U.S. Rep. Ron Paul | court |
court
Birth Defects Prevention Act
10 March 1998 1998 Ron Paul 24:7
Congress are [sic] authorized to defend the nation. Ships are necessary for defense, copper is necessary for ships; mines, necessary for copper; a company necessary to work the mines; and who can doubt this reasoning who has ever played at “This is the House that Jack Built”? under such a process of filiation of the necessities the sweeping clause makes clean work. [1 c. Warren, The Supreme Court United States History 501 (Rev. ed. 1926]
court
National Police State
12 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 50:7
Perhaps, more dangerous is the loss of another Constitutional protection which comes with the passage of more and more federal criminal legislation. Constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting (and, as mentioned above, for a short period of history, the manufacture, sale, or transport of alcohol was concurrently a federal and state crime). “Concurrent” jurisdiction crimes, such as alcohol prohibition in the past and federalization of felonious child support delinquency today, erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the federal government and a state government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.
court
Can’t Vote For Amendment
4 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 55:3
I am in entire agreement with the authors of this amendment in their concern for the systematic attack on religious expression throughout the country. There is no doubt hostility exists, especially against conservative religious expression. It is pervasive and routinely expressed in our courts.
court
Can’t Vote For Amendment
4 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 55:6
The basic problem is that our courts are filled with judges that have no understanding or concern for the constitutional principles of original intent, the doctrine of enumerated powers, or property rights. As long as that exists, any new amendment to the Constitution will be likewise abused.
court
Can’t Vote For Amendment
4 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 55:9
Another recourse, less complicated than amending the Constitution, is for Congress to use its constitutional authority to remove jurisdiction from the courts in the areas where the courts have been the most abusive of free expression. Unfortunately, this amendment encourages a government solution to the problems by allowing the Federal Government and Federal courts to instruct States and local school districts on the use of their property. This is in direct contrast to the original purpose of the Constitution, to protect against a strong central government and in support of State and local government.
court
Child Custody Protection Act
15 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 77:8
The solution will ultimately come when the Federal Government and Federal courts get out of the way and allow States to protect the unborn. If that were the case, we would not have to consider dangerous legislation like this with the many unforeseen circumstances.
court
Child Custody Protection Act
15 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 77:11
This federalizing may have the effect of nationalizing a law with criminal penalties which may be less than those desired by some states. To the extent the federal and state laws could co-exist, the necessity for a federal law is undermined and an important bill of rights protection is virtually obliterated. Concurrent jurisdiction crimes erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the federal government and a state government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.
court
Child Custody Protection Act
15 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 77:13
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions. An inadequate federal law, or a “adequate” federal improperly interpreted by the Supreme Court, preempts states’ rights to adequately address public health concerns. Roe v. Wade should serve as a sad reminder of the danger of making matters worse in all states by federalizing an issue.
court
Gold Star Awards
5 August 1998 1998 Ron Paul 95:2
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the following winners of the Gold Star, the highest award possible at the county level, for achievements in competition at state levels, leadership ability, community service and years of service. They are: Kim Evans, Courtney Wallis and Lindsey Kubecka. Again, I want to commend these young people for their achievements.
court
Don’t Fast-Track Free Trade Deal
25 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 103:2
The fast-track procedure bill, in addition to creating an extra-constitutional procedure by which international agreements become ratified, sets general international economic policy objectives, re-authorizes “Trade Adjustment Assistance” welfare for workers who lose their jobs and for businesses which fail, and creates a new permanent position of Chief Agriculture Negotiator within the office of the United States Trade representative. The bill would reestablish the President’s extra-constitutional “executive authority” to negotiate “side agreements” such as those dealing with environmental and labor issues. Lastly, the bill “pays” the government’s “cost” of free trade by increasing taxes on a number of businesses which recently benefitted by a favorable judgment in federal tax court.
court
Don’t Fast-Track Free Trade Deal
25 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 103:5
Moreover, because international courts regard “treaties” and “agreements” as equally binding on signatory governments, a stronger case is made that they must be made subject to the same constitutional process. Insofar as H.R. 2621 ignores the lake of a congressional role in the international treaty process and instead attempts to make Congress an integral part of a procedure for which it lacks any constitutional authority, this bill can be opposed on constitutional grounds alone.
court
Rights Of The Individual
14 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 119:12
There is a long history of police and prosecutors slighting assaults against gays and lesbians. Justice demands that the cops and the courts treat the perpetrators of assaults against citizens who happen to be homosexual as harshly as they do the perpetrators of assaults against anyone else. But not more so.
court
Hate Crimes And Individual Rights
16 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 122:15
The answer, Cisewski suggested, and I agree, is that “we hold every law enforcement official and every court official who administers justice to the standard that every American is guaranteed equal protection under the law.”
court
Supports Impeachment Of President Clinton
19 December 1998 1998 Ron Paul 125:18
Let’s declare a victory in despite of the mess we’re in. The President is not likely to be removed from office. We’ll call it a form of “jury nullification” and hope someday this process will be used in our courts to nullify the unconstitutional tax, monetary, gun, anti-privacy, and seizure laws that are heaped upon us by Congress, the President, and perpetuated by a judicial system devoid of respect for individual liberty and the Constitution.
court
Supports Impeachment Of President Clinton
19 December 1998 1998 Ron Paul 125:21
Even though we might claim a victory of sorts, the current impeachment process reveals a defeat for our political system and our society. Since lack of respect for the Constitution is pervasive throughout the Administration, the Congress and the Courts and reflects the political philosophy of the past 60 years, dealing with the President alone, won’t reverse the course on which we find ourselves. There are days when I think we should consider “impeaching” not only the President, but the Congress and the Judiciary. But the desired changes will come only after the people’s attitudes change as to what form of government they desire. When the people demand privacy, freedom and individual responsibility for everyone alike, our government will reflect these views. Hopefully we can see signs in these current events that more Americans are becoming serious about demanding their liberty and rejecting the illusions of government largesse as a panacea.
court
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:29
A moral commitment to the principle of limited presidential war powers in the spirit of the republic is required. Even with the clearest constitutional restriction on the President to wage undeclared wars, buffered by precise legislation, if the sentiment of the Congress, the courts and the people or the President is to ignore these restraints, they will.
court
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:36
This is a far cry from the routine seizure by the Federal Government and forfeiture of property which occurs today. Our papers are no longer considered personal and their confidentiality has been eliminated. Private property is searched by Federal agents without announcement, and huge fines are levied when Federal regulations appear to have been violated, and proof of innocence is demanded if one chooses to fight the abuse in court and avoid the heavy fines.
court
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:39
Although the voters in the 1990’s have cried out for a change in direction and demanded a smaller, less intrusive government, the attack on privacy by the Congress, the administration and the courts has, nevertheless, accelerated. Plans have now been laid or implemented for a national I.D. card, a national medical data bank, a data bank on individual MDs, deadbeat dads, intrusive programs monitoring our every financial transaction, while the Social Security number has been established as the universal identifier.
court
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:57
After thousands of complaints were registered at the Federal Reserve and the other agencies, Richard Small was quoted as saying that in essence, the complaints were coming from these strange people who are overly concerned about the Constitution and privacy. Legal justification for the program, Small explained, comes from a court case that states that our personal papers, when in the hands of a third party like a bank, do not qualify for protection under the Fourth Amendment.
court
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:58
He is accurate in quoting the court case, but that does not make it right. Courts do not have the authority to repeal a fundamental right as important as that guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. Under this reasoning, when applied to our medical records, all confidentiality between the doctor and the patient is destroyed.
court
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:60
The IRS and the DEA, with powers illegally given them by the Congress and the courts, have prompted a flood of seizures and forfeitures in the last several decades without due process and frequently without search warrants or probable cause. Victims then are required to prove themselves innocent to recover the goods seized.
court
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:84
In the last 1 1/2 years, various countries have been hit hard with deflationary pressures. In spite of the IMF-led bailouts of nearly $200 billion, the danger of a worldwide depression remains. Many countries, even with the extra dollars sent to them courtesy of the American taxpayer, suffer devaluation and significant price inflation in their home currency.
court
Federal Communications Commission
25 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 9:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 514, and in support of the Wilson amendment. The passage of this legislation will, as does so much of the legislation we pass, move our nation yet another step close to a national police state by further expanding a federal crime and empowering more federal police—this time at the Federal Communications Commission. Despite recent and stern warnings by both former U.S. attorney general Edwin Meese III and current U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Congress seems compelled to ride the current wave of federally criminalizing every human misdeed in the name of saving the world from some evil rather than to uphold a Constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure by which the nation is protected from totalitarianism.
court
Federal Communications Commission
25 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 9:3
Perhaps, more dangerous is the loss of another Constitutional protection which comes with the passage of more and more federal criminal legislation. Constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting (and, as mentioned above, for a short period of history, the manufacture, sale, or transport of alcohol was concurrently a federal and state crime). “Concurrent” jurisdiction crimes, such as alcohol prohibition in the past and eavesdropping today, erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the federal government and a state government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the federal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same crime. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.
court
Honoring The Victoria High School Varsity Cheerleaders Of Victoria, Texas
10 March 1999 1999 Ron Paul 14:5
Liz Lasater and Kendra Serold — Co-Head Cheerleaders Natalie Cole Leah Green Melissa Myers Laurie Beck Lindy Burns Amy Reimann Amber Clemmons Sara Dickson Courtney Horecka Haley Kolle Amanda Rodriquez Karla Sterne Melissa Keefe Chelsie Luhn Sara Carville
court
Consumer Protection Legislation
11 March 1999 1999 Ron Paul 19:3
Scientific research in nutrition over the past few years has demonstrated how various foods and other dietary supplements are safe and effective in preventing or mitigating many diseases. Currently, however, disclosure of these well-documented statements triggers more extensive drug-like FDA regulation. The result is consumers cannot learn about simple and inexpensive ways to improve their health. Just last year, the FDA dragged manufacturers of Cholestin, a dietary supplement containing lovastatin, which is helpful in lowering cholesterol, into court. The FDA did not dispute the benefits of Cholestin, rather the FDA attempted to deny consumers access to this helpful product simply because the manufacturers did not submit Cholestin to the FDA’s drug approval process!
court
Consumer Protection Legislation
11 March 1999 1999 Ron Paul 19:8
In an attempt to protect the rights of network program creators and affiliate local stations, a federal court in Florida properly granted an injunction to prevent the satellite service industry from making certain programming available to its customers. This is programming for which the satellite service providers had not secured from the program creator-owners the right to rebroadcast. At the root of this problem, of course, is that we have a so-called marketplace fraught with interventionism at every level. Cable companies have historically been granted franchises of monopoly privilege at the local level. Government has previously intervened to invalidate “exclusive dealings” contracts between private parties, namely cable service providers and program creators, and have most recently assumed the role of price setter. The Library of Congress, if you can imagine, has been delegated the power to determine prices at which program suppliers must make their programs available to cable and satellite programming service providers.
court
War Powers Resolution
17 March 1999 1999 Ron Paul 20:15
Power has been gravitating into the hands of our presidents throughout this century, both in domestic and foreign affairs. Congress has created a maze of federal agencies, placed under the President, that have been granted legislative, police, and judicial powers, thus creating an entire administrative judicial system outside our legal court system where constitutional rights are ignored. Congress is responsible for this trend and it’s Congress’ responsibility to restore Constitutional government.
court
Peace
25 March 1999 1999 Ron Paul 23:4
For is it not the same virtue which would do the thing for us here in these United States? Do you imagine than that it is the Income Tax which pays our revenue? That it is the annual vote of the Ways and Means Committee, which provide us an army? Or that it is the Court Martial which inspires it with bravery and discipline? No! Surely, no! It is the private activity of citizens which gives government revenue, and it is the defense of our country that encourages young people to not only populate our army and navy but also has infused them with a patriotism without which our army will become a base rubble and our navy nothing but rotten timber.
court
Introduction of H.R. 1789
18 May 1999 1999 Ron Paul 49:7
Even proponents of antitrust prosecution acknowledge this. In the Standard Oil case, the U.S. Supreme Court declared in its 1911 decision breaking up the company: “Much has been said in favor of the objects of the Standard Oil Trust, and what it has accomplished. It may be true that it has improved the quality and cheapened the costs of petroleum and its products to the consumer.”
court
Quietly Restoring Funding For War In Kosovo
27 May 1999 1999 Ron Paul 53:3
Milosevic is going to be further strengthened by this. He will not be weakened. It was said the bombing would weaken Milosevic, and yet he was strengthened. This same move, this pretense that this kangaroo court can indict Milosevic and carry this to fruition indicates only that there are some who will enjoy perpetuating this war, because there is no way this can enhance peace. This is a sign of total hypocrisy, I believe, on the part of NATO. NATO, eventually, by history, will be indicted.
court
Don’t Undermine First And Second Amendment
16 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 61:8
Along with this, we have also heard Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist say the same thing. “The trend to federalize crimes that traditionally have been handled in State courts threatens to change entirely the nature of our Federal system.”
court
Drug Asset Forfeiture
24 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 67:14
They lose their property and they never get it back. They cannot afford to fight the courts, and there is a lot of frustration in this country today over this. This is why this bill is on this floor today. I am delighted it is here on this floor.
court
Child Custody Protection Act
30 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 69:5
This federalizing may have the effect of nationalizing a law with criminal penalties which may be less than those desired by some states. To the extent the federal and state laws could co-exist, the necessity for a federal law is undermined and an important bill of rights protection is virtually obliterated. Concurrent jurisdiction crimes erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the federal government and a state government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of the unconstitutionally expanding the federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.
court
Child Custody Protection Act
30 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 69:6
Most recently, we have been reminded by both Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese that more federal crimes, while they make politicians feel good, are neither constitutionally sound nor prudent. Rehnquist stated in his year-end report “The trend to federalize crimes that traditionally have been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system.” Meese stated that Congress’ tendency in recent decades to make federal crimes out of offenses that have historically been state matters has dangerous implications both for the fair administration of justice and for the principle that states are something more than mere administrative districts of a nation governed mainly from Washington.
court
Child Custody Protection Act
30 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 69:8
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions. An inadequate federal law, or an “adequate” federal law improperly interpreted by the Supreme Court, preempts states’ rights to adequately address public health concerns. Roe v. Wade should serve as a sad reminder of the danger of making matters worse in all states by federalizing an issue.
court
H.R. 1691 And Religious Freedom
15 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 74:3
The U.S. Constitution vests all legislative powers in Congress and requires Congress to define government policy and select the means by which that policy is to be implemented. Congress, in allowing religious free exercise to be infringed using the least restrictive means whenever government pleads a compelling interest without defining either what constitutes least restrictive or compelling interest delegates, to the courts legislative powers to make these policy choices constitutionally reserved to the elected body.
court
H.R. 1691 And Religious Freedom
15 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 74:5
Admittedly, instances of State government infringement of religious exercise can be found in various forms and in various States, most of which, however, occur in government-operated schools, prisons and so-called government enterprises and as a consequence of Federal Government programs. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to believe that religious liberty will be somehow better protected by enacting national terms of infringement, a national infringement standard which is ill-defined by a Federal legislature and further defined by Federal courts, both of which are remote from those whose rights are likely to be infringed.
court
H.R. 1691 And Religious Freedom
15 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 74:8
Mr. Speaker, our Nation does not need an unconstitutional Federal standard of religious freedom. We need instead for government, including the courts, to respect its existing constitutional limitations so we can have true religious liberty.
court
Campaign Finance Reform
14 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 97:13
Additionally, the legislative debate over campaign finance reform has seemingly focused upon the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech, as interpreted and applied by the courts. The constitutional issues, however, are not limited to the First Amendment. To the contrary, pursuant to their oaths of office, members of Congress have an independent duty to determine the constitutionality of legislation before it and to decide, before ever reaching the First Amendment, whether they have been vested by the Constitution with any authority, at all, to regulate federal election campaigns. Congress has no authority except that which is “granted” in the Constitution. Thus, the threshold question concerning H.R. 417 is whether the Constitution has conferred upon Congress any authority to regular federal election campaigns. The authority to regulate such campaigns is not found among any enumerated power conferred upon Congress.
court
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
30 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 102:4
The Roe v. Wade ruling will in time prove to be the most significantly flawed Supreme Court ruling of the 20th century. Not only for its codification, through an unconstitutional court action, of a social consensus that glorified promiscuity and abortion of convenience and for birth control, but for flaunting as well the constitutional system that requires laws of this sort be left to the prerogative of the states alone. A single “Roe v. Wade” ruling by one state would be far less harmful than a Supreme Court ruling that nullifies all state laws protecting the unborn.
court
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
30 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 102:5
Achieving the goal of dehumanizing all human life, by permitting the casting aside all pre-born life, any time prior to birth, including partially born human beings, Roe v. Wade represents a huge change in attitudes toward all life and liberty. Now pro-life Members are engaged in a similar process of writing more national laws in hopes of balancing the court’s error. This current legislative effort is just as flawed.
court
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
30 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 102:7
Getting rid of Roe v. Wade through a new court ruling or by limiting federal jurisdiction would return this complex issue to the states.
court
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
30 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 102:8
Making the killing of an unborn infant a federal crime, as this bill does, further institutionalizes the process of allowing federal courts to destroy the constitutional jurisdiction of the states. But more importantly, the measure continues the practice of only protecting some life, by allowing unborn children to be killed by anyone with an “M.D.” after his name.
court
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
30 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 102:17
However, Congress does more damage than just expanding the class to whom federal murder and assault statutes apply — it further entrenches and seemingly concurs with the Roe versus Wade decision (the Court’s intrusion into rights of states and their previous attempts to protect by criminal statute the unborn’s right not to be aggressed against). By specifically exempting from prosecution both abortionists and the mothers of the unborn (as is the case with this legislation), Congress appears to say that protection of the unborn child is not a federal matter but conditioned upon motive. In fact, the Judiciary Committee in marking up the bill, took an odd legal turn by making the assault on the unborn a strict liability offense insofar as the bill does not even require knowledge on the part of the aggressor that the unborn child exists. Murder statutes and common law murder require intent to kill (which implies knowledge) on the part of the aggressor. Here, however, we have the odd legal philosophy that an abortionist with full knowledge of his terminal act is not subject to prosecution while an aggressor acting without knowledge of the child’s existence is subject to nearly the full penalty of the law. (The bill exempts the murderer from the death sentence — yet another diminution of the unborn’s personhood status.) It is becoming more and more difficult for Congress and the courts to pass the smell test as government simultaneously treats the unborn as a person in some instances and as a non-person in others.
court
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
30 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 102:18
In this first formal complaint to Congress on behalf of the federal Judiciary, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said “the trend to federalize crimes that have traditionally been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system.” Rehnquist further criticized Congress for yielding to the political pressure to “appear responsive to every highly publicized societal ill or sensational crime.”
court
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
30 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 102:19
Perhaps, equally dangerous is the loss of another Constitutional protection which comes with the passage of more and more federal criminal legislation. Constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting (and, because the constitution was amended to allow it, for a short period of history, the manufacture, sale, or transport of alcohol was concurrently a federal and state crime). “Concurrent” jurisdiction crimes, such as alcohol prohibition in the past and federalization of murder today, erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the federal government and a state government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.
court
Paul-Doolittle Amendment To H.R. 3037
14 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 105:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I am placing in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD an amendment I, along with my colleague, Mr. DOOLITTLE of California, are offering to H.R. 3037, the Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations bill, to reduce funding for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) by $30,000,000, increase funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by $25,000,000 and apply $5,000,000 toward debt reduction. Our amendment provides an increase in financial support to help local schools cope with the federal IDEA mandates by reducing funding for an out-of-control bureaucracy that is running roughshod over the rights of workers, and even defying the Supreme Court!
court
Paul-Doolittle Amendment To H.R. 3037
14 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 105:2
The NLRB has repeatedly proven itself incapable of acting as an unbiased arbiter for individual employees. Most recently the NLRB established a new nationwide rule that union officials may force employees to pay for union organizing drives as a condition of employment — directly contradicting several Supreme Court rulings!
court
Paul-Doolittle Amendment To H.R. 3037
14 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 105:3
It is an outrage that the tax dollars of working men and women are wasted on an agency that flaunts Supreme Court rulings in support of its forced-dues agenda — especially when local schools are struggling with the IDEA mandate that they provide a “free and appropriate” public education to children with disabilities.
court
Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999 (H.R. 2260)
27 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 111:12
Being strongly pro-life, I’m convinced that the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision of 1973 is one of the worst, if not the worst, Supreme Court ruling of the 20th century. It has been this institutionalizing into our legal system the lack of respect for life and liberty that has and will continue to play havoc with liberty and life until it is changed. It has been said by many since the early 1970s that any legalization of abortion would put us on a slippery slope to euthanasia. I agree with this assessment.
court
Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999 (H.R. 2260)
27 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 111:13
However, I believe that if we are not careful in our attempt to clarify this situation we also could participate in a slippery slope unbeknownst to us and just as dangerous. Roe vs. Wade essentially has nationalized an issue that should have been handled strictly by the states. Its repeal of a Texas State law set the stage for the wholesale of millions of innocent unborn. And yet, we once again are embarking on more nationalization of law that will in time backfire. Although the intention of H.R. 2260 is to repeal the Oregon law and make a statement against euthanasia it may well just do the opposite. If the nationalization of law dealing with abortion was designed to repeal state laws that protected life there is nothing to say that once we further establish this principle that the federal government, either the Congress or the Federal Courts, will be used to repeal the very laws that exist in 49 other states than Oregon that prohibit euthanasia. As bad as it is to tolerate an unsound state law, it’s even worse to introduce the notion that our federal congresses and our federal courts have the wisdom to tell all the states how to achieve the goals of protecting life and liberty.
court
Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999.
27 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 112:9
Mr. Chairman, today Congress will take a legislative step which is as potentially dangerous to protecting the sanctity of life as was the Court’s ill-advised Roe versus Wade decision.
court
Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999.
27 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 112:12
In his first formal complaint to Congress on behalf of the federal Judiciary, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said “the trend to federalize crimes that have traditionally been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system.” Rehnquist further criticized Congress for yielding to the political pressure to “appear responsive to every highly publicized societal ill or sensational crime.”
court
Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999.
27 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 112:13
However, Congress does significantly more damage than simply threatening physicians with penalties for improper prescription of certain drugs — it establishes (albeit illegitimately) the authority to dictate the terms of medical practice and, hence, the legality of assisted suicide nationwide. Even though the motivation of this legislation is clearly to pre-empt the Oregon Statute and may be protective of life in this instance, we mustn’t forget that the saw (or scalpel) cuts both ways. The Roe versus Wade decision — the Court’s intrusion into rights of states and their previous attempts to protect by criminal statute the unborn’s right not to be aggressed against — was quite clearly less protective of life than the Texas statute it obliterated. By assuming the authority to decide for the whole nation issues relating to medical practice, palliative care, and assisted suicide, the foundation is established for a national assisted suicide standard which may not be protective of life when the political winds shift and the Medicare system is on the verge of fiscal collapse. Then, of course, it will be the federal government’s role to make the tough choices of medical procedure rationing and for whom the cost of medical care doesn’t justify life extension. Current law already prohibits private physicians from seeing privately funded patients if they’ve treated a Medicaid patient within two years.
court
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:13
Our constitutional Republic, according to our founders, should above all else protect the rights of the minority against the abuses of an authoritarian majority. They feared democracy as much as monarchy and demanded a weak executive, a restrained court, and a handicapped legislature.
court
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:59
The concept of the Doctrine of Enumerated Powers was picked away at in the latter part of the 19th century over strong objection by many constitutionalists. But it was not until the drumbeat of fear coming from the Roosevelt administration during the Great Depression that the courts virtually rewrote the Constitution by reinterpretation of the General Welfare clause.
court
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:60
In 1936, the New Deal Supreme Court told Congress and the American people that the Constitution is irrelevant when it comes to limits being placed on congressional spending. In a ruling justifying the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the Court pronounced, “The power of Congress to authorize appropriations of public money for public purposes is not limited by the grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.”
court
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:61
With the stroke of a pen, the courts amended the Constitution in such a sweeping manner that it literally legalized the entire welfare state, which, not surprisingly, has grown by leaps and bounds ever since.
court
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:70
The role of the U.S. Government in public education has changed dramatically over the past 100 years. Most of the major changes have occurred in the second half of this century. In the 19th century, the closest the Federal Government got to public education was the land grant college program. In the last 40 years, the Federal Government has essentially taken charge of the entire system. It is involved in education at every level through loans, grants, court directives, regulations and curriculum manipulation. In 1900, it was of no concern to the Federal Government how local schools were run at any level.
court
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:118
Congress has been derelict in creating the agencies in the first place and ceding to the Executive the power to write regulations and even tax without Congressional approval. These agencies enforce their own laws and supervise their own administrative court system where citizens are considered guilty until proven innocent. The Constitution has been thrown out the window for all practical purposes, and although more Americans every day complain loudly, Congress does nothing to stop it.
court
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:128
The Federal courts also have significantly contributed to this trend. Hopefully in the new century our support for a national police state will be diminished. We have in this past century not only seen the undermining of the Federalism that the Constitution desperately tried to preserve, but the principles of separation of powers among the three branches of government has been severely compromised as well.
court
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:129
The Supreme Court no longer just rules on Constitutionality, but frequently rewrites the laws with attempts at comprehensive social engineering. The most blatant example was the Roe v. Wade ruling. The Federal court should be hearing a lot fewer cases, deferring as often as possible to the states courts.
court
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:130
Throughout the 20th Century, with Congress’ obsession for writing laws for everything, the Federal courts were quite willing to support the idea of a huge interventionist Federal Government. The fact that the police officers in the Rodney King case were tried twice for the same crime, ignoring the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy, was astoundingly condoned by the courts, rather than condemned. It is not an encouraging sign that the concept of equal protection under the law will prevail.
court
The Hillory J. Farias Date Rape Prevention Drug Act of 1999
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 3:3
In his first formal complaint to Congress on behalf of the federal Judiciary, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said “the trend to federalize crimes that have traditionally been handled in state courts * * * threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system.” Rehnquist further criticized Congress for yielding to the political pressure to “appear responsive to every highly publicized societal ill or sensational crime.”
court
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:20
Since 1973, abortion in America has become routine and justified by a contorted understanding of the right to privacy. The difference between American rejection of abortion at the beginning of the century compared to today’s casual acceptance is like night and day. Although a vocal number of Americans express their disgust with abortion on demand, our legislative bodies and the courts claim that the procedure is a constitutionally protected right, disregarding all scientific evidence and legal precedents that recognize the unborn as a legal, living entity, deserving protection of the law.
court
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:27
Last year the House made a serious error by trying to federalize the crime of killing a fetus occurring in an act of violence. The stated goal was to emphasize that the fetus deserved legal protection under the law, and, indeed, it should and does at the State level. Federalizing any act of violence is unconstitutional. Essentially, all violent acts should be dealt with by the States, and, because we have allowed the courts and Congress to federalize such laws, we find more good State laws are overridden than good Federal laws written.
court
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:73
Movie and TV standards are so low that our young people’s senses are totally numbed by them. Standards of courtesy on highways, airplanes, and shops are seriously compromised and at times leads to senseless violence.
court
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:94
Executive orders, agency regulations, Federal court rulings, unratified international agreements, direct government, economy, and foreign policy. Congress has truly been reduced in status and importance over the past 100 years. When the people’s voices are heard, it is done indirectly through polling, allowing our leaders to decide how far they can go without stirring up the people.
court
THE PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION AND JUDICIAL LIMITATION ACT
February 16, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 9:1
Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Partial Birth Abortion and Judicial Limitation Act. This bill would, in accordance with Article 3, Section 2 of our United States Constitution, prohibit federal courts (exclusive of the US Supreme Court) from hearing cases relative to partial birth abortion.
court
THE PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION AND JUDICIAL LIMITATION ACT
February 16, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 9:3
The legislation I am introducing today is aimed at moving us toward correcting the federal judicial usurpation of constitutionally-identified state authority. This legislation is needed now more than ever as certain “lower federal courts” have taken it upon themselves to continue the error-ridden ways of Roe v. Wade by overturning legitimate state restrictions on partial birth abortion.
court
TRIBUTE TO THE VICTORIA HIGH SCHOOL VARSITY CHEERLEADERS OF VICTORIA, TEXAS
March 2, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 13:6
This group of students deserve the honor they have earned. I commend each one of them: Laurie Beck — Co-Head Cheerleader, Amy Reinmann — Co-Head Cheerleader, Vanessa Bludau, Amber Clemmons, Sara Dickson, Courtney Horecka, Haley Kolle, Lacey Reed, Amanda Rodriguez, Karla Sterne, Sarah Carville, Melissa Keefe, Chelsie Luhn, Julia McLarry, Rachel Schmitt, and Ashley Valentine.
court
PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2000
April 5, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 26:2
As an obstetrician-gynecologist, I can assure my colleagues that the partial-birth abortion procedure is the most egregious legally permitted act known to man. Decaying social and moral attitudes decades ago set the stage for the accommodated Roe vs. Wade ruling that nationalizes all laws dealing with abortion. The fallacious privacy argument the Supreme Court used must some day be exposed for the fraud that it is.
court
PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2000
April 5, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 26:4
The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that would refuse to deal with the issues of violence, recognizing that for all such acts the Constitution defers to the States. It is constitutionally permitted to limit Federal courts jurisdiction in particular issues. Congress should do precisely that with regard to abortion. It would be a big help in returning this issue to the States.
court
PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2000
April 5, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 26:5
H.R. 3660, unfortunately, takes a different approach, and one that is constitutionally flawed. Although H.R. 3660 is poorly written, it does serve as a vehicle to condemn the 1973 Supreme Court usurpation of State law that has legalized the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure.
court
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 45:21
Thomas Jefferson, I am sure, would be aghast at this WTO trade agreement. It is out of the hands of the Congress. It is put into the hands of unelected bureaucrats at the WTO. I would venture to guess even the Hamiltonians would be a bit upset with what we do with trade today. I am pro-trade. I have voted consistently to trade with other nations, with lowering tariffs. But I do not support managed trade by international bureaucrats. I do not support subsidized trade. Huge corporations in this country like the WTO because they have political clout with it. They like it because they have an edge on their competitors. They can tie their competitors up in court. And they can beat them at it because not everybody has access. One has to be a monied interest to have influence at the World Trade Organization.
court
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 2000 Ron Paul 55:3
Thomas Jefferson, I am sure, would be aghast at this WTO trade agreement. It is out of the hands of the Congress. It is put into the hands of unelected bureaucrats at the WTO. I would venture to guess even the Hamiltonians would be a bit upset with what we do with trade today. I am pro-trade. I have voted consistently to trade with other nations, with lowering tariffs. But I do not support managed trade by international bureaucrats. I do not support subsidized trade. Huge corporations in this country like the WTO because they have political clout with it. They like it because they have an edge on their competitors. They can tie their competitors up in court. And they can beat them at it because not everybody has access. One has to be a monied interest to have influence at the World Trade Organization.
court
Campbell/Bonior Amendment to Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations Act
June 22, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 57:7
So I plead with my colleagues. I think this is a fine amendment. I think this not only goes along with the Constitution, but it really confirms what was established in 1215 with the Magna Carta. We should strongly support the principle that secret evidence not be permitted to convict anyone in an American court. Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
court
Scouting For All Act
September 12, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 74:2
* On June 28, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts of America was within its rights when the private organization expelled an adult scout leader because he was gay. In its five-to-four opinion, the court found that requiring the Boy Scouts to admit homosexuals violated the group’s free association rights.
court
THREATS TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM
October 19, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 88:23
In truth, there are very legitimate financial reasons for an American citizen to ‘go offshore’. These include avoiding exposure to costly domestic litigation and excessive court damage judgements and jury awards, protection of assets, unreasonable SEC restrictions on foreign investments, the availability of more attractive and private offshore bank accounts, life insurance policies and annuities, avoidance of probate and reduction of estate taxes.
court
ECONOMIC PROBLEMS AHEAD
November 13, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 93:10
* What must we do? We should develop more sensible priorities. We must restore confidence in freedom and recognize how free markets can solve our problems . We must have more respect for the Rule of Law and demand that Congress, the Courts, and the President live within the Rule of Law and stop arbitrarily flaunting the Constitution. If the Constitution is to be changed, it should be changed slowly and deliberately as is permitted, but never by fiat. We must eventually reconsider the notion of the original constitutional Republic as designed by our Founders. The monolithic centralized state was not the design nor is it supported by the Constitution. We were meant to have loose knit individual states, with the states themselves managing their own affairs.
court
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:12
Already the spirit of bipartisanship has prompted the new president to request another $10 billion, along with many more mandates on public schools. This is a far cry from the clear constitutional mandate that neither the Congress nor the federal courts have any authority to be involved in public education.
court
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:89
For over 50 years, there has been a precise move toward one-world government at the expense of our own sovereignty. Our presidents claim that authority to wage war can come from the United Nations or NATO resolutions, in contradiction of our Constitution and everything our Founding Fathers believed. US troops are now required to serve under foreign commanders and wear UN insignias. Refusal to do so prompts a court martial.
court
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:90
The past President, before leaving office, signed the 1998 UN Rome Treaty, indicating our willingness to establish an International Criminal Court. This gives the UN authority to enforce global laws against Americans if ratified by the Senate. Even without ratification, we have gotten to the point where treaties of this sort can be imposed on non-participating nations. Presidents have, by Executive Order, been willing to follow unratified treaties in the past. This is a very dangerous precedent.
court
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:91
We already accept the WTO and its international trade court. Trade wars are fought with this court’s supervision, and we are only too ready to rewrite our tax laws as the WTO dictates. The only portion of the major tax bill at the end of the last Congress to be rushed through for the President’s signature was the Foreign Sales Corporation changes dictated to us by the WTO.
court
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:93
The World Bank serves as the distributor of international welfare, of which the US taxpayer is the biggest donor. This organization helps carry out a policy of taking money from poor Americans and giving it to rich foreign leaders, with kickbacks to some of our international corporations. Support for the World Bank, the IMF, the WTO, and the International Criminal Court always comes from the elites and almost never from the common man.
court
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:115
The most dramatic change in 20th Century social attitudes was the acceptance of abortion. This resulted from a change in personal morality that then led to legalization nationally through the courts and only occurred by perverting our constitutional system of government. The federal courts should never have been involved, but the Congress compounded the problem by using taxpayer funds to perform abortions both here and overseas. Confrontation between the pro-life and the pro-abortion forces is far from over. If government were used only to preserve life, rather than act as an accomplice in the taking of life, this conflict would not be nearly so rancorous.
court
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:118
We can expect the pro-life and pro-abortion and euthanasia groups to become more vocal and confrontational in time, as long as government is used to commit acts that a large number of people find abhorrent. Partial-birth abortion dramatizes the issue at hand and clearly demonstrates how close we are to legalizing infanticide. This problem should be dealt with by the states and without the federal courts or US Congress involvement.
court
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:16
U.S. troops are now required to serve under foreign commanders and wear U.N. insignias. Refusal to do so prompts a court-martial.
court
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:17
The past President, before leaving office, signed the 1998 U.N.-Rome treaty indicating our willingness to establish an international criminal court. This gives the U.N. authority to enforce global laws against Americans if ratified by the Senate. But even without ratification, we have gotten to the point where treaties of this sort can be imposed on non-participating nations.
court
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:18
Presidents have, by executive orders, been willing to follow unratified treaties in the past. This is a very dangerous precedent. We already accept the international trade court, the WTO. Trade wars are fought with the court’s supervision, and we are only too ready to rewrite our tax laws as the WTO dictates.
court
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:22
Support for the World Bank, the IMF, the international criminal court, always comes from the elites and almost never from the common man. These programs, run by the international institutions, are supposed to help the poor, but they never do. It is all a charade. If left unchecked, they will bankrupt us and encourage more world government mischief.
court
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:49
The most dramatic change in the 20th century social attitudes was the acceptance of abortion. This resulted from a change in personal morality that then led to legislation nationally through the courts and only occurred by perverting our constitutional system of government.
court
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:53
We can expect the pro-life and pro-abortion and euthanasia groups to become more vocal and confrontational in time as long as Government is used to commit acts that a large number of people find abhorrent. Partial-birth abortion dramatize the issue at hand and clearly demonstrates how close we are to legalizing infanticide. This problem should be dealt with by the States and without the Federal courts or the U.S. Congress involvement.
court
IDENTITY THEFT — HON. RON PAUL
Tuesday, February 13, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 11:15
Lawyers for Megacorp refused to back off and responded with a torrent of verbal abuse, accusing Jean of committing other misdemeanors. The law firm used a similar tone in telephone calls to Jean’s mother. We responded by filing with the court a strongly worded show cause motion, as well as a motion seeking sanctions. Megacorp’s attorneys subsequently began to back-pedal and eventually withdrew the garnishment. The cost of this exercise was roughly $1,500 in legal fees, plus the time to draft documents and letters, and two visits to the Bronx Civil Court, a venue too near Yankee Stadium for comfort.
court
IDENTITY THEFT — HON. RON PAUL
Tuesday, February 13, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 11:20
Experian’s representatives were courteous, however, and amended the reports after we provided copies of the relevant court documents.
court
The WAGE Act
February 14, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 14:6
[Page: E189] GPO’s PDF their representative in the courtroom. Yet millions of hardworking, law-abiding citizens cannot change their representation in the workplace.
court
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:35
Federal officials, eager to keep HMOs in business, have even been willing to violate federal law. In August 1998, a federal court chided the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for renewing HMO contracts that violate their own Medicare regulations. THE RUSE OF PATIENT PROTECTION
court
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:37
At worst, such offers are an obfuscation designed to entrench federal control over health care through the HMOs. At best they are deceptive placation. Congress has no desire to eliminate managed care, and federal regulation of HMOs and other managed-care corporations will not protect patients from rationing. Even the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged in its June 12, 2000, Pegram
court
Questions for Secretary of State Colin Powell before the House Committee on International Relations
March 8, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 17:2
1. On the topic of the International Criminal Court, I have two questions. I am pleased that the administration, as well as the Chairman of this Committee, have spoken against the ICC treaty as an infringement upon U.S. sovereignty. As a policy matter, can you explain why the administration has not spoken similarly against the WTO, the International War Crimes Tribunal, or the idea of fighting wars based on UN or NATO resolutions and why these instrumentalities are any less threatening to our sovereignty? Also on the ICC topic, if the administration is not going to pursue ratification of the treaty, will you support my resolution, H Con Res 23, calling on the President to declare to all nations that the United States does not assent to the treaty and that the signature of former President Clinton should not be construed to mean otherwise?
court
Congressman Paul’s Statement on Dietary Supplement Regulation and Research
March 20, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 21:4
Despite DSHEA, officials of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continued to attempt to enforce regulations aimed at keeping the American public in the dark about the benefits of dietary supplements. However, in the case of Pearson v. Shalala, 154 F.3d 650 (DC Cir. 1999), reh’g denied en banc, 172 F.3d 72 (DC Cir. 1999) , the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Court reaffirmed consumers’ first amendment right to learn about how using dietary supplements can improve their health without unnecessary interference from the FDA. The FDA has been forced to revise its regulations in order to comply with Pearson. However, members of Congress have had to intervene with the FDA on several occasions to ensure that they followed the court’s order. Clearly Congress must continue to monitor the FDA’s action in this area.
court
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 April 2001 2001 Ron Paul 29:5
However, Congress does more damage than just expanding the class to whom Federal murder and assault statutes apply — it further entrenches and seemingly concurs with the Roe v. Wade decision (the Court’s intrusion into rights of States and their previous attempts to protect by criminal statute the unborn’s right not to be aggressed against). By specifically exempting from prosecution both abortionists and the mothers of the unborn (as is the case with this legislation), Congress appears to say that protection of the unborn child is not only a Federal matter but conditioned upon motive. In fact, the Judiciary Committee in marking up the bill, took an odd legal turn by making the assault on the unborn a strict liability offense insofar as the bill does not even require knowledge on the part of the aggressor that the unborn child exists. Murder statutes and common law murder require intent to kill (which implies knowledge) on the part of the aggressor. Here, however, we have the odd legal philosophy that an abortionist with full knowledge of his terminal act is not subject to prosecution while an aggressor acting without knowledge of the child’s existence is subject to nearly the full penalty of the law. (With respect to only the fetus, the bill exempts the murderer from the death sentence — yet another diminution of the unborn’s personhood status and clearly a violation of the equal protection clause.) It is becoming more and more difficult for congress and the courts to pass the smell test as government simultaneously treats the unborn as a person in some instances and as a non-person in others.
court
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 April 2001 2001 Ron Paul 29:6
In his first formal complaint to Congress on behalf of the federal Judiciary, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said “the trend to federalize crimes that have traditionally been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our Federal system.” Rehnquist further criticized Congress for yielding to the political pressure to “appear responsive to every highly publicized societal ill or sensational crime.”
court
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 April 2001 2001 Ron Paul 29:7
Perhaps, equally dangerous is the loss of another Constitutional protection which comes with the passage of more and more federal criminal legislation. Constitutionally, there are only three Federal crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting (and, because the constitution was amended to allow it, for a short period of history, the manufacture, sale, or transport of alcohol was concurrently a Federal and State crime). “Concurrent” jurisdiction crimes, such as alcohol prohibition in the past and federalization of murder today, erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the Federal Government and a State government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the Federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.
court
AMERICA NOT GETTING FAIR SHAKE FROM UNITED NATIONS —
May 10, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 31:7
The conditions are not improving at all. They are asking for more and more funding. At the same time we sacrifice more and more of our sovereignty. On occasion we will stand up and say no, we do not want to participate in the Kyoto treaty or the International Criminal Court, and that is good. But the whole idea of this world government under the United Nations I think is something we should really challenge.
court
H.R. 1646
10 May 2001 2001 Ron Paul 32:9
The way the bill is written right now, we will support the Kyoto Treaty, and the International Criminal Court is also something that we should be contending with.
court
International Criminal Court
10 May 2001 2001 Ron Paul 33:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to join Mr. DELAY in expressing serious concern over the subject matter of his amendment, that is, the International Criminal Court (ICC).
court
International Criminal Court
10 May 2001 2001 Ron Paul 33:2
Considering the detestable substance of the balance of H.R. 1646, fortunately, the underlying bill is silent on the ICC other than to prohibit funds authorized for International Organizations from being used to advance the International Criminal Court. As such, I have some reservations with the amendment offered by Mr. DELAY because it singles out one class of American citizens for protection from ICC jurisdiction (thus violating the doctrine of equal protection), it supposes that if the Senate ratifies the ICC treaty, U.S. citizens would then be subject to the court it creates, and it illegitimately delegates authority over which U.S. citizens would be subject to the ICC to the U.S. president. Moreover, his amendment would authorize U.S. military actions to “rescue” citizens of allied countries from the grips of the ICC, even if those countries had ratified the treaty. It may be better to remain silent (as the bill does in this case) rather than lend this degree of legitimacy to the ICC.
court
International Criminal Court
10 May 2001 2001 Ron Paul 33:3
It is certainly my view (and that of the 21 cosponsors of my bill, HCR 23), that the President should immediately declare to all nations that the United States does not intend to assent to or ratify the International Criminal Court Treaty, also referred to as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and the signature of former President Clinton to that treaty should not be construed otherwise.
court
International Criminal Court
10 May 2001 2001 Ron Paul 33:4
The problems with the ICC treaty and the ICC are numerous. The International Criminal Court Treaty would establish the International Criminal Court as an international authority with power to threaten the ability of the United States to engage in military action to provide for its national defense.
court
International Criminal Court
10 May 2001 2001 Ron Paul 33:5
The term “crimes of aggression”, as used in the treaty, is not specifically defined and therefore would, by design and effect, violate the vagueness doctrine and require the United States to receive prior United Nations Security Council approval and International Criminal Court confirmation before engaging in military action — thereby putting United States military officers in jeopardy of an International Criminal Court prosecution. The International Criminal Court Treaty creates the possibility that United States civilians, as well as United States military personnel, could be brought before a court that bypasses the due process requirements of the United States Constitution.
court
International Criminal Court
10 May 2001 2001 Ron Paul 33:6
The people of the United States are selfgoverning, and they have a constitutional right to be tried in accordance with the laws that their elected representatives enact and to be judged by their peers and no others. The treaty would subject United States individuals who appear before the International Criminal Court to trial and punishment without the rights and protections that the United States Constitution guarantees, including trial by a jury of one’s peers, protection from double jeopardy, the right to know the evidence brought against one, the right to confront one’s accusers, and the right to a speedy trial.
court
International Criminal Court
10 May 2001 2001 Ron Paul 33:7
Today’s amendment, rather than be silent as is currently the case with the bill, supposes that ratification would subject U.S. citizens to the ICC but the Supreme Court stated in Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, 433 (1920), Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), and DeGeofrey v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890) that the United States Government may not enter into a treaty that contravenes prohibitory words in the United States Constitution because the treaty power does not authorize what the Constitution forbids. Approval of the International Criminal Court Treaty is in fundamental conflict with the constitutional oaths of the President and Senators, because the United States Constitution clearly provides that “[a]ll legislative powers shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,” and vested powers cannot be transferred.
court
International Criminal Court
10 May 2001 2001 Ron Paul 33:8
Additionally, each of the 4 types of offenses over which the International Criminal Court may obtain jurisdiction is within the legislative and judicial authority of the United States and the International Criminal Court Treaty creates a supranational court that would exercise the judicial power constitutionally reserved only to the United States and thus is in direct violation of the United States Constitution. In fact, criminal law is reserved to the states by way of the tenth amendment and, as such, is not even within the federal government’s authority to “treaty away.”
court
International Criminal Court
10 May 2001 2001 Ron Paul 33:9
Mr. Chairman, the International Criminal Court undermines United States sovereignty and security, conflicts with the United States Constitution, contradicts customs of international law, and violates the inalienable rights of self-government, individual liberty, and popular sovereignty. Therefore, the President should declare to all nations that the United States does not intend to assent to or ratify the treaty and the signature of former President Clinton to the treaty should not be construed otherwise.
court
INTRODUCTION OF FOODS ARE NOT DRUGS ACT — HON. RON PAUL
June 21, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 46:3
* Scientific research in nutrition over the past few years has demonstrated how various foods and other dietary supplements are safe and effective in preventing or mitigating many diseases. Currently, however, disclosure of these well-documented statements triggers more extensive drug-like FDA regulation. The result is consumers cannot learn about simple and inexpensive ways to improve their health. For example, in 1998, the FDA dragged manufacturers of Cholestin, a dietary supplement containing lovastatin, which is helpful in lowering cholesterol, into court. The FDA did not dispute the benefits of Cholestin, rather the FDA attempted to deny consumers access to this helpul product simply because the manufacturers did not submit Cholestin to the FDA’s drug approval process!
court
INTRODUCTION OF FOODS ARE NOT DRUGS ACT — HON. RON PAUL
June 21, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 46:5
* The FDA is so fanatical about censoring truthful information regarding dietary supplements it even defies federal courts! For example, in the case of Pearson v. Shalala, 154 F.3d 650 (DC Cir. 1999), rehg denied en banc, 172 F.3d 72 (DC Cir. 1999), the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Court ruled that the FDA violated consumers’ first amendment rights by denying certain health claims. However, the FDA has dragged its feet for over two years in complying with the Pearson decision while wasting taxpayer money on frivolous appeals. It is clear that even after Pearson the FDA will continue to deny legitimate health claims and force dietary supplement manufacturers to waste money on litigation unless Congress acts to rein in this rogue agency.
court
A BAD OMEN
July 17, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 52:2
Mr. PAUL . Mr. Speaker, the trial of Slobadon Milosevic threatens U.S. sovereignty. The fact that this trial can be carried out, in the name of international justice, should cause all the Americans to cast a wary eye on the whole principal of the U.N. War Crimes Tribunal. The prosecution of Milosevic , a democratically elected and properly disposed leader of a sovereign country, could not be carried out without full U.S. military and financial support. Since we are the only world superpower, the U.N. court becomes our court under our control. But it is naive to believe our world superpower status will last forever. The precedence now being set will 1 day surely come back to haunt us.
court
A BAD OMEN
July 17, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 52:3
The U.S. today may enjoy dictating policy to Yugoslavia and elsewhere around the world, but danger lurks ahead. The administration adamantly and correctly opposes our membership in the permanent International Criminal Court because it would have authority to exercise jurisdiction over U.S. citizens without the consent of the U.S. government. But how can we, with a straight face, support doing the very same thing to a small country, in opposition to its sovereignty, courts, and constitution. This blatant inconsistency and illicit use of force does not go unnoticed and will sow the seeds of future terrorist attacks against Americans or even war.
court
A BAD OMEN
July 17, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 52:6
Milosevic obviously is no saint but neither are the leader of the Croates, the Albanians or the KLA. The NATO leaders who vastly expanded the death and destruction in Yugoslavia with 78 days of bombing in 1999 are certainly not blameless. The $1.28 billion promised the puppet Yugoslavian government is to be used to rebuild the cities devastated by U.S. bombs. First, the American people are forced to pay to bomb, to kill innocent people and destroy cities, and then they are forced to pay to repair the destruction, while orchestrating a U.N. kangaroo court to bring the guilty to justice at the Hague.
court
A BAD OMEN
July 17, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 52:11
The U.N. War Tribunal in the Hague should insult the intelligence of all Americans. This court currently can only achieve arrest and prosecution of leaders of poor, small, or defeated nations. There will be no war criminals brought to the Hague from China, Russia, Britain, or the United States no matter what the charges. But some day this approach to world governing will backfire. The U.S. already has suffered the humiliation of being kicked off the U.N. Human Rights Commission and the Narcotics Control Commission. Our arrogant policy and attitude of superiority will continue to elicit a smoldering hatred toward us and out of sheer frustration will motivate even more terrorist attacks against us.
court
A BAD OMEN
July 17, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 52:12
Realizing the weakness of the charges against Milosevic the court has quietly dropped the charges for committing genocide. In a real trial, evidence that the British and the United States actually did business with Milosevic would be permitted. But almost always, whoever is our current most hated enemy, has received help and assistance from us in the past. This was certainly the case with Noriega and Saddam Hussein and others, and now it’s Milosevic .
court
A BAD OMEN
July 17, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 52:19
We cannot have it both ways. We cannot expect to use the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia when it pleases us and oppose the permanent International Criminal Court where the rules would apply to our own acts of aggression. This cynical and arrogant approach, whether it’s dealing with Milosevic , Hussein, or Kadafi, undermines peace and presents a threat to our national security. Meanwhile, American citizens must suffer the tax burden from financing the dangerous meddling in European affairs, while exposing our troops to danger.
court
Flag Burning Amendment
17 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 53:14
More than a decade ago, an obnoxious man in Dallas decided to perform an ugly act: the desecration of an American flag in public. His action violated a little-known state law prohibiting desecration of the flag. He was tried in state court and found guilty.
court
Flag Burning Amendment
17 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 53:15
As always seems to be the case, though, the federal government intervened. After winding through the federal system, the Supreme Court — in direct contradiction to the Constitution’s 10th Amendment — finally ruled against the state law.
court
Flag Burning Amendment
17 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 53:16
Since then Congress has twice tried to overturn more than 213 years of history and legal tradition by making flag desecration a federal crime. Just as surely as the Court was wrong in its disregard for the Tenth Amendment by improperly assigning the restrictions of the First Amendment to the states, so are attempts to federally restrict the odious (and very rare) practice of Americans desecrating the flag.
court
Flag Burning Amendment
17 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 53:21
For more than two centuries, it was the states that correctly handled the issue of flag desecration in a manner consistent with the principle of federalism. When the federal courts improperly intervened, many people understandably sought a solution to a very emotional issue. But the proposed solution to enlarge the federal government and tread down the path of restricting unpopular political expression, is incorrect, and even frightening.
court
Statement Paul Amendment to Defund the UN
July 18, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 56:11
The U.S. has taken a very strong position against endorsing the International Criminal Court. The argument is legitimate. It says that, oh, someday the International Criminal Court may arrest Americans because it just may be that Americans may pursue illegal acts of war, like bombing other countries and killing innocent people.
court
Statement Paul Amendment to Defund the UN
July 18, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 56:12
No, we do not want the international court to apply to us, but it is okay with our money, our prestige and our pressure to endorse the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia, so that we can go in there and arrest the leaders that we have decided were the bad guys and leave the good guys alone, as if there were not bad guys on both sides in Yugoslavia.
court
Stem Cell Research and Human Cloning
July 31, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 68:20
Laws inevitably reflect the morality or immorality of the people. The Supreme Court did not usher in the 60s revolution that undermined the respect for all human life and liberty. Instead, the people’s attitude of the 60s led to the Supreme Court Roe vs. Wade ruling in 1973 and contributed to a steady erosion of personal liberty.
court
Statement on Counter-Terrorism Proposals and Civil Liberties
October 12, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 87:6
I am very disturbed by the provisions centralizing the power to issue writs of habeas corpus to federal courts located in the District of Columbia. Habeas corpus is one of the most powerful checks on government and anything which burdens the ability to exercise this right expands the potential for government abuses of liberty. I ask my colleagues to remember that in the centuries of experience with habeas corpus there is no evidence that it interferes with legitimate interests of law enforcement. HR 3108 also codifies one of the most common abuses of civil liberties in recent years by expanding the government’s ability to seize property from citizens who have not yet been convicted of a crime under the circumvention of the Bill of Rights known as “asset forfeiture.”
court
Statement on Funding for the Export- Import Bank
October 31, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 91:7
The moral case against Eximbank is strengthened when one considers that the government which benefits most from Eximbank funds is communist China. In fact, Eximbank actually underwrites joint ventures with firms owned by the Chinese government! Whatever one’s position on trading with China, I would hope all of us would agree that it is wrong to force taxpayers to subsidize in any way this brutal regime. Unfortunately, China is not an isolated case: Colombia, Yemen, and even the Sudan benefit from taxpayer-subsidized trade courtesy of the Eximbank!
court
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:61
The bill also greatly expands the use of traditional surveillance tools, including wiretaps, search warrants, and subpoenas. Probable-cause standards for these tools are relaxed, or even eliminated in some circumstances. Warrants become easier to obtain and can be executed without notification. Wiretaps can be placed without a court order. In fact, the FBI and CIA now can tap phones or computers nationwide, without demonstrating that a criminal suspect is using a particular phone or computer.
court
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:66
The argument that FDR did it and therefore it must be OK is a rather weak justification. Roosevelt was hardly one that went by the rule book- the Constitution. But the situation then was quite different from today. There was a declared war by Congress against a precise enemy, the Germans, who sent eight saboteurs into our country. Convictions were unanimous, not 2/3 of the panel, and appeals were permitted. That’s not what’s being offered today. Furthermore, the previous military tribunals expired when the war ended. Since this war will go on indefinitely, so too will the courts.
court
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:70
One cannot be reassured by believing these courts will only apply to foreigners who are terrorists. Sloppiness in convicting criminals is a slippery slope. We should not forget that the Davidians at Waco were “convicted” and demonized and slaughtered outside our judicial system, and they were, for the most part, American citizens. Randy Weaver’s family fared no better.
court
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:71
It has been said that the best way for us to spread our message of freedom, justice and prosperity throughout the world is through example and persuasion, not through force of arms. We have drifted a long way from that concept. Military courts will be another bad example for the world. We were outraged in 1996 when Lori Berenson, an American citizen, was tried, convicted, and sentenced to life by a Peruvian military court. Instead of setting an example, now we are following the lead of a Peruvian dictator.
court
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:73
Many throughout the world, especially those in Muslim countries, will be convinced by the secretive process that the real reason for military courts is that the U.S. lacks sufficient evidence to convict in an open court. Should we be fighting so strenuously the war against terrorism and carelessly sacrifice our traditions of American justice? If we do, the war will be for naught and we will lose, even if we win.
court
Let Privateers Troll For Bin Laden
4 December 2001 2001 Ron Paul 100:11
Originally, privateering was a method of restitution for merchants or shipowners who had been wronged by a citizen of a foreign country. Privateers captured the ships flying the flag of the wrongdoers’ nation and sailed them to a friendly port, where a neutral admiralty court decided whether the seizure was just. Wrongful seizures resulted in the forfeiture of the privateers’ bond to the owners of the seized ship.
court
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:22
I. Introduction To date, the legislative debate over campaign-finance reform has focused upon the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech, as interpreted and applied by the courts. The constitutional issues, however, are not limited to the First Amendment, neither are they resolved by citation to Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) nor by the latest Supreme Court opinion, including the one handed down on June 25, 2001 in FEC v . Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee . To the contrary, pursuant to their oaths of office, members of Congress have an independent duty to determine the constitutionality of legislation before them and to decide, before ever reaching the First Amendment, whether they have been vested by the Constitution with any authority, at all, to regulate federal election campaigns.
court
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:25
Additionally, the issue of constitutional authority would have been examined, in the first instance, by Congress and the president without their being bound by previous court opinions. It had already been well established that each representative, each senator, and the president and his cabinet had a constitutional duty, independent of the judiciary, to determine the constitutionality of legislation before them. As President Andrew Jackson observed, in his 1832 veto message rejecting a bill extending the charter of the Bank of the United States:
court
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:26
It is maintained by the advocates of the bank that its constitutionality in all its features ought to be considered as settled by precedent and by the decision of the Supreme Court. To this conclusion I cannot assent. Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority...[and] the opinion of the Supreme Court...ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill...presented to them for passage...as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision.
court
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:27
It is in light of these principles, then, that the issue of constitutional authority to enact any campaign-finance reform bill is addressed in sections II and III below, before reaching the First Amendment issues raised by particular campaign-finance measures in sections IV and V. Furthermore, those issues are examined in light of the constitutional duty of Congress to decide for itself whether it has the constitutional authority to enact campaign-finance reform legislation and whether any such legislation violates the First Amendment, regardless of the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) and its progeny, including the high court’s most recent pronouncement on June 25, 2001.
court
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:32
Given these express restrictions upon congressional power over federal elections, it was not until the 1930s that Congress, with court approval, began to assume broad powers over federal elections, including the regulation of campaigns for the office of the president. ( Burroughs v. United States, 290 U.S. 534, 1934) At the time of America’s founding, and extending for a period of nearly 135 years, such was not the case.
court
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:35
In 1892, a unanimous Supreme Court rehearsed the history and text governing the election of the president and vice president, concluding that the manner of selection of presidential electors was “placed absolutely and wholly with the legislatures of the several states” and that this “power and jurisdiction of the State” was “so framed that congressional and Federal influence might be excluded.” ( McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 34-36, 1892) (See also Bush v. Gore , supra.) Because the Constitution grants to Congress no authority to regulate the “manner” of the election of the president and vice president, it follows that Congress has no authority over presidential and vice presidential election campaigns.
court
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:36
As for congressional regulation of the campaigns of candidates for the United States House of Representatives and United States Senate, four justices of the United States Supreme Court, in 1921, struck down a federal law limiting contributions and expenditures in congressional elections, observing:
court
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:50
In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1976), the Supreme Court recognized that the contribution and other limitations imposed by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 could not be justified on the grounds that they prevented only “the most blatant and specific attempts of those with money to influence governmental action.” Rather, the court found, that such limitations served a much broader purpose, namely, the prevention of “the appearance of corruption” to the end that “confidence in the system of representative government is not to be eroded....” ( Id., 424 U.S. at 27)
court
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:55
Twice in America’s history, the sovereignty of the people came under direct attack from Congress. Both times the attack came in the form of laws prohibiting “seditious libel” (writing or speaking in such a way as to bring the government into ridicule or disrepute), and thereby threatening the current system of government and its leaders. Finally, in 1964, the United States Supreme Court put an end to seditious libel, ruling that the freedom of speech guarantees a nation in which “debate on the public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” ( New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270, 1964)
court
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:56
Had the court applied the same standard to the Campaign Reform Act of 1971, that law, too, would have been cast into the dustbin of history. For, campaign-finance reform laws - like seditious libel laws - exist solely to protect the present government and her leaders from the people. While this goal may be permissible in England where the Parliament embodies the sovereignty of the nation, it has no place in America where, as James Madison put it in the 1800 Virginia Resolutions in opposition to the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798, the “people, not the government, possess absolute sovereignty.”
court
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:58
Such intrusions into the campaign process put the government into the role of editor of campaign literature, a role that is absolutely forbidden to the government by the freedom of the press. ( Miami Herald Tribune v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 258, 1974) Indeed, if the Supreme Court would apply the same principle to election-campaign literature that it has applied to election editorials and stories carried by newspapers, all campaign-finance reform legislation would be clearly unconstitutional. Not only do all campaign-finance reform measures transfer editorial control over an election campaign from the people to the government, but they also continue the unconstitutional licensing system of the Federal Election Commission established by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. In order to engage in a campaign for federal office, a candidate must register and report to the commission. Anyone who does not meet the commission’s registration and reporting rules is denied the right to participate and is subject not only to civil and criminal penalties, but to an injunction. Such a regulatory scheme strikes at the very heart of the freedom of the press which, as Sir William Blackstone wrote in 1769:
court
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:64
Had the Supreme Court applied this principle consistently in its review of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, it would have held that the individual contribution limits of that act violated the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of association. As Justice Thomas has pointed out: “If an individual is limited in the amount of resources he can contribute to...a pool, he is certainly limited in his ability to associate for the purposes of effective advocacy.” ( Id., 135 L.Ed.2d at 819) Instead, the court has attempted to distinguish between “issue advocacy” - where the right of the people to associate must remain unfettered - and “express advocacy” for or against individual candidates - where the right of the people to associate may be limited.
court
Introduction of the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 8:20
In December 2000, attorney Reginald H. Howe, a private investor and proprietor of the Website www.goldensextant.com, which reports on gold, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Boston. Named as defendants were J.P. Morgan & Co., Chase Manhattan Corp., Citigroup Inc., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Deutsche Bank, Lawrence Summers (former secretary of the Treasury), William McDonough (president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York), Alan Greenspan (chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System), and the BIS.
court
Introduction of the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 8:22
While all the defendants flatly deny participation in such a scheme, Howe’s case is being heard. Howe tells Insight he has provided the court with very compelling evidence to support his claim, including sworn testimony by Greenspan before the House Banking Committee in July 1998. Greenspan assured the committee, “Nor can private counterparties restrict supply of gold, another commodity whose derivatives are often traded over the counter, where central banks stand ready to lease gold in increasing quantities should the price rise.” Howe and other “gold bugs” cite this as a virtual public announcement “that the price of gold had been and would continue to be controlled if necessary.”
court
Health Information Independence Act of 2002
February 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 11:6
Despite DSHEA, FDA officials continued to attempt to enforce regulations aimed at keeping the American public in the dark about the benefits of dietary supplements. Finally, in the case of Pearson v. Shalala, 154 F.3d 650 (DC Cir. 1999), reh’g denied en banc, 172 F.3d 72 (DC Cir. 1999), the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Court reaffirmed consumers’ First Amendment right to learn about dietary supplements without unnecessary interference from the FDA. The Pearson court anticipated my legislation by suggesting the FDA adopt disclaimers in order to render some health claims non-misleading.
court
Health Information Independence Act of 2002
February 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 11:7
In the more than two years since the Pearson decision, members of Congress have had to continually intervene with the FDA to ensure it followed the court order. The FDA continues to deny consumers access to truthful health information. Clearly, the FDA is determined to continue to (as the Pearson court pointed out) act as though liberalizing regulations regarding health claims is the equivalent of “asking consumers to buy something while hypnotized and therefore they are bound to be misled.” Therefore, if Congress is serious about respecting the First Amendment rights of the people, we must remove FDA authority to censor non-misleading health claims, and those claims which can be rendered non-misleading by the simple device of adopting a disclaimer, by passing my Health Information Independence Act.
court
Statement on the International Criminal Court
February 28, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 13:1
Mr. Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on the important topic of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. For Americans, the most important aspect of these international criminal tribunals is that they are the model for the UN’s International Criminal Court. Indeed, it is the perceived need to make these ad hoc tribunals permanent that really led to the creation of the ICC in the first place. This permanent UN court will attempt to claim jurisdiction over the rest of the world within the next few weeks, as it has claimed that ratification by 60 countries confers world jurisdiction upon it.
court
Statement on the International Criminal Court
February 28, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 13:2
This means that even though the United States has not ratified the treaty- though it was signed by President Clinton’s representative at midnight on the last day- the Court will claim jurisdiction over every American citizen, from President Bush on down. The Bush Administration has admirably stated its opposition to the International Criminal Court, but it unfortunately has taken no proactive measures to “unsign” Clinton’s initial signature or to make it known that the United States has no intention of cooperating with, providing funding to, or recognizing any authority of this international court. The clock is ticking, however, and the day of reckoning is close at hand.
court
Statement on the International Criminal Court
February 28, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 13:3
This court is every American’s worst nightmare. Currently, there are no protections for either US military personnel or civilians from the tentacles of this International Court. This means when it claims jurisdiction, you, I, or any of our 240,000 military personnel stationed across the globe can be kidnapped, dragged off a foreign land and be put on trial by foreign judges, without benefit of the basic protections of the American legal system, for crimes that may not even be considered crimes in the United States.
court
Statement on the International Criminal Court
February 28, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 13:4
Pro-life groups in America have already expressed concern that the Court’s claimed jurisdiction over “enforced pregnancy” could make it criminal for groups to work to restrict access to abortions- or even reduce government funding of abortions. The pro-ICC Woman’s Caucus for Gender Justice has already stated that countries’ domestic laws may need to be changed to conform to ICC Statutes. Former Assistant to the US Solicitor General, Dr. Richard Wilkins, said recently that the ICC could eventually be used to try “the Pope and other religious leaders,” because issues such as abortion and homosexuality would ultimately fall within the Court’s jurisdiction.
court
Statement on the International Criminal Court
February 28, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 13:5
Supporters of the International Criminal Court are quick to say that the Court is modeled on the Nuremberg tribunal set up after World War II, but nothing could be further from the truth. Nuremberg was a trial initiated and prosecuted by sovereign nations. It was a reassertion of national sovereignty over the crimes of a regime that disregarded the concept, that saw other sovereign countries as merely “living space” for their own people. As one analyst recently wrote, “the Nuremberg tribunal, unlike the Hague tribunal, was not really an international tribunal at all. The judges quite specifically stated that the act of promulgating the Nuremberg charter was ‘the exercise of sovereign legislative power of the countries to which the German Reich unconditionally surrendered.’ There was no pretense that the ‘international community’ was prosecuting the Germans.”
court
Statement on the International Criminal Court
February 28, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 13:6
The International Criminal Court is to be modeled after the tribunals dealing with Rwanda and Yugoslavia, that is a fact. Knowing how these tribunals operate should therefore terrify any American who loves our Constitution and our system of justice. In the Yugoslav and Rwandan tribunals, anonymous witnesses and secret testimony are permitted; the defendant cannot identify his accusers. There is no independent appeals procedure. As one observer of the Hague in action noted, “the prosecutor’s use of conspiracy as a charge recalls the great Soviet show trials of 1936-1938. In one case, the Orwellian proportions of the Prosecution mindset was revealed as the accused was charged with conspiring, despite the admitted lack of evidence. It is not the destruction of evidence but its very absence which can be used to convict!”
court
Statement on the International Criminal Court
February 28, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 13:7
Indeed in the showcase trial of the ICTY, that of former Serb leader Slobodan Milosevic, chief prosecutor Carla del Ponte told the French paper Le Monde last year that no genocide charge had been brought against Milosevic for Kosovo “because there is no evidence for it.” What did the Court do in the face of this lack of evidence? They simply disregarded a basic principle of extradition law and announced that they would try Milosevic for crimes other than those for which he had been extradited. Thus they added two additional sets of charges- for Bosnia and Croatia- to the indictment for Kosovo. The Kosovo extradition itself was nothing more than bribery and kidnapping. Milosevic was snatched up off the streets of Serbia after the United States promised the government it had helped install millions of dollars in aid. That national sovereignty was to be completely disregarded by this international tribunal was evident in its ignoring a ruling by the Yugoslav Constitutional Court that extradition was illegal and unconstitutional. Yugoslav officials preferred to put Milosevic on trial in Yugoslavia, under the Yugoslav system of jurisprudence, for whatever crimes he may have committed in Yugoslavia. The internationalists completely ignored this legitimate right of a sovereign state.
court
Statement on the International Criminal Court
February 28, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 13:8
Supporters of the International Criminal Court, like the World Federalist Association, claim that ICC procedures are in full accordance with the Bill of Rights. They aren’t. One pro-ICC website sponsored by the World Federalist Association, attempting to dispel “myths” about the Court, perhaps unintentionally provided some real insight. In response to the “myth” that the ICC is unconstitutional, the website argues that “The Rome Treaty establishing the International Criminal Court provides almost all the same due process protections as the U.S. Constitution. Every due process protection provided for in the Constitution is guaranteed by the Rome Treaty, with the exception of a trial by jury.” Since when is “almost all” equal to “all”? Either the Rome Treaty provides all the protections or it does not provide all the protections, and here we have by its own admission that the ICC is indeed at odds with American due process protections. So what else are they not telling the truth about? Another claim on the World Federalist Association website is that the ICC is that the rights of the accused to a presumption of innocence is guaranteed. Interestingly, on the very same website the accused Slobodan Milosevic is referred to as a “criminal.” Not very reassuring.
court
Statement on the International Criminal Court
February 28, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 13:9
It is very convenient for supporters of this International Criminal Court that the high profile test case in the Yugoslav tribunal is the widely reviled Slobodan Milosevic. They couldn’t have hoped for a better case. Any attack on the tribunal is immediately brushed off as a defense of Milosevic. It is illustrative for us to take a look at how the Milosevic trial is being prosecuted thus far. After all, today it is Milosevic but tomorrow it could be any of us. And with the Milosevic trial, the signs are very troubling. We have all seen the arrogance of the judge in the case, who several times has turned off Milosevic’s microphone in mid-sentence. Thus far, the prosecution has attempted to bring as witnesses people who are on the payroll of the tribunal itself, as in the case of Besnik Sokoli. Other witnesses have turned out to have been members of the Kosovo Liberation Army, which is the armed force that initiated the insurgent movement within Yugoslavia. Remember, Milosevic was extradited for Kosovo and for Kosovo only, but the weakness of the case forced the Court to add other charges in other countries. Now, after Milosevic has shown himself adept at cross-examination, the prosecution is seeking to have the judge limit Milosevic’s ability to cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses. This in itself flies in the face of our system of evidence law, which allows the defendant nearly unlimited ability to cross-examine a witness as long as it is relevant to testimony.
court
Statement on the International Criminal Court
February 28, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 13:10
Mr. Chairman, these international tribunals and the International Criminal Court that they spawned are bad for America and bad for the rest of the world. The concept of a permanent criminal court, run by unelected bureaucrats, third rate judges, and political hacks, and answerable to no one, undermines everything that free peoples should hold dear. It is about American sovereignty, the sovereignty of our American legal system, but that is not all. It should also be important for Americans that the sovereignty of the rest of the world be maintained as well, as when sovereignty is undermined anywhere by an un-elected international body, it is under threat everywhere.
court
Export-Import Reauthorization Act
19 March 2002 2002 Ron Paul 17:8
The moral case against Eximbank is strengthened when one considers that the government which benefits most from Eximbank funds is communist China. In fact, Eximbank actually underwrites joint ventures with firms owned by the Chinese government! Whatever one’s position on trading with China, I would hope all of us would agree that it is wrong to force taxpayers to subsidize in any way this brutal regime. Unfortunately, China is not an isolated case: Colombia, Yemen, and even the Sudan benefit from taxpayer-subsidized trade courtesy of the Eximbank!
court
Do Not Initiate War On Iraq
March 20, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 19:8
Could any benefit come from all this warmongering? Possibly. Let us hope and pray so. It should be evident that big government is anathema to individual liberty. In a free society, the role of government is to protect the individual’s right to life and liberty. The biggest government of all, the U.N. consistently threatens personal liberties and U.S. sovereignty. But our recent move toward unilateralism hopefully will inadvertently weaken the United Nations. Our participation more often than not lately is conditioned on following the international rules and courts and trade agreements only when they please us, flaunting the consensus, without rejecting internationalism on principle- as we should.
court
Do Not Initiate War On Iraq
March 20, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 19:9
The way these international events will eventually play out is unknown, and in the process we expose ourselves to great danger. Instead of replacing today’s international government, (the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, the international criminal court) with free and independent republics, it is more likely that we will see a rise of militant nationalism with a penchant for solving problems with arms and protectionism rather than free trade and peaceful negotiations.
court
American Servicemember And Civilian Protection Act Of 2002
April 11, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 22:2
This bill expresses the sense of the Congress that President Bush should formally rescind the signature approving the International Criminal Court made on behalf of the United States, and should take necessary steps to prevent the establishment of that Court. It also prohibits funds made available by the United States Government from being used for the establishment or operation of the Court.
court
American Servicemember And Civilian Protection Act Of 2002
April 11, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 22:3
Perhaps the most significant part of the bill makes clear that any action taken by or on behalf of the Court against members of the United States Armed Forces shall be considered an act of aggression against the United States; and that any action taken by or on behalf of the Court against a United States citizen or national shall be considered an offense against the law of nations.
court
American Servicemember And Civilian Protection Act Of 2002
April 11, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 22:4
Mr. Speaker, today in New York and Rome celebrations are underway to mark the formal establishment of this International Criminal Court. Though the United States has not ratified the treaty establishing the Court, as required by the U.S. Constitution, this body will claim jurisdiction over every American citizen -- military personnel and civilian alike.
court
American Servicemember And Civilian Protection Act Of 2002
April 11, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 22:5
The Court itself, however, is an illegitimate body even by the United Nations’ own standards. The Statute of the International Criminal Court was enacted by a Conference of Diplomats convened by the United Nations General Assembly, whereas according to the UN Charter, the authority to create such a body lies only in the UN Security Council.
court
American Servicemember And Civilian Protection Act Of 2002
April 11, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 22:6
The International Criminal Court was established contrary to the American Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. It puts United States citizens in jeopardy of unlawful and unconstitutional criminal prosecution.
court
American Servicemember And Civilian Protection Act Of 2002
April 11, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 22:7
The International Criminal Court does not provide many of the Constitutional protections guaranteed every American citizen, including the right to trial by jury, the right to face your accuser, and the presumption of innocence, and the protection against double jeopardy.
court
American Servicemember And Civilian Protection Act Of 2002
April 11, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 22:9
Mr. Speaker, I hope all members of this body will join me in opposing this illegitimate and illegal court by co-sponsoring the "American Servicemember and Civilian Protection Act of 2002."
court
H.R. 476
17 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 23:5
This federalizing may have the effect of nationalizing a law with criminal penalties which may be less than those desired by some states. To the extent the federal and state laws could co-exist, the necessity for a federal law is undermined and an important bill of rights protection is virtually obliterated. Concurrent jurisdiction crimes erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the federal government and a state government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of the unconstitutionally expanding the federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.
court
H.R. 476
17 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 23:6
We have been reminded by both Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese that more federal crimes, while they make politicians feel good, are neither constitutionally sound nor prudent. Rehnquist has stated that “The trend to federalize crimes that traditionally have been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system.” Meese stated that Congress’ tendency in recent decades to make federal crimes out of offenses that have historically been state matters has dangerous implications both for the fair administration of justice and for the principle that states are something more than mere administrative districts of a nation governed mainly from Washington.
court
H.R. 476
17 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 23:8
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions. An inadequate federal law, or an “adequate” federal law improperly interpreted by the Supreme Court, preempts states’ rights to adequately address public health concerns. Roe v. Wade should serve as a sad reminder of the danger of making matters worse in all states by federalizing an issue.
court
Predictions
24 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 25:19
The leaders of whichever side loses the war will be hauled into and tried before the International Criminal Court for war crimes. The United States will not officially lose the war, but neither will we win. Our military and political leaders will not be tried by the International Criminal Court.
court
Statement Opposing Export-Import Bank Corporate Welfare
May 1, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 31:9
The moral case against Eximbank is strengthened when one considers that the government which benefits most from Eximbank funds is communist China. In fact, Eximbank actually underwrites joint ventures with firms owned by the Chinese government! Whatever one’s position on trading with China, I would hope all of us would agree that it is wrong to force taxpayers to subsidize in any way this brutal regime. Unfortunately, China is not an isolated case: Colombia and Sudan benefit from taxpayer-subsidized trade, courtesy of the Eximbank!
court
Amendment 9
9 May 2002 2002 Ron Paul 37:2
This amendment is not complex at all. It is a sense of Congress resolution as put in the bill. It says, “It is the sense of Congress that none of the funds appropriated pursuant to authorizations of appropriations in this Act should be used for any assistance to, or to cooperate with or to provide any support for the International Criminal Court.”
court
Amendment 9
9 May 2002 2002 Ron Paul 37:3
This amendment is to urge the President not to use any funds for the International Criminal Court. I would like it to be a mandate. It is not, but it is still very, very important. I think this sends a message to our servicemen that they will never have to be taken into court against their will in the International Criminal Court.
court
Amendment 9
9 May 2002 2002 Ron Paul 37:4
On December 31, right before the last day of the treaty, the Rome Convention, could be signed, our President signed this convention, but it has never been ratified. It has not been brought to the Senate. It was too late, and our President now does not have any intention. We might say why worry about it, but just recently we all know that the President has essentially rescinded the signature on this treaty to make the point that we do not want our servicemen called in and tried in International Criminal Court as war criminals. So it is a protection of the servicemen.
court
Amendment 9
9 May 2002 2002 Ron Paul 37:5
But the interesting thing is that under this Rome Convention, the agreement is once 60 nations sign the treaty, it goes into effect. Even with what the President did by rescinding the signature and saying we do not want any part of it, we are still under international law under the understanding that our servicemen could be called into International Criminal Court.
court
Amendment 9
9 May 2002 2002 Ron Paul 37:6
We have to make this message very loud and clear. This is not overly strong, but I think we should make this message and say that none of these funds should be spent, but we still have to offer protection to our personnel that they never be called into this International Criminal Court. To me, it is an issue of national sovereignty, and it is an issue that is important to a lot of Americans. It is what our job should be, to protect our country. For this reason, I think this is very important. I hope I can get Members to agree with the amendment and pass it.
court
Amendment 9
9 May 2002 2002 Ron Paul 37:7
Mr. Chairman, earlier this week President Bush took the bold step of renouncing the signature of the United States on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Bush Administration, in explaining this move, correctly pointed out that this court has unchecked power that contradicts our Constitution and its system of checks and balances; that the Court is “open for exploitation and politically- motivated prosecutions;” and that “the ICC asserts jurisdiction over citizens of states that have not ratified the treaty” — which undermines American sovereignty.
court
Amendment 9
9 May 2002 2002 Ron Paul 37:8
President Bush, in renouncing the U.S. signature and declaring that the United States would have nothing to do with the International Criminal Court, has put the Court on notice that the United States will defend its sovereignty and its citizens. The president is to be most highly commended for standing strong for American sovereignty in the face of worldwide attempts to undermine that sovereignty with this deeply flawed global court.
court
Amendment 9
9 May 2002 2002 Ron Paul 37:9
But there is no time to rest on this victory. As Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated this week, upon our renunciation of the ICC: “Unfortunately, the ICC will not respect the U.S. decision to stay out of the treaty. To the contrary, the ICC provisions claim the authority to detain and try American citizens — U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, as well as current and future officials — even though the United States has not given its consent to be bound by the treaty.” Secretary Rumsfeld added, “When the ICC treaty enters into force this summer, U.S. citizens will be exposed to the risk of prosecution by a court that is unaccountable to the American people, and that has no obligation to respect the Constitutional rights of our citizens.”
court
Amendment 9
9 May 2002 2002 Ron Paul 37:10
Secretary Rumsfeld is correct. It is clear that the International Criminal Court has no intention of honoring our president’s decision to neither participate in nor support their global judicial enterprise. According to the Statutes of the court, they do indeed claim jurisdiction over Americans even though the president has now stated forcefully that we do not recognize the Court nor are we a party to the Treaty.
court
Amendment 9
9 May 2002 2002 Ron Paul 37:11
I have introduced this amendment to the Defense Authorization Act, therefore, to support the president’s decision and to indicate that Congress is behind him in his rejection of this unconstitutional global court. it is imperative that we not award the International Criminal Court a single tax dollar to further its objective of undermining our sovereignty and our Constitutional protections. How could we do anything less: each of us in this body has taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?
court
Amendment 9
9 May 2002 2002 Ron Paul 37:12
I am also introducing today a Sense of the Congress bill to commend President Bush for his bold and brave decision to renounce the United States’ signature on the Statute of the International Court. We must support the president as he seeks to protect American servicemen and citizens from this court. I hope all of my colleagues here will co-sponsor and support this legislation, and please call my office for more details.
court
Amendment 9
9 May 2002 2002 Ron Paul 37:13
In the meantime, I urge enthusiastic support of this amendment before us. We must speak with one voice in denying the International Criminal Court a single American tax dollar!
court
Statement on the introduction of H. Res. 416, Expressing the Sense of the Congress regarding the International Criminal Court
May 9, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 39:1
We Want No Part of the ICC: Commending President Bush Mr. PAUL: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill Expressing the Sense of the Congress regarding the International Criminal Court.
court
Statement on the introduction of H. Res. 416, Expressing the Sense of the Congress regarding the International Criminal Court
May 9, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 39:2
On Monday, May 6, President George W. Bush directed his representative to inform United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan that the United States "does not intend to become a party to the treaty [the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC)]." President Bush is to be highly commended for renouncing the U.S. signature on the ICC treaty, a bold first step toward protecting American servicemembers and citizens from the possibility of unwarranted and politically-motivated persecutions.
court
Statement on the introduction of H. Res. 416, Expressing the Sense of the Congress regarding the International Criminal Court
May 9, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 39:3
By taking this action, President Bush has put the international community on notice that the United States will defend its sovereignty and citizens from this global court. The Bush Administration correctly pointed out that the ICC has unchecked power that contradicts our Constitution and its system of checks and balances; that the Court is "open for exploitation and politically-motivated prosecutions;" and that "the ICC asserts jurisdiction over citizens of states that have not ratified the treaty" – which seriously threatens American sovereignty.
court
Statement on the introduction of H. Res. 416, Expressing the Sense of the Congress regarding the International Criminal Court
May 9, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 39:5
But this is only a first step. As Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated this week, upon our renunciation of the ICC: "Unfortunately, the ICC will not respect the U.S. decision to stay out of the treaty. To the contrary, the ICC provisions claim the authority to detain and try American citizens-U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, as well as current and future officials-even though the United States has not given its consent to be bound by the treaty." Secretary Rumsfeld added, "When the ICC treaty enters into force this summer, U.S. citizens will be exposed to the risk of prosecution by a court that is unaccountable to the American people, and that has no obligation to respect the Constitutional rights of our citizens."
court
Statement on the introduction of H. Res. 416, Expressing the Sense of the Congress regarding the International Criminal Court
May 9, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 39:6
Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman, explaining the president’s decision to withdraw from the ICC, made the following critical point: "Notwithstanding our disagreements with the Rome Treaty, the United States respects the decision of those nations who have chosen to join the ICC; but they in turn must respect our decision not to join the ICC or place our citizens under the jurisdiction of the court." There is no indication that Undersecretary Grossman’s message has been received.
court
Statement on the introduction of H. Res. 416, Expressing the Sense of the Congress regarding the International Criminal Court
May 9, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 39:7
Therefore, this legislation makes it clear that Congress should take all steps necessary to grant appropriate authority to the president to defend the American people – servicemember and citizen alike -- from the threat of arrest, prosecution and conviction by the International Criminal Court.
court
Statement on the introduction of H. Res. 416, Expressing the Sense of the Congress regarding the International Criminal Court
May 9, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 39:9
I rise, finally, to encourage the president to remain steadfast in his intention of protecting American servicemembers and citizens from the unchecked power of the International Criminal Court. This is only the beginning, however, there is much more to be done.
court
Repudiating A Treaty Signature
9 May 2002 2002 Ron Paul 40:3
Now, the argument that all of a sudden we are going to capture Saddam Hussein and we are not going to have the international criminal court to deal with him, that is really not a good argument because the special tribunals for Yugoslavia as well as Rwanda can and still be set up. It has nothing to do with that, so that would still be available.
court
Oppose the "Supplemental" Spending Bill
May 24, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 50:2
Despite being sold as a national security bill, most of the spending in this bill bears little relationship to protecting the American people from terrorism. For example, this bill contains funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, federal courts, and various welfare programs. In addition, this bill spends millions on unconstitutional foreign aid. Mr. Speaker, some may say that foreign aid promotes national security, but if that were true America would be the most beloved country on earth. After all, almost every country in the world has in some way benefited from Congress’ willingness to send the American people’s money oversees.
court
BAD TAX POLICY SENDS COMPANIES OVERSEAS
June 11, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 55:6
[From the Washington Times, May 8, 2002] BAD TAX POLICY: YOU CAN RUN ..... (By Daniel Mitchell) The worst Supreme Court decision of all time? One of the leading candidates has to be the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that slaves did not gain freedom by escaping to nonslave states.
court
RESTORING FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS OF RELIGION AND RELIGIOUS SPEECH
June 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 56:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation restoring First amendment protections of religion and religious speech. For fifty years, the personal religious freedom of this nation’s citizens has been infringed upon by courts that misread and distort the First amendment. The framers of the Constitution never in their worst nightmares imagined that the words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech .....” would be used to ban children from praying in school, prohibit courthouses from displaying the Ten Commandments, or prevent citizens from praying before football games. The original meaning of the First amendment was clear on these two points: The federal government cannot enact laws establishing one religious denomination over another, and the federal government cannot forbid mention of religion, including the Ten Commandments and references to God.
court
RESTORING FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS OF RELIGION AND RELIGIOUS SPEECH
June 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 56:2
In case after case, the Supreme Court has used the infamous “separation of church and state” metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty. This "separation" doctrine is based upon a phrase taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. In the letter, Jefferson simply reassures the Baptists that the First amendment would preclude an intrusion by the federal government into religious matters between denominations. It is ironic and sad that a letter defending the principle that the federal government must stay out of religious affairs. should be used two hundred years later to justify the Supreme Court telling a child that he cannot pray in school!
court
RESTORING FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS OF RELIGION AND RELIGIOUS SPEECH
June 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 56:3
The Court completely disregards the original meaning and intent of the First amendment. It has interpreted the establishment clause to preclude prayer and other religious speech in a public place, thereby violating the free exercise clause of the very same First amendment. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Congress to correct this error, and to perform its duty to support and defend the Constitution. My legislation would restore First amendment protections of religion and speech by removing all religious freedom-related cases from federal district court jurisdiction, as well as from federal claims court jurisdiction. The federal government has no constitutional authority to reach its hands in the religious affairs of its citizens or of the several states.
court
RESTORING FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS OF RELIGION AND RELIGIOUS SPEECH
June 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 56:4
As James Madison said, "There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation." I sincerely hope that my colleagues will fight against the “gradual and silent encroachment” of the courts upon our nation’s religious liberties by supporting this bill.
court
Inspection or Invasion in Iraq?
June 24, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 57:4
Much is made of Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi, as a potential post-invasion leader of Iraq. Mr. Ritter told me that in his many dealings with Chalabi, he found him to be completely unreliable and untrustworthy. He added that neither he nor the approximately 100 Iraqi generals that the US is courting have any credibility inside Iraq, and any attempt to place them in power would be rejected in the strongest manner by the Iraqi people. Hundreds, if not thousands, of American military personnel would be required to occupy Iraq indefinitely if any American-installed regime is to remain in power. Again, it appears we are creating a larger problem than we are attempting to solve.
court
Lifetime Consequences For Sex Offenders Act
25 June 2002 2002 Ron Paul 58:3
We have been reminded by both Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese that more federal crimes, while they make politicians feel good, are neither constitutionally sound nor prudent. Rehnquist has stated that “The trend to federalize crimes that traditionally have been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system.” Meese stated that Congress’ tendency in recent decades to make federal crimes out of offenses that have historically been state matters has dangerous implications both for the fair administration of justice and for the principle that states are something more than mere administrative districts of a nation governed mainly from Washington.
court
Child Obscenity And Pornography Prevention Act
25 June 2002 2002 Ron Paul 62:2
H.R. 4623 furthers one of the most disturbing trends in modern politics, the federalization of crimes. We have been reminded by both Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese that more federal crimes, while they make politicians feel good, are neither constitutionally sound nor prudent. Rehnquist has stated that “The trend to federalize crimes that traditionally have been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system.” Meese stated that Congress’ tendency in recent decades to make federal crimes out of offenses that have historically been state matters has dangerous implications both for the fair administration of justice and for the principle that states are something more than mere administrative districts of a nation governed mainly from Washington.
court
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:30
All 18-year-old males must register to be ready for the next undeclared war. If they don’t, men with guns will appear and enforce this congressional mandate. “Involuntary servitude” was banned by the 13th Amendment, but courts don’t apply this prohibition to the servitude of draftees or those citizens required to follow the dictates of the IRS – especially the employers of the country, who serve as the federal government’s chief tax collectors and information gatherers. Fear is the tool used to intimidate most Americans to comply to the tax code by making examples of celebrities. Leona Helmsley and Willie Nelson know how this process works.
court
The Tragedy of Partial-Birth Abortion
July 24, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 75:3
The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction. Something that Congress can do is remove the issue from the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, so that states can deal with the problems surrounding abortion, thus helping to reverse some of the impact of Roe v. Wade.
court
The Tragedy of Partial-Birth Abortion
July 24, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 75:7
H.R. 4965 also depends heavily upon a "distinction" made by the Court in both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which established that a child within the womb is not protected under law, but one outside of the womb is. By depending upon this false and illogical "distinction," I fear that H.R. 4965, as I stated before, ingrains the principles of Roe v. Wade into our justice system, rather than refutes them as it should.
court
Statement on Expulsion of Congressman Jim Traficant
July 24, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 76:7
Before voting to expel Mr. Traficant while his appeal is pending, my colleagues should consider the case of former Representative George Hansen. Like Mr. Traficant, Mr. Hansen was convicted in federal court, censured by Congress, and actually served time in federal prison. However, Mr. Hansen was acquitted on appeal- after his life, career, and reputation were destroyed.
court
The Price Of War
5 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 83:32
Acting in our own interest is to be applauded, but what we are getting is not a good alternative to one-world government. We do not get our sovereignty back, yet we continue to subject ourselves to great potential financial burden and loss of liberty as we shift from a national government with constitutional protection of rights to an international government where our citizens’ rights are threatened by treaties we have not even ratified, like the Kyoto and the international criminal court treaties.
court
Internet Gambling
1 October 2002 2002 Ron Paul 92:2
In addition to being unconstitutional, H.R. 556 is likely to prove ineffective at ending Internet gambling. Instead, this bill will ensure that gambling is controlled by organized crime. History, from the failed experiment of prohibition to today’s futile “war on drugs,” shows that the government cannot eliminate demand for something like Internet gambling simply by passing a law. Instead, H.R. 556 will force those who wish to gamble over the Internet to patronize suppliers willing to flaunt the ban. In many cases, providers of services banned by the government will be members of criminal organizations. Even if organized crime does not operate Internet gambling enterprises their competitors are likely to be controlled by organized crime. After all, since the owners and patrons of Internet gambling cannot rely on the police and courts to enforce contracts and resolve other disputes, they will be forced to rely on members of organized crime to perform those functions. Thus, the profits of Internet gambling will flow into organized crime. Furthermore, outlawing an activity will raise the price vendors are able to charge consumers, thus increasing the profits flowing to organized crime from Internet gambling. It is bitterly ironic that a bill masquerading as an attack on crime will actually increase organized crime’s ability to control and profit from Internet gambling.
court
Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq
October 8, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 96:13
I must oppose this resolution, which regardless of what many have tried to claim will lead us into war with Iraq. This resolution is not a declaration of war, however, and that is an important point: this resolution transfers the Constitutionally-mandated Congressional authority to declare wars to the executive branch. This resolution tells the president that he alone has the authority to determine when, where, why, and how war will be declared. It merely asks the president to pay us a courtesy call a couple of days after the bombing starts to let us know what is going on. This is exactly what our Founding Fathers cautioned against when crafting our form of government: most had just left behind a monarchy where the power to declare war rested in one individual. It is this they most wished to avoid.
court
Truth In Financing Act
8 October 2002 2002 Ron Paul 98:4
Most importantly, the Truth in Financing Act allows any U.S. citizen to use the courts to force federal officials to cut off funds from those who violate the law. No longer will taxpayers have to sit silently by while federal bureaucrats shovel money to those who flaunt the laws of this country.
court
Treatment Of Mr. Martin Mawyer By U.N. Officers Must Be Investigated
16 October 2002 2002 Ron Paul 100:12
Mawyer had intended to deliver 30 bags filled with more than 60,000 petitions to the U.N. from American citizens. The petitions addressed a variety of issues of concern to citizens, including the U.N.’s newly ratified International Criminal Court, a plan to implement a U.N. standing army, the Kyoto global warming treaty, protection of U.S. military personnel serving in U.N. missions abroad, and a host of other issues relating to national sovereignty.
court
Unintended Consequences
November 14, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 102:12
If massive Iraqi civilian casualties result, as indeed is possible though not deliberate, expect more worldwide condemnation and even a UN resolution condemning what others will call American War Crimes. Our refusal to be subject to the International Criminal Court, while demanding others be tried in the court, will never sit well with the world community. Our position is a far cry from what it ought to be- demanding national sovereignty while promoting neutrality and friendship with all nations.
court
“You Are A Suspect”
14 November 2002 2002 Ron Paul 103:6
A jury convicted Poindexter in 1990 on five felony counts of misleading Congress and making false statements, but an appeals court overturned the verdict because Congress had given him immunity for his testimony. He famously asserted, “The buck stops here,” arguing that the White House staff, and not the president, was responsible for fateful decisions that might prove embarrassing.
court
“You Are A Suspect”
14 November 2002 2002 Ron Paul 103:8
Even the hastily passed U.S.A. Patriot Act, which widened the scope of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and weakened 15 privacy laws, raised requirements for the government to report secret eavesdropping to Congress and the courts. But Poindexter’s assault on individual privacy rides roughshod over such oversight.
court
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:24
Today, the concepts of rights and property ownership are completely arbitrary. Congress, the courts, Presidents and bureaucrats arbitrarily legislate on a daily basis, seeking only the endorsement of the majority. Although the Republic was designed to protect the minority against the dictates of the majority, today we find the reverse. The Republic is no longer recognizable.
court
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:86
There are certain wonderful benefits in recognizing the guidance that majority opinion offers. It takes a consensus or prevailing attitude to endorse the principles of liberty and a constitution to protect them. This is a requirement for the rule of law to succeed. Without a consensus, the rule of law fails. This does not mean that the majority or public opinion, measured by polls, court rulings or legislative bodies should be able to alter the constitutional restraints on the government’s abuse of life, liberty and property. But in a democracy that happens, and we know today that is happening in this country on a routine basis.
court
End the Income Tax – Pass the Liberty Amendment
January 28, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 7:2
The 16th Amendment gives the federal government a direct claim on the lives of American citizens by enabling Congress to levy a direct income tax on individuals. Until the passage of the 16th amendment, the Supreme Court had consistently held that Congress had no power to impose an income tax.
court
Stem Cell research
27 February 2003 2003 Ron Paul 26:15
Laws inevitably reflect the morality or immorality of the people. The Supreme Court did not usher in the 60s revolution that undermined the respect for all human life and liberty. Instead, the people’s attitude of the 60s led to the Supreme Court Roe vs. Wade ruling in 1973 and contributed to a steady erosion of personal liberty. If a centralized government is incapable of doing the right thing, what happens when the people embrace immorality and offer no voluntary ethical approach to difficult questions such as cloning? The government then takes over and predictably makes things much worse. The government cannot instill morality in the people. An apathetic and immoral society inspires centralized, rigid answers while the many consequences to come are ignored. Unfortunately, once centralized government takes charge, the real victim becomes personal liberty.
court
American Servicemember And Civilian Protection Act Of 2003
6 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 30:2
This bill prohibits funds made available by the United States Government from being used for the establishment or operation of the Court.
court
American Servicemember And Civilian Protection Act Of 2003
6 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 30:3
Perhaps the most significant part of the bill makes clear that any action taken by or on behalf of the Court against members of the United States Armed Forces shall be considered an act of aggression against the United States; and that any action taken by or on behalf of the Court against a United States citizen or national shall be considered an offense against the law of nations.
court
American Servicemember And Civilian Protection Act Of 2003
6 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 30:4
Mr. Speaker, on May 6, 2002, President George W. Bush took the commendable step of repudiating the signature of the United States on the Statute of the International Criminal Court, stating that the United States “can no longer be a party” to the International Criminal Court. He also requested that those states choosing membership in the Court respect the decision of the United States in this matter.
court
American Servicemember And Civilian Protection Act Of 2003
6 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 30:5
Mr. Speaker, the Court is an illegitimate body even by the United Nations’ own standards. The Statute of the International Criminal Court was enacted by a Conference of Diplomats convened by the United Nations General Assembly, whereas according to the UN Charter, the authority to create such a body lies only in the UN Security Council.
court
American Servicemember And Civilian Protection Act Of 2003
6 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 30:6
The International Criminal Court was established contrary to the American Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. It puts United States citizens in jeopardy of unlawful and unconstitutional criminal prosecution.
court
American Servicemember And Civilian Protection Act Of 2003
6 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 30:7
The International Criminal Court does not provide many of the Constitutional protections guaranteed every American citizen, including the right to trial by jury, the right to face your accuser, and the presumption of innocence, and the protection against double jeopardy.
court
American Servicemember And Civilian Protection Act Of 2003
6 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 30:9
Last year Congress passed the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act within the Defense Authorization bill. Commendable as that effort was, the fact of the matter is that because of the numerous loopholes and exemptions in that legislation, our servicemembers are still not protected from the probing arms of the International Criminal Court. American citizens have absolutely no protection under last year’s legislation. This is simply unacceptable. That is why I am introducing this legislation that makes the position of the United States clear: we will protect our servicemembers and citizens from this illegal court.
court
American Servicemember And Civilian Protection Act Of 2003
6 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 30:10
Mr. Speaker, I hope all members of this body will join me in opposing this illegitimate and illegal court by cosponsoring the “American Servicemember and Civilian Protection Act of 2003.”
court
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 31:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce the American Sovereignty Restoration Act. I submitted this bill, which would end United States membership in the United Nations, in the 107th Congress and the 106th Congress and since then conditions have made its relevance and importance more evident now than ever. The United Nations assault on the sovereignty of the United States proceeds apace; it shows no signs of slowing. Mr. Speaker, since I last introduced this measure, the United Nations has convened its International Criminal Court, which claims jurisdiction even over citizens of countries that have not elected to join the court. This means that Americans — both civilians and members of our armed services — are subject to a court that even its supporters admit does not offer all the protections guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.
court
No Federal Funding for Abortion!
April 2, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 42:3
Finally, my Life-Protecting Judicial Limitation Act of 2003 provides that the inferior courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases. Congress must use the authority granted to it in Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution. The district courts of the United States, as well as the United States Court of Federal Claims, should not have the authority to hear these types of cases.
court
The First Amendment Protects Religious Speech
April 2, 2003 Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation restoring First amendment protections of religion and religious speech. For fifty years, the personal religious freedom of this nation’s citizens has been infringed upon by courts that misread and distort the First amendment. The framers of the Constitution never in their worst nightmares imagined that the words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.......” would be used to ban children from praying in school, prohibit courthouses from displaying the Ten Commandments, or prevent citizens from praying before football games. The original meaning of the First amendment was clear on these two points: The federal government cannot enact laws establishing one religious denomination over another, and the federal government cannot forbid mention of religion, including the Ten Commandments and references to God. 2003 Ron Paul 43:1
In case after case, the Supreme Court has used the infamous “separation of church and state” metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty. This “separation” doctrine is based upon a phrase taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. In the letter, Jefferson simply reassures the Baptists that the First amendment would preclude an intrusion by the federal government into religious matters between denominations. It is ironic and sad that a letter defending the principle that the federal government must stay out of religious affairs. Should be used two hundred years later to justify the Supreme Court telling a child that he cannot pray in school!
court
The First Amendment Protects Religious Speech
April 2, 2003 Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation restoring First amendment protections of religion and religious speech. For fifty years, the personal religious freedom of this nation’s citizens has been infringed upon by courts that misread and distort the First amendment. The framers of the Constitution never in their worst nightmares imagined that the words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.......” would be used to ban children from praying in school, prohibit courthouses from displaying the Ten Commandments, or prevent citizens from praying before football games. The original meaning of the First amendment was clear on these two points: The federal government cannot enact laws establishing one religious denomination over another, and the federal government cannot forbid mention of religion, including the Ten Commandments and references to God. 2003 Ron Paul 43:2
The Court completely disregards the original meaning and intent of the First amendment. It has interpreted the establishment clause to preclude prayer and other religious speech in a public place, thereby violating the free exercise clause of the very same First amendment. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Congress to correct this error, and to perform its duty to support and defend the Constitution. My legislation would restore First amendment protections of religion and speech by removing all religious freedom-related cases from federal district court jurisdiction, as well as from federal claims court jurisdiction. The federal government has no constitutional authority to reach its hands in the religious affairs of its citizens or of the several states.
court
The First Amendment Protects Religious Speech
April 2, 2003 Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation restoring First amendment protections of religion and religious speech. For fifty years, the personal religious freedom of this nation’s citizens has been infringed upon by courts that misread and distort the First amendment. The framers of the Constitution never in their worst nightmares imagined that the words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.......” would be used to ban children from praying in school, prohibit courthouses from displaying the Ten Commandments, or prevent citizens from praying before football games. The original meaning of the First amendment was clear on these two points: The federal government cannot enact laws establishing one religious denomination over another, and the federal government cannot forbid mention of religion, including the Ten Commandments and references to God. 2003 Ron Paul 43:3
As James Madison said, “There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.” I sincerely hope that my colleagues will fight against the “gradual and silent encroachment” of the courts upon our nation’s religious liberties by supporting this bill.
court
Second Amendment Restoration Act
9 April 2003 2003 Ron Paul 47:3
While I am against the federalization of tort reform, I must voice my complete disapproval for the nature of these very suits brought against gun manufacturers. Lawsuits for monetary damages form gun violence should be aimed at the perpetrators of those crimes, not the manufacturers! Holding manufacturers liable for harm they could neither foresee nor prevent is irresponsible and outlandish. The company that makes a properly functioning product in accordance with the law is acting lawfully and thus should not be taken to court because of misuse by the purchaser (or in many cases, by the one who stole the weapon). I fear these lawsuits are motivated not by a concern for justice but by a search for deep pockets, since gun manufactures have higher incomes than the average criminals, and a fanatical anti-gun political agenda.
court
America National Sovereignty vs. UN “International Law” – Time for Congress to Vote
April 29, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 51:4
If we do not, rest assured that the UN will continue to interfere not only in our nation’s foreign policy matters, but in our domestic policies as well. UN globalists are not satisfied by meddling only in international disputes. They increasingly want to influence our domestic environmental, trade, labor, tax, and gun laws. UN global planners fully intend to expand the organization into a true world government, complete with taxes, courts, and possibly a standing army. This is not an alarmist statement; these goals are readily promoted on the UN’s own website. UN planners do not care about national sovereignty; in fact they are openly opposed to it. They correctly view it as an obstacle to their plans. They simply aren’t interested in our Constitution and republican form of government.
court
The Flag Burning Amendment
June 3, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 57:7
As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court has helped to create this. I know a lot of people depend on the Supreme Court to protect us, but in many ways, I think the Supreme Court has hurt us. So I agree with those who are promoting this amendment that the Supreme Court overreacted, because I think the States should have many more prerogatives than they do. Many states have these laws, and I believe that we should have a Supreme Court that would allow more solutions to occur at the state level. They would be imperfect, no doubt, it would not be perfect protection of liberty by state laws. But let me tell my colleagues, when we come here as politicians and superpatriots and we pass amendments to the Constitution, that will be less than perfect, then it will be just like the Supreme Court- a poor national solution.
court
The Flag Burning Amendment
June 3, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 57:14
He suggested that we have amended the Constitution before when the courts have ruled a certain way. And he is absolutely right, we can do that and we have done that. But to use the 16th amendment as a beautiful example of how the Congress solves problems, I would expect the same kind of dilemma coming out of this amendment as we have out of the 16th amendment which, by the way, has been questioned by some historians as not being correctly ratified.
court
The Flag Burning Amendment
June 3, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 57:19
Mr. Speaker, let me summarize why I oppose this Constitutional amendment. I have myself served 5 years in the military, and I have great respect for the symbol of our freedom. I salute the flag, and I pledge to the flag. I also support overriding the Supreme Court case that overturned State laws prohibiting flag burning. Under the Constitutional principle of federalism, questions such as whether or not Texas should prohibit flag burning are strictly up to the people of Texas, not the United States Supreme Court. Thus, if this amendment simply restored the state’s authority to ban flag burning, I would enthusiastically support it.
court
The Flag Burning Amendment
June 3, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 57:34
We must be interested in the spirit of our Constitution. We must be interested in the principles of liberty. I therefore urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Instead, my colleagues should work to restore the rights of the individual states to ban flag burning, free from unconstitutional interference by the Supreme Court.
court
The Partial Birth Abortion Ban
June 4, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 58:3
The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction. Something that Congress can do is remove the issue from the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, so that states can deal with the problems surrounding abortion, thus helping to reverse some of the impact of Roe v. Wade.
court
The Partial Birth Abortion Ban
June 4, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 58:7
H.R. 760 also depends heavily upon a “distinction” made by the Court in both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which establishes that a child within the womb is not protected under law, but one outside of the womb is. By depending upon this illogical “distinction,” I fear that H.R. 760, as I stated before, ingrains the principles of Roe v. Wade into our justice system, rather than refutes them as it should.
court
Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle.
June 4, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 59:2
I have become increasingly concerned over the years that the pro-life movement I so strongly support is getting further off track, both politically and morally. I sponsored the original pro-life amendment, which used a constitutional approach to solve the crisis of federalization of abortion law by the courts. The pro-life movement was with me and had my full support and admiration.
court
Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle.
June 4, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 59:10
Even the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, which is an integral part of the current pro-life agenda, presents a dilemma. While I have always supported this Act and plan to do so in the future, I realize that it raises questions of federalism because authority over criminal law is constitutionally retained by the states. The only reason a federal law has any legitimacy in this area is that the Supreme Court took it upon itself to federalize abortion via Roe v. Wade. Accordingly, wrestling the abortion issue from the federal courts and putting it back in the hands of the elected legislature comports with the Founder’s view of the separation of powers that protects our rights to life, liberty, and property.
court
Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act
10 June 2003 2003 Ron Paul 66:2
In addition to being unconstitutional, H.R. 2143 is likely to prove ineffective at ending Internet gambling. Instead, this bill will ensure that gambling is controlled by organized crime. History, from the failed experiment of prohibition to today’s futile “war on drugs,” shows that the government cannot eliminate demand for something like Internet gambling simply by passing a law. Instead, H.R. 2143 will force those who wish to gamble over the Internet to patronize suppliers willing to flaunt the ban. In many cases, providers of services banned by the government will be members of criminal organizations. Even if organized crime does not operate Internet gambling enterprises their competitors are likely to be controlled by organized crime. After all, since the owners and patrons of Internet gambling cannot rely on the police and courts to enforce contracts and resolve other disputes, they will be forced to rely on members of organized crime to perform those functions. Thus, the profits of Internet gambling will flow into organized crime. Furthermore, outlawing an activity will raise the price vendors are able to charge consumers, thus increasing the profits flowing to organized crime from Internet gambling. It is bitterly ironic that a bill masquerading as an attack on crime will actually increase organized crime’s ability to control and profit from Internet gambling.
court
The “Continuity of Government” Proposal – A Dangerous and Unnecessary Threat to Representative Rule
June 30, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 72:12
The problems with appointment of “representatives” are obvious. COGC calls for a general constitutional amendment that gives Congress wide power to make rules for filling vacancies “in the event that a substantial number of members are killed or incapacitated.” Such an amendment would be unavoidably vague, open to broad interpretation and abuse. In defining terms like “vacancy,” “substantial,” and “incapacitated,” Congress or the courts would be setting a dangerous precedent for a more elastic constitutional framework. Members of Congress simply cannot appoint their colleagues; the conflict of interest is glaring.
court
Bring Back Honest Money
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 82:10
Tragically, the Supreme Court has failed to protect the American people from unconstitutional legal tender laws. Salmon Chase, who served as Secretary of the Treasury in President Lincoln’s administration, when he was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, dissenting in Knox vs. Lee, summed up the argument against legal tender laws in twelve words: “The legal tender quality [of money] is only valuable for the purposes of dishonesty .” [emphasis added.]
court
Bring Back Honest Money
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 82:11
Another prescient Justice was Stephen Field, the only Justice to dissent in every legal tender case to come before the Court. Justice Field accurately described the dangers to our constitutional republic posed by legal tender laws: “The arguments in favor of the constitutionality of legal tender paper currency tend directly to break down the barriers which separate a government of limited powers from a government resting in the unrestrained will of Congress. Those limitations must be preserved, or our government will inevitably drift from the system established by our Fathers into a vast, centralized, and consolidated government.” A government with unrestrained powers is properly characterized as tyrannical.
court
Medicinal Marijuana
22 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 89:5
There is the case in California of Peter McDaniels, who was diagnosed with cancer and AIDS. California changed the law and permitted him to use marijuana if it was self-grown, and he was using it; and yet although he was dying, the Federal officials came in and arrested him and he was taken to court. The terrible irony of this was here was a man that was dying and the physicians were not giving him any help; and when he was tried, it was not allowed to be said that he was obeying the State law.
court
Conference Report On H.R. 2417 Intelligence Authorization Act For Fiscal year 2004
20 November 2003 2003 Ron Paul 121:2
What most concerns me about this conference report, though, is something that should outrage every single American citizen. am referring to the stealth addition of language drastically expanding FBI powers to secretly and without court order snoop into the business and financial transactions of American citizens. These expanded internal police powers will enable the FBI to demand transaction records from businesses, including auto dealers, travel agents, pawnbrokers and more, without the approval or knowledge of a judge or grand jury. This was written into the bill at the 11th hour over the objections of members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which would normally have jurisdiction over the FBI. The Judiciary Committee was frozen out of the process. It appears we are witnessing a stealth enactment of the enormously unpopular “Patriot II” legislation that was first leaked several months ago. Perhaps the national outcry when a draft of the Patriot II act was leaked has led its supporters to enact it one piece at a time in secret. Whatever the case, this is outrageous and unacceptable. I urge each of my colleagues to join me in rejecting this bill and its incredibly dangerous expansion of Federal police powers.
court
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 2:34
Judicial Review : Respect for the original intent of the Constitution is low in Washington. It’s so low, it’s virtually non-existent. This causes many foolish inconsistencies in our federal courts. The Constitution, we have been told, is a living, evolving document and it’s no longer necessary to change it in the proper fashion. That method is too slow and cumbersome, it is claimed. While we amended it to institute alcohol prohibition, the federal drug prohibition is accomplished by majority vote of the U.S. Congress. Wars are not declared by Congress, but pursued by Executive Order to enforce UN Resolutions. The debate of the pros and cons of the war come afterward — usually following the war’s failure — in the political arena, rather than before with the proper debate on a declaration of war resolution. Laws are routinely written by un-elected bureaucrats, with themselves becoming the judicial and enforcement authority. Little desire is expressed in Congress to alter this monster that creates thousands of pages each year in the Federal Register. Even the nearly 100,000 bureaucrats who now carry guns stir little controversy. For decades, Executive Orders have been arrogantly used to write laws to circumvent a plodding or disagreeable Congress. This attitude was best described by a Clinton presidential aide who bragged: “…stroke of the pen, law of the land, kinda cool!” This is quite a testimonial to the rule of law and constitutional restraint on government power. The courts are no better than the executive or legislative branches in limiting the unconstitutional expansion of the federal monolith. Members of Congress, including committee chairmen, downplay my concern that proposed legislation is unconstitutional by insisting that the courts are the ones to make such weighty decisions, not mere Members of Congress. This was an informal argument made by House leadership on the floor during the debate on campaign finance reform. In essence, they said “We know it’s bad, but we’ll let the courts clean it up.” And look what happened! The courts did not save us from ourselves.
court
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 2:35
Something must be done, however, if we expect to rein in our ever growing and intrusive government. Instead of depending on the courts to rule favorably, when Congress and the executive branch go astray, we must curtail the courts when they overstep their authority by writing laws, rubber stamping bad legislation, or overruling state laws. Hopefully in the future we will have a Congress more cognizant of its responsibility to legislate within the confines of the Constitution. There is something Congress, by majority vote, can do to empower the states to deal with their First Amendment issues. It’s clear that Congress has been instructed to write no laws regarding freedom of speech, religion, or assembly. This obviously means that federal courts have no authority to do so either. Therefore, the remaining option is for Congress to specifically remove jurisdiction of all First Amendment controversies from all federal courts, including the Supreme Court. Issues dealing with prayer, the Ten Commandments, religious symbols or clothing, and songs, even the issue of abortion, are properly left as a prerogative of the states. A giant step in this direction could be achieved with the passage my proposed legislation, the We the People Act.
court
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 February 2004 2004 Ron Paul 8:5
However, Congress does more damage than just expanding the class to whom Federal murder and assault statutes apply — it further entrenches and seemingly concurs with the Roe v. Wade decision — the Court’s intrusion into rights of States and their previous attempts to protect by criminal statute the unborn’s right not to be aggressed against. By specifically exempting from prosecution both abortionists and the mothers of the unborn — as is the case with this legislation — Congress appears to say that protection of the unborn child is not only a Federal matter but conditioned upon motive. In fact, the Judiciary Committee in marking up the bill, took an odd legal turn by making the assault on the unborn a strict liability offense insofar as the bill does not even require knowledge on the part of the aggressor that the unborn child exists. Murder statutes and common law murder require intent to kill — which implies knowledge — on the part of the aggressor. Here, however, we have the odd legal philosophy that an abortionist with full knowledge of his terminal act is not subject to prosecution while an aggressor acting without knowledge of the child’s existence is subject to nearly the full penalty of the law. With respect to only the fetus, the bill exempts the murderer from the death sentence — yet another diminution of the unborn’s personhood status and clearly a violation of the equal protection clause. It is becoming more and more difficult for Congress and the courts to pass the smell test as government simultaneously treats the unborn as a person in some instances and as a nonperson in others.
court
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 February 2004 2004 Ron Paul 8:6
In his first formal complaint to Congress on behalf of the Federal Judiciary, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said “the trend to federalize crimes that have traditionally been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of Federal system.” Rehnquist further criticized Congress for yielding to the political pressure to “appear responsive to every highly publicized societal ill or sensational crime.”
court
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 February 2004 2004 Ron Paul 8:7
Perhaps, equally dangerous is the loss of another constitutional protection which comes with the passage of more and more Federal criminal legislation. Constitutionally, there are only three Federal crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting — and, because the constitution was amended to allow it, for a short period of history, the manufacture, sale, or transport of alcohol was concurrently a Federal and State crime. “Concurrent” jurisdiction crimes, such as alcohol prohibition in the past and federalization of murder today, erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the Federal Government and a State government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the Federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.
court
We The People Act
4 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 13:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the We the People Act. The We the People Act forbids federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from adjudicating cases concerning state laws and policies relating to religious liberties or “privacy,” including cases involving sexual practices, sexual orientation or reproduction. The We the People Act also protects the traditional definition of marriage from judicial activism by ensuring the Supreme Court cannot abuse the equal protection clause to redefine marriage. In order to hold federal judges accountable for abusing their powers, the act also provides that a judge who violates the act’s limitations on judicial power shall either be impeached by Congress or removed by the president, according to rules established by the Congress.
court
We The People Act
4 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 13:2
The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Founders intended Congress to use this authority to correct abuses of power by the federal judiciary.
court
We The People Act
4 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 13:4
In recent years, we have seen numerous abuses of power by federal courts. Federal judges regularly strike down state and local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion. This government by federal judiciary causes a virtual nullification of the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on federal power. Furthermore, when federal judges impose their preferred policies on state and local governments, instead of respecting the policies adopted by those elected by, and thus accountable to, the people, republican government is threatened. Article IV, section 4 of the United States Constitution guarantees each state a republican form of government. Thus, Congress must act when the executive or judicial branch threatens the republican governments of the individual states. Therefore, Congress has a responsibility to stop federal judges from running roughshod over state and local laws. The Founders would certainly have supported congressional action to reign in federal judges who tell citizens where they can and can’t place manger scenes at Christmas.
court
We The People Act
4 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 13:5
Mr. Speaker, even some supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, which overturned the abortion laws of all fifty states, is flawed. The Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause jurisdiction has also drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. Perhaps more importantly, attempts to resolve, by judicial fiat, important issues like abortion and the expression of religious belief in the public square increase social strife and conflict. The only way to resolve controversial social issues like abortion and school prayer is to restore respect for the right of state and local governments to adopt policies that reflect the beliefs of the citizens of those jurisdictions. I would remind my colleagues and the federal judiciary that, under our Constitutional system, there is no reason why the people of New York and the people of Texas should have the same policies regarding issues such as marriage and school prayer.
court
We The People Act
4 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 13:6
Unless Congress acts, a state’s authority to define and regulate marriage may be the next victim of activist judges. After all, such a decision would simply take the Supreme Court’s decision in the Lawrence case, which overturned all state sodomy laws, to its logical conclusion. Congress must launch a preemptive strike against any further federal usurpation of the states’ authority to regulate marriage by removing issues concerning the definition of marriage from the jurisdiction of federal courts.
court
An Indecent Attack on the First Amendment
March 10, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 14:7
Just one year ago we saw a coalition of both left and right push through the radical Campaign Finance Reform Act, which strictly curtails the rights all Americans to speak out against particular candidates at the time of elections. Amazingly, this usurpation by Congress was upheld by the Supreme Court, which showed no concern for the restrictions on political speech during political campaigns. Instead of admitting that money and corruption in government is not a consequence of too much freedom of expression, but rather a result of government acting outside the bounds of the Constitution, this new law addressed a symptom rather than the cause of special interest control of our legislative process.
court
Undermining First Amendment
11 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 16:5
Now, once again, we are attacking indecency, which we all should, but how we do it is critical; because “indecency” is a subjective term, and it has yet to be defined by the courts. We should remember that the Congress very clearly by the Constitution is instructed to: “make no laws abridging the freedom of speech.” It cannot be any clearer. If we have problems with indecency they are to be solved in different manners. The excuse, because the government is responsible and owns the airwaves, that we can suspend the first amendment is incorrect. That is a good argument for privatizing the airwaves rather than an excuse for suspension of the first amendment.
court
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3717, Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act Of 2004
11 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 17:16
Even the proponents of the commercial speech doctrine agreed that the Federal Government should never restrict political speech. Yet, this Congress, this administration, and this Supreme Court have restricted political speech with the recently enacted campaign finance reform law. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice has indicated it will use the war against terrorism to monitor critics of the administration’s foreign policy, thus chilling antiwar political speech. Of course, on many college campuses students have to watch what they say lest they run afoul of the rules of “political correctness.” Even telling a “politically incorrect” joke can bring a student up on charges before the thought police! Now, selfproclaimed opponents of political correctness want to use federal power to punish colleges that allows the expression of views they consider “unpatriotic” and/or punish colleges when the composition of the facility does not meet their definition of diversity.
court
Don’t Let the FDA Block Access to Needed Health Care Information
March 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 20:6
Despite DSHEA, FDA officials continued to attempt to enforce regulations aimed at keeping the American public in the dark about the benefits of dietary supplements. Finally, in the case of Pearson v. Shalala, the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Court reaffirmed consumers’ First Amendment right to learn about dietary supplements without unnecessary interference from the FDA. The Pearson decision anticipated my legislation by suggesting the FDA adopt disclaimers in order to render some health claims non-misleading.
court
Don’t Let the FDA Block Access to Needed Health Care Information
March 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 20:7
In the years since the Pearson decision, members of Congress have had to continually intervene with the FDA to ensure it followed the court order. The FDA continues to deny consumers access to truthful health information. Clearly, the FDA is determined to continue to (as the Pearson court pointed out) act as though liberalizing regulations regarding health claims is the equivalent of “asking consumers to buy something while hypnotized and therefore they are bound to be misled.”
court
Introducing The American Justice For American Citizens Act
1 April 2004 2004 Ron Paul 26:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the American Justice for American Citizens Act, which exercises Congress’s Constitutional authority to regulate the federal judiciary to ensure that federal judges base their decisions solely on American Constitutional, statutory, and traditional common law. Federal judges increasing practice of “transjudicialism” makes this act necessary. Transjudicialism is a new legal theory that encourages judges to disregard American law, including the United States Constitution, and base their decisions on foreign law. For example, Supreme Court justices recently used international law to justify upholding race-based college admissions and overturning all state sodomy laws.
court
Introducing The American Justice For American Citizens Act
1 April 2004 2004 Ron Paul 26:2
In an October 28, 2003 speech before the Southern Center for International Studies in Atlanta, Georgia, Justice O’Connor stated: “[i]n ruling that consensual homosexual activity in one’s home is constitutionally protected, the Supreme Court relied in part on a series of decisions from the European Court of Human Rights. I suspect that with time, we will rely increasingly on international and foreign law in resolving what now appear to be domestic issues, as we both appreciate more fully the ways in which domestic issues have an international dimension, and recognize the rich resources available to us in the decisions of foreign courts.”
court
Introducing The American Justice For American Citizens Act
1 April 2004 2004 Ron Paul 26:5
All federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, take an oath to obey and uphold the Constitution. The Constitution was ordained and ratified by the people of the United States to provide a charter of governance in accord with fixed and enduring principles, not to empower federal judges to impose the transnational legal elites’ latest theories on the American people.
court
Introducing The American Justice For American Citizens Act
1 April 2004 2004 Ron Paul 26:6
Mr. Speaker, the drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the power to regulate the jurisdiction of federal courts precisely so we could intervene when the federal judiciary betrays its responsibility to uphold the Constitution and American law. Congress has a duty to use this power to ensure that judges base their decisions solely on American law.
court
In Support Of The Gutierrez-Paul Bill
28 April 2004 2004 Ron Paul 30:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to cosponsor the legislation offered by Mr. GUTIERREZ using the Congressional Review Act to disapprove the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s (OCC) preemption regulation because I strongly oppose any attempt to expand the OCC’s regulatory functions beyond the power Congress originally granted the OCC. The OCC was never meant to serve as a national consumer protection agency. Its limited, intended role has been underscored by Federal court rulings that State law remains applicable to national banks in the absence of explicit Federal preemption.
court
Brown v. Board Of Education
13 May 2004 2004 Ron Paul 33:5
We need also to think about whether sacrificing quality education on the altar of equality is not a terrible mistake, especially as it applies to the opportunities available to those who are historically and economically disadvantaged. For example, research has shown that separating children on the basis of gender enhances academic performance. Attempts to have such schools have been struck down by the courts on the basis of Brown. Just last night Fox News reported the academic successes at schools separating children based on gender, as approved by this body is the so-called “No Child Left Behind Act.” Yet the National Organization of Women continues to oppose this policy on the basis of Brown’s “separate is inherently not equal” edict, despite the statistically evident positive impact this policy has had on the achievement of female students in mathematics and science classes.
court
Protecting Marriage from Judicial Tyranny
July 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 64:1
Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act (HR 3313), I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill. HR 3313 ensures federal courts will not undermine any state laws regulating marriage by forcing a state to recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued in another state. The Marriage Protection Act thus ensures that the authority to regulate marriage remains with individual states and communities, as the drafters of the Constitution intended.
court
Protecting Marriage from Judicial Tyranny
July 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 64:3
Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court last June. The Court determined that Texas has no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because these laws violated the court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Regardless of the advisability of such laws, the Constitution does not give the federal government authority to overturn these laws. Under the Tenth Amendment, the state of Texas has the authority to pass laws concerning social matters, using its own local standards, without federal interference. But rather than adhering to the Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a state matter, the Court decided to stretch the “right to privacy” to justify imposing the justices’ vision on the people of Texas.
court
Protecting Marriage from Judicial Tyranny
July 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 64:4
Since the Lawrence decision, many Americans have expressed their concern that the Court may next “discover” that state laws defining marriage violate the Court’s wrongheaded interpretation of the Constitution. After all, some judges simply may view this result as taking the Lawrence decision to its logical conclusion.
court
Protecting Marriage from Judicial Tyranny
July 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 64:5
One way federal courts may impose a redefinition of marriage on the states is by interpreting the full faith and credit clause to require all states, even those which do not grant legal standing to same-sex marriages , to treat as valid same-sex marriage licenses from the few states which give legal status to such unions. This would have the practical effect of nullifying state laws defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman, thus allowing a few states and a handful of federal judges to create marriage policy for the entire nation.
court
Federal Courts and the Pledge of Allegiance
September 23, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 71:1
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support, and cosponsor, the Pledge Protection Act (HR 2028), which restricts federal court jurisdiction over the question of whether the phrase “under God” should be included in the pledge of allegiance. Local schools should determine for themselves whether or not students should say “under God” in the pledge. The case finding it is a violation of the First Amendment to include the words “under God” in the pledge is yet another example of federal judges abusing their power by usurping state and local governments’ authority over matters such as education. Congress has the constitutional authority to rein in the federal courts’ jurisdiction and the duty to preserve the states’ republican forms of governments. Since government by the federal judiciary undermines the states’ republican governments, Congress has a duty to rein in rogue federal judges. I am pleased to see Congress exercise its authority to protect the states from an out-of-control judiciary.
court
Federal Courts and the Pledge of Allegiance
September 23, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 71:3
While I will support this bill even if the language removing the United States Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over cases regarding the pledge is eliminated, I am troubled that some of my colleagues question whether Congress has the authority to limit Supreme Court jurisdiction in this case. Both the clear language of the United States Constitution and a long line of legal precedents make it clear that Congress has the authority to limit the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. The Framers intended Congress to use the power to limit jurisdiction as a check on all federal judges, including Supreme Court judges , who, after all, have lifetime tenure and are thus unaccountable to the people.
court
Cultural Conservatives Lose if Gay Marriage is Federalized
September 30, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 73:3
If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’s constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state. This Congress, I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts’ jurisdiction. If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state.
court
Cultural Conservatives Lose if Gay Marriage is Federalized
September 30, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 73:4
Having studied this issue and consulted with leading legal scholars, including an attorney who helped defend the Boy Scouts against attempts to force the organization to allow gay men to serve as scoutmasters, I am convinced that both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act can survive legal challenges and ensure that no state is forced by a federal court’s or another state’s actions to recognize same sex marriage. Therefore, while I am sympathetic to those who feel only a constitutional amendment will sufficiently address this issue, I respectfully disagree. I also am concerned that the proposed amendment, by telling the individual states how their state constitutions are to be interpreted, is a major usurpation of the states’ power. The division of power between the federal government and the states is one of the virtues of the American political system. Altering that balance endangers self-government and individual liberty. However, if federal judges wrongly interfere and attempt to compel a state to recognize the marriage licenses of another state, that would be the proper time for me to consider new legislative or constitutional approaches.
court
Cultural Conservatives Lose if Gay Marriage is Federalized
September 30, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 73:8
Ironically, liberal social engineers who wish to use federal government power to redefine marriage will be able to point to the constitutional marriage amendment as proof that the definition of marriage is indeed a federal matter! I am unwilling either to cede to federal courts the authority to redefine marriage, or to deny a state’s ability to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. Instead, I believe it is time for Congress and state legislatures to reassert their authority by refusing to enforce judicial usurpations of power.
court
Reject a National Prescription Database
October 5, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 74:6
Once doctors know that there is a national database of controlled substances prescriptions that overzealous law enforcement will be scrutinizing to harass doctors, there may be no doctors left who are willing to treat chronic pain. Instead of creating a national database, we should be returning medical regulation to local control, where it historically and constitutionally belongs. Instead of drug warriors regulating medicine with an eye to maximizing prosecutions, we should return to state medical boards and state civil courts review that looks to science-based standards of medical care and patients’ best interests.
court
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 81:26
The problem the country faces is that social issues garnered intense interest and motivated many to vote both for and against the candidates, yet these issues are only a tiny fraction of the issues dealt with at the national level. And since the election has passed, the odds of new legislation dealing with social issues are slim. Getting a new Supreme Court that will overthrow Roe vs. Wade is a long shot despite the promises. Remember, we already have a Supreme Court where seven of the nine members were appointed by Republican presidents with little to show for it.
court
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 81:40
This is a reflection of personal moral values and society’s acceptance of abortion more than a reflection of a particular law or court ruling. In the 1960s, as part of the new age of permissiveness, people’s attitudes changed regarding abortion. This led to a change in the law as reflected in court rulings — especially Roe vs. Wade. The people’s moral standards changed first, followed by the laws. It was not the law or the Supreme Court that brought on the age of abortion.
court
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 81:42
The 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling caused great harm in two distinct ways. First, it legalized abortion at any stage, establishing clearly that the Supreme Court and the government condoned the cheapening of human life. Second, it firmly placed this crucial issue in the hands of the federal courts and national government. The federalization of abortion was endorsed even by those who opposed abortion. Instead of looking for state-by-state solutions and limiting federal court jurisdiction, those anxious to protect life came to rely on federal laws, eroding the constitutional process. The authors of the Constitution intended for criminal matters and acts of violence (except for a few rare exceptions) to be dealt with at the state level. Now, however, conservatives as well as liberals find it acceptable to nationalize issues such as abortion, marriage, prayer, and personal sexual matters — with more federal legislation offered as the only solution. This trend of transferring power from the states to the federal government compounds our problems — for when we lose, it affects all 50 states, and overriding Congress or the Supreme Court becomes far more difficult than dealing with a single state.
court
Introduction Of The Liberty Amendment
26 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 10:2
The 16th Amendment gives the federal government a direct claim on the lives of American citizens by enabling Congress to levy a direct income tax on individuals. Until the passage of the 16th amendment, the Supreme Court had consistently held that Congress had no power to impose an income tax.
court
Introducing The Sanity Of Life Act And The Taxpayer Freedom Of Conscience Act
10 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 21:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce two bills relating to abortion. These bills stop the federal government from promoting abortion. My bills accomplish this goal by prohibiting federal funds from being used for population control or “family planning” through exercising Congress’s constitutional power to restrict federal court’s jurisdiction by restoring each state’s authority to protect unborn life.
court
Introducing The Sanity Of Life Act And The Taxpayer Freedom Of Conscience Act
10 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 21:2
Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age. The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty. Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or contempt determines the outcome of that civilization. Reaffirming the importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the continuation of a civilized society. There is already strong evidence that we are on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and non-consensual human experimentation. Although the real problem lies within people’ hearts and minds, the legal problems of protecting life stem from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, where the court usurped the state’s authority over abortion.
court
Introducing The Sanity Of Life Act And The Taxpayer Freedom Of Conscience Act
10 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 21:3
One of the bills I am introducing today, the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, reverses some of the damage done by Roe v. Wade. The Sanctity of Life Act provides that the federal courts of the United States, up to and including the Supreme Court, do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases. Congress must use the authority granted to it in Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution to rein in rogue federal judges from interfering with a state’s ability to protect unborn life.
court
Introducing The Sanity Of Life Act And The Taxpayer Freedom Of Conscience Act
10 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 21:4
In addition to restricting federal court jurisdiction over abortion, Congress must stop the unconstitutional practice of forcing Americans to subsidize abortion providers. It is not enough to say that “family planning” groups may not use federal funds to perform or promote abortion. After all, since money is fungible, federal funding of any activities of these organizations forces taxpayers to underwrite the organizations abortion activities. This is why I am also introducing the Taxpayer Freedom of Conscience Act. The Taxpayer Freedom of Conscience Act prohibits any federal official from expending any federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, it is “sinful and tyrannical” to force the American taxpayers to subsidize programs and practices they find morally abhorrent.
court
Regulating The Airwaves
16 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 22:16
Even the proponents of the commercial speech doctrine agreed that the Federal Government should never restrict political speech. Yet, this Congress, this administration, and this Supreme Court have restricted political speech with the campaign finance reform law. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice has indicated it will use the war against terrorism to monitor critics of the administration’s foreign policy, thus chilling anti-war political speech. Of course, on many college campuses students have to watch what they say lest they run afoul of the rules of “political correctness.” Even telling a “politically incorrect” joke can bring a student up on charges before the thought police. Now, self-proclaimed opponents of political correctness want to use Federal power to punish colleges that allow the expression of views they consider “unpatriotic” and/or punish colleges when the composition of the facility does not meet their definition of diversity.
court
Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo
April 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 34:8
Eventually, government medicine surely will ignore the concern for a single patient as a person, and instead a computer program and cost analysis will make the determination. It will be said to be more efficient, though morally unjustified, to allow a patient to die by court order rather than permitting family and friends to assume responsibility for the cost of keeping patients alive.
court
Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo
April 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 34:10
More importantly, where are those who rightfully condemn congressional meddling in the Schiavo case-- because of federalism and separation of powers-- on the issue of abortion? These same folks strongly defend Roe vs. Wade and the so-called constitutional right to abort healthy human fetuses at any stage. There’s no hesitation to demand support of this phony right from both Congress and the federal courts. Not only do they demand federal legal protection for abortion, they insist that abortion foes be forced to fund this act that many of them equate with murder.
court
Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo
April 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 34:18
The one issue generally ignored in the Schiavo debate is the subtle influence the cost of care for the dying had on the debate. Government paid care clouds the issue, and it must be noted that the courts ruled out any privately paid care for Terri. It could be embarrassing in a government-run nursing home to see some patients receiving extra care from families while others are denied the same. However, as time goes on, the economics of care will play even a greater role since under socialized medicine the state makes all the decisions based on affordability. Then there will be no debate as we just witnessed in the case of Terri Schiavo.
court
Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo
April 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 34:19
Having practiced medicine in simpler times, agonizing problems like we just witnessed in this case did not arise. Yes, similar medical decisions were made and have been made for many, many years. But lawyers weren’t involved, nor the courts nor the legislators nor any part of the government-- only the patient, the patient’s family, and the doctor. No one would have dreamed of making a federal case of the dying process.
court
The American Justice For American Citizens Act
14 April 2005 2005 Ron Paul 41:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the American Justice for American Citizens Act, which exercises Congress’s Constitutional authority to regulate the federal judiciary to ensure that federal judges base their decisions solely on American Constitutional, statutory, and traditional common law. Federal judges increasing practice of “transjudicialism” makes this act necessary. Transjudicialism is a new legal theory that encourages judges to disregard American law, including the United States Constitution, and base their decisions on foreign law. For example, Supreme Court justices have used international law to justify upholding race-based college admissions, overturning all state sodomy laws, and, most recently, to usurp state authority to decide the age at which criminals becomes subject to the death penalty.
court
The American Justice For American Citizens Act
14 April 2005 2005 Ron Paul 41:2
In an October 28, 2003 speech before the Southern Center for International Studies in Atlanta, Georgia, Justice O’Connor stated: “[i]n ruling that consensual homosexual activity in one’s home is constitutionally protected, the Supreme Court relied in part on a series of decisions from the European Court of Human Rights. I suspect that with time, we will rely increasingly on international and foreign law in resolving what now appear to be domestic issues, as we both appreciate more fully the ways in which domestic issues have an international dimension, and recognize the rich resources available to us in the decisions of foreign courts.”
court
The American Justice For American Citizens Act
14 April 2005 2005 Ron Paul 41:5
All federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, take an oath to obey and uphold the Constitution. The Constitution was ordained and ratified by the people of the United States to provide a charter of governance in accord with fixed and enduring principles, not to empower federal judges to impose the transnational legal elites’ latest theories on the American people.
court
The American Justice For American Citizens Act
14 April 2005 2005 Ron Paul 41:6
Mr. Speaker, the drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the power to regulate the jurisdiction of federal courts precisely so we could intervene when the federal judiciary betrays its responsibility to uphold the Constitution and American law. Congress has a duty to use this power to ensure that judges base their decisions solely on American law.
court
Federalizing Abortion Law
27 April 2005 2005 Ron Paul 42:5
This federalizing may have the effect of nationalizing a law with criminal penalties which may be less than those desired by some States. To the extent the Federal and State laws could co-exist, the necessity for a Federal law is undermined and an important bill of rights protection is virtually obliterated. Concurrent jurisdiction crimes erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the Federal Government and a State government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of the unconstitutionally expanding the Federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for Federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.
court
Federalizing Abortion Law
27 April 2005 2005 Ron Paul 42:6
We have been reminded by both Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese that more Federal crimes, while they make politicians feel good, are neither constitutionally sound nor prudent. Rehnquist has stated that “The trend to federalize crimes that traditionally have been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system.” Meese stated that Congress’s tendency in recent decades to make Federal crimes out of offenses that have historically been State matters has dangerous implications both for the fair administration of justice and for the principle that States are something more than mere administrative districts of a Nation governed mainly from Washington.
court
Federalizing Abortion Law
27 April 2005 2005 Ron Paul 42:8
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions. An inadequate Federal law, or an “adequate” Federal law improperly interpreted by the Supreme Court, preempts States’ rights to adequately address public health concerns. Roe v. Wade should serve as a sad reminder of the danger of making matters worse in all States by federalizing an issue.
court
Introducing The “American Citizenship Amendment”
28 April 2005 2005 Ron Paul 44:2
Thus far the U.S. courts have asserted authority by interpreting the 14th Amendment to include the concept of birthright citizenship. However it is up to the U.S. Congress — and not the U.S. Supreme Court — to define American citizenship. That is why, I am introducing this Constitutional Amendment clarifying that the happenstance of birth on U.S. soil does not a U.S. citizen make.
court
Republicans Should Not Support a UN Court
May 4, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 45:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. The idea that the United States Congress should demand that Nigeria deport a former president of Liberia to stand trial in a United Nations court in Liberia is absurd!
court
Republicans Should Not Support a UN Court
May 4, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 45:2
I do not object to this legislation because I dispute the charges against Charles Taylor. Frankly, as a United States Congressman my authority does not extend to deciding whether a foreign leader has committed crimes in his own county. The charges may well be true. I do, however, dispute our authority as the United States Congress to demand that a foreign country transfer a former leader of a third country back to that country to stand trial before a United Nations kangaroo court.
court
Republicans Should Not Support a UN Court
May 4, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 45:3
As the resolution itself cites, one top UN official, Jaques Klein, has already pronounced Taylor guilty, stating “Charles Taylor is a psychopath and a killer.” But the resolution concludes that “Congress urges the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to expeditiously transfer Charles Ghankay Taylor, former President of the Republic of Liberia, to the jurisdiction of the Special Court for Sierra Leone to undergo a fair and open trial…” So it is probably safe to guess what kind of “trial” this will be - a Soviet-style show trial. The United Nations has no business conducting trials for anyone, regardless of the individual or the crime. It is the business of Liberia and Nigeria to determine the fate of Charles Taylor.
court
Republicans Should Not Support a UN Court
May 4, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 45:4
If we in the United States wish to retain our own constitutional protections, we must be steadfast in rejecting the idea that a one-world court has jurisdiction over anyone, anywhere, regardless of how heinous the accusations. The sovereignty we undermine eventually will be our own.
court
Gang Deterrence And Community Protection Act
11 May 2005 2005 Ron Paul 47:2
H.R. 1279 broadly defines “criminal street gangs” and “gang activity.” This is a major expansion of Federal criminal jurisdiction. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese, two men who no one has ever accused of being “soft on crime,” have both warned that, although creating more Federal crimes may make politicians feel good, it is neither constitutionally sound nor prudent. Rehnquist has stated that, “[t]he trend to federalize crimes that traditionally have been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system.” Meese stated that Congress’s tendency in recent decades to make federal crimes out of offenses that have historically been state matters has dangerous implications both for the fair administration of justice and for the principle that states are something more than mere administrative districts of a nation governed mainly from Washington.
court
Introducing The Consumers Access To Health Information Act
12 May 2005 2005 Ron Paul 48:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to enhance the health and liberty of American citizens by introducing the Consumers Access to Health Information Act of 2005. This act ensures consumers can receive truthful information about how foods and dietary supplements can cure, mitigate, and prevent specific diseases. The act does this simply by correcting an erroneous court decision and thus restoring congressional intent to allow consumers to have access to information regarding the health benefits of dietary supplements without government interference.
court
Introducing The Consumers Access To Health Information Act
12 May 2005 2005 Ron Paul 48:3
Incredibly, in the case of Whitaker v. Thompson, 353 F.3d 947 (2004), rehearing den. 2004 U.S.D. App. LEXIS 4617 (D.C. Cir. March 9, 2004) the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit supported the FDA’s interpretation of Congress’s intent and rejected the clear restraints of the First Amendment by ruling that the FDA had the authority to censor information regarding the specific benefits of foods and dietary supplements.
court
Introducing The Consumers Access To Health Information Act
12 May 2005 2005 Ron Paul 48:4
Mr. Speaker, under the D.C. Circuit’s absurd interpretation of federal law, the only way food and drug manufacturers can transmit information about the health benefits of their products is by going through the lengthy and expensive FDA drug approval process. Because of this court decision, manufacturers are reluctant to provide all but the most general health information, thus ensuring that consumers remain ignorant about how they can cure or avoid diseases by making simple changes in their diet.
court
Introducing The Consumers Access To Health Information Act
12 May 2005 2005 Ron Paul 48:5
There are numerous examples of how the FDA’s grocery store censorship negatively impacts Americans’ health. Several years ago, the FDA dragged manufacturers of Cholestin, a dietary supplement containing lovastatin, which is helpful in lowering cholesterol, into court. The FDA did not dispute the benefits of Cholestin. Instead, the FDA attempted to deny consumers access to this helpful product simply because the manufacturer did not submit Cholestin to the FDA’s drug approval process.
court
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 62:3
There is perversity in using tax policy to reduce the numbers of frivolous lawsuits. Courts were developed in the first place to adjudicate impartially the relative merit of one person’s argument over another’s in a dispute. The controlling premise was that courts were best able to sort through facts and opposing arguments in specific cases and arrive at impartial resolutions.
court
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 62:4
Distrust in the courts has upset the delicate balance between the legislature and the judiciary. When judges pick and choose the laws they will or will not enforce; when they dictate new law from the bench; when their standard strays from the Constitution and looks to current popular thinking and foreign decisions; or when judges bow before the force of political money during confirmation re-election cycles; when those things happen, citizens lose confidence in the ability to achieve justice, and turn to the legislature for relief. Therein lies new danger.
court
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 62:5
Courts are uniquely suited to try the facts of particular cases. Legislatures are not. However, legislatures must react to concerns of constituents, and so they have sought solutions as Americans pressed them to weigh in on the perceived high volume of seemingly frivolous cases that drove up medical and other costs, and seemed to precipitate a downward spiral in quality of crucial services.
court
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 62:6
Attending these issues were actions of legislatures, courts, and executive branches of government. Take the case of Cynthia Spina, the Illinois Forest Preserve policewoman who won a judgment against her employer after a six-year sexual-harassment lawsuit. Instead of netting $300,000 after paying $1 million to her attorney, she was taxed $400,000 by the IRS. The law that made such travesty possible was promulgated in 1996 that differentiate between types of damages. Gone was the concept of damages being a monetary amount determined by a jury as the amount necessary to bring a plaintiff back to equilibrium. Justice is now a taxable event.
court
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 62:7
A new premise seems to permeate the land: That all plaintiffs are suspect, and likely to be greedy money-grubbers forwarding spurious complaints. Such a premise does a disservice to juries whose members receive negligible compensation for their services and to the vast majority of plaintiffs who turn to courts as a last resort.
court
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 62:8
Consider our case still pending in California. My partner and I appealed to the FBI and the SEC for alleged corporate malfeasance. We also alerted the public via the Internet. For our trouble, we, along with friends and family were sued personally for $60 million. The courts in California found we had done nothing wrong and further, that we were sued primarily to silence us.
court
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 62:9
In effect, the courts in California were used as a weapon to interfere with our rights to free speech. Along the way, this case resulted in a binding precedent extending First Amendment rights to the Internet. That precedent has been used all the way to the US Supreme Court as well as in several state supreme courts.
court
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 62:10
Left with hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills accumulated for our defense, we sought to recover through the courts. As we proceeded, we became aware of the Spina case, and feared that the same tax provisions could apply to us.
court
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 62:11
What we found was even more perverse. Spina’s debacle resulted because the attorney’s fee was charged as income to her, and then Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) was applied. In tax court, Spina pleaded the unfairness with the judge, who sympathized with her but said his hands were tied by the law (a fine time to be a strict constructionist! I think it intuitively obvious to the casual observer that a US government that taxes a citizen more than the citizen receives is breaking a Constitutional proscription somewhere!).
court
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 62:13
We soon learned of a difference in treatment depending upon residence. In Texas, the legislature had defined attorneys’ fees as belonging to attorneys, and therefore not taxable to plaintiffs. In Maine, no such determination had been made. Also, the Federal District court in which Texas lies had decided that damages were not subject to Alternative Minimum Taxes. The federal court district in which Maine lies had decided the opposite. As a result, the Maine plaintiffs could expect to realize an after-tax net that would have been an estimated 1/15 of the net that the Texas plaintiffs could have expected on the same estimated award. Ironically, all we plaintiffs in our case had been subjected to the exact same set of circumstances; we would have appeared together in the same court; and, if damages were awarded, they would have been determined by the exact same jury.
court
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 62:14
Enter the Supreme Court. In January, 2005, the Supreme Court issued a decision that decreed equal federal tax treatment among all plaintiffs across the breadth of the United States; that attorneys’ fees should be taxed to plaintiffs; and that Alternative Minimum Taxes apply. In effect, the Supreme Court’s decision put almost all plaintiffs in the same tax position as Spina. Taken to its logical and viable extreme, this decision puts civil courts off limits as an alternative to violence to resolve bona fide disputes.
court
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 62:16
Not so for us in our California case, and thousands of other plaintiffs also facing ruinous taxes after winning their cases. Clearly the courts in California were used as a weapon to infringe on our civil rights. However, in that underlying case, we were then defendants. When we filed suit to recover damages, the case was characterized differently and was no longer, technically, a civil rights case. Our dilemma had been to seek court assistance to recover, or face paying our legal expense for our own defense in the underlying case for years to come. It did not occur to us at the time we filed with the court that we could win and end up owing an even greater amount to the IRS.
court
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 62:17
That is the effect of the Supreme Court ruling. Because ours is technically not a civil rights case, we do not enjoy the benefits of the exemption inspired by the Spina case. We had properly appealed to our government for help, and the government has now placed us in a position where our own best interests are indeterminate, so we cannot settle (ironic, since the intent of most tort reform has been to encourage settlement). When a jury makes an award, the tax exposure will likely be ruinous. Another irony is that the higher the award, the greater our tax exposure. And we are middle-class citizens.
court
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 62:18
The basis on which the Supreme Court decided that attorneys’ fees are taxed as income to plaintiffs is that plaintiffs pay attorneys; that the amount they pay comes to them as a result of the award; that money to pay attorneys was something they did not have prior to the award, and therefore coming, as it would from the award, must be income. The rationale is held irrelevant (in contingency cases) that attorneys receive payment only if and after an actual award is received and that there is shared risk between plaintiff and attorney.
court
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 62:19
There is another problem with taxing awards as income, and this is even more poignant. As mentioned earlier, awards are a jury’s determination of the monetary equivalent of restoring a client to equilibrium (without consideration for tax consequences). By definition, plaintiffs owned that equivalent value prior to the need to seek court intervention and thus is not income.
court
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 62:21
Another major factor that should weigh in favor of plaintiffs and obviate taxes on awards is that courts, state legislatures, and Congress establish the rules under which a citizen seeks justice. A plaintiff going into court in pro per is in extreme jeopardy of losing over factors as innocuous as presenting the case in a form that violates local-court determined rules. When citizens are sued, they often have no choice but to retain the very best legal expertise possible. When they win their cases and are left with oppressive debt, they should have recourse to the courts for relief without incurring even more horrendous debt to the government. The idea is laughable that people would willingly choose to spend their hard-earned income and scarce time to be in court for recreation (i.e. the “pursuit of happiness”).
court
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 62:22
The concept of exemptions presents its own difficulties. By legislatively determining that some cases are entitled to favorable tax treatment over others, lawmakers are making judgments over the relative merits of cases in advance of either a judge or jury examining specific facts. On its face, such policy screams violation of Constitutional equal protection and equal access to the courts. Justice is no longer blind. And to the extent that such laws continue, the Federal government becomes complicit in chilling citizen participation on issues such as the ones in our case in California. Bad guys already know this, and they know that as a result, they can do bad things to good people with impunity. The combined branches of government have evolved those conditions.
court
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 62:25
Studying ways to include others in exemptions is self-defeating. There are too many circumstances to contemplate and leaves citizens with the dubious proposition of having to seek a legislative solution after having won in court. It further requires the impossible task of timing the court decision such that it is issued only after the passage of the legislation in order to be sure that the new law protects them (retroactivity is frowned upon in the House).
court
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 62:26
The real issues are: Should any legislature ever be deciding the relative merit of any civil dispute over any other civil dispute by creating rapacious tax laws and then establishing exemptions? (As soon as they do so, they create violations of equal protection and access.) Should the government ever be entitled to a share of what a jury has decided is the amount required to restore a plaintiff to equilibrium? (Every dollar taxed on an award is a dollar subtraction from that plaintiff’s restoration as determined by a jury after due deliberation over all facts pertinent to the case — justice becomes impossible as a practical and mathematical matter). Should attorneys’ fees be taxed to plaintiffs? (The government is going to tax that amount to the attorney. When the attorney is retained on a contingency basis, both attorney and plaintiff are entering into a transaction that is high risk with no gain for either unless they win at court. And, it is the courts, Congress, and state legislators that set the conditions under which requiring an attorney for any court proceeding is mandated as a practical matter for most citizens.)
court
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 62:30
As these things ate contemplated, a figurative call to arms is in order. Taxes imposed on individual citizens across the breadth of the original Thirteen Colonies in our early history were only a fraction of the burden thrust on individual contemporary citizens now carrying these burdens. These unjustly treated citizens already number in thousands; and their numbers will grow rapidly as the effects of the Supreme Court decision become felt.
court
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 62:32
Citizens that must contend with government taxes and tax collecting agencies of the government after prevailing in court are denied justice. Allowing them to negotiate to a reduced amount after the fact is neither justice nor a solution — it is a mockery and refutation of the most fundamental principles which gave birth to our great country and for which patriots gave their lives.
court
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 62:33
In contemplating concepts of taxing justice, it is appropriate to recall that plaintiffs seek court resolution as an alternative to violence; that they pay in advance for their “day in court” through normal taxes; that in entering the court, they demonstrate tremendous faith in their fellow citizens and government; that the aim of the court is to return prevailing plaintiffs to equilibrium; and that if plaintiffs are successful, they are entitled to an assumption of having brought a bona fide complaint. To require more is to delay justice, and in that regard, it is well to remember William Gladstone’s words: “Justice delayed is justice denied.”
court
Statement on the Flag Burning Amendment
June 22, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 71:3
It was stated earlier that this is the only recourse we have since the Supreme Court ruled the Texas law unconstitutional. That is not true. There are other alternatives.
court
Statement on the Flag Burning Amendment
June 22, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 71:4
One merely would be to use State law. There are a lot of State laws, such as laws against arson, disturbing the peace, theft, inciting riots, trespassing. We could deal with all of the flag desecration with these laws. But there is another solution that our side has used and pretends to want to use on numerous occasions, and that is to eliminate the jurisdiction of the federal courts. We did it on the marriage issue; we can do it right here.
court
Statement on the Flag Burning Amendment
June 22, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 71:10
Mr. Speaker, let me summarize my views on this proposed amendment. I have myself served 5 years in the military, and I have great respect for the symbol of our freedom. I salute the flag, and I pledge to the flag. I also support overriding the Supreme Court case that overturned state laws prohibiting flag burning. Under the constitutional principle of federalism, questions such as whether or not Texas should prohibit flag burning are strictly up to the people of Texas, not the United States Supreme Court. Thus, if this amendment simply restored the states’ authority to ban flag burning, I would enthusiastically support it.
court
Statement on the Flag Burning Amendment
June 22, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 71:24
We must be interested in the spirit of our Constitution. We must be interested in the principles of liberty. I therefore urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Instead, my colleagues should work to restore the rights of the individual states to ban flag burning, free from unconstitutional interference by the Supreme Court.
court
Congress Lacks Authority To Sell Unocal
30 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 82:3
If in the United States a private company does not have the right to be sold on the free market, should we really be criticizing the lack of freedom in China? Many conservatives who have decried the recent Supreme Court decision that severely undermines the principle of private property in the United States are now on the other side, cheering this blatant Congressional attempt to do something that may be even worse than Kelo vs. New London.
court
Amend The PATRIOT Act — Part 2
21 July 2005 2005 Ron Paul 88:10
H.R. 3199 continues to violate the constitution by allowing searches and seizures of American citizens and their property without a warrant issued by an independent court upon a finding of probable cause. The drafters of the Bill of Rights considered this essential protection against an overreaching government. For example, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, popularly known as the libraries provision, allows Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts, whose standards hardly meet the constitutional requirements of the Fourth Amendment, to issue warrants for individual records, including medical and library records. H.R. 3199 does reform this provision by clarifying that it can be used to acquire the records of an American citizen only during terrorist investigations. However, this marginal change fails to bring the section up to the constitutional standard of probable cause.
court
Don’t Reauthorize the Patriot Act
July 21, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 89:4
HR 3199 continues to violate the constitution by allowing searches and seizures of American citizens and their property without a warrant issued by an independent court upon a finding of probable cause. The drafters of the Bill of Rights considered this essential protection against an overreaching government. For example, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, popularly known as the library provision, allows Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts, whose standards hardly meet the constitutional requirements of the Fourth Amendment, to issue warrants for individual records, including medical and library records. HR 3199 does reform this provision by clarifying that it can be used to acquire the records of an American citizen only during terrorist investigations. However, this marginal change fails to bring the section up to the constitutional standard of probable cause.
court
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3132, Children’s Safety Act Pf 2005
14 September 2005 2005 Ron Paul 97:2
However, Mr. Chairman, I cannot support this bill because it infringes on the States’ constitutional authority over the prevention and punishment of sex crimes. The late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and former United States Attorney General Ed Meese, two men who no one has ever accused of being “soft on crime,” have both warned that, although creating more Federal crimes may make politicians feel good, it is neither constitutionally sound nor prudent. Rehnquist has stated that, “[t]he trend to federalize crimes that traditionally have been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system.” Meese stated that Congress’s tendency in recent decades to make Federal crimes out of offenses that have historically been State matters has dangerous implications both for the fair administration of justice and for the principle that States are something more than mere administrative districts of a nation governed mainly from Washington.
court
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3132, Children’s Safety Act Pf 2005
14 September 2005 2005 Ron Paul 97:4
Thus, once again we see how increasing the role of the Federal Government in fighting these crimes — even when it is well intended — only hamstrings local and State law enforcement officers and courts and prevents them from effectively dealing with such criminals as the locals would have them dealt with — harshly and finally.
court
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3132, Children’s Safety Act Pf 2005
14 September 2005 2005 Ron Paul 97:5
Mr. Chairman, Congress could both honor the Constitution and help States and local governments protect children by using our power to limit Federal jurisdiction to stop Federal judges from preventing States and local governments from keeping these criminals off the streets. My colleagues should remember that it was a Federal judge in a Federal court who ruled that the death penalty is inappropriate for sex offenders. Instead of endorsing a bill to let people know when a convicted child molester or rapist is in their neighborhood after being released, perhaps we should respect the authority of State courts and legislators to give child molesters and rapists the life or even death sentences, depending on the will of the people of those States.
court
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3132, Children’s Safety Act Pf 2005
14 September 2005 2005 Ron Paul 97:6
Just as the Founders never intended the Congress to create a national police force, they never intended the Federal courts to dictate criminal procedures to the States. The Founding Fathers knew quite well that it would be impossible for a central government to successfully manage crime prevention programs for as large and diverse a country as America. That is one reason why they reserved to the States the exclusive authority and jurisdiction to deal with crime. Our children would likely be safe today if the police powers and budgets were under the direct and total control of the States as called for in the Constitution.
court
Free Speech and Dietary Supplements
November 10, 2005 HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS 2005 Ron Paul 118:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Health Freedom Protection Act. This bill restores the First Amendment rights of consumers to receive truthful information regarding the benefits of foods and dietary supplements by codifying the First Amendment standards used by federal courts to strike down the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) efforts to censor truthful health claims. The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the Federal Trade Commissions (FTC) from censoring truthful health care claims.
court
Free Speech and Dietary Supplements
November 10, 2005 HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS 2005 Ron Paul 118:2
The American people have made it clear they do not want the federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements, yet the FDA and the FTC continue to engage in heavy-handed attempts to restrict such access. The FDA continues to frustrate consumers’ efforts to learn how they can improve their health even after Congress, responding to a record number of constituents’ comments, passed the Dietary Supplement and Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). FDA bureaucrats are so determined to frustrate consumer access to truthful information that they are even evading their duty to comply with four federal court decisions vindicating consumers’ First Amendment rights to discover the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements.
court
Free Speech and Dietary Supplements
November 10, 2005 HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS 2005 Ron Paul 118:6
The Health Freedom Protection Act will force the FDA to at last comply with the commands of Congress, the First Amendment, and the American people by codifying the First Amendment standards adopted by the federal courts. Specifically, the Health Freedom Protection Act stops the FDA from censoring truthful claims about the curative, mitigative, or preventative effects of dietary supplements, and adopts the federal court’s suggested use of disclaimers as an alternative to censorship. The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the FDA from prohibiting the distribution of scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in protecting against disease.
court
Introducing We The People
17 November 2005 2005 Ron Paul 122:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the We the People Act. The We the People Act forbids Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from adjudicating cases concerning State laws and polices relating to religious liberties or “privacy,” including cases involving sexual practices, sexual orientation or reproduction. The We the People Act also protects the traditional definition of marriage from judicial activism by ensuring the Supreme Court cannot abuse the equal protection clause to redefine marriage. In order to hold Federal judges accountable for abusing their powers, the act also provides that a judge who violates the act’s limitations on judicial power shall either be impeached by Congress or removed by the President, according to rules established by the Congress.
court
Introducing We The People
17 November 2005 2005 Ron Paul 122:2
The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower Federal courts and limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Founders intended Congress to use this authority to correct abuses of power by the federal judiciary.
court
Introducing We The People
17 November 2005 2005 Ron Paul 122:4
In recent years, we have seen numerous abuses of power by Federal courts. Federal judges regularly strike down State and local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion. This government by Federal judiciary causes a virtual nullification of the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on Federal power. Furthermore, when Federal judges impose their preferred polices on State and local governments, instead of respecting the polices adopted by those elected by, and thus accountable to, the people, republican government is threatened. Article IV, section 40 of the Untied States Constitution guarantees each State a republican form of government Thus, Congress must act when the executive or judicial branch threatens the republican governments of the individual States. Therefore, Congress has a responsibility to stop Federal judges from running roughshod over State and local laws. The Founders would certainly have supported congressional action to reign in Federal judges who tell citizens where they can and can’t place manger scenes at Christmas.
court
Introducing We The People
17 November 2005 2005 Ron Paul 122:5
Mr. Speaker, even some supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, which overturned the abortion laws of all 50 States, is flawed. The Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause jurisdiction has also drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. Perhaps more importantly, attempts to resolve, by judicial fiat, important issues like abortion and the expression of religious belief in the public square increase social strife and conflict The only way to resolve controversial social issues like abortion and school prayer is to restore respect for the right of State and local governments to adopt polices that reflect the beliefs of the citizens of those jurisdictions. I would remind my colleagues and the Federal judiciary that, under our Constitutional system, there is no reason why the people of New York and the people of Texas should have the same polices regarding issues such as marriage and school prayer.
court
Introducing We The People
17 November 2005 2005 Ron Paul 122:6
Unless Congress acts, a State’s authority to define and regulate marriage may be the next victim of activist judges. After all, such a decision would simply take the Supreme Court’s decision in the Lawrence case, which overturned all State sodomy laws, to its logical conclusion. Congress must launch a preemptive strike against any further Federal usurpation of the States’ authority to regulate marriage by removing issues concerning the definition of marriage from the jurisdiction of Federal courts.
court
The Blame Game
December 7, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 124:47
A policy that endorses peace over war, trade over sanctions, courtesy over arrogance, and liberty over coercion is in the tradition of the American Constitution and American idealism. It deserves consideration.
court
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:71
Others simply are in a State of denial. But the denial will come to an end as the Abramoff scandal reveals more and more. It eventually will expose the scandal of the ages, how and to what degree the American people have become indebted by the totally irresponsible spending habits of the U.S. Congress as encouraged by successive administrations, condoned by our courts, and enjoyed by the recipients of the largesse.
court
Introduction Of The Sunlight Rule
2 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 8:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously said, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” In order to shine sunlight on the practices of the House of Representatives, and thus restore public trust and integrity to this institution, I am introducing the sunlight rule, which amends House rules to ensure that Members have adequate time to study a bill before being asked to vote on it. One of the chief causes of increasing public cynicism regarding Congress is the way major pieces of legislation are brought to the floor without Members having an opportunity to read the bills. This is particularly a problem with the Appropriations conference reports, which are often rushed to the floor of the House in late-night sessions at the end of the year. For example, just this past December, the House voted on the Fiscal Year 2006 Defense Appropriations Conference Report at approximately 4 a.m. — just 4 hours after the report was filed. Yet, the report contained language dealing with avian flu, including controversial language regarding immunity liability for vaccine manufacturers, that was added in the House-Senate conference on the bill. Considering legislation on important issues in this manner is a dereliction of our duty as the people’s elected representatives.
court
Tribute To Calhoun High School
11 May 2006 2006 Ron Paul 34:4
We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution is a nationally acclaimed civic education program focusing on the history and principles of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. In addition to the requirements of the standard government class, students in this program must master a rigorous curriculum in the background and philosophy of the U.S. Constitution. They participate in oral assessment that involves both prepared and extemporaneous responses to challenging questions. In this nationwide competition, students play the role of “experts in the Constitution,” testifying before a mock Congressional hearing. Among other criteria, students are evaluated on their depth of knowledge, ability to apply academic data to current problems, and understanding of landmark Supreme Court cases. Teams of three students each present a four-minute prepared testimony to answer questions they have researched all semester, and then they respond to extemporaneous follow- up questions from the judges for another six minutes. Judges at the state contest include practicing attorneys, university professors, historians, and legislative staff members.
court
Introduction Of The We The People Act
29 June 2006 2006 Ron Paul 51:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the We the People Act. The We the People Act forbids federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from adjudicating cases concerning state laws and polices relating to religious liberties or “privacy,” including cases involving sexual practices, sexual orientation or reproduction. The We the People Act also protects the traditional definition of marriage from judicial activism by ensuring the Supreme Court cannot abuse the equal protection clause to redefine marriage. In order to hold federal judges accountable for abusing their powers, the act also provides that a judge who violates the act’s limitations on judicial power shall either be impeached by Congress or removed by the president, according to rules established by the Congress.
court
Introduction Of The We The People Act
29 June 2006 2006 Ron Paul 51:2
The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Founders intended Congress to use this authority to correct abuses of power by the federal judiciary.
court
Introduction Of The We The People Act
29 June 2006 2006 Ron Paul 51:4
In recent years, we have seen numerous abuses of power by federal courts. Federal judges regularly strike down state and local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion. This government by federal judiciary causes a virtual nullification of the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on federal power. Furthermore, when federal judges impose their preferred polices on state and local governments, instead of respecting the polices adopted by those elected by, and thus accountable to, the people, republican government is threatened. Article IV, section 4 of the United States Constitution guarantees each state a republican form of government. Thus, Congress must act when the executive or judicial branch threatens the republican governments of the individual states. Therefore, Congress has a responsibility to stop federal judges from running roughshod over state and local laws. The Founders would certainly have supported congressional action to reign in federal judges who tell citizens where they can and can’t place manger scenes at Christmas.
court
Introduction Of The We The People Act
29 June 2006 2006 Ron Paul 51:5
Mr. Speaker, even some supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, which overturned the abortion laws of all fifty states, is flawed. The Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause jurisdiction has also drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. Perhaps more importantly, attempts to resolve, by judicial fiat, important issues like abortion and the expression of religious belief in the public square increase social strife and conflict. The only way to resolve controversial social issues like abortion and school prayer is to restore respect for the right of state and local governments to adopt polices that reflect the beliefs of the citizens of those jurisdictions. I would remind my colleagues and the federal judiciary that, under our Constitutional system, there is no reason why the people of New York and the people of Texas should have the same polices regarding issues such as marriage and school prayer.
court
Introduction Of The We The People Act
29 June 2006 2006 Ron Paul 51:6
Unless Congress acts, a state’s authority to define and regulate marriage may be the next victim of activist judges. After all, such a decision would simply take the Supreme Court’s decision in the Lawrence case, which overturned all state sodomy laws, to its logical conclusion. Congress must launch a preemptive strike against any further federal usurpation of the states’ authority to regulate marriage by removing issues concerning the definition of marriage from the jurisdiction of federal courts.
court
Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act
11 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 53:10
In addition to being unconstitutional, H.R. 4411 is likely to prove ineffective at ending Internet gambling. Instead, this bill will ensure that gambling is controlled by organized crime. History, from the failed experiment of prohibition to today’s futile “war on drugs,” shows that the government cannot eliminate demand for something like Internet gambling simply by passing a law. Instead, H.R. 4411 will force those who wish to gamble over the Internet to patronize suppliers willing to flaunt the ban. In many cases, providers of services banned by the government will be members of criminal organizations. Even if organized crime does not operate Internet gambling enterprises their competitors are likely to be controlled by organized crime. After all, since the owners and patrons of Internet gambling cannot rely on the police and courts to enforce contracts and resolve other disputes, they will be forced to rely on members of organized crime to perform those functions. Thus, the profits of Internet gambling will flow into organized crime. Furthermore, outlawing an activity will raise the price vendors are able to charge consumers, thus increasing the profits flowing to organized crime from Internet gambling. It is bitterly ironic that a bill masquerading as an attack on crime will actually increase organized crime’s ability to control and profit from Internet gambling.
court
Marriage Protection Amendment
18 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 58:3
If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’s constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state. This Congress, I am an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, H.R. 1100, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts’ jurisdiction. If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state.
court
Marriage Protection Amendment
18 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 58:4
Having studied this issue and consulted with leading legal scholars, including an attorney who helped defend the Boy Scouts against attempts to force the organization to allow gay men to serve as scoutmasters, I am convinced that both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act can survive legal challenges and ensure that no state is forced by a federal court’s or another state’s actions to recognize same sex marriage. Therefore, while I am sympathetic to those who feel only a constitutional amendment will sufficiently address this issue, I respectfully disagree. I also am concerned that the proposed amendment, by telling the individual states how their state constitutions are to be interpreted, is a major usurpation of the states’ power. The division of power between the federal government and the states is one of the virtues of the American political system. Altering that balance endangers self-government and individual liberty. However, if federal judges wrongly interfere and attempt to compel a state to recognize the marriage licenses of another state, that would be the proper time for me to consider new legislative or constitutional approaches.
court
Marriage Protection Amendment
18 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 58:8
Ironically, liberal social engineers who wish to use federal government power to redefine marriage will be able to point to the constitutional marriage amendment as proof that the definition of marriage is indeed a federal matter! I am unwilling either to cede to federal courts the authority to redefine marriage, or to deny a state’s ability to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. Instead, I believe it is time for Congress and state legislatures to reassert their authority by refusing to enforce judicial usurpations of power.
court
H.R. 5068, the Export-Import Reauthorization Act
25 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 69:8
Unfortunately, China is not an isolated case. Colombia and Sudan benefit from taxpayer subsidized trade as well, courtesy of the Ex-Im Bank. At a time when the Federal Government is running huge deficits and Congress is once again preparing to raid Social Security and Medicare trust funds, does it really make sense to use taxpayers’ funds to benefit future Enrons, Fortune 500 companies, and Communist China?
court
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 74:81
I find it amazing that we in this country seem determined to completely separate religious expression and the state, even to the detriment of the first amendment, yet we can say little about how Christian and Jewish religious beliefs greatly influence our policies in the Middle East? It should be the other way around. Religious expression, according to the First Amendment, cannot be regulated anywhere by Congress or the Federal courts. But deeply held theological beliefs should never dictate our foreign policy. Being falsely accused of anti- Semitism and being a supporter of radical fascism is not an enviable position for any politician. Most realize it is best to be quiet and support our Middle East involvement.
court
Overstepping Constitutional Authority
26 September 2006 2006 Ron Paul 86:5
This federalizing may have the effect of nationalizing a law with criminal penalties which may be less than those desired by some States. To the extent the Federal and State laws could co-exist, the necessity for a Federal law is undermined and an important bill of rights protection is virtually obliterated. Concurrent jurisdiction crimes erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the Federal Government and a State government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the Federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for Federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.
court
Overstepping Constitutional Authority
26 September 2006 2006 Ron Paul 86:6
We have been reminded by both Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese that more Federal crimes, while they make politicians feel good, are neither constitutionally sound nor prudent. Rehnquist has stated that “The trend to federalize crimes that traditionally have been handled in State courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our Federal system.” Meese stated that Congress’ tendency in recent decades to make Federal crimes out of offenses that have historically been State matters has dangerous implications both for the fair administration of justice and for the principle that States are something more than mere administrative districts of a nation governed mainly from Washington.
court
Overstepping Constitutional Authority
26 September 2006 2006 Ron Paul 86:8
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions. An inadequate Federal law, or an “adequate” Federal law improperly interpreted by the Supreme Court, preempts States’ rights to adequately address public health concerns. Roe v. Wade should serve as a sad reminder of the danger of making matters worse in all States by federalizing an issue.
court
President Would Define Enemy Combatants
27 September 2006 2006 Ron Paul 88:2
Mr. Speaker, this legislation will fundamentally change our country. It will establish a system whereby the President of the United States can determine unilaterally that an individual is an “unlawful enemy combatant” and subject to detention without access to court appeal. What is most troubling is that nothing in the bill would prevent a United States citizen from being named an “enemy combatant” by the President and thus possibly subject to indefinite detention. Congress is making an enormous mistake in allowing such power to be concentrated in one person.
court
President Would Define Enemy Combatants
27 September 2006 2006 Ron Paul 88:4
This legislation eliminates habeas corpus for alien unlawful enemy combatants detained under this act. Those thus named by the President will have no access to the courts to dispute the determination and detention. We have already seen numerous examples of individuals detained by mistake, who were not involved in terrorism or anti-American activities. This legislation will deny such individuals the right to challenge their detention in the court. Certainly we need to prosecute those who have committed crimes against the United States, but we also need to be sure that those we detain are legitimately suspect.
court
Warrantless Wiretaps
28 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 91:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, Congress is once again rushing to abandon its constitutional duty to protect the constitution balance between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government by expanding the executive’s authority to conduct warrantless wiretaps without approval from either a regular federal court or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court. Congress’s refusal to provide any effective checks on the warrantless wiretapping program is a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment and is not necessary to protect the safety of the American people. In fact, this broad grant of power to conduct unchecked surveillance may undermine the government’s ability to identify threats to American security.
court
Warrantless Wiretaps
28 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 91:4
Mr. Speaker, I do not deny that there may be certain circumstances justifying warrantless wiretapping. However, my colleagues should consider that current law allows for warrantless wiretapping in emergency situations as long as a “retroactive” warrant is sought within 72 hours of commencing the surveillance or the warrantless surveillance commences within 15 days after Congress declares war. If there are legitimate reasons why the current authorization for warrantless wiretapping is inadequate, then perhaps Congress should extend the time allowed to wiretap before applying to the FISA court for a “retroactive” warrant. This step could enhance security without posing the dangers to liberty and republican government contained in H.R. 5825.
court
Warrantless Wiretaps
28 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 91:5
The requirement that, except in extraordinary circumstances, a warrant be obtained from the FISA court does not obstruct legitimate surveillance efforts. It is my understanding that FISA judges act very quickly to consider applications for search warrants, even if the applications are faxed to their houses at three in the morning. Applications for FISA warrants are rarely rejected. In 2005, the administration applied for 2,074 warrants from the FISA court. Of those 2 where voluntarily withdrawn and 63 where approved with modifications; the rest were approved. The FISA court only rejected four applications for warrants in the past four years; and one of those rejected warrants was subsequently partially approved.
court
SAFE Ports Act
29 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 94:2
I have long opposed The Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act since the federal government has no constitutional authority to ban or even discourage any form of internet gambling. In addition to being unconstitutional, this provision is likely to prove ineffective at ending internet gambling. Instead, by passing law proportion to ban internet gambling Congress will ensure that gambling is controlled by organized crime. History, from the failed experiment of prohibition to today’s futile “war on drugs,” shows that the government cannot eliminate demand for something like internet gambling simply by passing a law. Instead, this provision will force those who wish to gamble over the internet to patronize suppliers willing to flaunt the ban. In many cases, providers of services banned by the government will be members of criminal organizations. Even if organized crime does not operate internet gambling enterprises their competitors are likely to be controlled by organized crime. After all, since the owners and patrons of internet gambling cannot rely on the police and courts to enforce contracts and resolve other disputes, they will be forced to rely on members of organized crime to perform those functions. Thus, the profits of internet gambling will flow into organized crime. Furthermore, outlawing an activity will raise the price vendors are able to charge consumers, thus increasing the profits flowing to organized crime from internet gambling. It is bitterly ironic that a bill masquerading as an attack on crime will actually increase organized crime’s ability to control and profit from internet gambling!
court
Introducing We The People
5 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 9:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the We the People Act. The We the People Act forbids federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from adjudicating cases concerning state laws and polices relating to religious liberties or “privacy,” including cases involving sexual practices, sexual orientation or reproduction. The We the People Act also protects the traditional definition of marriage from judicial activism by ensuring the Supreme Court cannot abuse the equal protection clause to redefine marriage. In order to hold federal judges accountable for abusing their powers, the act also provides that a judge who violates the act’s limitations on judicial power shall either be impeached by Congress or removed by the president, according to rules established by the Congress.
court
Introducing We The People
5 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 9:2
The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Founders intended Congress to use this authority to correct abuses of power by the federal judiciary.
court
Introducing We The People
5 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 9:4
In recent years, we have seen numerous abuses of power by Federal courts. Federal judges regularly strike down state and local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion. This government by Federal judiciary causes a virtual nullification of the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on federal power. Furthermore, when federal judges impose their preferred polices on state and local governments, instead of respecting the polices adopted by those elected by, and thus accountable to, the people, republican government is threatened. Article IV, section 4 of the Untied States Constitution guarantees each state a republican form of government. Thus, Congress must act when the executive or judicial branch threatens the republican governments of the individual states. Therefore, Congress has a responsibility to stop Federal judges from running roughshod over state and local laws. The Founders would certainly have supported congressional action to reign in Federal judges who tell citizens where they can and can’t place manger scenes at Christmas.
court
Introducing We The People
5 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 9:5
Madam Speaker, even some supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, which overturned the abortion laws of all fifty states, is flawed. The Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause jurisdiction has also drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. Perhaps more importantly, attempts to resolve, by judicial fiat, important issues like abortion and the expression of religious belief in the public square increase social strife and conflict. The only way to resolve controversial social issues like abortion and school prayer is to restore respect for the right of state and local governments to adopt policies that reflect the beliefs of the citizens of those jurisdictions. I would remind my colleagues and the federal judiciary that, under our Constitutional system, there is no reason why the people of New York and the people of Texas should have the same policies regarding issues such as marriage and school prayer.
court
Introducing We The People
5 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 9:6
Unless Congress acts, a state’s authority to define and regulate marriage may be the next victim of activist judges. After all, such a decision would simply take the Supreme Court’s decision in the Lawrence case, which overturned all state sodomy laws, to its logical conclusion. Congress must launch a preemptive strike against any further federal usurpation of the states’ authority to regulate marriage by removing issues concerning the definition of marriage from the jurisdiction of federal courts.
court
Introducing The Sunlight Rule
12 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 15:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously said, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” In order to shine sunlight on the practices of the House of Representatives, and thus restore public trust and integrity to this institution, I am introducing the sunlight rule, which amends House rules to ensure that members have adequate time to study a bill before being asked to vote on it. One of the chief causes of increasing public cynicism regarding Congress is the way major pieces of legislation are brought to the floor without members having an opportunity to read the bills. For example, concerns have been raised that in the opening days of the 110th Congress, legislation dealing with important topics such as national security are being brought to the floor before members have had an opportunity to adequately study the legislation.
court
Mr. Bush, Meet Walter Jones
17 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 18:15
Any doubt how Attorney General Gonzales would come down on those “legal questions”? Any doubt how the Supreme Court would rule?
court
Introduction Of The Liberty Amendment
7 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 24:2
The 16th Amendment gives the federal government a direct claim on the lives of American citizens by enabling Congress to levy a direct income tax on individuals. Until the passage of the 16th amendment, the Supreme Court had consistently held that Congress had no power to impose an income tax.
court
Introducing The Sanctity Of Life Act And The Taxpayer Freedom Of Conscience Act
15 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 31:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce two bills relating to abortion. These bills stop the federal government from promoting abortion. My bills accomplish this goal by prohibiting federal funds from being used for population control or “family planning” through exercising Congress’s constitutional power to restrict federal court’s jurisdiction by restoring each state’s authority to protect unborn life.
court
Introducing The Sanctity Of Life Act And The Taxpayer Freedom Of Conscience Act
15 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 31:2
Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age. The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty. Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or contempt determines the outcome of that civilization. Reaffirming the importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the continuation of a civilized society. There is already strong evidence that we are on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and non-consensual human experimentation. Although the real problem lies within people’ hearts and minds, the legal problems of protecting life stem from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, where the court usurped the state’s authority over abortion.
court
Introducing The Sanctity Of Life Act And The Taxpayer Freedom Of Conscience Act
15 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 31:3
One of the bills I am introducing today, the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, reverses some of the damage done by Roe v. Wade. The Sanctity of Life Act provides that the federal courts of the United States, up to and including the Supreme Court, do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases. Congress must use the authority granted to it in Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution to rein in rogue federal judges from interfering with a state’s ability to protect unborn life.
court
Introducing The Sanctity Of Life Act And The Taxpayer Freedom Of Conscience Act
15 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 31:4
In addition to restricting federal court jurisdiction over abortion, Congress must stop the unconstitutional practice of forcing Americans to subsidize abortion providers. It is not enough to say that “family planning” groups may not use federal funds to perform or promote abortion. After all, since money is fungible, federal funding of any activities of these organizations forces taxpayers to underwrite the organizations abortion activities. This is why I am also introducing the Taxpayer Freedom of Conscience Act. The Taxpayer Freedom of Conscience Act prohibits any federal official from expending any federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, it is “sinful and tyrannical” to force the American taxpayers to subsidize programs and practices they find morally abhorrent.
court
Introduction Of The health Freedom Protection Act
2 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 49:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Health Freedom Protection Act. This bill restores the First Amendment rights of consumers to receive truthful information regarding the benefits of foods and dietary supplements by codifying the First Amendment standards used by Federal courts to strike down the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) efforts to censor truthful health claims. The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the Federal Trade Commissions (FTC) from censoring truthful health care claims.
court
Introduction Of The health Freedom Protection Act
2 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 49:2
The American people have made it clear they do not want the Federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements, yet the FDA and the FTC continue to engage in heavy-handed attempts to restrict such access. The FDA continues to frustrate consumers’ efforts to learn how they can improve their health even after Congress, responding to a record number of constituents’ comments, passed the Dietary Supplement and Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). FDA bureaucrats are so determined to frustrate consumers’ access to truthful information that they are even evading their duty to comply with four Federal court decisions vindicating consumers’ First Amendment rights to discover the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements.
court
Introduction Of The health Freedom Protection Act
2 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 49:6
The Health Freedom Protection Act will force the FDA to at last comply with the commands of Congress, the First Amendment, and the American people by codifying the First Amendment standards adopted by the Federal courts. Specifically, the Health Freedom Protection Act stops the FDA from censoring truthful claims about the curative, mitigative, or preventative effects of dietary supplements, and adopts the Federal court’s suggested use of disclaimers as an alternative to censorship. The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the FDA from prohibiting the distribution of scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in protecting against disease.
court
Introducing The Sanctity Of Life Act
6 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 58:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Sanctity of Life Act. The Sanctity of Life Act provides that the Federal courts of the United States, up to and including the Supreme Court, do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases. The legislation also clarifies that State and local courts do not have to treat Federal cases overturning State abortion laws as binding precedent.
court
Introducing The Sanctity Of Life Act
6 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 58:2
Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age. The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty. Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or contempt determines the outcome of that civilization. Reaffirming the importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the continuation of a civilized society. There is already strong evidence that we are on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and non-consensual human experimentation. Although the real problem lies within people’s hearts and minds, the legal problems of protecting life stem from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, where the court usurped the State’s authority over abortion. Congress can, and should, take a major step toward restoring respect for all life by using the authority granted to it in Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution to rein in rogue Federal judges from interfering with a State’s ability to protect unborn life.
court
Introduction Of The Honest Money Act
15 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 64:9
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court failed to protect the American people from Congress’ unconstitutional legal tender laws. Supreme Court Justice, and Lincoln Treasury Secretary, Salmon Chase, writing in dissent in the legal tender cases, summed up the main reason why the Founders did not grant Congress the authority to pass legal tender laws: “The legal tender quality [of money] is only valuable for the purposes of dishonesty.” Justice Chase might have added dishonesty is perpetrated by State-favored interests on the average American.
court
Introduction Of The Honest Money Act
15 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 64:10
Another prescient Justice was Stephen Field, the only justice to dissent in every one of the legal tender cases to come before the Court. Justice Field accurately described the dangers to the constitutional republic posed by legal tender laws: “The arguments in favor of the constitutionality of legal tender paper currency tend directly to break down the barriers which separate a government of limited powers from a government resting in the unrestrained will of Congress. Those limitations must be preserved, or our government will inevitably drift from the system established by our Fathers into a vast, centralized and consolidated government.”
court
Introduction Of The Honest Money Act
15 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 64:11
Considering the growth of government since the Supreme Court joined Congress in disregarding the constitutional barriers to legal tender laws, can anyone doubt the accuracy of Justice Field’s words? Repeal of legal tender laws would restore constitutional government and protect the people’s right to use a currency chosen by the market because it serves the needs of the people, instead of having to use a currency chosen by the State because it serves the needs of power hungry politicians and special interests. Therefore, I urge my colleges to cosponsor the Honest Money Act.
court
Statement Introducing American Freedom Agenda Act Of 2007
15 October 2007 2007 Ron Paul 98:3
The legislation clarifies that no information shall be admitted as evidence if it is obtained from the defendant through the use of torture or coercion. It codifies the FISA process as the means by which foreign intelligence may be obtained and it gives members of the Senate and the House of Representatives standing in court to challenge presidential signing statements that declares the president’s intent to disregard certain aspects of a law passed in the U.S. Congress. It prohibits kidnapping and extraordinary rendition of prisoners to foreign countries on the president’s unilateral determination that the suspect is an enemy combatant. It defends the first amendment by clarifying that journalists are not to be prevented from publishing information received from the legislative or executive branch unless such publication would cause immediate, direct, and irreparable harm to the United States.
court
Statement Before the Joint Economic Committee
8 November 2007 2007 Ron Paul 103:4
Legislation such as the Zero Downpayment Act and the misnamed American Dream Downpayment Act made it possible for people who could not afford down payments on houses to receive assistance from the federal government, or even to pay no down payment at all, courtesy of the taxpayers. The requirement of a down payment has always helped to ascertain the ability of a buyer to pay off a mortgage. It requires the buyer to show hard work and thrift, the ability to delay present consumption in order to make a larger acquisition in the future.
court
Violent Radicalization And Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act
5 December 2007 2007 Ron Paul 106:4
This seems to be an unwise and dangerous solution in search of a real problem. Previous acts of ideologically-motivated violence, though rare, have been resolved successfully using law enforcement techniques, existing laws against violence and our court system. Even if there were a surge of “violent radicalization” — a claim for which there is no evidence — there is no reason to believe that our criminal justice system is so flawed and weak as to be incapable of trying and punishing those who perpetrate violent acts.
court
Introducing The Free Competition In Currency Act
13 December 2007 2007 Ron Paul 110:4
As a proponent of competition in currencies, I believe that the American people should be free to choose the type of currency they prefer to use. The ability of consumers to adopt alternative currencies can help to keep the Government and the Federal Reserve honest, as the threat that further inflation will cause more and more people to opt out of using the dollar may restrain the government from debasing the currency. As monopolists, however, the Federal Reserve and the Mint fear competition, and would rather force competitors out using the federal court system and the threat of asset forfeiture than compete in the market.
court
Statement of Ron Paul on H.R. 5104
30 January 2008 2008 Ron Paul 3:4
The Protect America Act sidelines the FISA Court system and places authority over foreign surveillance in the director of national intelligence and the attorney general with little if any oversight. While proponents of this legislation have argued that the monitoring of American citizens would still require a court-issued warrant, the bill only requires that subjects be “reasonably believed to be outside the United States.” Further, it does not provide for the Fourth Amendment protection of American citizens if they happen to be on the other end of the electronic communication where the subject of surveillance is a non-citizen overseas.
court
Statement on FISA Amendments
14 March 2008 2008 Ron Paul 15:6
This is what happens when we begin down the slippery slope of giving up our constitutional rights for the promise of more security. When we come to accept that the government can spy on us without a court order we have come to accept tyranny.
court
FISA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008
20 June 2008 2008 Ron Paul 38:3
In addition to gutting the fourth amendment, this measure will deprive Americans who have had their rights violated by telecommunication companies involved in the Administration’s illegal wiretapping program the right to seek redress in the courts for the wrongs committed against them. Worse, this measure provides for retroactive immunity, whereby individuals or organizations that broke the law as it existed are granted immunity for prior illegal actions once the law has been changed. Ex post facto laws have long been considered anathema in free societies under rule of law. Our Founding Fathers recognized this, including in Article I section 9 of the Constitution that “No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” How is this FISA bill not a variation of ex post facto? That alone should give pause to supporters of this measure.
court
Honoring Marshall Fritz
November 19, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 69:8
Anyone who knew Marshall and worked with him would not be surprised that he was able to forge a coalition of people of diverse views. Marshall’s focus was always on building alliances and trying to persuade those with whom he disagreed, rather than on scoring debating points. While he never compromised his principles and never hesitated to criticize even his closet allies if they took what he considered an anti-liberty position, Marshall never personalized disagreements and always treated his opponents with courtesy and respect. I believe the freedom movement would be more successful if more libertarians followed Marshall’s example of never turning policy disagreements into personal attacks.
court
The Austrians Are Right
November 20, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 71:4
At least 90% of the cause for the financial crisis can be laid at the doorstep of the Federal Reserve. It is the manipulation of credit, the money supply, and interest rates that caused the various bubbles to form. Congress added fuel to the fire by various programs and institutions like the Community Reinvestment Act, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, FDIC, and HUD mandates, which were all backed up by aggressive court rulings.
court
UNTITLED
10 December 2008 2008 Ron Paul 72:7
You know, in many ways, Harry Truman was a much more honest person. He said we should nationalize the steel industry, and he did. Fortunately, we still had a little bit of common sense in our courts, and they said “Hey, you’re going too far.” That’s what we’re doing here. We’re nationalizing. It happens always for good purposes, and we are always going to do good for this group, or that, but you never ask the question “How much harm have you done to the other group?” and that’s what we ought to be talking about. We ought to really find out what this is costing.
court
INTRODUCING WE THE PEOPLE
January 14, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 9:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the We the People Act. The We the People Act forbids federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from adjudicating cases concerning State laws and polices relating to religious liberties or “privacy,” including cases involving sexual practices, sexual orientation or reproduction. The We the People Act also protects the traditional definition of marriage from judicial activism by ensuring the Supreme Court cannot abuse the equal protection clause to redefine marriage. In order to hold Federal judges accountable for abusing their powers, the act also provides that a judge who violates the act’s limitations on judicial power shall either be impeached by Congress or removed by the President, according to rules established by the Congress.
court
INTRODUCING WE THE PEOPLE
January 14, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 9:2
The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower Federal courts and limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Founders intended Congress to use this authority to correct abuses of power by the Federal judiciary.
court
INTRODUCING WE THE PEOPLE
January 14, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 9:4
In recent years, we have seen numerous abuses of power by Federal courts. Federal judges regularly strike down State and local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion. This government by Federal judiciary causes a virtual nullification of the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on Federal power. Furthermore, when Federal judges impose their preferred polices on State and local governments, instead of respecting the polices adopted by those elected by, and thus accountable to, the people, republican government is threatened. Article IV, section 4 of the United States Constitution guarantees each State a republican form of government. Thus, Congress must act when the executive or judicial branch threatens the republican governments of the individual States. Therefore, Congress has a responsibility to stop Federal judges from running roughshod over State and local laws. The Founders would certainly have supported congressional action to reign in Federal judges who tell citizens where they can and can’t place manger scenes at Christmas.
court
INTRODUCING WE THE PEOPLE
January 14, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 9:5
Madam Speaker, even some supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, which overturned the abortion laws of all 50 States, is flawed. The Supreme Court’s establishment clause jurisdiction has also drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. Perhaps more importantly, attempts to resolve, by judicial fiat, important issues like abortion and the expression of religious belief in the public square increase social strife and conflict. The only way to resolve controversial social issues like abortion and school prayer is to restore respect for the right of State and local governments to adopt polices that reflect the beliefs of the citizens of those jurisdictions. I would remind my colleagues and the Federal judiciary that, under our constitutional system, there is no reason why the people of New York and the people of Texas should have the same policies regarding issues such as marriage and school prayer.
court
INTRODUCING WE THE PEOPLE
January 14, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 9:6
Unless Congress acts, a State’s authority to define and regulate marriage may be the next victim of activist judges. After all, such a decision would simply take the Supreme Court’s decision in the Lawrence case, which overturned all State sodomy laws, to its logical conclusion. Congress must launch a preemptive strike against any further Federal usurpation of the States’ authority to regulate marriage by removing issues concerning the definition of marriage from the jurisdiction of Federal courts.
court
STATEMENT ON INTRODUCING THE SUNLIGHT RULE
March 5, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 23:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously said, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” In order to shine sunlight on the practices of the House of Representatives, and thus restore public trust and integrity to this institution, I am introducing the sunlight rule, which amends House rules to ensure that members have adequate time to study a bill before being asked to vote on it. One of the chief causes of increasing public cynicism regarding Congress is the way major pieces of legislation are brought to the floor without members having an opportunity to read the bills. For example, the over-one-thousand page economic stimulus bill was first posted on the Internet at 12:30 a.m. the night before the vote. Obviously, this did not give individual members of Congress adequate time to review what is certainly one of, if not the, most significant pieces of legislation that Congress will consider this year.
court
INTRODUCTION OF THE LIBERTY AMENDMENT
April 30, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 50:2
The 16th Amendment gives the Federal government a direct claim on the lives of American citizens by enabling Congress to levy a direct income tax on individuals. Until the passage of the 16th amendment, the Supreme Court had consistently held that Congress had no power to impose an income tax.
court
INTRODUCING THE SANCTITY OF LIFE ACT
May 20, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 57:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the Sanctity of Life Act. This legislation provides that the federal courts of the United States, up to and including the Supreme Court, do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases. Since the Supreme Court invented a “right” to abortion in Roe v. Wade, federal judges have repeatedly thwarted efforts by democratically elected officials at the state and local level to protect the unborn.
court
INTRODUCING THE SANCTITY OF LIFE ACT
May 20, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 57:2
However, the federal courts have no legitimate authority to tell states and local communities what restrictions can and cannot be placed on abortion. Even some intellectually honest supporters of legalized abortion acknowledge that Roe v. Wade was incorrectly decided. Congress must use the authority granted to it in Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution to rein in rogue federal judges from interfering with a state’s ability to protect unborn life.
court
MISTAKES: JUST A FEW!
June 3, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 63:14
There’s no end in sight for secret prisons, special courts, ignoring the right of habeas corpus, no penalties for carrying out illegal torture and a new system of preventive detention. We continue to protect the concepts of state secrets and Presidential signing statements. We are enlarging Bagram prison in Afghanistan, and there’s no cessation of the senseless war on drugs.
court
INTRODUCING HEALTH FREEDOM LEGISLATION
July 29, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 87:2
The American people have made it clear they do not want the federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements, yet the FDA and the FTC continue to engage in heavy-handed attempts to restrict such access. The FDA continues to frustrate consumers’ efforts to learn how they can improve their health even after Congress, responding to a record number of constituents’ comments, passed the Dietary Supplement and Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). FDA bureaucrats are so determined to frustrate consumers’ access to truthful information that they are even evading their duty to comply with four federal court decisions vindicating consumers’ First Amendment rights to discover the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements.
court
INTRODUCING HEALTH FREEDOM LEGISLATION
July 29, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 87:6
The Health Freedom Act will force the FDA to at last comply with the commands of Congress, the First Amendment, numerous federal courts, and the American people by codifying the First Amendment prohibition on prior restraint. Specifically, the Health Freedom Act stops the FDA from censoring truthful claims about the curative, mitigative, or preventative effects of dietary supplements. The Health Freedom Act also stops the FDA from prohibiting the distribution of scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in protecting against disease. The FDA has proven that it cannot be trusted to protect consumers’ rights to make informed choices. It is time for Congress to stop the FDA from censoring truthful health information.
court
Statement Before Foreign Affairs Committee
December 10, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 103:8
The president’s top advisor for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, said recently, “I would say this about defining success in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In the simplest sense, the Supreme Court test for another issue, we’ll know it when we see it.” That does not inspire much confidence.
court
- Fear of IRS misplaced, real problem is the system
20 April 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1997 verse 24 ... Cached
We need not only a simpler, fairer system to eliminate the second problem I described, but also a smaller, more inexpensive agency responsible for collecting the taxes to solve the first. Finally, by making Congress directly responsible for the levy and collection of taxes - as constitutionally prescribed - the third problem vanishes by placing legal questions squarely in the hands of the legitimate federal court system. And best of all, Congressmen - the direct representatives of the people - become more accountable.
court
- Line-Item Veto violates separation of powers, threatens America's constitutional form of government
18 August 1997 Texas Straight Talk 18 August 1997 verse 12 ... Cached
Fortunately for our nation, I do not expect this issue to simply fade into the arsenal of power held by the president. One court challenge has only recently ended, with the people who brought the suit being told they had no case simply because the line-item veto had not yet be used, so no one had been injured and in need of judicial redress. The Constitution requires that an actual case or controversy exist prior to judicial consideration. This constitutional requirement will, however, be met and I will be quite surprised if those negatively affected by the president's use of the line item veto do not challenge the process as unconstitutional.
court
- Line-Item Veto violates separation of powers, threatens America's constitutional form of government
18 August 1997 Texas Straight Talk 18 August 1997 verse 13 ... Cached
Sadly, though, regardless of what the courts end up saying, the mere granting of this power has shaken our constitutional heritage of separated powers. The separation of powers in our nation is the hallmark of our form of government, and one attempt by the founders to safeguard individual liberty. The Constitution, and the arrangement of power in federal government, was designed deliberately and specifically and we must respect it, or risk jeopardizing the very foundations of our nation.
court
- By Any Other Name, A Tax Is Still A Tax
27 October 1997 Texas Straight Talk 27 October 1997 verse 9 ... Cached
But in the process of bringing the bill to the floor, the House leadership altered the legislation, adding language which, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, will increase taxes by more than a billion dollars over the next two years. The bill increases taxes by overturning a taxpayer-friendly tax court ruling on how businesses are taxed on pay-outs for employee vacation time. In short, the employer pays more taxes, the employee gets less money, and we all pay the cost in the prices at the cash register.
court
- President must withdraw troops from Bosnia
22 December 1997 Texas Straight Talk 22 December 1997 verse 20 ... Cached
Now the ball is squarely in the court of Congress, with the question being a simple one: Will we allow the President to permanently place US troops in harms way in a region where no US interests or security is threatened for the sake of playing the role of global cops? When Congress returns to session in January, we will doubtless have the opportunity to cut funding for this latest maneuver by the president. Until now Congress has merely acquiesced and let the president continue placing our soldiers in a perilous, ridiculous situation. But the time has come for Congress to act. We must reign in the president and bring our troops home before the situation deteriorates.
court
1998 is a new chance to change government for better
05 January 1998 Texas Straight Talk 05 January 1998 verse 11 ... Cached
I will also continue my work in promoting the popular HR 1146, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act. This measure represents a step toward halting the cessation of power from the federal government to international bodies such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization and the World Bank, by withdrawing the US from the UN. Under our Constitution, the federal government - including the President, the Congress and the courts - is not allowed to give away power and responsibility to these bodies, simply because the power is not theirs to give: Only the people have the power in our nation. Under the auspices of these international bodies, American boys have died in battle not for American interests, or in wars declared by Congress as the Constitution requires. With each of these senseless deaths - from Korea and Vietnam to Haiti and Bosnia - our national security is inherently and irreparably weakened.
court
Abortion and National Sovereignty: No Compromises
26 January 1998 Texas Straight Talk 26 January 1998 verse 3 ... Cached
On January 22, the United States observed the 25th Anniversary of the most controversial decision of the Supreme Court this century, the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion. But the issue is more complex than simply abortion; it has become a part of almost every policy decision in our federal government. And most especially in realm of foreign relations.
court
Constituent service is most important function
01 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 01 June 1998 verse 5 ... Cached
This is sometimes involves making a phone call, perhaps asking that the Veterans Administration send the proper forms to the widow of a veteran, or writing a letter, for example, asking for a delay of improper hearings before an IRS administrative court. But some casework can also involve having myself or a staff member make appearances at hearings, such as when I recently sent my Chief of Staff to Maryland to speak against the closing of a weather station in the district, which is an important issue to a great many people in the 14th District.
court
Religious freedom found in following Constitution
08 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 08 June 1998 verse 4 ... Cached
There is no doubt hostility exists -- and is growing -- against people of religious convictions, especially against those who consider themselves "conservative" or "fundamentalist." The hostility and discrimination is pervasive and routinely expressed in our courts.
court
Religious freedom found in following Constitution
08 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 08 June 1998 verse 6 ... Cached
The politically correct religion of our nation has become Secular Humanism; although equivalent to a religion, it is incorrectly passed off by our courts and schools as being neutral with respect to spiritual beliefs and is often used to fill the void by forced exclusion of other beliefs.
court
Religious freedom found in following Constitution
08 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 08 June 1998 verse 8 ... Cached
Our basic problem is not a lack of constitutional direction regarding the right of Americans to freely practice their religious beliefs; for the First Amendment is very clear. In reality, the problem has been that our courts are filled with judges who have no understanding, appreciation, or concern for the original intent of our Founding Fathers, or for the constitutional Doctrine of Enumerated Powers, or of property rights. And as long as this disgraceful condition exists, any new amendment to the Constitution will only be similarly abused. How can we expect judges, or even Members of Congress, to follow new constitutional amendments when they do not now follow anything currently existing in the Constitution?
court
Religious freedom found in following Constitution
08 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 08 June 1998 verse 11 ... Cached
The proposed amendment encouraged a government solution to the problem by allowing the federal government and federal courts to instruct states and local school districts on the use of their property -- in direct contrast to the original intent of Constitutional framers to protect against a strong central government and in support of state and local government.
court
Privacy tops agenda
09 November 1998 Texas Straight Talk 09 November 1998 verse 11 ... Cached
We were unsuccessful in stopping the Administration from implementing "roaming wiretaps." It has been the case up until now that the FBI or other agency can only tap those phone lines that are approved by a court once probable cause has been shown. While some (including myself) believe that the courts have been too liberal in allowing taps, at least there has been a passing acknowledgement that violating privacy, even of someone suspected of engaging in criminal activity, is not a trivial matter. Now, however, these agencies want the power to tap any phone a suspected criminal may use.
court
Privacy tops agenda
09 November 1998 Texas Straight Talk 09 November 1998 verse 12 ... Cached
How would this work? If someone you know is suspected by the government of doing something criminal, and that friend comes over for dinner, the FBI wants the authority to tap your line without a court order -- just in case the criminal uses your phone.
court
Free speech is good medicine
07 December 1998 Texas Straight Talk 07 December 1998 verse 15 ... Cached
Should a manufacturer produce an unsafe product -- whether it is a vehicle or a drug -- then injured consumers can take their grievance to civil court for redress. And if false claims are made in an attempt to get sales, the charge of fraud can be levied by those aggrieved.
court
A right to network TV?
08 February 1999 Texas Straight Talk 08 February 1999 verse 8 ... Cached
Most recently, in an attempt to protect the property rights of network program creators and affiliate local stations, a federal court in Florida properly granted an injunction to prevent the satellite service industry from making certain programming available to its customers. This is programming for which the satellite service providers had not secured from the program creator-owners the right to rebroadcast.
court
Get to know your banker
12 April 1999 Texas Straight Talk 12 April 1999 verse 5 ... Cached
A smirk because they knew what most Americans do not: most big banks already have "Know Your Customer" programs in place. The regulations by that name, proposed last December, would require banks to keep records on the spending and savings habits of every client, with any deviation at all being reported to the IRS, FBI, DEA and other government agencies as being "suspicious." Those agencies, in turn, would be able to freeze accounts and seize assets -- essentially destroying a person's life -- without there ever being a court order or proof of criminal wrongdoing.
court
Going from bad to worse
17 May 1999 Texas Straight Talk 17 May 1999 verse 7 ... Cached
Currently, liability and contract law is handled exclusively by the states. If someone is harmed (physically or economically) as a result of the action or inaction of another, they may seek recourse in state courts. It has rightly fallen to the states to determine how best to procedurally balance the rightful reparation for plaintiffs with the need to allow for reasonableness in the judgments against defendants.
court
Going from bad to worse
17 May 1999 Texas Straight Talk 17 May 1999 verse 10 ... Cached
Second, as experience has shown, federal "solutions" tend to dumb down a process, rather than encourage excellence. One need look only at that state of our schools to see the most practical example of that premise. In the arena of law, one can examine the results of the 1973 Roe v Wade decision, which took abortion law out of the purview of the states and gave it to the federal courts.
court
China is only winner in scandals
31 May 1999 Texas Straight Talk 31 May 1999 verse 7 ... Cached
One of the more troubling revelations is that the Justice Department refused wiretaps on the phone of a suspected Chinese spy. It is ironic because the Clinton Administration has long supported policies that would allow government agents to pry into all our financial records, computer usage and, yes, even tap our phones, without so much as a court order. So while the President and his appointees want an unlimited ability to spy on law-abiding citizens, they refuse to do much to protect our secrets from the communist Chinese.
court
Let liberty ring loudly
21 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 21 June 1999 verse 11 ... Cached
Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist has warned, "The trend to federalize crimes that traditionally have been handled in State courts threatens to change entirely the nature of our Federal system."
court
Flag Amendment is a reckless solution
28 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 28 June 1999 verse 5 ... Cached
More than a decade ago, an obnoxious man in Dallas decided to perform an ugly act: the desecration of an American flag in public. His action violated a little-known state law prohibiting desecration of the flag. He was tried in state court and found guilty.
court
Flag Amendment is a reckless solution
28 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 28 June 1999 verse 6 ... Cached
As always seems to be the case, though, the federal government intervened. After winding through the federal system, the Supreme Court -- in direct contradiction to the Constitution's 10th Amendment -- finally ruled against the state law.
court
Flag Amendment is a reckless solution
28 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 28 June 1999 verse 7 ... Cached
Since then Congress has twice tried to overturn more than 213 years of history and legal tradition by making flag desecration a federal crime. Just as surely as the Court was wrong in its disregard for the Tenth Amendment by improperly assigning the restrictions of the First Amendment to the states, so are attempts to federally restrict the odious (and very rare) practice of Americans desecrating the flag.
court
Flag Amendment is a reckless solution
28 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 28 June 1999 verse 12 ... Cached
For more than two centuries, it was the states that correctly handled the issue of flag desecration in a manner consistent with the principle of federalism. When the federal courts improperly intervened, many people understandably sought a solution to a very emotional issue. But the proposed solution to enlarge the federal government and tread down the path of restricting unpopular political expression, is incorrect, and even frightening.
court
Legalized theft
09 August 1999 Texas Straight Talk 09 August 1999 verse 16 ... Cached
When common thieves steal from us to get what they desire, they at least have the courtesy not to try to convince us it is for our benefit, nor return annually to do so.
court
Regulating gridiron prayer
13 September 1999 Texas Straight Talk 13 September 1999 verse 4 ... Cached
With the start of high school football season in the 14th Congressional District, many of my constituents are upset by the fact that a long-held tradition has been taken from them by the federal courts.
court
Punishing accidents, ignoring murder
20 September 1999 Texas Straight Talk 20 September 1999 verse 8 ... Cached
At the same time, though, the legislation requires that anyone else be charged with murder in federal court, even if their actions were accidental or there was no intent to kill. The notion of "intent" has been a basis for our criminal law for centuries. Someone who unintentionally causes harm or death must still bear some responsibility, but the law has always recognized a difference between willful and accidental action. Not under this legislation.
court
Cosponsored Bills
20 December 1999 Texas Straight Talk 20 December 1999 verse 6 ... Cached
Four bills that I cosponsored this year have actually passed through the House. Two of them were "Sense of Congress" resolutions. One of these expressed the opinion that no federal funds should go to the sacrilegious displays at the Brooklyn Museum of Art, and the other one stated that prayers and invocations at public school sporting events ought to be considered constitutional. This latter issue has been very important in Texas where a federal court ruled that prayer before a school football game was unconstitutional. The founding fathers would turn over in their graves if they knew that the constitution they gave us was interpreted by liberal judges as prohibiting a prayer at a local high school. This travesty must not stand, and the real solution, of course, is for the federal courts to keep their noses out of the business of local school districts.
court
Parental Control Key to Education Reform
24 January 2000 Texas Straight Talk 24 January 2000 verse 4 ... Cached
A recent Investor's Business Daily story told of parents across the nation who have become so frustrated with their lack of control over their children's education that they are taking school administrators to court! For example, parents in Plano, Texas are challenging the school district's intention to use textbooks relying on "connected math." These parents want their children taught traditional math, not the education establishment's latest fad. In a similar case, a mother in Fort Zumwalt, Missouri is suing the school district for not offering her autistic son the education program that she believes will enable him to reach his full potential.
court
Government Snoops Threaten Privacy
08 May 2000 Texas Straight Talk 08 May 2000 verse 6 ... Cached
Bill Clinton has been a terrible custodian of the public records with which he has been entrusted. He has allowed secrets to slip into the hands of the communist Chinese, but that is not all. This President has been found in violation of the Privacy Act by a federal court. Moreover, we all know the sad story of "filegate," when the White House improperly obtained private FBI files.
court
EPA Regulations Threaten Texas
26 June 2000 Texas Straight Talk 26 June 2000 verse 3 ... Cached
On Wednesday of this week, I voted in enthusiastic support of an amendment to an appropriations bill prohibiting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from using any taxpayer funds to designate certain areas as "ozone nonattainment areas." The amendment, which was introduced by Representatives Linder and Collins of Georgia, is needed to prevent the EPA from acting without regard to federal court decisions. Without Congressional action, counties in the 14th district of Texas (and many areas across America) could be designated as "non-attainment" areas, with dire consequences. Affected areas face the very serious loss of federal highway funds, as well as restrictions on local industries, changes to land use regulations, and reformulated gasoline requirements. The people of Texas do not need federal regulators determining our air standards, and this vote represents another step in my ongoing fight against unconstitutional and unbridled federal agencies.
court
EPA Regulations Threaten Texas
26 June 2000 Texas Straight Talk 26 June 2000 verse 4 ... Cached
The EPA, with typical bureaucratic arrogance, has acted without congressional authorization in creating its own standards for air quality. It created National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), rating counties for compliance. These standards have been challenged successfully by industry groups and three States in federal Court. The D.C. District Court of Appeals found that the EPA acted without congressional authorization when it created and applied its air standards. Because the standards were "arbitrary" and not based on "intelligible principles", the actions of the agency amount to sheer, unbridled policy judgments-expressions of bureaucratic willfulness rather than application of policies articulated in the Clean Air Act. This sound decision by the Court supported constitutional principles, as all legislative powers are assigned to Congress only.
court
EPA Regulations Threaten Texas
26 June 2000 Texas Straight Talk 26 June 2000 verse 5 ... Cached
Not surprisingly, the EPA has appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. Truly troubling, however, is the agency's refusal to comply with the standing Court of Appeals decision while its appeal is carried out. The EPA brazenly has decided to continue designating "non-attainment" areas despite the Court's clear finding of the unconstitutionality of its actions. The Linder/Collins amendment was necessary to legislatively prevent the EPA from further unconstitutional actions.
court
Local Control is the Key to Education Reform
04 September 2000 Texas Straight Talk 04 September 2000 verse 4 ... Cached
These questions all point to an inescapable conclusion: the federal government is not the answer. The key to fixing our education system is to reduce the role of the federal government and expand local and parental control of schools. Funding decisions increasingly have been controlled by bureaucrats in Washington, causing public and even some private schools to follow the dictates of these federal "educrats" to an ever-greater degree to preserve their funding. As a result, curricula, teacher standards, textbook selection, and discipline policies have been crafted in Washington. Rigorous classes in basics such as mathematics, grammar, science, Western civilization, and history have been reduced or eliminated, while politically favored subjects have been forced upon students. Religious observation and prayer, although widely practiced and supported by the majority of Americans, have been forbidden to students under perverse interpretations of the First amendment by federal courts. Worst of all, the values and concerns of local parents have been ignored.
court
The Conflict Between Collectivism and Liberty is Reflected in the Presidential Election
27 November 2000 Texas Straight Talk 27 November 2000 verse 3 ... Cached
The controversial presidential election remains unresolved this week, now that the Florida Supreme Court has decided to permit ongoing recounts of votes. The U.S. Supreme Court may well serve as the ultimate arbiter in this controversy. Regardless of the outcome, the popular vote totals for the two candidates will be remarkably close. The contentiousness of the post-election legal wrangling is certain to damage the political credibility of the winner. Even in the popular media, some have begun to question the legitimacy of the incoming administration, citing the deep divisions that seem to exist among voters. Ultimately, of course, the legitimacy of any president or government must be derived from the consent of the governed.
court
Activist Courts Threaten Our Liberty
04 December 2000 Texas Straight Talk 04 December 2000 verse 2 ... Cached
Activist Courts Threaten Our Liberty
court
Activist Courts Threaten Our Liberty
04 December 2000 Texas Straight Talk 04 December 2000 verse 4 ... Cached
The presidential election controversy not surprisingly reached the Florida Supreme Court, which rendered a verdict stunningly at odds with Florida law. Of course both camps in the dispute are guilty of exhibiting a "win at all costs mentality", using teams of lawyers to piously argue against the "injustices"they have suffered. Both are interested only in the final outcome, despite their shameless references to the Constitution and the "rule of law." Even in this atmosphere, however, most Americans still expected the Court to issue an impartial decision based on a rational interpretation of Florida law. It appears, however, that the Court simply ignored the plain language of state voting laws (and the Constitution) and imposed its political will on the people of Florida and the nation as a whole. The decision perhaps is not surprising, however, in light of the trend toward activist courts in our country.
court
Activist Courts Threaten Our Liberty
04 December 2000 Texas Straight Talk 04 December 2000 verse 6 ... Cached
Today, however, judges at every level increasingly engage in shaping the law to meet their particular political and social agendas. Liberal/collectivist interests especially have found a sympathetic audience among our federal judges, who have been willing accomplices in crafting liberal legislation and overriding properly enacted state law. Perhaps the most egregious example of judicial legislation is the infamous Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, which created a federal constitutional "right" to abortion out of thin air. While the collectivist agenda is advanced, activist courts have refused to uphold economic due process rights and property rights. The result is a legal landscape where all manner of fabricated social rights are upheld (e.g. entitlements), while true constitutional rights (e.g. gun ownership, religious freedom) are trampled.
court
Activist Courts Threaten Our Liberty
04 December 2000 Texas Straight Talk 04 December 2000 verse 7 ... Cached
The real victim, of course, is the Constitution and our liberty. The Founding Fathers created three coequal branches of government so that federal power never could grow unchecked. Their goal was to safeguard liberty. The judiciary was charged with preserving liberty by overturning laws which violated the Constitution; otherwise its role was to effectuate the intent of Congress. Over the past century, however, the unconstitutional notion of judicial supremacy has emerged in American politics. We have come to view courts as omnipotent superlegislatures which can substitute their wisdom rather than follow the law.
court
Activist Courts Threaten Our Liberty
04 December 2000 Texas Straight Talk 04 December 2000 verse 8 ... Cached
The Florida decision at least brings attention to the unfortunate activist trend; hopefully more Americans will give thought to the proper role of our courts as a result of the presidential election. Liberty cannot be preserved unless each branch of government stays within the confines of its constitutionally authorized powers. The separation of powers created in our Constitution is not an antiquated notion or a rhetorical theory, but rather a critical doctrine which is needed today more than ever.
court
A Republic, Not a Democracy
12 December 2000 Texas Straight Talk 12 December 2000 verse 3 ... Cached
Throughout the presidential election controversy, we have been bombarded with references to our sacred "democracy." Television and radio shows have been inundated with politicians worried about the "will of the people" being thwarted by the courts. Solemn warnings have been issued concerning the legitimacy of the presidency and the effects on our "democratic system" if the eventual winner did not receive the most popular votes. "I'm really in love with our democracy," one presidential candidate gushed to a reporter. Apparently, the United States at some point become a stealth democracy at the behest of news directors and politicians.
court
The Bush Administration Must Honor its Commitment to Smaller Government
18 December 2000 Texas Straight Talk 18 December 2000 verse 4 ... Cached
Texas Governor George W. Bush officially became our president-elect last week, following a series of legal challenges to the exceedingly close certified election results. The election seems to have exposed a deep political division in the country: support for the two candidates is decidedly even, mirroring the 50-50 party split in the Senate and an almost evenly divided Congress. The highly criticized 5-4 final Supreme Court decision shows how equally divided the nation really is.
court
International Criminal Court is the Latest U.N. Outrage
08 January 2001 Texas Straight Talk 08 January 2001 verse 2 ... Cached
International Criminal Court is the Latest U.N. Outrage
court
International Criminal Court is the Latest U.N. Outrage
08 January 2001 Texas Straight Talk 08 January 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
The Clinton administration, working overtime during the eleventh hour to consolidate its pitiful "legacy," has taken another step toward imposing global government on U.S. citizens. On New Year's Eve, only hours before a United Nations midnight deadline, the President ordered a U.S. ambassador to sign the 1998 U.N. Rome treaty. This treaty purports to establish a worldwide U.N. criminal court, demonstrating the brazen willingness of global-government proponents to move forward with their plans. Once created, the international court will give the U.N. the mechanism it needs to enforce its global "laws" against American citizens. The legal apparatus represents the logical next step for ever-expanding U.N. power: first the phony "international laws" were created, and now a court system is needed to give teeth to the laws. International prisons in Geneva or Brussels cannot be far behind. All Americans concerned with our sovereignty as a nation should be very alarmed by this latest development. In fact, U.N. expert Henry Lamb recently stated that Clinton's endorsement of this treaty "may be the most egregious act of his entire tenure."
court
International Criminal Court is the Latest U.N. Outrage
08 January 2001 Texas Straight Talk 08 January 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
The proposed court will be made up of 18 "judges," elected by an Assembly of member nations ratifying the Rome treaty. Should the U.S. Senate ultimately ratify the treaty, America will have only one vote among hundreds of nations vying to decide which global visionaries will be anointed to judge us (perhaps Kofi Annon? Bill Clinton??). The court will claim international jurisdiction over "crimes against humanity" and the "crime of aggression." The Assembly, of course, is left to define such crimes and aggression. Undoubtedly, leftist political correctness, socialist economic philosophy, and environmentalist falsehoods will decide the definition of a crime with the new court. It clearly is no stretch to predict that the court will attempt to continually expand its jurisdiction in both the civil and criminal realms. 20 years hence, will we see U.S. corporations dragged before the court to answer for "environmental crimes?" Or will U.S. soldiers be prosecuted for their actions in wartime? What about rights guaranteed to all U.S. citizens by the Constitution, such as due process, jury trials, the right against self-incrimination, and the prohibition against unreasonable searches?
court
International Criminal Court is the Latest U.N. Outrage
08 January 2001 Texas Straight Talk 08 January 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
The clear conflict between American life under our Constitution and life under a U.N. world government is intensifying. Although the Rome treaty perhaps is unlikely to be ratified by the Senate, the creation of the international tribunal undoubtedly will move forward regardless of our participation. Once the court is in place, there is every reason to believe it will attempt to assert its jurisdiction over all nations, even those that have not ratified the Rome treaty. The U.N. never has hesitated to exert its authority, militarily or otherwise, over non-member nations; surely the international court will follow suit. Remember, precedents set by the U.N. 40 and 50 years ago, such as engaging in "peacekeeping" wars across the globe, were controversial at the time. Today those precedents have become commonplace U.N. practice, despite the objections of many Americans.
court
The Ashcroft Controversy Exposes Disdain for Conservative Principles
22 January 2001 Texas Straight Talk 22 January 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
The code word used by the left to attack Ashcroft's personal politics is extreme, which is repeated like a drumbeat until it is embedded in the minds of the public. We are told his views on abortion are extreme because he "opposes a women's right to choose," despite the utter lack of any such right in the Constitution, and despite the agreement of millions of Americans with Mr. Ashcroft. We are told he is extreme because he opposes some gun control laws, despite the obvious unconstitutionally of all gun control laws. We are told his support for the death penalty is extreme, although millions of Americans and the Supreme Court disagree. Worst of all, the left has gotten away with using "extreme" as a code word for "racist." The exceedingly thin "evidence" given for the racism allegation is that Ashcroft once voted against the nomination of a federal judge who happened to be black. Never mind that more than 50 other Senators voted with Ashcroft; the left is all to eager to assure us that the only conceivable rationale is that Ashcroft is a racist. This type of smearing, aided and abetted by a complicit media, is at the heart of the left's efforts to demonize conservatives who dare oppose their unconstitutional agenda.
court
IRS Church Seizure is a Tragedy for Religious Liberty
26 February 2001 Texas Straight Talk 26 February 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
February 13th marked a sad day for religious liberty in America, as the federal government took the unprecedented step of seizing a church to satisfy an alleged tax debt. Armed federal marshals forcibly removed parishioners and clergy from the Indianapolis Baptist Temple (IBT), bringing an end to years of legal challenges that ended with the Supreme Court refusing to hear an IBT appeal.
court
The Fight for Medical Privacy Continues in Washington
26 March 2001 Texas Straight Talk 26 March 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
Medical privacy advocates enjoyed a victory last week when the Supreme Court ruled that a government hospital in South Carolina violated the constitutional rights of pregnant women by testing them for drugs without their consent. The hospital ostensibly began the testing program because of concerns about increasing cocaine use by pregnant patients, but if the hospital was concerned only with patient and fetus health, why were test results turned over to law enforcement? Several women were arrested and put in jail because of the tests, with their newborns presumably taken away to become wards of the state. Not surprisingly, the rationale for this terrible violation of doctor-patient confidentiality was the drug war. The real tragedy of this case is that it may cause pregnant women to conceal illegal drug use from their doctors out of fear of arrest. How many babies will be misdiagnosed or go untreated because their mothers no longer have any medical privacy?
court
The Fight for Medical Privacy Continues in Washington
26 March 2001 Texas Straight Talk 26 March 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
Fortunately, the Supreme Court upheld the Fourth amendment in ruling against the hospital. The drug war has been used for too long as an excuse for unconstitutional actions by government. The Fourth and Fifth amendment prohibitions against unreasonable searches and compelled testimony routinely are ignored by legislators, law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, and especially federal agencies. As a result, all Americans have suffered the loss of liberties guaranteed to them in the Bill of Rights.
court
"Campaign Finance Reform" Serves Entrenched Interests in Washington
09 April 2001 Texas Straight Talk 09 April 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
The liberal mainstream media also benefit from campaign finance restrictions. When lobbies and individuals are limited in what they can give to campaigns and political parties, they instead will spend money on advertisements during election seasons. Media outlets relish the prospect of increased ad revenue. Although the McCain bill places restrictions just prior to elections on issue ads, which only implicitly support one party or candidate, the media know they will sell even more ads before the restriction period starts. Since the issue ad restrictions raise First amendment questions, the media also know that the Supreme Court likely will forbid such restrictions as unconstitutional. The end result is that mainstream media organizations will have more money and influence than ever before. The media will impact the outcomes of elections even more than they do today.
court
Respect for Life begins with Respect for the Constitutional Rule of Law
30 April 2001 Texas Straight Talk 30 April 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
As a pro-life obstetrician-gynecologist, I am steadfastly opposed to abortion. I strongly believe that a fetus is a human life, and that a fetus deserves the same legal protections afforded to all Americans. I also believe that the Roe v. Wade decision will prove to be the most flawed Supreme Court ruling of the 20th century. There is no real or imagined "right to abortion" in the Constitution under any serious interpretation of that document. The Supreme Court simply created a nonexistent constitutional right out of thin air to serve the political agenda of the justices.
court
Respect for Life begins with Respect for the Constitutional Rule of Law
30 April 2001 Texas Straight Talk 30 April 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
Political expediency is never an excuse for ignoring the Constitution. The Supreme Court did so in Roe v. Wade, with tragic consequences. The states are now unable to enact laws to protect the weakest, smallest, and most innocent human lives. A society that does not respect life cannot be expected to respect liberty. Our goal must be to restore respect for the Constitution and states' rights. Only then can states properly restore respect for unborn life by criminalizing the act of abortion.
court
The Case Against the Income Tax
07 May 2001 Texas Straight Talk 07 May 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
Could America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of its history. Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker's paycheck. In the late 1800s, when Congress first attempted to impose an income tax, the notion of taxing a citizen's hard work was considered radical! Public outcry ensued; more importantly, the Supreme Court ruled the income tax unconstitutional. Only with passage of the 16th Amendment did Congress gain the ability to tax the productive endeavors of its citizens.
court
The Deepening United Nations Quagmire
14 May 2001 Texas Straight Talk 14 May 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
Undeclared wars are only one of many threats to our sovereignty posed by the UN. The recently proposed International Criminal Court seeks to subject U.S. citizens to the jurisdiction of an unconstitutional world tribunal. Our soldiers are especially at risk, as wartime actions later could be prosecuted as "crimes of aggression" or "crimes against humanity." One amendment to the State Department bill makes a weak attempt to protect soldiers from prosecution, but the validity of the tribunal itself is not challenged. What about rights guaranteed to American citizens under the Constitution, such as due process, jury trials, the right against self-incrimination, and the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures? The conflict between our national laws and a global court is clear. I introduced legislation earlier this year that would rescind U.S. approval of the ICC treaty (signed by a Clinton administration official), yet again Congress sidesteps the issue rather than address the central question of whether the Constitution permits American citizens to be brought before an international court.
court
The Deepening United Nations Quagmire
14 May 2001 Texas Straight Talk 14 May 2001 verse 8 ... Cached
The UN unquestionably intends to exert more and more control over both our foreign and domestic policy. The UN wants to tax us, involve us in wars, determine our labor, environmental, and gun policies, and subject us to the jurisdiction of its courts. We cannot ignore this threat to our national sovereignty any longer. Congress must be held accountable whenever it unconstitutionally cedes more of its authority and our freedom to global bureaucrats.
court
Religious Liberty Thwarted by the Supreme Court
04 June 2001 Texas Straight Talk 04 June 2001 verse 2 ... Cached
Religious Liberty Thwarted by the Supreme Court
court
Religious Liberty Thwarted by the Supreme Court
04 June 2001 Texas Straight Talk 04 June 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
Last week, a divided Supreme Court declined to hear a potentially landmark case that has tremendous significance to religious believers in this country. The small town of Elkhart, Indiana, has a granite stone inscribed with the Ten Commandments in front of a city building. Predictably, the ACLU brought a lawsuit against the city seeking to have the decades-old stone removed. City officials fought the case in federal court, but lost at the appellate level. Although Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas disagreed, the Supreme Court decided not to hear the case and let the ruling stand. The fate of the stone now lies with a lower federal judge, who undoubtedly will order it removed despite the wishes of Elkhart city officials and local residents. Ironically, the same Ten Commandments deemed so objectionable by the ACLU are depicted in the very Supreme Court building where the decision not to consider the Elkhart case was made! How tragic that our courts have accepted the myth that religious beliefs cannot be represented in any public setting, even when religious symbolism adorns courthouses across the country.
court
Religious Liberty Thwarted by the Supreme Court
04 June 2001 Texas Straight Talk 04 June 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
The First amendment (or any other constitutional provision) must be strictly construed to reflect the intent of the Founding Fathers. The language is clear- Congress simply is prohibited from passing laws establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. There certainly is no mention of any "separation of church and state", although Supreme Court jurisprudence over the decades constantly asserts this mystical doctrine. Sadly, the application of this faulty doctrine by judges and lawmakers consistently results in violations of the free exercise clause. Rulings and laws separating citizens from their religious beliefs in all public settings simply restrict religious practices. Our Founders clearly never intended an America where citizens nonsensically are forced to disregard their deeply held beliefs in public life. The religious freedom required by the Constitution should not end the moment one enters a school, courtroom, or city hall.
court
Religious Liberty Thwarted by the Supreme Court
04 June 2001 Texas Straight Talk 04 June 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
The Supreme Court also has ignored the obvious point that the amendment applies only to Congress, and not to the states. This means that while the federal government cannot pass laws restricting religion or use federal funds to give preference to one religion over another, state and local governments retain the right under the 10th Amendment to set their own policies regarding religious expression. The Elkhart case is a classic example of the courts ignoring this fundamental distinction between federal and local action. Bluntly, the use of Elkhart city government property is none of the federal government's business. Yet respect for state rights and enumerated powers, not to mention the property rights of the citizens of Elkhart, is nonexistent in our federal courts. The unchallenged assumption is that the federal courts have jurisdiction over all religious matters.
court
Religious Liberty Thwarted by the Supreme Court
04 June 2001 Texas Straight Talk 04 June 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
The sad result of this misinterpretation of the Constitution is a legal and political landscape which is unnecessarily hostile to religion. Popular culture and media mirror this hostility in their inaccurate and unflattering portrayals of religious conservatives and fundamentalists. The message is always the same: conservatives want to force their religious beliefs upon society. The truth is that secular humanists have forced their beliefs upon a largely religious nation. In schools, in government, and in the courts, secular values dominate. Secularism, wrongly characterized as neutral toward religious faith, has become the default philosophy for our society. The Supreme Court, by refusing to consider the Elkhart case, has furthered the cause of those who wish to see religion eliminated from American life.
court
UN War Crimes Tribunal Cannot Create Peace
09 July 2001 Texas Straight Talk 09 July 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
Former Yugoslav President Milosevic appeared last week before the UN war crimes tribunal in the Netherlands, despite his insistence that the court has no authority to prosecute him. UN leaders, particularly those from NATO aligned countries, have been eager to promote his arrest and pending trial as a victory for international peace. The problem, however, is that longstanding ethnic feuds in the region (both the former Yugoslavia and northern Greece) have not been resolved. The west can congratulate itself that Milosevic has been removed from power, but it cannot guarantee that the vacuum will not be filled by another equally bloodthirsty leader.
court
UN War Crimes Tribunal Cannot Create Peace
09 July 2001 Texas Straight Talk 09 July 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
We should recognize that the Yugoslav people themselves are far more ambivalent about the Milosevic trial. In fact, the CNN bureau chief in Belgrade recently characterized the local reaction as mixed, stating that most Serbs would have preferred to see Milosevic tried in a Serbian court, for crimes such as embezzlement and corruption against the Serb people. He also stated that many Serbian people see themselves as victims of NATO and UN aggression, and that most feel the tribunal in the Hague is biased against Serbs. In fact, he states that most feel the recent pledge of money from western nations for rebuilding was simply a direct pay-off for Milosevic's extradition. So while the UN loves to congratulate itself as the world's peacemaker, it rarely is viewed that way by the citizens it claims to have rescued from their own corrupt leaders. Most people understandably resent having foreign armies invade their countries to determine the outcome of disputes within their own borders. We cannot expect nations defeated by UN armies to simply accept the subsequent verdicts rendered against them in UN war crimes courts.
court
UN Plans for Global Gun Control
16 July 2001 Texas Straight Talk 16 July 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
The simple truth is that the UN is not concerned with our Constitution or our system of government. It is concerned only with expanding its power. It's hardly surprising that global government planners seek to impose global gun control, because disarmed nations will be that much easier to rule. Remember, the UN has much more power today than anyone could have imagined 50 years ago. So while it may seem far-fetched today that the UN could ever force U.S. citizens to turn over their arms, the current gun control conference could be planting the seed for such tyranny in decades to come. UN supporters like to ridicule the notion that the UN represents the beginning of one-world government, but what other label can be applied to an organization that seeks global laws, global courts, centralized legislative power, and a worldwide army?
court
Legislation Needed to End the IRS Threat to Religious Freedom
13 August 2001 Texas Straight Talk 13 August 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
The supposed motivation behind the ban on political participation by churches is the need to maintain a rigid separation between church and state. However, the First amendment simply prohibits the federal government from passing laws that establish religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion. There certainly is no mention of any "separation of church and state," yet lawmakers and judges continually assert this mythical doctrine. The result is court rulings and laws that separate citizens from their religious beliefs in all public settings, in clear violation of the free exercise clause. Our Founders never intended a rigidly secular public society, where people must nonsensically disregard their deeply held beliefs in all matters of government and politics. They certainly never imagined that the federal government would actively work to chill the political activities of some churches.
court
America Retains its Sovereign Right to Respond to Attacks
08 October 2001 Texas Straight Talk 08 October 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
Similarly, the unconstitutional UN international criminal court is being touted by many globalists as the appropriate forum for trying terrorists charged with crimes against humanity. Remember, the ICC would attempt to exert jurisdiction over every American, without affording them constitutional due process rights or 4th and 5th amendment protections. The ICC is a dangerous idea that directly threatens our constitution and our sovereignty, and we must not let the recent tragedy blind us to these dangers.
court
Can Freedom be Exchanged for Security?
26 November 2001 Texas Straight Talk 26 November 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
The bill also greatly expands the use of traditional surveillance tools, including wiretaps, search warrants, and subpoenas. Probable cause standards for these tools are relaxed or even eliminated in some circumstances; warrants become easier to obtain and can be executed without your knowledge; and wiretaps can be placed on you without a court order. In fact, the FBI and CIA now can tap phones or computers nationwide without even demonstrating that a particular phone or computer is being used by a criminal suspect.
court
Military Tribunals Put Our Justice System on Trial
03 December 2001 Texas Straight Talk 03 December 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
Some, even conservatives, have offered the example of President Franklin Roosevelt's use of a military court to try a group of Nazi saboteurs during World War II. It is curious to see FDR as a model for conservatives, but nevertheless we were in a declared war and those captured were agents of a country with which we were in an active state of war. We are not currently in a state of war, despite what pundits might claim.
court
Military Tribunals Put Our Justice System on Trial
03 December 2001 Texas Straight Talk 03 December 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
Also worth consideration is the fact that this executive order does not prescribe standard military trials held under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for suspects. Whereas the UCMJ requires unanimity in capital cases, this new military court requires only two-thirds agreement, even to deliver a sentence of death. Also, Fifth Amendment guarantees are compromised in this new court, as is the right to appeal and other due process guarantees.
court
Military Tribunals Put Our Justice System on Trial
03 December 2001 Texas Straight Talk 03 December 2001 verse 8 ... Cached
Finally, it is argued that only terrorists are to be subjected to these secret courts. But how do we decide someone is a terrorist before a trial? That sounds an awful lot like government deciding guilt before a show trial. More troubling, under recently passed "anti-terrorism" legislation, the definition of "terrorism" for federal criminal purposes has been greatly expanded. A person can now be considered a terrorist for belonging to a pro-constitution group, a citizen militia, or a pro-life organization. How long before these "terrorists" are subject to secret trials?
court
Military Tribunals Put Our Justice System on Trial
03 December 2001 Texas Straight Talk 03 December 2001 verse 9 ... Cached
Who cares, supporters will say. After all, only foreigners are to be tried under these courts and we all know only American citizens are afforded the benefits of our judicial system. Fortunately our founding fathers saw things differently, as they drew up a system that recognized the fundamental rights of all humanity and created a model for constitutional governance. Do Americans really expect Germany or Holland, for example, to disregard their own laws when trying Americans suspected of crimes in their countries? Of course not.
court
The Voucher Debate and the Failure of Public Education
25 February 2002 Texas Straight Talk 25 February 2002 verse 3 ... Cached
The Supreme Court heard arguments last week in the now- infamous Cleveland school vouchers case. At issue, at least in the Cleveland case, is whether publicly-funded vouchers can be used by children attending private and parochial schools. While the court will focus on the tenuous argument that a "separation of church and state" renders vouchers unconstitutional, the larger issue for all of us is whether the federal education system needs to be scrapped. After all, if centralized Washington control of education was working, parents wouldn’t be clamoring for vouchers in the first place.
court
The Voucher Debate and the Failure of Public Education
25 February 2002 Texas Straight Talk 25 February 2002 verse 7 ... Cached
The Supreme Court, like Congress, should simply follow the Constitution. The Constitution allows states and local governments to decide for themselves whether to have a voucher program. It does not, however, allow the federal government to fund, regulate, or control those voucher programs. The emphasis on local control established in the Constitution is especially important when it comes to education, and it is no coincidence that our schools have declined as federal control has increased. It’s time to end the 40-year Washington stranglehold on education by returning control -which means returning tax dollars- to parents and local school systems. The best immediate approach is to give parents a federal tax credit for amounts spent on education. Ultimately, however, we can only resurrect our public schools by following the Constitution and ending the federal education monopoly.
court
UN Planting the Seeds for a Coming Global Tax
25 March 2002 Texas Straight Talk 25 March 2002 verse 5 ... Cached
Understand that the UN views itself as the emerging global government, and like all governments, it needs money to operate. The goal, which the UN readily admits, is to impose a comprehensive set of global laws on all of us- laws that supersede sovereign national governments. To do this, the UN needs a global military, a global police force, international courts, offices around the globe, and plenty of highly-paid international bureaucrats. All of this costs money.
court
A Court of No Authority
08 April 2002 Texas Straight Talk 08 April 2002 verse 2 ... Cached
A Court of No Authority
court
A Court of No Authority
08 April 2002 Texas Straight Talk 08 April 2002 verse 3 ... Cached
You may have heard about the International Criminal Court, which was first proposed in 1998 at a UN treaty conference in Rome. The treaty purports to establish a worldwide UN criminal court that will have jurisdiction over every nation on earth. Once created, the ICC will give the UN the legal apparatus it needs to enforce its global "laws" against American citizens, in direct violation of our own Constitution and national sovereignty.
court
A Court of No Authority
08 April 2002 Texas Straight Talk 08 April 2002 verse 4 ... Cached
You may not have heard, however, that the ICC is about to become a reality. The ICC treaty created a completely arbitrary standard to establish the court. Specifically, the Rome treaty states that the court will come into existence when 60 UN member nations ratify the treaty. Why 60? Apparently because ICC proponents thought the number would sound official, and that a ratification period would create an appearance of legitimacy. Never mind that the 60 nations represent a tiny percentage of the world’s population, or that many of the ratifying nations lack any real economic, political, and military power. The globalists simply don’t consider American support particularly important, because it’s much easier to convince countries like Nauru (!) and Gabon to sign up. Apparently ICC bureaucrats are approaching the magic number of 60 ratifications, because a "solemn ceremony" is planned in New York this week to commemorate the new court.
court
A Court of No Authority
08 April 2002 Texas Straight Talk 08 April 2002 verse 5 ... Cached
Two fundamental questions have not been answered by the globalists: What authority permits the ICC to exist, and what authority permits the ICC to exert jurisdiction over the US? The answer to both questions is that NO such authority exists. ICC proponents claim the court was authorized by UN General Assembly "legislation," but the UN charter explicitly states that the General Assembly has no legislative authority whatsoever. In fact, when the UN was created, this lack of lawmaking authority was emphasized- to assure nervous heads of state that the body would never be able to pass laws. The UN diplomats in Rome flatly ignored their own charter, which means the ICC is not valid even under the UN’s phony international laws.
court
A Court of No Authority
08 April 2002 Texas Straight Talk 08 April 2002 verse 6 ... Cached
The more important point, however, is that the ICC clearly has no legitimate authority over American citizens. The US Senate has not ratified the ICC treaty, and constitutionally it cannot- because the Constitution does not permit the judicial function to be surrendered to an international body. Remember, the Constitution guarantees every American various protections- such as due process, jury trials, the right against self-incrimination, and the prohibition against unreasonable searches- and any treaty that denies American citizens those protections by definition is unconstitutional. Furthermore, President Bush thankfully may rescind the US signature to the ICC treaty, undoing the symbolic damage done by Clinton’s acquiescence to the idea of a superior international court.
court
A Court of No Authority
08 April 2002 Texas Straight Talk 08 April 2002 verse 7 ... Cached
ICC proponents claim that the court will address only "crimes against humanity" and "crimes of aggression." Remember, however, the UN continually has expanded its role in the decades since World War II. When the UN was created, we were assured it would never become a global government, never establish laws, never employ military forces, and never undermine national statehood- yet it has done precisely all of those things. Why should we believe that the ICC will not similarly seek to expand its jurisdiction? Already there have been discussions about the court’s ability to prosecute far more ordinary- and domestic- criminal activity. The inherently political nature of the court will insure that the definition of "aggression" expands to apply to the actions of those in politically disfavored nations. Are we really so naive that we believe American soldiers will not one day be prosecuted for their actions in wartime?
court
A Court of No Authority
08 April 2002 Texas Straight Talk 08 April 2002 verse 8 ... Cached
The United Nations and the ICC are inherently incompatible with national sovereignty. America must either remain a constitutional republic or submit to international law, because it cannot do both. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the conflict between adhering to the rule of law and obeying globalist planners is now staring us in the face. At present we fortunately have a President who opposes the ICC, but ultimately it is up to Congress- and concerned citizens- to insure that no American ever stands trial before an international court.
court
Predictions for an Unwritten Future
29 April 2002 Texas Straight Talk 29 April 2002 verse 14 ... Cached
Political leaders and high-ranking military officials from Middle Eastern nations will be hauled into and tried before the International Criminal Court for war crimes. The Arab world, along with some European leaders, will call for the prosecution of Ariel Sharon by the ICC. American military and political leaders will not be tried by the ICC, although many of our enemies in the U.N. will advocate such prosecutions. The vicious debate will set the stage for wider politically-motivated revenge prosecutions of western leaders by the ICC in the future.
court
President Bush Delivers Victory over UN Court!
13 May 2002 Texas Straight Talk 13 May 2002 verse 2 ... Cached
PRESIDENT BUSH DELIVERS VICTORY OVER UN COURT!
court
President Bush Delivers Victory over UN Court!
13 May 2002 Texas Straight Talk 13 May 2002 verse 3 ... Cached
The American people won a great victory last week in the ongoing battle to preserve our national sovereignty. On Monday, the administration formally announced President Bush’s bold decision to withdraw the United States from the UN International Criminal Court (ICC) treaty. UN bureaucrats have been working quietly for several years to create the ICC, with the ultimate goal of installing an international tribunal that claims jurisdiction over every human on the planet- and judicial supremacy over our own Supreme Court. Given the steady progress of ICC planners to date in convincing about 60 nations to ratify the treaty, the American withdrawal represents a stunning setback for those intent on establishing an international legal system that undermines our Constitution- and a rare but important triumph for American national interests.
court
President Bush Delivers Victory over UN Court!
13 May 2002 Texas Straight Talk 13 May 2002 verse 5 ... Cached
We should be perfectly clear about what the ICC really represents. The UN does not respect our domestic laws or our national sovereignty. On the contrary, UN ministers view our laws as obstacles to their goals. It is no exaggeration to say that the UN wants to create international laws that override our domestic gun, labor, environment, and tax laws- just to name a few. In fact, the UN states its goals quite openly on its website. We should remember that the ICC, like the UN itself, will be inherently political. Although the court purports to address only criminal matters, it will serve to establish a permanent international legal apparatus used to enforce an ever-growing list of international laws. The ICC can only further erode national sovereignty by undermining the authority of national courts and overriding national laws.
court
President Bush Delivers Victory over UN Court!
13 May 2002 Texas Straight Talk 13 May 2002 verse 6 ... Cached
We must reassert that the Supreme Court is the court of highest authority for our nation, and that every American citizen enjoys protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. President Bush gave notice to the international community last week that the United States will not participate in a global court that undermines the checks and balances of our Constitution. He deserves our praise and our support for bravely standing against the ICC and against UN bureaucrats who have so little regard for our laws. Congress should follow his lead and respect the Constitution by refusing to send even one penny of taxpayer funds to the ICC bureaucrats.
court
What does the First Amendment Really Mean?
01 July 2002 Texas Straight Talk 01 July 2002 verse 3 ... Cached
The entire nation seemed to condemn last week’s federal court ruling that the pledge of allegiance cannot be recited in schools. The notion that the phrase "one nation under God" renders the pledge unconstitutional is ridiculous to most Americans, who strongly believe that expressions of religious belief should be an integral part of public life. Yet although the public outcry against this terrible ruling is understandable, the real issue of religious freedom has not been addressed by Congress or the media.
court
What does the First Amendment Really Mean?
01 July 2002 Texas Straight Talk 01 July 2002 verse 5 ... Cached
It’s important to recognize that the First amendment applies only to Congress. Remember, the first sentence starts with "Congress shall make no law..." This means that matters of religious freedom and expression should be decided by the states, with disputes settled in state courts. The First amendment acts as a simple check on federal power, ensuring that the federal government has no jurisdiction or authority whatsoever over religious issues. The phony "incorporation" doctrine, dreamed up by activist judges to pervert the plain meaning of the Constitution, was used once again by a federal court to assume jurisdiction over a case that constitutionally was none of its business.
court
What does the First Amendment Really Mean?
01 July 2002 Texas Straight Talk 01 July 2002 verse 6 ... Cached
Similarly, the mythical separation of church and state doctrine has no historical or constitutional basis. Neither the language of the Constitution itself nor the legislative history reveals any mention of such separation. In fact, the authors of the First amendment- Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry- and the rest of the founders routinely referred to "Almighty God" in their writings, including the Declaration of Independence. It is only in the last 50 years that federal courts have perverted the meaning of the amendment and sought to unlawfully restrict religious expression. We cannot continue to permit our Constitution and our rich religious institutions to be degraded by profound misinterpretations of the Bill of Rights.
court
What does the First Amendment Really Mean?
01 July 2002 Texas Straight Talk 01 July 2002 verse 7 ... Cached
I previously introduced legislation entitled "The First Amendment Restoration Act" to address this kind of judicial overreach and reassert true First amendment religious freedoms. The bill becomes especially timely now, as it clarifies that federal courts have no jurisdiction whatsoever over matters of religious freedom. It also restores real religious freedom by making it clear that the federal government cannot forbid expressions of religion, including the Ten Commandments, in either public or private life.
court
Will Congress Debate War with Iraq?
05 August 2002 Texas Straight Talk 05 August 2002 verse 4 ... Cached
On C-SPAN last week, Mr. Ritter called the Senate hearings nothing less than a "sham," likening them to a "Stalinist kangaroo court" rather than a real inquiry designed to educate Senators with facts about Iraq.
court
Your Taxes Fund South American Bailout
12 August 2002 Texas Straight Talk 12 August 2002 verse 4 ... Cached
Why the sudden interest in Uruguay? Treasury Secretary O’Neill’s statement on the matter makes it sound like Uruguay is a real financial powerhouse. In fact, he tells us "Uruguay’s approach to bank reform should encourage confidence of depositors in the financial system. Uruguay has effectively implemented sound economic policies and embraced free markets." Apparently, those sound economic policies led to outright collapse and a run on the nation’s banks, while their commitment to free markets involves billions in welfare bailouts courtesy of American taxpayers. If Uruguay is indeed so financially and politically stable, why in the world would it need billions in foreign welfare?
court
Who Should Prosecute the Snipers?
04 November 2002 Texas Straight Talk 04 November 2002 verse 4 ... Cached
Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia all have valid claims for prosecuting the case, because the sniper and his accomplice committed murders in all four jurisdictions. Prosecutors from each understandably want to bring these killers to justice on behalf of their citizens. After all, it was the people of these states who were truly terrorized for nearly a month. Of course a federal court may be needed to decide which state prevails in the inevitable jurisdictional battle, especially since the availability of the death penalty varies between them. But the rush to have a federal court try these two men reminds us that the federal government cares very little about states’ rights. The feds appear to be more interested in hijacking a high-profile prosecution for their own benefit than allowing the states to enforce their own laws.
court
Who Should Prosecute the Snipers?
04 November 2002 Texas Straight Talk 04 November 2002 verse 5 ... Cached
The trend toward federalizing state criminal matters mirrors the rise in federal domination over the states themselves. As the federal government grows, so grows the power of the federal court system- at the expense of state sovereignty and the 10th amendment. As a result, the people of the various states have lost much of their voice about how criminals ought to be treated. The sniper case provides us with an opportunity to reassert the power of states to bring criminals to justice, while rejecting the notion that the federal government must be involved simply because the sniper murders generated national interest.
court
Welfare for the Left, Welfare for the Right, Welfare for the World
03 February 2003 Texas Straight Talk 03 February 2003 verse 3 ... Cached
“The President, a Republican no less, seems to believe that government should be telling us what kind of car to drive, what kind of education our kids should receive, how to cure disease in Africa and the Caribbean, how to liberate women the world over, how to fund technological innovation, and even how to ‘transform our souls’ and lift the ‘hopes of all mankind’- all courtesy of the long-suffering taxpayer who is, once again, supposed to believe that the government can make better use of his money than he can.” Lew Rockwell Jr., President of the Mises Institute
court
Time to Renounce the United Nations?
17 March 2003 Texas Straight Talk 17 March 2003 verse 5 ... Cached
Those bureaucrats are not satisfied by meddling only in international disputes, however. The UN increasingly wants to influence our domestic environmental, trade, labor, tax, and gun laws. Its global planners fully intend to expand the UN into a true world government, complete with taxes, courts, and a standing army. This is not an alarmist statement; these facts are readily promoted on the UN’s own website. UN planners do not care about national sovereignty; in fact they are actively hostile to it. They correctly view it as an obstacle to their plans. They simply aren’t interested in our Constitution and republican form of government.
court
War Profiteers
07 April 2003 Texas Straight Talk 07 April 2003 verse 13 ... Cached
-$100,000 for the U.S. Court of International Trade.
court
Independence from England, Dependence on Washington?
07 July 2003 Texas Straight Talk 07 July 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
Today some Americans, including many members of Congress, view both the Constitution and our Founders as quaint anachronisms at best. Times have changed, they argue, and we hardly should be bound by rules established by a bunch of dead white men who could not possibly understand our modern society. The Constitution is relevant only if it “evolves” to allow for new realities, and the federal government certainly should not be constrained by outdated notions about its proper role. This viewpoint steadily gained acceptance throughout the 20th century, exemplified by the blatantly unconstitutional New Deal and Great Society programs, Supreme Court activism, the virtual abolition of states rights, and uncontrolled growth of the federal government.
court
Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution
11 August 2003 Texas Straight Talk 11 August 2003 verse 1 ... Cached
Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution
court
Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution
11 August 2003 Texas Straight Talk 11 August 2003 verse 2 ... Cached
It’s been a tough summer for social conservatives, thanks to our federal courts. From “gay rights” to affirmative action to Boy Scouts to the Ten Commandments, federal courts recently have issued rulings that conflict with both the Constitution and overwhelming public sentiment. Conservatives and libertarians who once viewed the judiciary as the final bulwark against government tyranny must now accept that no branch of government even remotely performs its constitutional role.
court
Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution
11 August 2003 Texas Straight Talk 11 August 2003 verse 4 ... Cached
Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights- rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.
court
Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution
11 August 2003 Texas Straight Talk 11 August 2003 verse 5 ... Cached
Similarly, a federal court judge in San Diego recently ordered that city to evict the Boy Scouts from a camp they have run in a city park since the 1950s. A gay couple, with help from the ACLU, sued the city claiming the Scouts’ presence was a violation of the “separation of church and state.” The judge agreed, ruling that the Scouts are in essence a religious organization because they mention God in their recited oath. Never mind that the land, once privately owned, had been donated to the city for the express purpose of establishing a Scout camp. Never mind that the Scouts have made millions of dollars worth of improvements to the land. The real tragedy is that our founders did not intend a separation of church and state, and never envisioned a rigidly secular public life for America. They simply wanted to prevent Congress from establishing a state religion, as England had. The First amendment says “Congress shall make no law”- a phrase that cannot possibly be interpreted to apply to the city of San Diego. But the phony activist “separation” doctrine leads to perverse outcomes like the eviction of Boy Scouts from city parks.
court
Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution
11 August 2003 Texas Straight Talk 11 August 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
These are but two recent examples. There are many more, including the case of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who was ordered by a federal court to remove a Ten Commandments monument from Alabama courthouse property.
court
Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution
11 August 2003 Texas Straight Talk 11 August 2003 verse 7 ... Cached
The political left increasingly uses the federal judiciary to do in court what it cannot do at the ballot box: advance an activist, secular, multicultural political agenda of which most Americans disapprove. This is why federal legal precedents in so many areas do not reflect the consensus of either federal or state legislators. Whether it’s gun rights, abortion, taxes, racial quotas, environmental regulations, gay marriage, or religion, federal jurists are way out of touch with the American people. As a society we should reconsider the wisdom of lifetime tenure for federal judges, while Congress and the President should remember that the Supreme Court is supreme only over other federal courts- not over the other branches of government. It’s time for the executive and legislative branches to show some backbone, appoint judges who follow the Constitution, and remove those who do not.
court
Trust Us, We're the Government
25 August 2003 Texas Straight Talk 25 August 2003 verse 5 ... Cached
Mr. Ashcroft complains that the Patriot Act is misunderstood. But it’s not the American public’s fault nobody knows exactly what the Patriot Act does. The Act contains over 500 pages of detailed legalese, the full text of which was neither read nor made available to Congress before it was voted on- which by itself should have convinced members to vote against it. Many of the surveillance powers authorized in the Act are not clearly defined and have not yet been tested. When they are tested, court challenges are sure to follow. The Act’s complexity is even more troubling when we consider how powers given to the Justice department today might be abused by future administrations.
court
$20 Billion Giveaway Unjustified
20 October 2003 Texas Straight Talk 20 October 2003 verse 4 ... Cached
Second, every attempt to make portions of the $87 billion a loan was defeated. Several House members argued that providing money for American troops is one thing, a naked foreign aid giveaway another. After all, Iraq has trillions of dollars worth of oil reserves. Why should future generations of Americans, rather than future generations of Iraqis, pay the bills for creating a new Iraq? If we really believe we have liberated the Iraqis, surely they should be asked to repay some of the financial costs. Yet both the House leadership and the administration vehemently insisted that the full amount be provided as a gift, courtesy of U.S. taxpayers.
court
The Appropriations Process
27 October 2003 Texas Straight Talk 27 October 2003 verse 12 ... Cached
Most Americans think the federal government is too large, spends too much money, and spends it badly. Even the most ardent liberals admit there is a tremendous amount of waste in government. But Congress clearly does not agree, because it relentlessly spends more and more each year. American taxpayers, therefore, have two basic options: start voting the big spenders out of office, or slowly submit to democratic socialism courtesy of a government that soon will devour 50% of the nation’s productive output.
court
Medicare Plunder
24 November 2003 Texas Straight Talk 24 November 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
Phony senior lobbies want free drugs paid for by taxpayers; American corporations want to dump their retirees into Medicare at the expense of taxpayers; pharmaceutical companies want huge windfalls provided by taxpayers; and politicians want to get reelected by passing incredibly shortsighted legislation courtesy of taxpayers. Most of today’s politicians will never have to answer to future generations saddled with huge federal deficits because of this expansion of Medicare. Those generations are the real victims, as they cannot object to the debts being incurred today in their names.
court
GOP Abandons Conservatives
01 December 2003 Texas Straight Talk 01 December 2003 verse 7 ... Cached
At what point will conservatives stop accepting these excuses? When does the conservative base of the GOP, a base that remains firmly committed to the principle of limited government, finally demand new leadership and a return to conservative values? Will conservatives abandon the party when they realize the GOP, at least under its current leadership, is simply not interested in reducing the size and scope of the federal government? With Republicans controlling the administration and the legislature, and nominally controlling the Supreme Court, the party has run out of other people to blame. One thing is certain: Republicans who support bigger entitlement programs and bigger federal budgets have lost all credibility as advocates for limited government.
court
"Campaign Finance Reform" Muzzles Political Dissent
22 December 2003 Texas Straight Talk 22 December 2003 verse 3 ... Cached
In a devastating blow to political speech, the Supreme Court recently upheld most of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill passed by Congress last year. The legislation will do nothing to curb special interest power or reduce corruption in Washington, but it will make it harder for average Americans to influence government. “Campaign finance reform” really means the bright-line standard of free speech has been replaced by a murky set of regulations and restrictions that will muzzle political dissent and protect incumbents. Justice Scalia correctly accuses the Court of supporting a law “That cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government…This is a sad day for freedom of speech.”
court
"Campaign Finance Reform" Muzzles Political Dissent
22 December 2003 Texas Straight Talk 22 December 2003 verse 4 ... Cached
Two important points ignored by the Court should be made. First, although the new campaign rules clearly violate the First amendment, they should be struck down primarily because Congress has no authority under Article I of the Constitution to regulate campaigns at all. Article II authorizes only the regulation of elections, not campaigns, because our Founders knew Congress might pass campaign laws that protect incumbency. This is precisely what McCain-Feingold represents: blatant incumbent protection sold to the public as noble reform.
court
"Campaign Finance Reform" Muzzles Political Dissent
22 December 2003 Texas Straight Talk 22 December 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
Outrageously, the Court failed to strike down a provision of the campaign finance bill that virtually outlaws criticism of incumbent politicians for 60 days before an election—exactly the time when most voters learn about candidates and issues. The ban essentially prohibits any group from airing radio or television ads that cast politicians in a negative light during the critical final months of an election. The ban even carries the possibility of criminal penalties, meaning the Court has endorsed criminalizing political dissent! Incumbent politicians certainly will be the beneficiaries of the new ban, as they no longer have to suffer through ads that criticize their performance.
court
Christmas in Secular America
29 December 2003 Texas Straight Talk 29 December 2003 verse 3 ... Cached
Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.
court
Government and Marriage
19 January 2004 Texas Straight Talk 19 January 2004 verse 3 ... Cached
The president recently announced a new program designed to promote “healthy marriages” by using welfare funds to subsidize media campaigns and feel-good relationship counseling, all courtesy of U.S. taxpayers. In fact, Mr. Bush proposes spending $1.5 billion over the next five years, all to promote an institution that flourished for centuries without state encouragement.
court
Gay Marriage Quicksand
01 March 2004 Texas Straight Talk 01 March 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
But the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, explicitly authorizes states to refuse to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. Furthermore, the Supreme Court repeatedly has interpreted the Full Faith and Credit clause to allow Congress to limit the effect of state laws on other states. In fact, federal courts almost universally apply the clause only to state court judgments, not statutes. So a constitutional amendment is not necessary to address the issue of gay marriage, and will only drive yet another nail into the coffin of federalism. If we turn regulation of even domestic family relations over to the federal government, presumably anything can be federalized.
court
Gay Marriage Quicksand
01 March 2004 Texas Straight Talk 01 March 2004 verse 7 ... Cached
The choices are not limited to either banning gay marriage at the federal level, or giving up and accepting it as inevitable. A far better approach, rarely discussed, is for Congress to exercise its existing constitutional power to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts. Congress could statutorily remove whole issues like gay marriage from the federal judiciary, striking a blow against judicial tyranny and restoring some degree of states’ rights. We seem to have forgotten that the Supreme Court is supreme only over lower federal courts; it is not supreme over the other branches of government. The judiciary is co-equal under our federal system, but too often it serves as an unelected, unaccountable legislature.
court
LOST at Sea
05 April 2004 Texas Straight Talk 05 April 2004 verse 4 ... Cached
The Law of the Sea Treaty also would give the UN power to tax American citizens and businesses, which has been a long-time dream of the anti-sovereignty globalists. LOST also would establish an international court system to enforce its provisions and rulings. Imagine not being able to do business internationally without the approval of the United Nations!
court
Whose Justice?
12 April 2004 Texas Straight Talk 12 April 2004 verse 2 ... Cached
Judicial activism, the practice of judges ignoring the law and deciding cases based on their personal political views, has been a problem in America since well before the Supreme Court invented a right to abortion in Roe v. Wade. Many federal judges have become de facto legislators in recent decades, substituting their self-presumed wisdom for the will of Congress. In the process, the American people have lost more and more power to influence the laws under which they must live.
court
Whose Justice?
12 April 2004 Texas Straight Talk 12 April 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
As Robert Bork explains, six of the nine Supreme Court justices have either written or joined opinions that favorably cited foreign authorities. These justices have considered the European Court of Human Rights, various United Nations conventions, international human rights treaties, and even judicial decisions from India, Jamaica, and Zimbabwe when writing their opinions! Simply put, these justices are making the incredible argument that American federal courts should consider sources other than US law when deciding cases. In the words of one justice, the Court “cannot afford to ignore the rest of the world.”
court
Whose Justice?
12 April 2004 Texas Straight Talk 12 April 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
It’s not hard to see the grave danger posed by this new trend. Anti-gun judges could cite restrictions on gun ownership in other countries approvingly when disregarding our Second amendment. Hate speech laws in other nations could be used as authority to weaken the First amendment. Our wholly domestic tax, labor, environmental, and family laws could be influenced by United Nations edicts, foreign court judgments, and international treaties which have not been ratified by the United States.
court
Whose Justice?
12 April 2004 Texas Straight Talk 12 April 2004 verse 7 ... Cached
The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land in America. Congress needs to exercise its constitutional power over federal courts and send judges a strong message that Americans will be governed by American law only. I recently introduced legislation that forbids the Supreme Court and lower federal courts from citing any foreign or international laws, rules, policies, or court decisions as authority for their opinions. Federal judges take an oath of office promising to decide cases in accordance with the Constitution and US federal law. Those judges who insist on considering foreign law and foreign opinions should be removed from their positions for violating that oath, pure and simple. Justice Scalia warns that “Day by day, case by case, the Court is busy designing a Constitution for a country I do not recognize.” Congress needs to act quickly before Mr. Scalia’s fears are fully realized.
court
Zero Down for the American Dream
21 June 2004 Texas Straight Talk 21 June 2004 verse 7 ... Cached
Despite the congressional rhetoric about helping the poor, federal housing policies often harm poor people by pushing them into houses they may not be ready to buy. Given the realities of insurance, property taxes, maintenance, and repairs, many low-income buyers lose their homes and destroy their credit ratings. Easy credit and low interest rates, courtesy of the Federal Reserve, have dramatically increased housing demand and artificially increased prices. Zero down payment schemes do the same thing by pushing renters into the housing market. This increased demand actually serves to price many poor Americans out of the housing market indefinitely.
court
Zero Down for the American Dream
21 June 2004 Texas Straight Talk 21 June 2004 verse 8 ... Cached
The American dream cannot be lived courtesy of taxpayer handouts. The experience of working hard, saving for a downpayment, and buying a home is the essence of the true American dream. Eventually the beneficiaries of government programs stop thinking of themselves as independent citizens, and start viewing themselves as wards of the state. It is impossible to maintain a free society when more and more people look to the state to provide what Americans used to provide for themselves.
court
Resisting Judicial Tyranny
26 July 2004 Texas Straight Talk 26 July 2004 verse 2 ... Cached
The US House passed the Marriage Protection Act last week, a bill designed to ensure that the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution is not used to impose gay marriage on Texas or any other state. You may remember Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, which explicitly authorizes states to refuse recognition of gay marriages performed in other states. However, the lack of respect federal judges show for the plain language of the Constitution necessitated further congressional action. The Act underscores an important legal point: Marbury vs. Madison did not alter the congressional power to regulate and limit federal court jurisdiction, which is plainly stated in Article III. The drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the power to limit federal jurisdiction to provide a check on out-of-control federal judges. In other words, the federalist concept of checks and balances applies to the judiciary just as it does to the legislative and executive branches. The Marriage Protection Act represents a long-overdue exercise of the congressional power to limit and define federal court jurisdiction.
court
Resisting Judicial Tyranny
26 July 2004 Texas Straight Talk 26 July 2004 verse 3 ... Cached
Americans need to better understand the role of federal courts. The Supreme Court is supreme only over the lower federal courts; it is not supreme over the other branches of government. The judicial branch is co-equal under our federal system, nothing more and nothing less. Yet we’ve allowed federal judges to pursue a social agenda that is at odds with a majority of Americans, in essence converting our courthouses into legislatures. In the process average people have lost even more power to affect the laws under which they must live.
court
Resisting Judicial Tyranny
26 July 2004 Texas Straight Talk 26 July 2004 verse 4 ... Cached
The Founders never intended for a handful of unelected, unaccountable federal judges to decide social policy for the entire nation. Just as Texas is not required to recognize medical licenses, law licenses, or driving licenses from other states, it ought not be forced to recognize gay marriage licenses granted elsewhere. Already some same-sex couples have sued in federal court to force the nationwide recognition of their marriages, so the Marriage Protection Act is needed to preserve states’ rights. Federal judges have flouted the will of the American people for too long, acting as imperial legislators instead of jurists
court
Resisting Judicial Tyranny
26 July 2004 Texas Straight Talk 26 July 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
The definition of marriage- a union between a man and a woman- can be found in any dictionary. It’s sad that we need government to define an institution that has existed for centuries. The best approach to complex social problems, as always, is to follow the Constitution. This means Congress should restrict federal court jurisdiction when necessary, and social matters should be left up to states under the Ninth and Tenth amendments.
court
The Imperial Judiciary
04 October 2004 Texas Straight Talk 04 October 2004 verse 3 ... Cached
Last week’s debate over the constitutional marriage amendment brought even greater attention to the issue of activist judges. From gay marriage to Boy Scouts to frivolous lawsuits to the Pledge of Allegiance, Americans have grown increasingly distrustful and suspicious of our federal courts- and rightfully so. Never in our history have unaccountable federal judges wielded more power over our lives.
court
The Imperial Judiciary
04 October 2004 Texas Straight Talk 04 October 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
But what is to be done? Since many citizens lack basic knowledge of our Constitution and federalist system, they are easily manipulated by media and academic elites who tell them that judges are the absolute and final arbiters of US law. But the Supreme Court is not supreme over the other branches of government; it is supreme only over lower federal courts. If Americans wish to be free of judicial tyranny, they must at least develop basic knowledge of the judicial role in our republican government. The present state of affairs is a direct result of our collective ignorance.
court
The Imperial Judiciary
04 October 2004 Texas Straight Talk 04 October 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
The ultimate solution to the problem of unbridled judicial activism at the federal level is clear: Congress must reassert its constitutional authority to define and restrict the jurisdiction of federal courts. This power is plainly granted in Article III, and no constitutional amendments are required. On the contrary, any constitutional amendment addressing judicial activism would only grant legitimacy to the dangerous idea that social issues are federal matters. Remember, when social issues are federalized, conservatives always lose. Giving more authority over social matters to any branch of the federal government is a mistake, because a centralized government is unlikely to reflect local sentiment for long. If anything, the marriage amendment would have given the secular left an excuse to impose gay marriage on all of us in future years, as the issue would have been irrefutably federalized.
court
The Imperial Judiciary
04 October 2004 Texas Straight Talk 04 October 2004 verse 7 ... Cached
Congressional cowardice enables judicial activism. Just as Congress ceded far too much legislative authority to presidents throughout the 20th century, it similarly has allowed federal judges to operate wildly beyond their constitutional role. In fact, many current members of Congress apparently accept the false notion that federal court judgments are superior to congressional statutes. Unless and until Congress asserts itself by limiting federal court jurisdiction, judges will continue to act as de facto lawmakers.
court
The Imperial Judiciary
04 October 2004 Texas Straight Talk 04 October 2004 verse 8 ... Cached
The political left increasingly uses the federal judiciary to do in court what it cannot do at the ballot box: advance an activist, secular, multicultural political agenda of which most Americans disapprove. As a society we should reconsider the wisdom of lifetime tenure for federal judges, and pay closer attention to the judicial nomination procedure. It’s time for the executive and legislative branches to show some backbone, appoint judges who follow the Constitution, and remove those who do not. It’s also time for Congress to start establishing clear limits on federal judicial power.
court
Deficits Make You Poorer
14 March 2005 Texas Straight Talk 14 March 2005 verse 3 ... Cached
Most Americans are vaguely aware that Congress has run up huge deficits in recent years, but the numbers involved are so large that it’s hard to grasp what our government’s indebtedness really means to us as individuals. The total federal debt is quickly approaching $8 trillion, courtesy of an administration that borrows roughly one billion dollars every day to pay its bills.
court
Pro-Life Politics?
28 March 2005 Texas Straight Talk 28 March 2005 verse 3 ... Cached
The Terri Schiavo saga has made millions of pro-life Americans understandably upset about the state of our culture, our courts, and our legislatures. Many worry that legal niceties have trumped morality, leading us down a slippery slope that cheapens life.
court
Dietary Supplements and Health Freedom
25 April 2005 Texas Straight Talk 25 April 2005 verse 18 ... Cached
The FDA simply has thumbed its nose at Congress and ignored the new rules in many instances, by attempting to suppress information about health supplements. But in 1999 a federal appellate court affirmed that the American people have a First Amendment right to such information without interference from the FDA. However, members of Congress have had to intervene with the FDA on several occasions to ensure that they followed the court order.
court
Lessons from the Kelo Decision
04 July 2005 Texas Straight Talk 04 July 2005 verse 3 ... Cached
One week after the Kelo decision by the Supreme Court, Americans are still reeling from the shock of having our nation’s highest tribunal endorse using government power to condemn private homes to benefit a property developer. Even as we celebrate our independence from England this July 4th, we find ourselves increasingly enslaved by petty bureaucrats at every level of government. The anger engendered by the Kelo case certainly resonates on this holiday based on rebellion against government.
court
Lessons from the Kelo Decision
04 July 2005 Texas Straight Talk 04 July 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
It is folly to believe we will regain lost freedoms if only the right individuals are appointed to the Supreme Court. Republican presidents, including conservative icon Ronald Reagan, have appointed some of our very worst Supreme Court Justices. In today’s political context, it frankly matters very little whom President Bush appoints to replace Justice O’Connor. Even the most promising jurist can change radically over the course of a lifetime appointment. We are supposed to be a nation of laws, not men, and the fixation on individuals as saviors of our freedoms is misplaced. America will regain lost freedoms only when her citizens wake up and reclaim a national sense of self-reliance, individualism, and limited government. A handful of judges cannot save a nation from itself.
court
Lessons from the Kelo Decision
04 July 2005 Texas Straight Talk 04 July 2005 verse 8 ... Cached
If anything, the Supreme Court should have refused to hear the Kelo case on the grounds that the 5th amendment does not apply to states. If constitutional purists hope to maintain credibility, we must reject the phony incorporation doctrine in all cases-- not only when it serves our interests. The issue in the Kelo case is the legality of the eminent domain action under Connecticut law, not federal law. Congress can and should act to prevent the federal government from seizing private property, but the fight against local eminent domain actions must take place at the local level. The people of New London, Connecticut could start by removing from office the local officials who created the problem in the first place.
court
Politics and Judicial Activism
15 August 2005 Texas Straight Talk 15 August 2005 verse 3 ... Cached
The nomination of Judge John Roberts to sit on the Supreme Court has reopened a bitter cultural divide in America, and the Senate confirmation hearings in September may exhibit more of the partisan rancor that characterized the Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas hearings.
court
Politics and Judicial Activism
15 August 2005 Texas Straight Talk 15 August 2005 verse 4 ... Cached
It’s sad that so many Americans see their freedoms as dependent on a single Supreme Court justice. Federal judges were never meant to wield the tremendous power that they do in modern America. Our Founders would find it inconceivable that a handful of unelected, unaccountable federal judges can decide social policy for the entire nation.
court
Politics and Judicial Activism
15 August 2005 Texas Straight Talk 15 August 2005 verse 5 ... Cached
Dozens of political pressure groups stood ready to launch an immediate public relations attack on any judge nominated by President Bush, while dozens of others stood ready to support the nominee no matter what. These groups reflect the unfortunate reality that millions of Americans unquestioningly support or oppose judicial nominees based solely on the party affiliation of the current president. Once again, blind loyalty to political parties has politicized a process that our Founders never intended to be political. When we as voters and citizens allow the nomination of judges to become political, we have only ourselves to blame for the politicization of our courts themselves. When courts become politicized, judges not surprisingly begin to act like politicians.
court
Politics and Judicial Activism
15 August 2005 Texas Straight Talk 15 August 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
Congress is guilty of enabling judicial activism. Just as Congress ceded far too much legislative authority to presidents throughout the 20th century, it similarly has allowed federal judges to operate wildly beyond their constitutional role. In fact, many current members of Congress apparently accept the false notion that federal court judgments are superior to congressional statutes. Unless and until Congress asserts itself by limiting federal court jurisdiction, judges will continue to act as de facto lawmakers.
court
Politics and Judicial Activism
15 August 2005 Texas Straight Talk 15 August 2005 verse 8 ... Cached
The congressional power to strip federal courts of jurisdiction is plainly granted in Article III, and no constitutional amendments are required. On the contrary, any constitutional amendment addressing judicial activism would only grant legitimacy to the dangerous idea that social issues are federal matters. Giving more authority over social matters to any branch of the federal government is a mistake, because a centralized government is unlikely to reflect local sentiment for long. Both political parties are guilty of ignoring the 9th and 10th amendments, and federalizing whole areas of law that constitutionally should be left up to states. This abandonment of federalism and states’ rights paved the way for an activist federal judiciary.
court
Politics and Judicial Activism
15 August 2005 Texas Straight Talk 15 August 2005 verse 9 ... Cached
The public also plays a role in the erosion of our judiciary. Since many citizens lack basic knowledge of our Constitution and federalist system, they are easily manipulated by media and academic elites who tell them that judges are the absolute and final arbiters of US law. But the Supreme Court is not supreme over the other branches of government; it is supreme only over lower federal courts. If Americans wish to be free of judicial tyranny, they must at least develop basic knowledge of the judicial role in our republican government. The present state of affairs is a direct result of our collective ignorance.
court
Gas, Taxes, and Middle East Policy
05 September 2005 Texas Straight Talk 05 September 2005 verse 8 ... Cached
Consider this: Iraqis can buy gas for as little as five cents per gallon, courtesy of American taxpayers! We’re talking about imported refined gas, because Iraqi refineries are not operating. Iraqi officials, using American tax dollars, buy this fuel from the Saudis or other OPEC nations at market rates. This subsidy to Iraq cost us nearly $3 billion in 2004 alone. What kind of foreign policy justifies using your tax dollars to subsidize gas prices in an oil-rich nation, while prices skyrocket in the U.S.? We must change our priorities and focus our resources on the American people. We cannot count on using military or political influence in the Middle East to keep gas prices low.
court
Our Political Federal Courts
10 October 2005 Texas Straight Talk 10 October 2005 verse 1 ... Cached
Our Political Federal Courts
court
Our Political Federal Courts
10 October 2005 Texas Straight Talk 10 October 2005 verse 3 ... Cached
The nomination of White House lawyer Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court has raised questions about her qualifications and political ideology. Conservatives and liberals alike fear that Ms. Miers will not represent their views, and will rule on issues in ways that harm our nation. But clearly we are not asking the right questions about Supreme Court nominees. The issue is not how candidates intend to wield judicial power, but rather whether they understand that the Constitution imposes limits on that power in the first place. We are guilty of permitting our federal courts to become politicized, when the proper role of those courts is to protect us from the very abuses that arise from politics.
court
Our Political Federal Courts
10 October 2005 Texas Straight Talk 10 October 2005 verse 4 ... Cached
Instead of viewing federal judicial nominees as liberals or conservatives, we ought to be viewing them as activists or originalists. Judicial activism is a popular and often misused term in politics today, but if we define it properly we can better understand the problem with our courts. Judicial activism is the practice of judges legislating from the bench, by interpreting law in a manner that creates an outcome to fit their political views. But judicial activism is more than this. Activist federal judges not only craft laws, they also ignore the laws in place-- particularly the enumerated powers listed in Article I of the Constitution and underscored by the 9th and 10th amendments. By ignoring the strict constitutional limits placed on the federal government and bulldozing states’ rights, federal judges opened the door to the growth of wildly extra-constitutional government in the 20th century. Activist courts enable activist government.
court
Our Political Federal Courts
10 October 2005 Texas Straight Talk 10 October 2005 verse 5 ... Cached
The bitterness and controversy that often surround the nomination of Supreme Court justices in recent decades makes perfect sense when we consider the lawmaking and lawbreaking power that activist federal courts possess. Federal courts in general, and the Supreme Court in particular, have long since ceased serving as referees who guard against government overreaching. Instead they have become unelected, unaccountable purveyors of social policy for the entire nation. Bitter partisan fights over Supreme Court nominees are inevitable simply because so much is at stake.
court
Our Political Federal Courts
10 October 2005 Texas Straight Talk 10 October 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
It seems that schoolchildren once knew far more about the Constitution than many adults do today. Yet we cannot hold intelligent opinions about Supreme Court nominees unless we understand this basic constitutional framework. It is therefore incumbent upon every American to read the text of the Constitution, study the history of its drafting and ratification, and consider whether federal judicial nominees will properly abide by their originally intended roles.
court
Our Political Federal Courts
10 October 2005 Texas Straight Talk 10 October 2005 verse 8 ... Cached
The Constitution above all is a document that limits the power of the federal government. The fundamental point that has been lost in our national discourse is this: the Constitution prohibits the federal government, including the federal judiciary, from doing all kind of things. Until we have federal judges who understand this, it matters little what political stripes or experience they bring to the bench. The Constitution does not empower government and grant rights, it restricts government in order to safeguard preexisting rights. When federal courts disregard this principle, acting as legislatures or failing to enforce constitutional limitations, we get the worst kind of unaccountable government.
court
Domestic Surveillance and the Patriot Act
26 December 2005 Texas Straight Talk 26 December 2005 verse 8 ... Cached
Some Senators last week complained that the Patriot Act is misunderstood. But it's not the American public's fault nobody knows exactly what the Patriot Act does. The Act contains over 500 pages of detailed legalese, the full text of which was neither read nor made available to Congress in a reasonable time before it was voted on- which by itself should have convinced members to vote against it. Many of the surveillance powers authorized in the Act are not clearly defined and have not yet been tested. When they are tested, court challenges are sure to follow. It is precisely because we cannot predict how the Patriot Act will be interpreted and used in future decades that we should question it today.
court
Federal Courts and the Growth of Government Power
16 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 16 January 2006 verse 1 ... Cached
Federal Courts and the Growth of Government Power
court
Federal Courts and the Growth of Government Power
16 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 16 January 2006 verse 3 ... Cached
The Senate hearings regarding the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court demonstrated that few in Washington view the Constitution as our founders did. The Constitution first and foremost is a document that limits the power of the federal government. It prevents the president, Congress, and the Supreme Court from doing all kinds of things. But judging by last week's hearings, the Constitution is an enabling document, one that authorizes the federal government to involve itself in nearly every aspect of our lives.
court
Federal Courts and the Growth of Government Power
16 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 16 January 2006 verse 4 ... Cached
The only controversy, it seems, is whether the current nominee will favor the power of one branch over another, or the preferences of one political party over another. Last week's hearings were purely political, because the role of Supreme Court justices has become increasingly political.
court
Federal Courts and the Growth of Government Power
16 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 16 January 2006 verse 5 ... Cached
Nearly all of the Senators, witnesses, and Judge Alito himself spoke repeatedly about the importance of respecting Supreme Court precedents. The clear implication is that we must equate Supreme Court decisions with the text of the Constitution itself, giving them equal legal weight. But what if some precedents are bad? Should the American people be forced to live with unpopular judicial "laws" forever? The Constitution itself can be amended; are we to accept that Supreme Court rulings are written in stone?
court
Federal Courts and the Growth of Government Power
16 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 16 January 2006 verse 6 ... Cached
Also troubling was the apparent consensus among both the Senators and Judge Alito that Congress has no authority to limit federal court jurisdiction by forbidding it to hear certain types of cases. This is completely false: Article III Section 2 of the Constitution plainly grants Congress the authority to limit federal court jurisdiction in many kinds of cases. It is perfectly constitutional for Congress to pass court-stripping legislation to reflect public sentiment against an overreaching Supreme Court.
court
Federal Courts and the Growth of Government Power
16 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 16 January 2006 verse 8 ... Cached
First, Supreme Court decisions are the absolute law of the land, equal in weight to the text of the Constitution itself. Supreme Court precedents should never be changed, and all nominees to the Court must accept them as settled law or be disqualified.
court
Federal Courts and the Growth of Government Power
16 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 16 January 2006 verse 9 ... Cached
Second, if the American people don't like any of the "laws" created by the Supreme Court, they have no choice but to live with them unless by some miracle the Court later overturns itself. The people have no recourse through Congress to address unpopular Court decisions.
court
Federal Courts and the Growth of Government Power
16 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 16 January 2006 verse 10 ... Cached
The ramifications of these assertions are very serious. They mean the Supreme Court not only can invalidate the actions of Congress or the President, but also craft de facto laws that cannot be undone by the people's elected legislators! This is wildly beyond the role of the federal judiciary as envisioned by the founders. They certainly never intended to create an unelected, lifetime-tenured, superlegislature.
court
Federal Courts and the Growth of Government Power
16 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 16 January 2006 verse 11 ... Cached
Our federal courts, like the rest of our federal government, have become far too powerful. When federal judges impose their preferred policies on the American people, the ability of average citizens to influence the laws under which they must live diminishes. This is why every American should read or reread the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. Only when we understand the proper role of the judiciary in our federal system will we stop viewing judges as purveyors of social, political, and economic rules for our nation.
court
Federalizing Social Policy
30 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 30 January 2006 verse 3 ... Cached
As the Senate prepares to vote on the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito this week, our nation once again finds itself bitterly divided over the issue of abortion. It's a sad spectacle, especially considering that our founders never intended for social policy to be decided at the federal level, and certainly not by federal courts. It's equally sad to consider that huge numbers of Americans believe their freedoms hinge on any one individual, Supreme Court justice or not.
court
Federalizing Social Policy
30 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 30 January 2006 verse 4 ... Cached
Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion. There is no serious argument based on the text of the Constitution itself that a federal "right to abortion" exists. The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court.
court
Federalizing Social Policy
30 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 30 January 2006 verse 8 ... Cached
Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade all 300 million Americans to agree with us. A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person. For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded society. No Supreme Court ruling by itself can instill greater respect for life. And no Supreme Court justice can save our freedoms if we don't fight for them ourselves.
court
The Real Washington Scandal
06 February 2006 Texas Straight Talk 06 February 2006 verse 3 ... Cached
Supreme Court nominations, congressional ethics scandals, and insider politics dominated the Washington headlines in recent weeks. But perhaps the most important story, in terms of its impact on average Americans, has gone virtually unreported.
court
Congress Rejects UN Taxes
19 June 2006 Texas Straight Talk 19 June 2006 verse 5 ... Cached
Understand that the UN views itself as the emerging global government, and like all governments, it needs money to operate. The goal, which the UN readily admits, is to impose a comprehensive set of global laws on all of us- laws that supersede sovereign national governments. To do this, the UN needs a global military, a global police force, international courts, offices around the globe, and plenty of highly-paid international bureaucrats. All of this costs money.
court
IRS Threatens Political Speech
24 July 2006 Texas Straight Talk 24 July 2006 verse 7 ... Cached
The result is court rulings and laws that separate citizens from their religious beliefs in all public settings, in clear violation of the free exercise clause. Our Founders never envisioned a rigidly secular public society, where people must nonsensically disregard their deeply held beliefs in all matters of government and politics. They certainly never imagined that the federal government would actively work to chill the political activities of some churches.
court
Elected Officials Threaten Property Rights
04 September 2006 Texas Straight Talk 04 September 2006 verse 5 ... Cached
Now one year removed from the notorious Kelo decision by the Supreme Court, Americans are still reeling from the shock of having our nation's highest tribunal endorse using government power to condemn private homes to benefit a property developer. The silver lining, however, is that many Americans have been stirred to action and are demanding new state laws to prohibit the Kelo scenario from repeating itself in their cities.
court
Political Power and the Rule of Law
05 February 2007 Texas Straight Talk 05 February 2007 verse 5 ... Cached
Remember that one's relationship with the state is never voluntary. Every government edict, policy, regulation, court decision, and law ultimately is backed up by force, in the form of police, guns, and jails. That is why political power must be fiercely constrained by the American people.
court
Political Power and the Rule of Law
05 February 2007 Texas Straight Talk 05 February 2007 verse 9 ... Cached
In a free society, government is restrained--and therefore political power is less important. I believe the proper role for government in America is to provide national defense, a court system for civil disputes, a criminal justice system for acts of force and fraud, and little else. In other words, the state as referee rather than an active participant in our society.
court
The DC Gun Ban
12 March 2007 Texas Straight Talk 12 March 2007 verse 3 ... Cached
Last Friday a federal appeals court in Washington DC issued a ruling that hopefully will result in the restoration of 2nd Amendment rights in the nation's capital. It appears the Court rejected the District of Columbia 's nonsensical argument that the 2nd Amendment confers only a "collective right," something gun control advocates have asserted for years.
court
The DC Gun Ban
12 March 2007 Texas Straight Talk 12 March 2007 verse 4 ... Cached
Of course we should not have too much faith in our federal courts to protect gun rights, considering they routinely rubber stamp egregious violations of the 1 st, 4th, and 5th Amendments, and allow Congress to legislate wildly outside the bounds of its enumerated powers. Furthermore, the DC case will be appealed to the Supreme Court with no guarantees. But it is very important nonetheless for a federal court only one step below the highest court in the land to recognize that gun rights adhere to the American people, not to government-sanctioned groups. Rights, by definition, are individual. "Group rights" is an oxymoron.
court
The Sunlight Rule
16 September 2007 Texas Straight Talk 16 September 2007 verse 2 ... Cached
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously said “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” Indeed some of the most malignant growth of our government has been nurtured under a cover of darkness.
court
Entangling Alliances
11 November 2007 Texas Straight Talk 11 November 2007 verse 2 ... Cached
In the name of clamping down on "terrorist uprisings" in Pakistan, General Musharraf has declared a state of emergency and imposed martial law. The true motivations behind this action however, are astonishingly transparent, as the reports come in that mainly lawyers and opposition party members are being arrested and harassed. Supreme Court justices are held in house arrest after indicating some reluctance to certify the legitimacy of Musharraf's recent re-election.
court
Entangling Alliances
11 November 2007 Texas Straight Talk 11 November 2007 verse 5 ... Cached
By the time he complies with the requests of the White House sufficiently to continue to receive his "allowance," courtesy of the American taxpayer, his mission will be accomplished. A more friendly Supreme Court will be installed and enough of the opposition party will be jailed or detained to assure an outcome of the elections that will meet with his approval. All the while, our administration lauds Musharraf as a trusted friend and ally.
court
On Foreign Entanglements: The Ties that Strangle
30 December 2007 Texas Straight Talk 30 December 2007 verse 4 ... Cached
Musharraf, unfortunately, appears to have learned how to work our system, much in the way a career welfare recipient has learned to do the same. The perpetual welfare recipient promises to look for a job. Musharraf has promised to look for Bin Laden. Both are terrible investments of American taxpayer dollars, however with Musharraf, its been an astonishing $10 billion loss over the last few years. But it is even worse than that. With his recent actions declaring martial law, and dismissing the justices of the supreme court, he is to the rest of the world, and to Pakistanis, a wildly unpopular, power hungry, brutal military dictator. The perception by most is that we are propping him up while simultaneously urging Ms. Bhutto back into Pakistan as a lamb to the slaughter.
court
Second Amendment Battle in DC
10 February 2008 Texas Straight Talk 10 February 2008 verse 4 ... Cached
Ironically, one of the most draconian gun laws in the nation is in the nation's capital. Banning guns did not make DC safer. In fact crime in DC rose after the gun ban went into place! Fortunately, last year, a federal court struck down DC's gun ban in the case of DC v. Heller. This is the first time in years a court found a gun control law violated the second amendment. However, victory is not secured. The city of DC has appealed and the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case. If the lower court's decision is upheld, law abiding citizens should once again be allowed to defend themselves in DC and I would expect it to become a much safer city. It would also set a very positive precedent that could affect gun laws all over the country.
court
Second Amendment Battle in DC
10 February 2008 Texas Straight Talk 10 February 2008 verse 5 ... Cached
However, a Supreme Court decision that the District of Columbia 's gun laws are a "reasonable" infringement on constitutional rights could severely setback the gun rights movement.
court
Second Amendment Battle in DC
10 February 2008 Texas Straight Talk 10 February 2008 verse 6 ... Cached
This is why I have signed on to a brief headed by Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and signed by a majority of Congress asking the Supreme Court to uphold the lower court's decision and take a stand for stricter standards of constitutional review for gun laws. I am pleased to work with Senator Hutchison, and so many of my other colleagues, on this important issue. As a member of the Second Amendment Caucus, I will continue to work with those of my colleagues who support gun rights and grassroots activists to defend the Second Amendment Rights of Americans.
Texas Straight Talk from 20 December 1996 to 23 June 2008 (573 editions) are included in this Concordance. Texas Straight Talk after 23 June 2008 is in blog form on Rep. Paul’s Congressional website and is not included in this Concordance.
Remember, not everything in the concordance is Ron Paul’s words. Some things he quoted, and he added some newspaper and magazine articles to the Congressional Record. Check the original speech to see.