U.S. Rep. Ron Paul | First Amendment |
First Amendment
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:102
Throughout the 20th century, economic and personal liberties have undergone a systematic separation. Rules applying to the media and personal relationships no longer apply to voluntary economic transactions. Some Members of Congress are quite vocal in defending the First Amendment and fight hard to protect freedom of expression by cautioning against any effort at prior restraint. They can speak eloquently on why V chip technology in the hands of the government may lead to bad things, even if proponents are motivated to protect our children from pornography. Likewise, these partial civil libertarians are quite capable of demanding the protection of all adult voluntary sexual activity. They mount respectable challenges to the social authoritarian who never hesitates to use government force to mold society and improve personal moral behavior.
First Amendment
Conference Report on H.R. 1757, Foreign Affairs Reform And Restructuring Act Of 1998
26 March 1998 1998 Ron Paul 28:12
Apparently contrary to the first amendment, the conference report contains language that the U.S. should recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Istanbul, Turkey, as the spiritual center of the world’s 300 million Orthodox Christians and calls upon the Turkish government to reopen the Halki Patriarchal School of Theology formerly closed in 1971. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion * * * (Except abroad?)
First Amendment
Can’t Vote For Amendment
4 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 55:8
This amendment further enables the Federal Government to do more mischief. The only solution is to shrink the government and raise a new generation of judges and Congressmen who understand the constitutional principles of original intent, the doctrine of enumerated powers, and property rights. If we do this, the First Amendment, freedom of religious expression, will be protected.
First Amendment
Campaign Finance Reform
16 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 59:8
There are many groups who come to Washington who do not come to buy influence, but they come to try to influence their government, which is a very legitimate thing. Think of the groups that come here who want to defend the Second Amendment. Think of the groups that want to defend right to life. Think of the groups that want to defend the principles of the American Civil Liberties Union and the First Amendment. And then there are groups who would defend property rights, and there will be groups who will come who will be lobbyist types and influential groups, and they want to influence elections, and they may be adamantly opposed to the United Nations and interference in foreign policies overseas. They have a legitimate right to come here.
First Amendment
Issue Ads
14 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 67:4
There has been a lot of talk here about soft money. I just often wonder about soft money. I know something about hard money. But this business of soft money and soft money automatically being bad is something we should think seriously about. Because so often when we are talking about soft money, we are talking about the people’s money, their money, their property. Sure, it is a first amendment right. But there is also a property rights issue here. When people have money, they have a right to spend it; and if they want to spend it on a voters guide, they certainly ought to be able to do this.
First Amendment
Consumer Protection Legislation
11 March 1999 1999 Ron Paul 19:6
Allowing American consumers access to information about the benefits of foods and dietary supplements will help America’s consumers improve their health. However, this bill is about more than physical health, it is about freedom. The first amendment forbids Congress from abridging freedom of all speech, including commercial speech.
First Amendment
National Center For Missing And Exploited Children
25 May 1999 1999 Ron Paul 51:2
This legislation would spend more than $268 million on issues that are simply outside the constitutional jurisdiction of the federal government. In addition, legislation like this blurs the lines between public and private funds, and opens good organizations to needless regulatory control for Congress. The legislation even opens the door to public money being used to support sectarian organizations, in direct violation of the First Amendment.
First Amendment
Only A Moral Society Will Make Our Citizens And Their Guns Less Violent
15 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 60:2
In dealing with the problem of violence, there is a large group here in the Congress quite willing to attack the first amendment while defending the second. Likewise, there is a strong contingency here for attacking the second amendment while defending the first.
First Amendment
Only A Moral Society Will Make Our Citizens And Their Guns Less Violent
15 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 60:3
My question is this: Why can we not consistently defend both? Instead, we see plans being laid to appease everyone and satisfy no one. This will be done in the name of curbing violence by undermining first amendment rights and picking away at second amendment rights.
First Amendment
Don’t Undermine First And Second Amendment
16 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 61:3
However, I am not optimistic that much good will come out of the next days of debate. I think there is a lot of mischief going on here. I see that one-half of this Congress is quite capable and anxious to defend the First Amendment, and I think that is good. I see the other half of the Congress is quite anxious and capable of defending the second amendment, and I think that is good. But it seems strange because see these two groups coming together in a coalition to pass a bill that will undermine the first amendment and undermine the second amendment.
First Amendment
Don’t Undermine First And Second Amendment
16 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 61:6
So I think we should think seriously before we pass more laws whether they undermine the first amendment or whether we pass more laws undermining the second amendment. We do not need more Federal laws.
First Amendment
Don’t Undermine First And Second Amendment
16 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 61:10
We are bound and determined to write more rules and regulations dealing with the first and the second amendment, and I do not see this as a good trend. It is said today that those who want to undermine the first amendment, that it is already established that pornography is not protected under the first amendment. And today the goal is to make sure that the depiction of violence is not protected under the first amendment. But do my colleagues know that the major cause of violence in the world throughout history have been abuse of religion and the abuse of philosophy?
First Amendment
What We Would Be Doing By Amending The Constitution To Make It Illegal To Desecrate The American Flag
22 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 63:11
We say, well, this is bad expression. This is ugly people. These are people that are saying unpopular things, and they are being obnoxious. But, Mr. Speaker, the first amendment and the freedom of expression was never put there for easygoing, nice, conventional, noncontroversial speech. There is no purpose to protect that. Nobody cares. The purpose of freedom of expression is to protect controversy, and if somebody is upset and annoyed, the best thing we can do with people like that is to ignore them. If we pass a constitutional amendment and people are so anti-American that they want to display their anti-Americanism, they will love it. They will get more attention because we will be sending in the Federal flag police to do something about it.
First Amendment
Opposing Flag Burning Amendment
23 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 65:8
And, yes, one would say this is egregious, this is horrible, to burn this flag. But that is the purpose of the first amendment, to protect obnoxious and uncomfortable speech.
First Amendment
Opposing Flag Burning Amendment
23 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 66:3
We have not had a law against flag desecration in the 212 years of our constitutional history. So I do not see where it is necessary. We have some misfits on occasion burn the flag, which we all despise. But to now change the ability for some people to express themselves and to challenge the First Amendment, I think we should not do this carelessly.
First Amendment
Opposing Flag Burning Amendment
23 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 66:4
Let me just emphasize how the first amendment is written. “Congress shall write no law.” That was the spirit of our Nation at that time. “Congress shall write no laws.”
First Amendment
H.R. 1691 And Religious Freedom
15 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 74:2
Mr. Speaker, as a legislature of enumerated powers, Congress may enact laws only for constitutionally authorized purposes. Despite citing the general welfare and commerce clause, the purpose of H.R. 1691 is obviously to “protect religious liberty.” However, Congress has been granted no power to protect religious liberty. Rather, the first amendment is a limitation on congressional power. The first amendment of the United States Constitution provides that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, yet H.R. 1691 specifically prohibits the free exercise of religion because it authorizes a government to substantially burden a person’s free exercise if the government demonstrates some nondescript, compelling interest to do so.
First Amendment
Selective Service System
5 August 1999 1999 Ron Paul 89:4
As was described by the gentlewoman earlier, there will be an attempt early on. The first amendment that will come to the floor will be to put that money back in.
First Amendment
Campaign Finance Reform
14 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 97:13
Additionally, the legislative debate over campaign finance reform has seemingly focused upon the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech, as interpreted and applied by the courts. The constitutional issues, however, are not limited to the First Amendment. To the contrary, pursuant to their oaths of office, members of Congress have an independent duty to determine the constitutionality of legislation before it and to decide, before ever reaching the First Amendment, whether they have been vested by the Constitution with any authority, at all, to regulate federal election campaigns. Congress has no authority except that which is “granted” in the Constitution. Thus, the threshold question concerning H.R. 417 is whether the Constitution has conferred upon Congress any authority to regular federal election campaigns. The authority to regulate such campaigns is not found among any enumerated power conferred upon Congress.
First Amendment
No Neeed for Federal Animal Cruelty Laws
19 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 106:2
Take, for instance, it says, “whoever knowingly possesses a depiction of animal cruelty with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate commerce.” That, you can get 5 years for. How do you prove intention? This is subjective, purely subjective. This is not narrowly written, this is very broadly written. This is a first amendment concern to many, but it is also so unnecessary.
First Amendment
Hostettler Amendment to Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary Appropriations Act
June 26, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 59:2
There is a lot of emphasis around here on the first amendment, and rightfully so. We should defend it. There is a lot of neglect on the second amendment, but there are a lot of Americans that believe that the second amendment is equally as important as the first amendment. So I congratulate the gentleman.
First Amendment
Scouting For All Act
September 12, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 74:3
* Nevertheless, this Congress has decided to bring to the floor a bill attempting to penalize this private group of citizens for exercising their first amendment ‘freedom of association’ rights. This is very close to denying the very right itself. To the extent the Boy Scouts should be penalized for their exercise of free association (or exclusion in this case), that penalty should only manifest itself through other private citizens exercising their freedom not to associate with individuals or groups whose associations (or lack therof) they find offensive.
First Amendment
Honoring The Success Of Catholic Schools
6 February 2001 2001 Ron Paul 6:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the sponsors of the H. Res. 28 in honoring the success of Catholic Schools in providing a quality education to millions of children around the country. However, I am concerned that this resolution also contains language that violates the sprit, if not the letter, of the establishment clause of the first amendment, thus insulting the millions of religious Americans who are struggling to educate their children free from federal control and endangering religious liberty.
First Amendment
Honoring The Success Of Catholic Schools
6 February 2001 2001 Ron Paul 6:4
Therefore, even though Congress intends to honor the ways Catholic schools help fulfill a secular goal, the fact is Congress cannot honor Catholic schools without endorsing efforts to promulgate the Catholic faith. By singling out one sect over another, Congress is playing favors among religions. While this does not compare to the type of religious persecution experienced by many of the founders of this country, it is still an example of the type of federal favoritism among religions that the first amendment forbids.
First Amendment
Congressman Paul’s Statement on Dietary Supplement Regulation and Research
March 20, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 21:4
Despite DSHEA, officials of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continued to attempt to enforce regulations aimed at keeping the American public in the dark about the benefits of dietary supplements. However, in the case of Pearson v. Shalala, 154 F.3d 650 (DC Cir. 1999), reh’g denied en banc, 172 F.3d 72 (DC Cir. 1999) , the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Court reaffirmed consumers’ first amendment right to learn about how using dietary supplements can improve their health without unnecessary interference from the FDA. The FDA has been forced to revise its regulations in order to comply with Pearson. However, members of Congress have had to intervene with the FDA on several occasions to ensure that they followed the court’s order. Clearly Congress must continue to monitor the FDA’s action in this area.
First Amendment
16 May 2001 2001 Ron Paul 35:3
But let me tell my colleagues, this gag rule argument is a red herring if I have ever seen one. This has nothing to do with the first amendment. This would be like arguing that if we had a prohibition in this bill against passing out guns to civilians in some foreign nation, we would say, we cannot have a prohibition on that because of the second amendment, defending the right to own guns. It would be nonsense. So this has nothing to do with the first amendment; but it does have something to do with the rights of U.S. citizens, Mr. Chairman, in forcibly taking funds through taxes from people who believe strongly against abortion their rights are violated.
First Amendment
16 May 2001 2001 Ron Paul 35:4
Someone mentioned earlier that this was a violation of the religious beliefs of people overseas. What about the religious beliefs of the people in this country who are at the point of a gun forced to pay for these abortions? That is where the real violation is. It is not an infraction on the first amendment.
First Amendment
Faith Based Initiatives
June 13, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 43:5
* Miss Parker points out that the founding fathers recognized the danger that church-state entanglement poses to religious liberty, which is why the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the free exercise of religion and forbids the federal government from establishing a national church. As Miss Parker points out, the most effective and constitutional means for Congress to help those in poverty is to cut taxes on the American people so that they may devote more of their resources to effective, locally-controlled, charitable programs.
First Amendment
Faith Based Initiatives
June 13, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 43:14
It is worth noting that although the founders declared this; they then prohibited, in the very first amendment to the Constitution, the establishment of religion by government. Clearly, they did not make haste to keep government out of religion because they were not religious men or because they were opposed to religion or religious activity. They did this because they understood that faith, freedom, and choice cannot be separated and that it is critical to preserve and protect these core elements of our society.
First Amendment
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.
First Amendment
INTRODUCTION OF FOODS ARE NOT DRUGS ACT — HON. RON PAUL
June 21, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 46:6
* Allowing American consumers access to information about the benefits of foods and dietary supplements will help America’s consumers improve their health. However, this bill is about more than physical health, it is about freedom. The first amendment forbids Congress from abridging freedom of all speech, including commercial speech.
First Amendment
Flag Burning Amendment
17 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 53:9
Another Member earlier mentioned that this could possibly be a property rights issue. I think it has something to do with the first amendment and freedom of expression. That certainly is important, but I think property rights are very important here. If you have your own flag and what you do with it, there should be some recognition of that. But the retort to that is, oh, no, the flag belongs to the country. The flag belongs to everybody. Not really. If you say that, you are a collectivist. That means you believe everybody owns everything. Who would manufacture the flags? Who would buy the flags? Who would take care of them? So there is an ownership. If the Federal Government owns a flag and you are on Federal property, even, without this amendment, you do not have the right to go and burn that flag. If you are causing civil disturbances, that is handled another way. But this whole idea that there could be a collective ownership of the flag, I think, is erroneous.
First Amendment
Flag Burning Amendment
17 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 53:10
The first amendment, we must remember, is not there to protect noncontroversial speech. It is to do exactly the opposite. So, therefore, if you are looking for controversy protection it is found in the first amendment. But let me just look at the words of the amendment. Congress, more power to the Congress. Congress will get power, not the States. That is the opposite of everything we believe in or at least profess to believe in on this side of the aisle.
First Amendment
Flag Burning Amendment
17 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 53:16
Since then Congress has twice tried to overturn more than 213 years of history and legal tradition by making flag desecration a federal crime. Just as surely as the Court was wrong in its disregard for the Tenth Amendment by improperly assigning the restrictions of the First Amendment to the states, so are attempts to federally restrict the odious (and very rare) practice of Americans desecrating the flag.
First Amendment
Flag Burning Amendment
17 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 53:17
After all, the First Amendment clearly states that it is Congress that may “make no laws” and is prohibited from “abridging” the freedom of speech and expression. While some may not like it, under our Constitution state governments are free to restrict speech, expression, the press and even religious activities. The states are restrained, in our federal system, by their own constitutions and electorate.
First Amendment
STATEMENT FOR WE THE PEOPLE PRESS CONFERENCE
July 17, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 54:2
The validity of their claims about the tax laws and the 16th Amendment is uncertain. Yet I support Mr. Schulz’s right to petition his government, to have his petition heard and taken seriously. The IRS should meet with him, and respond formally to his questions. His First Amendment petition should not be dismissed simply because his viewpoint is not shared by IRS officials. Indeed, the right to a formal response is inherent in the constitutional right to petition the government.
First Amendment
Statement on the Community Solutions Act of 2001
July 19, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 60:10
Obviously, making religious institutions dependent on federal funds (and subject to federal regulations) violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the first amendment. Critics of this legislation are also correct to point out that this bill violates the first amendment by forcing taxpayers to subsidize religious organizations whose principles they do not believe. However, many of these critics are inconsistent in that they support using the taxing power to force religious citizens to subsidize secular organizations.
First Amendment
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 1:4
The problem is that we have Members of Congress that yield to the temptation and influence of money. If we had enough Members around here that did not yield to the temptation, we would not have to have campaign finance reform, we would not have to regulate money, we would not have to undermine the first amendment, and we would not have to undermine the Constitution in that effort.
First Amendment
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 1:6
The government was set up to protect liberty, and yet we have devised a system here where money talks and it is important; but let me tell my colleagues one thing, the Campaign Finance Reform Act that is coming down the pike will do nothing to solve the problem and will do a lot to undermine our freedoms, a lot to undermine the first amendment and do nothing to preserve the Constitution.
First Amendment
Resolution Violates Spirit Of Establishment Clause
29 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 2:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the sponsors of the H. Res. 335 in honoring the success of Catholic Schools in providing a quality education to millions of children around the country. However, I am concerned that this resolution also contains language that violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the establishment clause of the first amendment, thus insulting the millions of religious Americans who are struggling to educate their children free from federal control and endangering religious liberty.
First Amendment
Resolution Violates Spirit Of Establishment Clause
29 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 2:4
Therefore, even though Congress intends to honor the ways Catholic schools help fulfill a secular goal, the fact is Congress cannot honor Catholic schools without endorsing efforts to promulgate the Catholic faith. By singling out one sect over another, Congress is playing favorites among religions. While this does not compare to the type of religious persecution experienced by many of the founders of this country, it is still an example of the type of federal favoritism among religions that the first amendment forbids.
First Amendment
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:2
Mr. Speaker, this so-called “reform” legislation is clearly unconstitutional. Many have pointed out that the First amendment unquestionably grants individuals and businesses the free and unfettered right to advertise, lobby, and contribute to politicians as they choose. Campaign reform legislation blows a huge hole in these First amendment protections by criminalizing criticism of elected officials. Thus, passage of this bill will import into American law the totalitarian concept that government officials should be able to use their power to silence their critics.
First Amendment
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:4
The damage this bill does to the First amendment is certainly a sufficient reason to oppose it. However, as Professor Titus demonstrates in his analysis of the bill, the most important reason to oppose this bill is that the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to regulate campaigns. In fact, article II expressly authorizes the regulation of elections, so the omission of campaigns is glaring.
First Amendment
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:22
I. Introduction To date, the legislative debate over campaign-finance reform has focused upon the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech, as interpreted and applied by the courts. The constitutional issues, however, are not limited to the First Amendment, neither are they resolved by citation to Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) nor by the latest Supreme Court opinion, including the one handed down on June 25, 2001 in FEC v . Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee . To the contrary, pursuant to their oaths of office, members of Congress have an independent duty to determine the constitutionality of legislation before them and to decide, before ever reaching the First Amendment, whether they have been vested by the Constitution with any authority, at all, to regulate federal election campaigns.
First Amendment
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:23
The original Constitution did not contain the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment. Writing in Federalist No. 84, Alexander Hamilton defended this omission, claiming that a bill of rights was not needed in a republic with a written constitution expressly enumerating the powers of government. Indeed, Hamilton observed a bill of rights attached to such a constitution might well prove dangerous because placing express limits upon the exercise of a power might give rise to the assumption that such a power had been previously granted.
First Amendment
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:27
It is in light of these principles, then, that the issue of constitutional authority to enact any campaign-finance reform bill is addressed in sections II and III below, before reaching the First Amendment issues raised by particular campaign-finance measures in sections IV and V. Furthermore, those issues are examined in light of the constitutional duty of Congress to decide for itself whether it has the constitutional authority to enact campaign-finance reform legislation and whether any such legislation violates the First Amendment, regardless of the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) and its progeny, including the high court’s most recent pronouncement on June 25, 2001.
First Amendment
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:54
Such contentions and consequences as these undermine the foundation of America’s constitutional republic. Our nation’s continued existence - its sovereignty - is not embodied in its current system of government or in its current elected and appointed leaders. Instead, the civil sovereignty of the nation resides in the people. To preserve popular sovereignty, the First Amendment secures to the people the freedom of speech, which, in turn, protects the people from any legislation the purpose of which is to preserve the current government and its leaders.
First Amendment
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:57
Campaign-finance reform also constitutes a direct attack on the First Amendment freedom of the press. By giving politicians and their appointed bureaucrats the right to decide what the people can say about them in the heat of an election campaign, as McCain-Feingold and Shays-Meehan do with respect to issue advertising in the closing weeks of a campaign, these so-called reformers reject the very idea of a republican form of government, granting to the government “censorial power over the people,” instead of preserving the censorial power of the people over their government. (See New York Times v. Sullivan, supra, 376 U.S. at 275.)
First Amendment
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:62
Since Watergate, Congress has been scrambling to “purify” the political process in order to restore public confidence in the federal government. Campaign-finance reform has been one of the centerpieces of this purification effort. Two central goals have dominated this reform effort: (1) to limit the amounts that any one person or entity may contribute to an election campaign; (2) to force disclosure of the identity of those contributors. Both of these aims violate the First Amendment right of the people to assemble.
First Amendment
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:63
At the heart of the right of the people to assemble is the right of the people to choose how they are going to associate with one another “for the ‘common advancement of political beliefs.’” ( Democratic Party v. Wisconsin, 450 U.S. 107, 121-22, 1981) This right extends to associations of people for the purpose of electing persons to federal office who share those political beliefs. ( Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 57, 1976) Indeed, as Justice Clarence Thomas recently observed: “Political associations allow citizens to pool their resources and make their advocacy more effective and such efforts are fully protected by the First Amendment.” ( Colo. Rep. Fed. Camp. Comm. v. FEC, 518 U.S. 604, 135 Led2d 795, 818, 1996, Thomas, J., concurring in the judgment and dissenting)
First Amendment
Health Information Independence Act of 2002
February 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 11:6
Despite DSHEA, FDA officials continued to attempt to enforce regulations aimed at keeping the American public in the dark about the benefits of dietary supplements. Finally, in the case of Pearson v. Shalala, 154 F.3d 650 (DC Cir. 1999), reh’g denied en banc, 172 F.3d 72 (DC Cir. 1999), the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Court reaffirmed consumers’ First Amendment right to learn about dietary supplements without unnecessary interference from the FDA. The Pearson court anticipated my legislation by suggesting the FDA adopt disclaimers in order to render some health claims non-misleading.
First Amendment
Health Information Independence Act of 2002
February 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 11:7
In the more than two years since the Pearson decision, members of Congress have had to continually intervene with the FDA to ensure it followed the court order. The FDA continues to deny consumers access to truthful health information. Clearly, the FDA is determined to continue to (as the Pearson court pointed out) act as though liberalizing regulations regarding health claims is the equivalent of “asking consumers to buy something while hypnotized and therefore they are bound to be misled.” Therefore, if Congress is serious about respecting the First Amendment rights of the people, we must remove FDA authority to censor non-misleading health claims, and those claims which can be rendered non-misleading by the simple device of adopting a disclaimer, by passing my Health Information Independence Act.
First Amendment
Health Information Independence Act of 2002
February 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 11:8
In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to help establish an objective process that respects consumers’ First Amendment rights to non-misleading information regarding the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements by cosponsoring the Health Information Independence Act.
First Amendment
RESTORING FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS OF RELIGION AND RELIGIOUS SPEECH
June 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 56:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation restoring First amendment protections of religion and religious speech. For fifty years, the personal religious freedom of this nation’s citizens has been infringed upon by courts that misread and distort the First amendment. The framers of the Constitution never in their worst nightmares imagined that the words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech .....” would be used to ban children from praying in school, prohibit courthouses from displaying the Ten Commandments, or prevent citizens from praying before football games. The original meaning of the First amendment was clear on these two points: The federal government cannot enact laws establishing one religious denomination over another, and the federal government cannot forbid mention of religion, including the Ten Commandments and references to God.
First Amendment
RESTORING FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS OF RELIGION AND RELIGIOUS SPEECH
June 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 56:2
In case after case, the Supreme Court has used the infamous “separation of church and state” metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty. This "separation" doctrine is based upon a phrase taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. In the letter, Jefferson simply reassures the Baptists that the First amendment would preclude an intrusion by the federal government into religious matters between denominations. It is ironic and sad that a letter defending the principle that the federal government must stay out of religious affairs. should be used two hundred years later to justify the Supreme Court telling a child that he cannot pray in school!
First Amendment
RESTORING FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS OF RELIGION AND RELIGIOUS SPEECH
June 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 56:3
The Court completely disregards the original meaning and intent of the First amendment. It has interpreted the establishment clause to preclude prayer and other religious speech in a public place, thereby violating the free exercise clause of the very same First amendment. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Congress to correct this error, and to perform its duty to support and defend the Constitution. My legislation would restore First amendment protections of religion and speech by removing all religious freedom-related cases from federal district court jurisdiction, as well as from federal claims court jurisdiction. The federal government has no constitutional authority to reach its hands in the religious affairs of its citizens or of the several states.
First Amendment
H.R. 2896
10 July 2002 2002 Ron Paul 67:6
A lot of times I get support from the other side of the aisle when they see the prohibitions that our legislation places on the First Amendment. Likewise, I get a lot of support when I would like to reduce the prohibitions on the Fourth Amendment in the area of privacy. Unfortunately, since 9–11, we have moved in the wrong direction. We are making more prohibitions by law on our Bill of Rights.
First Amendment
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY – WHO NEEDS IT?
July 23, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 73:7
Is the first amendment revitalized, and are owners permitted to defend their property, their passengers, and personnel? No, no hint of it, unless you are El Al airlines, which enjoys this right, while no others do.
First Amendment
Treatment Of Mr. Martin Mawyer By U.N. Officers Must Be Investigated
16 October 2002 2002 Ron Paul 100:18
Mawyer’s attorney, David Carroll, was present during the incident. He said Mawyer clearly did not violate any laws, and was victimized when the U.N. refused to allow him to exercise his First Amendment right to petition the government, and to exercise his free speech. Carroll added that Mawyer may have grounds to file assault charges against the U.N. Security officers.
First Amendment
Treatment Of Mr. Martin Mawyer By U.N. Officers Must Be Investigated
16 October 2002 2002 Ron Paul 100:19
“What is most outrageous about this incident is that the U.N. has consistently criticized the United States, our law enforcement and criminal justice systems, and has even asked to inspect our prisons and jails to make sure we are treating prisoners fairly,” said Mawyer. “Yet they brutally assaulted me on the steps of their headquarters, then I was tossed in jail, my First Amendment rights were violated — all the while they sit on U.S. soil, enjoying the blessings of our nation and the fruits of our industry. They won’t even accept the valid petitions from the very citizens whose own tax dollars support them.”
First Amendment
The First Amendment Protects Religious Speech
April 2, 2003 Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation restoring First amendment protections of religion and religious speech. For fifty years, the personal religious freedom of this nation’s citizens has been infringed upon by courts that misread and distort the First amendment. The framers of the Constitution never in their worst nightmares imagined that the words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.......” would be used to ban children from praying in school, prohibit courthouses from displaying the Ten Commandments, or prevent citizens from praying before football games. The original meaning of the First amendment was clear on these two points: The federal government cannot enact laws establishing one religious denomination over another, and the federal government cannot forbid mention of religion, including the Ten Commandments and references to God. 2003 Ron Paul 43:1
In case after case, the Supreme Court has used the infamous “separation of church and state” metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty. This “separation” doctrine is based upon a phrase taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. In the letter, Jefferson simply reassures the Baptists that the First amendment would preclude an intrusion by the federal government into religious matters between denominations. It is ironic and sad that a letter defending the principle that the federal government must stay out of religious affairs. Should be used two hundred years later to justify the Supreme Court telling a child that he cannot pray in school!
First Amendment
The First Amendment Protects Religious Speech
April 2, 2003 Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation restoring First amendment protections of religion and religious speech. For fifty years, the personal religious freedom of this nation’s citizens has been infringed upon by courts that misread and distort the First amendment. The framers of the Constitution never in their worst nightmares imagined that the words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.......” would be used to ban children from praying in school, prohibit courthouses from displaying the Ten Commandments, or prevent citizens from praying before football games. The original meaning of the First amendment was clear on these two points: The federal government cannot enact laws establishing one religious denomination over another, and the federal government cannot forbid mention of religion, including the Ten Commandments and references to God. 2003 Ron Paul 43:2
The Court completely disregards the original meaning and intent of the First amendment. It has interpreted the establishment clause to preclude prayer and other religious speech in a public place, thereby violating the free exercise clause of the very same First amendment. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Congress to correct this error, and to perform its duty to support and defend the Constitution. My legislation would restore First amendment protections of religion and speech by removing all religious freedom-related cases from federal district court jurisdiction, as well as from federal claims court jurisdiction. The federal government has no constitutional authority to reach its hands in the religious affairs of its citizens or of the several states.
First Amendment
The Flag Burning Amendment
June 3, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 57:9
The First Amendment has been brought up on several occasions, and I am sure it will be mentioned much more in general debate. This amendment does not directly violate the First Amendment, but what it does, it gives Congress the authority to write laws that will violate the First Amendment, and this is where the trouble is. Nothing but confusion and litigation can result.
First Amendment
The Flag Burning Amendment
June 3, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 57:11
It was mentioned earlier that those who supported campaign finance laws were inconsistent. And others would say that we do not have to worry about the First amendment when we are dealing with the flag amendments. But I would suggest there is another position. Why can we not be for the First amendment when it comes to campaign finance reform and not ask the government to regulate the way we spend our money and advertise, while at the same time supporting the First amendment here?
First Amendment
The Flag Burning Amendment
June 3, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 57:13
It is said by the chairman of the committee that he does not want to hear much more about the First amendment. We have done it before, so therefore it must be okay. But we should not give up that easily.
First Amendment
The Flag Burning Amendment
June 3, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 57:16
The gentleman earlier had said that there are laws against slander so therefore we do violate the First amendment. Believe me, I have never read or heard about a legislative body or a judge who argued that you can lie and commit fraud under the First amendment. But the First amendment does say “Congress shall write no laws.” That is precise. So even the laws dealing with fraud and slander should be written by the States. This is not a justification for us to write an amendment that says Congress shall write laws restricting expression through the desecration of the flag.
First Amendment
The Flag Burning Amendment
June 3, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 57:21
Mr. Speaker, we have some misfits who on occasion burn the flag. We all despise this behavior, but the offensive conduct of a few does not justify making an exception to the First amendment protections of political speech the majority finds offensive. According to the pro-flag amendment Citizens Flag Alliance, there has been only 16 documented cases of flag burning in the last two years, and the majority of those cases involved vandalism or some other activity that is already punishable by local law enforcement!
First Amendment
The Flag Burning Amendment
June 3, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 57:22
Let me emphasize how the First Amendment is written, “Congress shall make no law.” That was the spirit of our Nation at that time: “Congress shall make no laws.”
First Amendment
UNESCO
22 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 86:5
Let me just mention a few things that UNESCO is involved in. They came across, when we were in there, as being very anti-American, certainly anti-freedom, and certainly anti-first amendment. UNESCO’s main function is to mettle in the education affairs of individual neighborhoods, nations, by proposing global school curriculums; something that we hardly need.
First Amendment
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.
First Amendment
Undermining First Amendment
11 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 16:2
I am convinced that the Congress has been a very poor steward of the first amendment, and we are moving in the direction of further undermining the first amendment with this legislation.
First Amendment
Undermining First Amendment
11 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 16:5
Now, once again, we are attacking indecency, which we all should, but how we do it is critical; because “indecency” is a subjective term, and it has yet to be defined by the courts. We should remember that the Congress very clearly by the Constitution is instructed to: “make no laws abridging the freedom of speech.” It cannot be any clearer. If we have problems with indecency they are to be solved in different manners. The excuse, because the government is responsible and owns the airwaves, that we can suspend the first amendment is incorrect. That is a good argument for privatizing the airwaves rather than an excuse for suspension of the first amendment.
First Amendment
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3717, Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act Of 2004
11 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 17:2
The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech. . . .” It does not make an exception for broadcast television. Some argue that broadcast speech is different because broadcasters are using the “people’s airwaves.” Of course, the “people” don’t really control the airwaves anymore then the “people” control the government in the “People’s Republic” of China! Instead, the “people’s airwaves” is a euphemism for government control of the airwaves. Of course, government exceeded its Constitutional authority when it nationalized the broadcast industry.
First Amendment
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3717, Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act Of 2004
11 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 17:4
Congress used its unconstitutional and unjustified power-grab over the allocation of broadcast spectrum to justify imposing federal regulations on broadcasters. Thus, the Federal Government used one unconstitutional action to justify another seizing of regulatory control over the content of a means of communication in direct violation of the First Amendment.
First Amendment
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3717, Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act Of 2004
11 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 17:7
The new FCC powers contained in H.R. 3717 could even be used to censor religious speech. Just this week, a group filed a petition with the United States Department of Justice asking the agency to use federal hate crimes laws against the directors, producers, and screenwriters of the popular movie, “The Passion of the Christ.” Can anyone doubt that, if H.R. 3717 passes, any broadcaster who dares show “The Passion” or similar material will risk facing indecency charges? Our founders recognized the interdependence of free speech and religious liberty; this is why they are protected together in the First Amendment. The more the Federal Government restricts free speech, the more our religious liberties are endangered.
First Amendment
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3717, Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act Of 2004
11 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 17:15
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3717 is the latest in an increasing number of attacks on free speech. For years, those who wanted to regulate and restrict speech in the commercial marketplace relied on the commercial speech doctrine that provides a lower level of protection to speech designed to provide a profit to the speaker. However, this doctrine has no Constitutional authority because the plain language of the First Amendment does not make any exceptions for commercial speech!
First Amendment
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3717, Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act Of 2004
11 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 17:19
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, because H.R. 3717 is the latest assault in a disturbing pattern of attacks on the First Amendment, I must vote against it and urge my colleagues to do the same.
First Amendment
Don’t Let the FDA Block Access to Needed Health Care Information
March 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 20:6
Despite DSHEA, FDA officials continued to attempt to enforce regulations aimed at keeping the American public in the dark about the benefits of dietary supplements. Finally, in the case of Pearson v. Shalala, the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Court reaffirmed consumers’ First Amendment right to learn about dietary supplements without unnecessary interference from the FDA. The Pearson decision anticipated my legislation by suggesting the FDA adopt disclaimers in order to render some health claims non-misleading.
First Amendment
Don’t Let the FDA Block Access to Needed Health Care Information
March 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 20:8
The FDA’s “grocery store censorship” not only violates consumers’ First Amendment rights- by preventing consumers from learning about the benefits of foods and dietary supplements, the FDA’s policies are preventing consumers from taking easy steps to improve their own health!
First Amendment
Don’t Let the FDA Block Access to Needed Health Care Information
March 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 20:9
If Congress is serious about respecting First Amendment rights, and the people’s right to improve their own health, we must remove the FDA’s authority to censor non-misleading health claims, and claims that can be rendered non-misleading by the simple device of adopting a disclaimer.
First Amendment
Don’t Let the FDA Block Access to Needed Health Care Information
March 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 20:10
In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to help establish an objective process that respects consumers’ First Amendment rights to non-misleading information regarding the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements by cosponsoring the Health Information Independence Act.
First Amendment
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.
First Amendment
HR 418- A National ID Bill Masquerading as Immigration Reform
February 9, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 19:7
This bill could have a chilling effect on the exercise of our constitutionally guaranteed rights. It re-defines “terrorism” in broad new terms that could well include members of firearms rights and anti-abortion groups, or other such groups as determined by whoever is in power at the time. There are no prohibitions against including such information in the database as information about a person’s exercise of First Amendment rights or about a person’s appearance on a registry of firearms owners.
First Amendment
Regulating The Airwaves
16 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 22:2
The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech. . . .” It does not make an expectation for broadcast television. Some argue that broadcast speech is different because broadcasters are using the “people’s airwaves.” Of course, the people do not really control the airwaves any more than the people control the government in the People’s Republic of China. Instead, the people’s airwaves is a euphemism for government control of the airwaves. Of course, government exceeded its Constitutional authority when it nationalized the broadcast industry.
First Amendment
Regulating The Airwaves
16 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 22:4
Congress used its unconstitutional and unjustified power-grab over the allocation of broadcast spectrum to justify imposing Federal regulations on broadcasters. Thus, the Federal Government used one unconstitutional action to justify another seizing of regulatory control over the content of a means of communication in direct violation of the first amendment.
First Amendment
Regulating The Airwaves
16 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 22:7
The new FCC powers contained in H.R. 310 could even be used to censor religious speech. Last year, a group filed a petition with the United States Department of Justice asking the agency to use Federal hate crimes laws against the directors, producers, and screenwriters of the popular movie, “The Passion of the Christ.” Can anyone doubt that, if H.R. 310 passes, any broadcaster who dares show “The Passion” or similar material will risk facing indecency charges? Our founders recognized the interdependence of free speech and religious liberty; this is why they are protected together in the first amendment. The more the Federal Government restricts free speech, the more our religious liberties are endangered.
First Amendment
Regulating The Airwaves
16 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 22:15
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 310 is the latest in an increasing number of attacks on free speech. For years, those who wanted to regulate and restrict speech in the commercial marketplace relied on the commercial speech doctrine that provides a lower level of protection to speech designed to provide a profit to the speaker. However, this doctrine has no constitutional authority because the plain language of the first amendment does not make any exceptions for commercial speech.
First Amendment
Regulating The Airwaves
16 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 22:18
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, because H.R. 310 is the latest assault in a disturbing pattern of attacks on the first amendment, I must vote against it and urge my colleagues to do the same.
First Amendment
Introducing The Consumers Access To Health Information Act
12 May 2005 2005 Ron Paul 48:2
In 1990, responding to the demands of the American people that the federal government respect consumers’ right to receive information about the ways foods and dietary supplements can improve their health, Congress passed the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act. The intent of that act was to allow the manufacturers of foods and dietary supplements to provide consumers with accurate and specific information regarding the curative and preventive effects of foods and dietary supplements. However, the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, ignored repeated efforts by Congress to protect consumers’ First Amendment rights to receive truthful information about the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements.
First Amendment
Introducing The Consumers Access To Health Information Act
12 May 2005 2005 Ron Paul 48:3
Incredibly, in the case of Whitaker v. Thompson, 353 F.3d 947 (2004), rehearing den. 2004 U.S.D. App. LEXIS 4617 (D.C. Cir. March 9, 2004) the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit supported the FDA’s interpretation of Congress’s intent and rejected the clear restraints of the First Amendment by ruling that the FDA had the authority to censor information regarding the specific benefits of foods and dietary supplements.
First Amendment
Introducing The Consumers Access To Health Information Act
12 May 2005 2005 Ron Paul 48:7
At a time when health care costs are rising it is absurd for the federal government to prevent Americans from learning about how they increase their chances of staying healthy by making simple changes in their diets. However, this bill is about more than physical health; it is about freedom. The First Amendment forbids Congress from abridging freedom of all speech, including commercial speech. The type of prior restraint the FDA exercises over these health claims has also been thought to be particularly repugnant to the First Amendment. In a free society, the federal government must not be allowed to prevent people from receiving information enabling them to make informed decisions about whether or not they will use dietary supplements or eat certain foods. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to take a step toward restoring freedom by cosponsoring the Consumer Access to Health Information Act.
First Amendment
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 62:9
In effect, the courts in California were used as a weapon to interfere with our rights to free speech. Along the way, this case resulted in a binding precedent extending First Amendment rights to the Internet. That precedent has been used all the way to the US Supreme Court as well as in several state supreme courts.
First Amendment
Statement on the Flag Burning Amendment
June 22, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 71:12
Mr. Speaker, we have some misfits who on occasion burn the flag. We all despise this behavior, but the offensive conduct of a few does not justify making an exception to the First Amendment protections of political speech the majority finds offensive. According to the pro-flag amendment Citizens Flag Alliance, there were only three incidents of flag desecration in 2004 and there have only been two acts of desecration thus far in 2005, and the majority of those cases involved vandalism or some other activity that is already punishable by local law enforcement!
First Amendment
Statement on the Flag Burning Amendment
June 22, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 71:13
Let me emphasize how the First Amendment is written, “Congress shall make no law.” That was the spirit of our nation at that time: “Congress shall make no laws.”
First Amendment
Amend The PATRIOT Act — Part 1
21 July 2005 2005 Ron Paul 87:5
So this is a restatement of a fundamental principle that should be in our minds and in our law, but I think it is worthwhile to restate. And I do recognize that in the PATRIOT Act they recognize that the first amendment should be protected, and in this case I think it is an additional statement that we should be respectful of people’s rights to speak out and not be singled out for political or religious viewpoints. Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
First Amendment
Amend The PATRIOT Act — Part 1
21 July 2005 2005 Ron Paul 87:6
Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin. Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. I support this amendment. I think it merely restates the fact that people who are not involved in criminal or terrorist activities have nothing to fear from the PATRIOT Act. The first amendment protects free speech. It protects political association. As long as the political association is not involved in criminal terrorist activities, we ought to encourage it even if their views are something that we disagree with. The gentleman from Texas has done a very good service to this bill with this amendment, and I hope it is adopted overwhelmingly.
First Amendment
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.
First Amendment
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.
First Amendment
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.
First Amendment
Free Speech and Dietary Supplements
November 10, 2005 HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS 2005 Ron Paul 118:7
This legislation also addresses the FTC’s violations of the First Amendment. Under traditional First Amendment jurisprudence, the federal government bears the burden of proving an advertising statement false before censoring that statement. However, the FTC has reversed the standard in the case of dietary supplements by requiring supplement manufactures to satisfy an unobtainable standard of proof that their statement is true. The FTC’s standards are blocking innovation in the marketplace.
First Amendment
Free Speech and Dietary Supplements
November 10, 2005 HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS 2005 Ron Paul 118:9
Mr. Speaker, if we are serious about putting people in charge of their health care, then shouldn’t we stop federal bureaucrats from preventing Americans from learning about simple ways to improve their health. I therefore call on my colleagues to stand up for good health care and the First Amendment by cosponsoring the Health Freedom Protection Act.
First Amendment
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:80
Greater regulation of lobbyists is a dangerous and unnecessary proposition. If one expects to solve a problem without correctly identifying its source, the problem persists. The first amendment clearly states “Congress shall make no laws respecting the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” That means no law.
First Amendment
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:113
Only then will some good come of it. Only then will we understand that undermining the first amendment right of people to petition the government is hardly a solution to this much more serious and pervasive problem.
First Amendment
Jack Abramoff Scandal
3 May 2006 2006 Ron Paul 33:3
This legislation further violates the First Amendment by setting up a means of secretly applying unconstitutional campaign finance laws to “Section 527” organizations. This is done by a provision in the rule under which this bill is brought before us that automatically attaches the “527” legislation to H.R. 4975 if H.R. 4975 passes the House and is sent to the Senate for a conference.
First Amendment
Jack Abramoff Scandal
3 May 2006 2006 Ron Paul 33:7
The principals in the recent scandals where not deterred by existing laws and congressional ethics rules. Why would a future Jack Abramoff be deterred by H.R. 4975? H.R. 4975 is not just ineffective to the extent that it burdens the ability of average citizens to support and join grassroots organizations to more effectively participate in the policy process, H.R. 4975 violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the First Amendment. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this bill and instead work to reduce corruption in Washington by reducing the size and power of the Federal Government.
First Amendment
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.
First Amendment
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.
First Amendment
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.
First Amendment
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.
First Amendment
Introduction Of The health Freedom Protection Act
2 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 49:7
This legislation also addresses the FTC’s violations of the First Amendment. Under traditional First Amendment jurisprudence, the Federal government bears the burden of proving an advertising statement false before censoring that statement. However, the FTC has reversed the standard in the case of dietary supplements by requiring supplement manufactures to satisfy an unobtainable standard of proof that their statement is true. The FTC’s standards are blocking innovation in the marketplace.
First Amendment
Introduction Of The health Freedom Protection Act
2 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 49:9
Madam Speaker, if we are serious about putting people in charge of their health care, then shouldn’t we stop federal bureaucrats from preventing Americans from learning about simple ways to improve their health. I therefore call on my colleagues to stand up for good health care and the First Amendment by cosponsoring the Health Freedom Protection Act.
First Amendment
Statement Introducing American Freedom Agenda Act Of 2007
15 October 2007 2007 Ron Paul 98:3
The legislation clarifies that no information shall be admitted as evidence if it is obtained from the defendant through the use of torture or coercion. It codifies the FISA process as the means by which foreign intelligence may be obtained and it gives members of the Senate and the House of Representatives standing in court to challenge presidential signing statements that declares the president’s intent to disregard certain aspects of a law passed in the U.S. Congress. It prohibits kidnapping and extraordinary rendition of prisoners to foreign countries on the president’s unilateral determination that the suspect is an enemy combatant. It defends the first amendment by clarifying that journalists are not to be prevented from publishing information received from the legislative or executive branch unless such publication would cause immediate, direct, and irreparable harm to the United States.
First Amendment
Let People Decide Whether To Use Tobacco
June 12, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 66:4
One part of this bill that I find particularly bad, but it is pervasive in so much of what we do, about 100 years ago we took the First Amendment and freedom of speech and chopped it into two pieces. We have political speech. Of course we like that. We’re in the business of politics. But we take commercial speech, and we put it over here, and we regulate the living daylights out of commercial speech. That’s not a First Amendment. That’s chopping freedom in half, and that just leads to more problems. But this will lead to prohibition, and it won’t work. This will just give us a lot more trouble.
First Amendment
INTRODUCING HEALTH FREEDOM LEGISLATION
July 29, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 87:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce two pieces of legislation restoring the First Amendment rights of consumers to receive truthful information regarding the benefits of foods and dietary supplements. The first bill, the Health Freedom Act, codifies the First Amendment by ending the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s efforts to censor truthful health claims. The second bill, the Freedom of Health Speech Act, codifies the First and Fifth Amendment by requiring the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prove that health claims are false before it takes action to stop manufacturers and marketers from making the claims.
First Amendment
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.
First Amendment
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.
First Amendment
INTRODUCING HEALTH FREEDOM LEGISLATION
July 29, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 87:7
The Freedom of Health Speech Act addresses the FTC’s violations of the First Amendment. Under traditional constitutional standards, the federal government bears the burden of proving an advertising statement false before censoring that statement. However, the FTC shifted the burden of proof to industry. The FTC presumes health advertising is false and compels private parties to prove the ads (and everything the regulators say the ads imply) to be true to a near conclusive degree. This violation of the First and Fifth Amendments is harming consumers’ by blocking innovation in the health foods and dietary supplement marketplace.
First Amendment
- If someone accepts federal cash, then they must follow rules taxpayers set and deserve
15 September 1997 Texas Straight Talk 15 September 1997 verse 8 ... Cached
This week, I will be introducing two very important pieces of legislation. There has been a lot of talk around Washington and the nation about reforming our system of campaigning. Unfortunately a lot of this talk has centered around violating the Constitution, and especially the first amendment.
First Amendment
- If someone accepts federal cash, then they must follow rules taxpayers set and deserve
15 September 1997 Texas Straight Talk 15 September 1997 verse 9 ... Cached
The two items I will be introducing on Tuesday embrace rather than disgrace the first amendment. The first is called the Voter Freedom Act of 1997. It will prohibit states from erecting excessive ballot access barriers to candidates for federal office. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to control federal elections, and I firmly believe that the more voices participating, the more likely it is that the entrenched, out-of-touch, Washington establishment will be swept to the side.
First Amendment
Never sacrifice liberty for "campaign reform"
02 March 1998 Texas Straight Talk 02 March 1998 verse 5 ... Cached
Despite the rhetoric, the proposed "campaign finance reforms" have little to do with liberty, freedom and democracy, and much to do with narrowing the choices available to the American people and limiting their ability to participate in the free exchange of ideas. And above all else, these "reforms" are designed to preserve the status quo and protect those in power. To maintain their authority, many in Congress are willing to limit the choices of Americans and trample First Amendment rights.
First Amendment
Never sacrifice liberty for "campaign reform"
02 March 1998 Texas Straight Talk 02 March 1998 verse 9 ... Cached
The only meritorious reform is legislation to strike down barriers which serve to quash opposition to the big-government political factions. For this reason, under authority of Article I, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution relating to the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding federal elections, I have introduced HR 2477, the Voter Freedom Act, and HR 2478, the Debate Freedom Act. Rather than trampling individual rights, these bills actually enhance fundamental liberties and expand the exchange of ideas. These bills embrace, rather than disgrace, the First Amendment.
First Amendment
Religious freedom found in following Constitution
08 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 08 June 1998 verse 8 ... Cached
Our basic problem is not a lack of constitutional direction regarding the right of Americans to freely practice their religious beliefs; for the First Amendment is very clear. In reality, the problem has been that our courts are filled with judges who have no understanding, appreciation, or concern for the original intent of our Founding Fathers, or for the constitutional Doctrine of Enumerated Powers, or of property rights. And as long as this disgraceful condition exists, any new amendment to the Constitution will only be similarly abused. How can we expect judges, or even Members of Congress, to follow new constitutional amendments when they do not now follow anything currently existing in the Constitution?
First Amendment
Religious freedom found in following Constitution
08 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 08 June 1998 verse 13 ... Cached
The only solution is to shrink the government and raise a new generation of judges and congressmen who understand the constitutional principles of original intent, enumerated powers, and property rights. If we do this, our existing First Amendment right to freedom of religious expression will be protected more strongly than any effort at federal meddling.
First Amendment
Campaign reform should encourage choice
15 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 15 June 1998 verse 4 ... Cached
Echoing through the halls of the House of Representatives right now is perhaps one of the most important debates of the decades. So important because it goes to the heart of the First Amendment and, indeed, our very form of government.
First Amendment
Campaign reform should encourage choice
15 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 15 June 1998 verse 10 ... Cached
I have introduced two pieces of legislation which will be included in the debate on this issue. My legislation, rather than disgracing our First Amendment rights, embraces them by enhancing electoral free speech.
First Amendment
Tragedy begets tragedy
14 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 14 June 1999 verse 9 ... Cached
Lest anyone incorrectly assume assaults on our Constitution are limited to Democrats striking the Second Amendment, there is an equally strong move from some congressional Republicans to wipe away the First Amendment.
First Amendment
Tragedy begets tragedy
14 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 14 June 1999 verse 13 ... Cached
Still another provision would ban the sale of "violent" or "sexual" materials (including movies, books, sculptures, games, etc.) to young persons. But how does one reconcile such action with the freedom of press and religion? With difficulty, since "Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…" though perhaps states could. One might easily imagine a parent taking umbrage at their child being allowed to purchase such scandalous materials as those found in Genesis 19, Joshua 6 or the Samuels. What might prevent a federal judge from banning the sale of Bibles to youth at local bookstores? Or classic literature, such as the "Iliad" or "Hamlet"? All in the name of limiting violent images, right? Chipping away at the First Amendment, in a misguided attempt to protect children by usurping parental responsibility with new federal laws and bureaucracies, is nothing short of dangerous.
First Amendment
Let liberty ring loudly
21 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 21 June 1999 verse 5 ... Cached
Usually, half of the Congress is quite capable and anxious to defend the First Amendment, and that is good. The First Amendment states plainly that "Congress shall make no laws" to limit free speech, the press, the practice of religion, or the ability of Americans to assemble in protest of their government.
First Amendment
Flag Amendment is a reckless solution
28 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 28 June 1999 verse 7 ... Cached
Since then Congress has twice tried to overturn more than 213 years of history and legal tradition by making flag desecration a federal crime. Just as surely as the Court was wrong in its disregard for the Tenth Amendment by improperly assigning the restrictions of the First Amendment to the states, so are attempts to federally restrict the odious (and very rare) practice of Americans desecrating the flag.
First Amendment
Flag Amendment is a reckless solution
28 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 28 June 1999 verse 8 ... Cached
After all, the First Amendment clearly states that it is Congress that may "make no laws" and is prohibited from "abridging" the freedom of speech and expression. While some may not like it, under our Constitution state governments are free to restrict speech, expression, the press and even religious activities. The states are restrained, in our federal system, by their own constitutions and electorate.
First Amendment
Regulating gridiron prayer
13 September 1999 Texas Straight Talk 13 September 1999 verse 6 ... Cached
Many of the people who attend the games and who are now aghast at this federal intrusion have called my office seeking information. They are upset -- and rightly so -- that the utterance of a simple prayer can be prohibited, despite lip service paid to "freedom of speech." After all, they argue, doesn't the US Constitution's First Amendment strictly prohibit the federal government from interfering in the "free exercise" of religious beliefs?
First Amendment
Regulating gridiron prayer
13 September 1999 Texas Straight Talk 13 September 1999 verse 7 ... Cached
Of course it does. For much of our history, we had a more proper understanding of the correct balances in regards to the Constitution. After all, the First Amendment begins with a very important phrase, "Congress shall make no laws…." This phrase was always understood to mean that while the federal government could not create federal laws restricting religion, or use federal monies to give preference to one religious order over another, it specifically does not apply to the state and local governments. In other words, under a correct reading of the Constitution, a state or local government can allow -- or prohibit -- religious expression in public places.
First Amendment
Floor Votes Reviewed
06 December 1999 Texas Straight Talk 06 December 1999 verse 4 ... Cached
During the recently concluded session of Congress, I was able to get floor votes on a number of amendments that I proposed. The first amendment I introduced was to HR 1658, a bill introduced by Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, aimed at overhauling the nation's civil asset forfeiture laws.
First Amendment
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.
First Amendment
A Republic, Not a Democracy
12 December 2000 Texas Straight Talk 12 December 2000 verse 5 ... Cached
In fact, the Constitution is replete with undemocratic mechanisms. The electoral college is an obvious example. Small states are represented in national elections with greater electoral power than their populations would warrant in a purely democratic system. Similarly, sparsely populated Wyoming has the same number of senators as heavily populated New York. The result is not democratic, but the Founders knew that smaller states had to be protected against overreaching federal power. The Bill of Rights provides individuals with similar protections against the majority. The First Amendment, for example, is utterly undemocratic. It was designed to protect unpopular speech against democratic fervor. Would the same politicians so enamored with democracy be willing to give up freedom of speech if the majority chose to do so?
First Amendment
The Ashcroft Controversy Exposes Disdain for Conservative Principles
22 January 2001 Texas Straight Talk 22 January 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
The real question for Mr. Ashcroft or any federal official is simple: will you abide by your oath to uphold the Constitution? The rhetoric from the Senate and the media leads the public to believe the Attorney General has a duty to Congress directly, that he must enforce any law passed by Congress without regard to the Constitution or legal precedents. In truth, however, the Attorney General is counsel for the American people, not Congress or the President. He is sworn to uphold the highest law in the land, the Constitution. Under no circumstances may he enforce a law that clearly contravenes the Constitution, regardless of whether Congress or the President demands it. Would we expect Mr. Ashcroft to enforce a law passed by Congress today suspending First Amendment assembly and speech rights at this weekend's inauguration? Of course not. The possibility of an independent-minded conservative Attorney General threatens the left, however, because they want a federal administration which will rubber stamp the laws they support, many of which are unconstitutional.
First Amendment
Faith-Based Initiative Plan Poses Risks to Religious Organizations
05 February 2001 Texas Straight Talk 05 February 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
The ABC expose aired just days before President Bush announced his plan to allow private charities and religious organizations a greater role in delivering social services currently provided mostly by the federal government. He certainly is correct in his assertion that private groups do a better job of running food banks, day care centers, drug treatment centers, and other social programs. I applaud his desire to transfer funds away from government agencies and into the private sector. I certainly disagree with critics who misunderstand the First amendment and view the President's proposal as a sinister endorsement of religion. Bush especially should be credited for offering an alternative to the status quo, because federal agencies simply do a terrible job of providing social services.
First Amendment
IRS Church Seizure is a Tragedy for Religious Liberty
26 February 2001 Texas Straight Talk 26 February 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
The IBT tragedy is about religious liberty, not taxes. Churches should not be required to pay or withhold taxes any more than they should be given tax dollars from the government. The First amendment grants churches the absolute right to freely exercise their religious beliefs without interference from government. When tax laws force churches to act as collection agents for the IRS, this precious right is lost. The income tax represents the ultimate entanglement between churches and the government. When churches file income tax returns, the government becomes intimately familiar with their activities. Only those faiths deemed valid by IRS bureaucrats are rewarded with partial tax-exempt status. This entanglement chills true religious expression, because churches may alter their message to quell criticisms of government and avoid audits. When the government has the power to tax churches, it ultimately has the power to control them.
First Amendment
"Campaign Finance Reform" Serves Entrenched Interests in Washington
09 April 2001 Texas Straight Talk 09 April 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
We cannot forget that the Constitution grants Congress only limited enumerated powers, and no authority to regulate campaigns is provided. In fact, Article II expressly authorizes the regulation of elections, so the omission of any mention of campaigns is glaring. Questions have been raised about the constitutionality of campaign finance legislation based on the First amendment, but few seem to realize that Congress clearly lacks the constitutional power to enact such legislation.
First Amendment
"Campaign Finance Reform" Serves Entrenched Interests in Washington
09 April 2001 Texas Straight Talk 09 April 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
The liberal mainstream media also benefit from campaign finance restrictions. When lobbies and individuals are limited in what they can give to campaigns and political parties, they instead will spend money on advertisements during election seasons. Media outlets relish the prospect of increased ad revenue. Although the McCain bill places restrictions just prior to elections on issue ads, which only implicitly support one party or candidate, the media know they will sell even more ads before the restriction period starts. Since the issue ad restrictions raise First amendment questions, the media also know that the Supreme Court likely will forbid such restrictions as unconstitutional. The end result is that mainstream media organizations will have more money and influence than ever before. The media will impact the outcomes of elections even more than they do today.
First Amendment
Religious Liberty Thwarted by the Supreme Court
04 June 2001 Texas Straight Talk 04 June 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
The First amendment (or any other constitutional provision) must be strictly construed to reflect the intent of the Founding Fathers. The language is clear- Congress simply is prohibited from passing laws establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. There certainly is no mention of any "separation of church and state", although Supreme Court jurisprudence over the decades constantly asserts this mystical doctrine. Sadly, the application of this faulty doctrine by judges and lawmakers consistently results in violations of the free exercise clause. Rulings and laws separating citizens from their religious beliefs in all public settings simply restrict religious practices. Our Founders clearly never intended an America where citizens nonsensically are forced to disregard their deeply held beliefs in public life. The religious freedom required by the Constitution should not end the moment one enters a school, courtroom, or city hall.
First Amendment
Religious Liberty Thwarted by the Supreme Court
04 June 2001 Texas Straight Talk 04 June 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
Moreover, there is ample evidence that most of our Founders were deeply religious men who never imagined a rigid separation between religious beliefs and governance. Indeed, our national documents, symbols, currency, and buildings are replete with religious symbolism. Our national motto, "In God We Trust," is an obvious example. These symbols are entirely inconsistent with the religion-free government supposedly mandated by the First amendment.
First Amendment
Legislation Needed to End the IRS Threat to Religious Freedom
13 August 2001 Texas Straight Talk 13 August 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
The supposed motivation behind the ban on political participation by churches is the need to maintain a rigid separation between church and state. However, the First amendment simply prohibits the federal government from passing laws that establish religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion. There certainly is no mention of any "separation of church and state," yet lawmakers and judges continually assert this mythical doctrine. The result is court rulings and laws that separate citizens from their religious beliefs in all public settings, in clear violation of the free exercise clause. Our Founders never intended a rigidly secular public society, where people must nonsensically disregard their deeply held beliefs in all matters of government and politics. They certainly never imagined that the federal government would actively work to chill the political activities of some churches.
First Amendment
Legislation Needed to End the IRS Threat to Religious Freedom
13 August 2001 Texas Straight Talk 13 August 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
Speech is speech, regardless of the setting. There is no legal distinction between religious expression and political expression; both are equally protected by the First amendment. Religious believers do not drop their political opinions at the door of their place of worship, nor do they disregard their faith at the ballot box. Religious morality will always inform the voting choices of Americans of all faiths. The collectivist left, however, seeks to impose the viewpoint that public life must be secular, and that government cannot reflect morality derived from faith. The collectivist left is threatened by strong religious institutions, because it wants an ever-growing federal government to serve as the unchallenged authority in our society. People of faith tend to put their religious convictions ahead of any allegiance to the government, particularly when that government displays such hostility towards religion in general. In other words, the collectivists fear that some Americans' deeply held religious beliefs will stand in the way of the continued growth of secular big government. So the real motivation behind the insistence on a separation of church and state is not based on respect for the First amendment, but rather on a desire to diminish the influence of religious conservatives at the ballot box.
First Amendment
Why Is There So Much Money In Politics?
04 February 2002 Texas Straight Talk 04 February 2002 verse 6 ... Cached
The so-called reform legislation being proposed is clearly unconstitutional. The First amendment unquestionably grants individuals and businesses the free and unfettered right to advertise, lobby, and contribute to politicians as they choose. More importantly, the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to regulate campaigns. In fact, article II expressly authorizes the regulation of elections, so the omission of campaigns is glaring. While some in the media have raised First amendment questions, few seem to understand that Congress clearly lacks the constitutional power to regulate campaigns at all.
First Amendment
Don't Believe the Hype- "Campaign Finance Reform" Serves Entrenched Interests
18 February 2002 Texas Straight Talk 18 February 2002 verse 6 ... Cached
The injury to our Constitution cannot be overstated. Article II authorizes only the regulation of elections, not campaigns, because our Founders knew that government should stay out of the political process. Furthermore, the First amendment clearly prohibits government interference with the expression of political views. Noted constitutional scholar Herb Titus explains exactly how campaign restrictions are government censorship:
First Amendment
Were the Founding Fathers Wrong about Foreign Affairs?
15 April 2002 Texas Straight Talk 15 April 2002 verse 6 ... Cached
In fact, when I mentioned Washington the other guest on the show quickly repeated the tired cliche that "We don’t live in George Washington’s times." Yet if we accept this argument, what other principles from that era should we discard? Should we give up the First amendment because times have changed? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights? It’s hypocritical and childish to dismiss certain founding principles simply because a convenient rationale is needed to justify foolish policies today. The principles enshrined in the Constitution do not change. If anything, today’s more complex world cries out for the moral clarity provided by a noninterventionist foreign policy.
First Amendment
What does the First Amendment Really Mean?
01 July 2002 Texas Straight Talk 01 July 2002 verse 2 ... Cached
WHAT DOES THE FIRST AMENDMENT REALLY MEAN?
First Amendment
What does the First Amendment Really Mean?
01 July 2002 Texas Straight Talk 01 July 2002 verse 4 ... Cached
The judges who made this unfortunate ruling simply do not understand the First amendment. It does not bar religious expression in public settings or anywhere else. In fact, it expressly prohibits federal interference in the free expression of religion. Far from mandating strict secularism in schools, it instead bars the federal government from prohibiting the pledge of allegiance, school prayer, or any other religious expression. The politicians and judges pushing the removal of religion from public life are violating the First amendment, not upholding it.
First Amendment
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.
First Amendment
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.
First Amendment
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.
First Amendment
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.
First Amendment
Reject UN Gun Control
22 September 2003 Texas Straight Talk 22 September 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
They believe in global government, and armed people could stand in the way of their goals. They certainly don’t care about our Constitution or the Second Amendment. But the conflict between the UN position on private ownership of firearms and our Second Amendment cannot be reconciled. How can we as a nation justify our membership in an organization that is actively hostile to one of our most fundamental constitutional rights? What if the UN decided that free speech was too inflammatory and should be restricted? Would we discard the First Amendment to comply with the UN agenda?
First Amendment
"Campaign Finance Reform" Muzzles Political Dissent
22 December 2003 Texas Straight Talk 22 December 2003 verse 3 ... Cached
In a devastating blow to political speech, the Supreme Court recently upheld most of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill passed by Congress last year. The legislation will do nothing to curb special interest power or reduce corruption in Washington, but it will make it harder for average Americans to influence government. “Campaign finance reform” really means the bright-line standard of free speech has been replaced by a murky set of regulations and restrictions that will muzzle political dissent and protect incumbents. Justice Scalia correctly accuses the Court of supporting a law “That cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government…This is a sad day for freedom of speech.”
First Amendment
"Campaign Finance Reform" Muzzles Political Dissent
22 December 2003 Texas Straight Talk 22 December 2003 verse 4 ... Cached
Two important points ignored by the Court should be made. First, although the new campaign rules clearly violate the First amendment, they should be struck down primarily because Congress has no authority under Article I of the Constitution to regulate campaigns at all. Article II authorizes only the regulation of elections, not campaigns, because our Founders knew Congress might pass campaign laws that protect incumbency. This is precisely what McCain-Feingold represents: blatant incumbent protection sold to the public as noble reform.
First Amendment
"Campaign Finance Reform" Muzzles Political Dissent
22 December 2003 Texas Straight Talk 22 December 2003 verse 5 ... Cached
Second, freedom of the press applies equally to all Americans, not just the institutional, government-approved media. An unknown internet blogger, a political party, a candidate, and the New York Times should all enjoy the same right to political speech. Yet McCain-Feingold treats the mainstream press as some kind of sacred institution rather than the for-profit industry it is. Why should giant media companies be able to spend unlimited amounts of money to promote candidates and issues, while an organization you support cannot? The notion of creating a preferred class of media, with special First Amendment rights, is distinctly elitist and un-American.
First Amendment
Christmas in Secular America
29 December 2003 Texas Straight Talk 29 December 2003 verse 5 ... Cached
The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.
First Amendment
Congressional Indecency
15 March 2004 Texas Straight Talk 15 March 2004 verse 3 ... Cached
In doing so, Congress ignored a fundamental truth: government control over radio and television broadcasts is incompatible with a free society. FCC control of broadcast content, whether through licensing, regulations, or fines, is naked censorship that is utterly at odds with the plain words of the First Amendment. It could not be any clearer: “Congress shall make no law.”
First Amendment
Congressional Indecency
15 March 2004 Texas Straight Talk 15 March 2004 verse 4 ... Cached
The censors from both political parties argue that because the broadcast spectrum is publicly owned, the public has a right to control the content. But “public” ownership really means government ownership. And government ownership means the current gang of bureaucrats in power gets to decide what is heard and seen. Airwaves are far too precious to be owned or controlled by government- like other scarce and valuable natural resources, airwaves should be controlled by market forces. One mistake- nationalizing the airwaves- does not justify another. We should not violate the First Amendment today because of the sins of the past.
First Amendment
Congressional Indecency
15 March 2004 Texas Straight Talk 15 March 2004 verse 8 ... Cached
The First Amendment is worthless if it does not protect unpopular, controversial expression. It is precisely when the sensibilities of many Americans are offended that the First Amendment is needed most. Many of our cherished religious, political, and legal traditions are rooted in once-radical ideas. It’s a short step from regulating words and images to regulating thoughts and ideas.
First Amendment
Whose Justice?
12 April 2004 Texas Straight Talk 12 April 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
It’s not hard to see the grave danger posed by this new trend. Anti-gun judges could cite restrictions on gun ownership in other countries approvingly when disregarding our Second amendment. Hate speech laws in other nations could be used as authority to weaken the First amendment. Our wholly domestic tax, labor, environmental, and family laws could be influenced by United Nations edicts, foreign court judgments, and international treaties which have not been ratified by the United States.
First Amendment
Dietary Supplements and Health Freedom
25 April 2005 Texas Straight Talk 25 April 2005 verse 18 ... Cached
The FDA simply has thumbed its nose at Congress and ignored the new rules in many instances, by attempting to suppress information about health supplements. But in 1999 a federal appellate court affirmed that the American people have a First Amendment right to such information without interference from the FDA. However, members of Congress have had to intervene with the FDA on several occasions to ensure that they followed the court order.
First Amendment
CAFTA: More Bureaucracy, Less Free Trade
06 June 2005 Texas Straight Talk 06 June 2005 verse 4 ... Cached
I oppose CAFTA for a very simple reason: it is unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly grants Congress alone the authority to regulate international trade. The plain text of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 is incontrovertible. Neither Congress nor the President can give this authority away by treaty, any more than they can repeal the First Amendment by treaty. This fundamental point, based on the plain meaning of the Constitution, cannot be overstated. Every member of Congress who votes for CAFTA is voting to abdicate power to an international body in direct violation of the Constitution.
First Amendment
New Rules, Same Game
23 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 23 January 2006 verse 5 ... Cached
Lobbying, whether we like it or not, is constitutionally protected. The First amendment unequivocally recognizes the right of Americans to “petition the government for a redress of grievances.” We can’t deal with corruption in government by ignoring the Constitution.
First Amendment
The Worldwide Gun Control Movement
26 June 2006 Texas Straight Talk 26 June 2006 verse 10 ... Cached
They believe in global government, and armed people could stand in the way of their goals. They certainly don’t care about our Constitution or the Second Amendment. But the conflict between the UN position on private ownership of firearms and our Second Amendment cannot be reconciled. How can we as a nation justify our membership in an organization that is actively hostile to one of our most fundamental constitutional rights? What if the UN decided that free speech was too inflammatory and should be restricted? Would we discard the First Amendment to comply with the UN agenda?
First Amendment
IRS Threatens Political Speech
24 July 2006 Texas Straight Talk 24 July 2006 verse 4 ... Cached
But what exactly constitutes political activity? What if a member of the clergy urges his congregation to work toward creating a pro-life culture, when an upcoming election features a pro-life candidate? What if a minister admonishes churchgoers that homosexuality is sinful, when an initiative banning gay marriage is on an upcoming ballot? Where exactly do we draw the line, and when does the IRS begin to violate the First amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of religion?
First Amendment
IRS Threatens Political Speech
24 July 2006 Texas Straight Talk 24 July 2006 verse 6 ... Cached
The supposed motivation behind the ban on political participation by churches is the need to maintain a rigid separation between church and state. However, the First amendment simply prohibits the federal government from passing laws that establish religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion. There certainly is no mention of any "separation of church and state," yet lawmakers and judges continually assert this mythical doctrine.
First Amendment
IRS Threatens Political Speech
24 July 2006 Texas Straight Talk 24 July 2006 verse 8 ... Cached
Speech is speech, regardless of the setting. There is no legal distinction between religious expression and political expression; both are equally protected by the First amendment. Religious believers do not drop their political opinions at the door of their place of worship, nor do they disregard their faith at the ballot box. Religious morality will always inform the voting choices of Americans of all faiths.
First Amendment
IRS Threatens Political Speech
24 July 2006 Texas Straight Talk 24 July 2006 verse 9 ... Cached
The political left, however, seeks to impose the viewpoint that public life must be secular, and that government cannot reflect morality derived from faith. Many Democrats, not all, are threatened by strong religious institutions because they want an ever-growing federal government to serve as the unchallenged authority in our society. So the real motivation behind the insistence on a separation of church and state is not based on respect for the First amendment, but rather on a desire to diminish the influence of religious conservatives at the ballot box.
First Amendment
The Original Foreign Policy
18 December 2006 Texas Straight Talk 18 December 2006 verse 11 ... Cached
Of course we frequently hear the offensive cliché that, “times have changed,” and thus we cannot follow quaint admonitions from the 1700s. The obvious question, then, is what other principles from our founding era should we discard for convenience? Should we give up the First amendment because times have changed and free speech causes too much offense in our modern society? Should we give up the Second amendment, and trust that today’s government is benign and not to be feared by its citizens? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights?
First Amendment
Unconstitutional Legislation Threatens Freedoms
07 May 2007 Texas Straight Talk 07 May 2007 verse 3 ... Cached
Last week, the House of Representatives acted with disdain for the Constitution and individual liberty by passing HR 1592, a bill creating new federal programs to combat so-called “hate crimes.” The legislation defines a hate crime as an act of violence committed against an individual because of the victim’s race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Federal hate crime laws violate the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on federal power. Hate crime laws may also violate the First Amendment guaranteed freedom of speech and religion by criminalizing speech federal bureaucrats define as “hateful.”
First Amendment
Unconstitutional Legislation Threatens Freedoms
07 May 2007 Texas Straight Talk 07 May 2007 verse 7 ... Cached
Hate crime laws not only violate the First Amendment, they also violate the Tenth Amendment. Under the United States Constitution, there are only three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are left to the individual states. Any federal legislation dealing with criminal matters not related to these three issues usurps state authority over criminal law and takes a step toward turning the states into mere administrative units of the federal government.
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.