafter has agreed to it, so the Constitution is binding upon the states to give the federal government the powers that are specifically enumerated.
Starting from a clean slate, anarchy (which doesn't mean chaos, it simply means no government), the people endow the states with certain powers, and the states use some of that authority to endow the federal government with far fewer powers. This last process manifest itself in the form of the Constitution.
Dr. Paul is running as the champion of the Constitution. Surely it's fair to ask why he thinks it should have authority, no?
I can't believe none of you legal experts in 5 pages has come up with the right answer.
The Presidental pardon power outlined in Article II, Section 2 is virtually unlimited. Two ways it is limited are the he can't pardon people who have been impeached and he can only pardon US citizens.
By the way presidents can pardon people wholesale. The pardons by President Washington of the Whiskey Rebels were challenged to the supreme court and they upheld the power of the president to pardon classes of people in US v. Klein.
Setting aside the question of why the Constitution has any binding authority, where does it say he can only pardon citizens? In Article II, Section 2, I read: "...and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." Where does it say he can only pardon US citizens?
Matthew Chapters 23 + 24
The constitution is a contract that charters an entity and lays out it's purpose and powers. Those who formed the contract can not give any more powers to this entity than they have. In a free society, they can be given no powers over you. It's a contract between the states, therefore it is only binding between the states, this new entity, and anyone that contracts with this entity. You are simply a beneficiary of this contract just like you may be a beneficiary of a corporation.
They do not have the power to tax you directly. They have the power to tax the states directly. They have the power to tax your use of their property.
The government does not follow natural law anymore. Ron Paul wants to restore that.
I'm a Canadian but think that in this case, our systems work similarly. Immigration is partly a defense issue, in which case, it makes sense to be under federal authority. But social issues such as education and health are under provincial (state) authority.
Canada also has its War on Drugs, not quite as bad as you have up there, but nearly so. Our neanderthal government is trying to take us backwards from where we had progressed in terms of how we view marijuana. It had been the case that, while possession of marijuana was still considered as a crime in the courts, our police forces would look the other way if they found someone in possession of the dreaded weed. Now, thanks to our Harper government, there has been a concerted crackdown. Not coincidentally, this crackdown has come largely at the behest of the U.S., which has been in a tizzy over the export of marijuana seeds to its fair shores.
What if I want to let a Mexican citizen come live with me in Nevada next week? Dr. Paul seems to claim authority for the government to prevent that, but I don't see how you can say it's not interference with my property rights.
Doesn't the Fifth amendment say my property may be taken by the U.S. for public use?
If you bring an illegal across the national border you infringe on the rights of everyone who is protected by the national constitution since the authority to restrict border crossings is presumably granted to the national level of government as a portion of their responsibility to protect our borders from invasion. You would be participating in an invasion of one person or 30 million people contrary to the authority and responsibility of the federalis to prevent this from happening in the interest of national sovereignty and national defense.
Matthew Chapters 23 + 24