U.S. Rep. Ron Paul | federal court |
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.”
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.”
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal court
Our Political Federal Courts
10 October 2005 Texas Straight Talk 10 October 2005 verse 1 ... Cached
Our Political Federal Courts
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
federal 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.
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.