U.S. Rep. Ron Paul | founder |
founder
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:134
Throughout this century, and as the movement grows for one world government, the linchpin is always democracy, not liberty or a constitutionally restrained republic as our Founders preferred. As long as the democratic vote can modify rights, the politicians will be on the receiving end of bribes and money and will be the greatest influence on legislation.
founder
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 7:117
We got off from the right track with the founders of this country. They wrote a good document and that document was designed for this purpose, for the protection of liberty. We have gone a long way from that, until now we have the nanny state that we cannot even plow our gardens without umpteen number of permits from the Federal Government. So our government is too big, it is too massive, and we have undermined the very concept of liberty.
founder
Voter Eligibility Verification Act
12 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 10:5
National I.D. cards are trademarks of totalitarian governments, not constitutional republics. I’m sure all of us have seen a movie depicting life in a fascist or communist country where an official of the central state demands to see a citizen’s papers. Well the Founders of the Republic would be horrified if they knew that the Republic they created had turned into an overbearing leviathan where citizens had to present their “papers” containing a valid government identification number before getting a job or voting.
founder
Urging Caution On Action Taken In Iraq
12 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 11:5
It is argued that the legislation passed in 1990 gives legitimacy for the President to pursue this adventure, but this really contradicts everything intended by the founders of this country that we could literally pass legislation which was not a declaration of war and to allow it to exist in perpetuity. And here it is 7 or 8 years later, and we are going to use legislation passed by Congress. Very few of us were even in that Congress at that time that are in the current Congress, but they want to use that.
founder
Opposing Federal Gun Control
24 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 14:2
This country’s founders recognized the genius of dividing power amongst federal, state and local governments as a means to maximize individual liberty and make government most responsive to those persons who might most responsibly influence it. This division of power strictly limited the role of the federal government and, at the same time, anticipated that law enforcement would almost exclusively be the province and responsibility of state and local governments.
founder
Introducing The Privacy Protection Act
25 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 20:5
Perhaps the most disturbing abuses of the Social Security number is the Congressionally-authorized rule forcing parents to get a Social Security number for their newborn children in order to claim them as a dependent. Mr. Speaker, forcing parents to register their newborn children with the state is more like something out of the nightmare of George Orwell than the dreams of a free Republic that inspired the nation’s founders.
founder
Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act
11 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 58:7
The drafters of the Bill of Rights knew quite well that it would be impossible for a central government to successfully manage crime prevention programs for as large and diverse a country as America. The founders also understood that centralized federal involvement in crime prevention and control was dangerous and would lead to a loss of precious liberty. The bill’s implication of federal monitoring of conversation on phone lines, the Internet, and U.S. mail is frightening and opens the door to unlimited government snooping.
founder
The Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
15 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 76:6
I ask my colleagues what would the founders of this country say if they knew the limited federal government they bequeathed to America would soon have the power to demand that all Americans obtain a federally-approved ID?
founder
The Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
15 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 76:7
If the disapproval of the Founders is not sufficient to cause my colleagues to support this legislation, then perhaps they should consider the reaction of the American people when they discover that they must produce a federally-approved ID in order to get a job or open a bank account. Already many offices are being flooded with complaints about the movement toward a national ID card. If this scheme is not halted, Congress and the entire political establishment could drown in the backlash from the American people.
founder
Women’s, Infant, and Children’s Program
20 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 81:5
As an OB/GYN I certainly recognize the importance of proper nutrition for pregnant women and young children. However, as a constitutionalist, I strenuously object to the federal government coercing pregnant women into accepting such services and restricting their choices of food products. The founders of this country would be flabbergasted if they knew that the federal government had monopolized the provisions of charitable services to low-income women, but they would be horrified if they knew the federal government was forbidding poor women from purchasing Post Raisin Bran for their children because some federal bureaucrats had determined that it contains too much sugar!
founder
Head Start Program
14 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 99:2
In fact, the founders of this country would be horrified by one of the premises underlying this type of federal program: that communities and private individuals are unwilling and unable to meet the special needs of low-income children without intervention by the federal government. The truth is that the American people can and will meet the educational and other needs of all children if Congress gives them the freedom to do so by eliminating the oppressive tax burden fostered on Americans to fund the welfare-warfare state.
founder
Iraq — Part 1
5 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 107:12
There are people around the world that we deal with that are equally repulsive to Saddam Hussein, and I believe very sincerely that the founders of this country were on the right track when they said stay out of entangling alliances. And we should trade with people; we would get along with them better. We have pursued this type of policy in Cuba for 40 years, and it has served Castro well. Why do we not go down and get rid of Castro? Where do we get this authority to kill a dictator? We do not have that authority, and to do it under one day of hearings, mark it up, bring it up the next day under suspension; I do not understand why anybody could vote for this just on the nature of it.
founder
Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
6 January 1999 1999 Ron Paul 1:5
One of the most disturbing abuses of the Social Security number is the congressionally-authorized rule forcing parents to get a Social Security number for their newborn children in order to claim them as dependents. Forcing parents to register their children with the state is more like something out of the nightmares of George Orwell than the dreams of a free republic which inspired this nation’s founders.
founder
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:4
The Founders of this great Nation abhorred tyranny and loved liberty. The power of the king to wage war, tax and abuse the personal rights of the American colonists drove them to rebel, win a revolution and codify their convictions in a new Constitution. It was serious business, and every issue was thoroughly debated and explained most prominently in the Federalist Papers. Debate about trade among the States and with other countries, sound money and the constraints on presidential power occupied a major portion of their time.
founder
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:18
Approval of presidential-directed aggression, disguised as “support for the troops,” comes routinely, and if any member does not obediently endorse every action a President might take, for whatever reason, it is implied the member lacks patriotism and wisdom. It is amazing how we have drifted from the responsibility of the Founders, imagine, the Congress and the people would jealously protect.
founder
Peace
25 March 1999 1999 Ron Paul 23:3
Let other nations always keep the idea of their sovereign self-government associated with our Republic and they will befriend us, and no force under heaven will be of power to tear them from our allegiance. But let it be once understood that our government may be one thing and their sovereignty another, that these two things exist without mutual regard one for the other — and the affinity will be gone, the friendship loosened and the alliance hasten to decay and dissolution. As long as we have the wisdom to keep this country as the sanctuary of liberty, the sacred temple consecrated to our common faith, wherever mankind worships freedom they will turn their faces toward us. The more they multiply, the more friends we will have, the more ardently they love liberty, the more perfect will be our relations. Slavery they can find anywhere, as near to us as Cuba or as remote as China. But until we become lost to all feeling of our national interest and natural legacy, freedom and self-rule they can find in none but the American founding. These are precious commodities, and our nation alone was founded them. This is the true currency which binds to us the commerce of nations and through them secures the wealth of the world. But deny others of their national sovereignty and self-government, and you break that sole bond which originally made, and must still preserve, friendship among nations. Do not entertain so weak an imagination as that UN Charters and Security Councils, GATT and international laws, World Trade Organizations and General Assemblies, are what promote commerce and friendship. Do not dream that NATO and peacekeeping forces are the things that can hold nations together. It is the spirit of community that gives nations their lives and efficacy. And it is the spirit of the constitution of our founders that can invigorate every nation of the world, even down to the minutest of these.
founder
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 29:23
Instead of pretending to be everything to everyone, while shifting alliances and blindly hoping for good to come of it, we should reconsider the advice of the Founders and take seriously the strict restraints on waging war placed in the Constitution.
founder
A Positive Spin On An Ugly War
7 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 54:9
Number eight, interventionism in the affairs of other nations when our national security is not threatened serves no benefit and causes great harm. Our involvement with NATO and Yugoslovia has once again forcefully shown this. Although our Founders knew this and advised against it, and American Presidents for over 100 years acted accordingly, this rediscovery of a vital truth can serve us well in future years.
founder
Flag Day 1999
14 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 59:10
Today there are calls to pass federal laws and even constitutional amendments which would take from the states their powers and grant them to the federal government. Some of these are even done in the name of protecting the nation, its symbol, or our liberties. How very sad that must make the founding fathers looking down on our institutions. Those founders held that this centralization of power was and ought always remain the very definition of “unAmerican” and they understood that any short term victory an action of such concentration might bring would be paid for with the ultimate sacrifice of our very liberties.
founder
What We Would Be Doing By Amending The Constitution To Make It Illegal To Desecrate The American Flag
22 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 63:7
Mr. Speaker, my point is obviously that why do we want to emulate them? There are other countries around the world that have similar laws: Iraq, Cuba, Haiti, Sudan; they all have laws against desecration of the flag. But in this country we have not had this. We have never put it in the Constitution. This debate would dumbfound our Founders to think that we were contemplating such an amendment to the Constitution.
founder
Academic Achievement for All Students Freedom and Accountability Act (STRAIGHT “A’s”)
21 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 109:5
Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to hold states “accountable” for their education performance. In the free society envisioned by the founders, schools are held accountable to parents, not federal bureaucrats. However, the current system of leveling oppressive taxes on America’s families and using those taxes to fund federal education programs denies parental control of education by denying them control over the education dollar. Because “he who pays the piper calls the tune,” when the federal government controls the education dollar schools will obey the dictates of federal “educrats” while ignoring the wishes of the parents.
founder
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:10
If man can achieve spiritual redemption through grace which allows him to use the released spiritual energy to pursue man’s highest and noblest goals, so should man’s mind, body, and property be freed from the burdens of unchecked government authority. The founders were confident that this would release the creative human energy required to produce the goods and services that would improve the living standards of all mankind.
founder
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:13
Our constitutional Republic, according to our founders, should above all else protect the rights of the minority against the abuses of an authoritarian majority. They feared democracy as much as monarchy and demanded a weak executive, a restrained court, and a handicapped legislature.
founder
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:16
The founders often spoke of divine providence and that God willed us this great Nation. It has been a grand experiment, but it is important that the fundamental moral premises that underpin this Nation are understood and maintained. We, as Members of Congress, have that responsibility.
founder
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:103
Our Founders clearly understood this, and they knew they would be successful, even against the overwhelming odds they faced. They described this steady confidence they shared with each other when hopes were dim as “divine Providence.”
founder
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:126
The Founders knew full well that the concept of liberty was fragile and could easily be undermined. They worried about the dangers that lay ahead. As we move into the new century, it is an appropriate time to rethink the principles upon which a free society rest.
founder
INTRODUCING LEGISLATION CALLING FOR THE UNITED STATES TO WITHDRAW FROM THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
March 1, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 12:12
When our Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution, they placed the treaty-making authority with the President and the Senate, but the authority to regulate commerce with the House. The effects of this are obvious. The Founders left us with a system that made no room for agreements regarding international trade; hence, our Nation was to be governed not by protection, but rather, by market principles. Trade barriers were not to be erected, period.
founder
INTRODUCING LEGISLATION CALLING FOR THE UNITED STATES TO WITHDRAW FROM THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
March 1, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 12:14
The colonists and Founders clearly recognized that these are tariffs or taxes on American consumers, they are not truly taxes on foreign corporations. This realization was made obvious by the British government’s regulation of trade with the colonies, but it is a realization that has apparently been lost by today’s protectionists.
founder
PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2000
April 5, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 26:6
Never in the Founders’ wildest dreams would they have believed that one day the interstate commerce clause, written to permit free trade among the States, would be used to curtail an act that was entirely under State jurisdiction. There is no interstate activity in an abortion. If there were, that activity would not be prohibited but, rather, protected by the original intent of the interstate commerce clause.
founder
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 29:40
Now, the whole idea that treaties could be passed and undermine the ability of our Congress to pass legislation or undermine our Constitution, this was thought about and talked about by the founders of this country. They were rather clear on the idea that a treaty, although the treaty can become the law of the land, a treaty could never be an acceptable law of the land if it amended or changed the Constitution. That would be ridiculous, and they made that very clear.
founder
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 29:45
So these were the founders talking about this, and yet we have drifted a long way. It does not happen overnight. It has been over a 50-year period. Five years ago we went one step further. First we accepted the idea that international finance would be regulated by the IMF. Then we accepted the idea that the World Bank, which was supposed to help the poor people of the world and redistribute wealth, they have redistributed a lot of wealth, but most of it ended up in the hands of wealthy individuals and wealthy politicians. But the poor people of the world never get helped by these programs. Now, 5 years ago we have accepted the notion that the World Trade Organization will bring about order in trade around the country.
founder
Sense Of Congress Regarding Importance And Value Of Education In United States History
July 10, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 63:2
* Unfortunately, while I strongly support efforts to increase the American public’s knowledge of history, I cannot support a resolution claiming to encourage Americans to embrace their constitutional heritage, while its very language showcases a fundamental misunderstanding of the beliefs of America’s founders and the drafters of the United States Constitution. Popular acceptance of this misunderstanding of the founders’ thought is much more dangerous to American liberty than an inability to name the exact date of the Battle at Bunker Hill.
founder
Sense Of Congress Regarding Importance And Value Of Education In United States History
July 10, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 63:4
* In contrast, in a republic, the role of government is strictly limited to a few well-defined functions and the fundamental rights of individuals are respected. A constitution limiting the authority of central government and a Bill of Rights expressly forbidding the federal government from abridging the fundamental rights of a people are features of a republican form of government. Even a cursory reading of the Federalist Papers and other works of the founders shows they understood that obtaining the consent of 51 percent of the people does not in any way legitimize government actions abridging individual liberty.
founder
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
September 7, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 70:2
* Ironically, this measure’s language permanently authorizes the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary for the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum; a purpose which propels our very own federal government beyond its constitutionally enumerated limits. This nation’s founders were careful to limit the scope of our federal government to those enumerated powers within Article One, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. These limits were further instilled within the bill of rights’ tenth amendment which reserves to States and private parties those powers not specifically given to the federal government.
founder
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 77:20
According to the American political and legal tradition and the universal principles of constitution making, a perpetual civil covenant or constitution, obligatory on the people and their rulers throughout the generations, must, first, be proposed in the name of the people and, thereafter, ratified by the people’s representatives elected and assembled for the sole purpose of passing on the terms of a proposed covenant. See 4 The Founders’ Constitution 647-58 (P. Kurland and R. Lerner, eds.) (Univ. Chicago. Press: 1985). Thus, the preamble of the Constitution of the United States of America begins with ‘We the People of the United States’ and Article VII provides for ratification by state conventions composed of representatives of the people elected solely for that purpose. Sources of Our Liberties 408, 416, 418-21 (R. Perry, ed.) (ABA Foundation, Chicago: 1978)
founder
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 77:22
First of all, Charter of the United Nations, executed as an agreement in the name of the people, legally and politically displaced previously binding agreements upon the signatory nations. Article 103 provides that ‘[i]n the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.’ Because the 1787 Constitution of the United States of America would displace the previously adopted Articles of Confederation under which the United States was being governed, the drafters recognized that only if the elected representatives of the people at a constitutional convention ratified the proposed constitution, could it be lawfully adopted as a constitution. Otherwise, the Constitution of the United States of America would be, legally and politically, a treaty which could be altered by any state’s legislature as it saw fit. The Founders’ Constitution, supra, at 648-52.
founder
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 77:25
Third, the authority to enter into an agreement made in the name of the people cannot be politically or legally limited by any preexisting constitution, treaty, alliance, or instructions. An agreement made in the name of a nation, however, may not contradict the authority granted to the governing powers and, thus, is so limited. For example, the people ratified the Constitution of the United States of America notwithstanding the fact that the constitutional proposal had been made in disregard to specific instructions to amend the Articles of Confederation, not to displace them. See Sources of Our Liberties 399-403 (R. Perry ed.) (American Bar Foundation: 1972). As George Mason observed at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, ‘Legislatures have no power to ratify’ a plan changing the form of government, only ‘the people’ have such power. 4 The Founders’ Constitution, supra, at 651.
founder
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4205, FLOYD D. SPENCE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
October 11, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 83:1
* Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4205, the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 Conference Report. While Federal constitutional authority clearly exists to provide for the national defense, global militarism was never contemplated by the founders. Misnamed like most everything else in Washington, the ‘Defense’ Authorization Act thus funds U.N.-directed peacekeeping in Kosovo and Bosnia to the tune of $3.1 billion dollars, $443 million in aid to the former Soviet Union, $172 million for NATO infrastructure (the formerly defensive alliance which recently initiated force against Kosovo), and $869 million for drug interdiction efforts by the U.S. military in an attempt to take our failed 1920’s prohibition experiment worldwide.
founder
THREATS TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM
October 19, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 88:5
The second is from Mayer Amschel Rothchild (1743-1812), founder of the famous banking dynasty, the House of Rothchild, who said: ‘Give me control over a nation’s currency and I care not who makes its laws.’ Both quotes have relevance to what I have to say.
founder
ECONOMIC PROBLEMS AHEAD
November 13, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 93:10
* What must we do? We should develop more sensible priorities. We must restore confidence in freedom and recognize how free markets can solve our problems . We must have more respect for the Rule of Law and demand that Congress, the Courts, and the President live within the Rule of Law and stop arbitrarily flaunting the Constitution. If the Constitution is to be changed, it should be changed slowly and deliberately as is permitted, but never by fiat. We must eventually reconsider the notion of the original constitutional Republic as designed by our Founders. The monolithic centralized state was not the design nor is it supported by the Constitution. We were meant to have loose knit individual states, with the states themselves managing their own affairs.
founder
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT — HON. RON PAUL
Wednesday, January 3, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 1:3
* One of the most disturbing abuses of the Social Security number is the congressionally-authorized rule forcing parents to get a Social Security number for their newborn children in order to claim them as dependents. Forcing parents to register their children with the state is more like something out of the nightmares of George Orwell than the dreams of a free republic which inspired this nation’s founders.
founder
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.
founder
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:35
But none of this needs occur if the principles that underpin our Republic, as designed by the Founders, can be resurrected and re-instituted. Current problems that we now confront are government-created and can be much more easily dealt with when government is limited to its proper role of protecting liberty, instead of promoting a welfare-fascist state.
founder
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:97
Our policy should change for several reasons. It’s wrong for our foreign policy to serve any special interest, whether it’s for financial benefits, ethnic pressures, or some contrived moral imperative. Too often the policy leads to an unintended consequence, and more people are killed and more property damaged than was intended. Controlling world events is never easy. It’s better to avoid the chance of one bad decision leading to another. The best way to do that is to follow the advice of the Founders and avoid all entangling alliances and pursue a policy designed solely to protect US national security interests.
founder
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:27
Controlling world events is never easy. It is better to avoid the chance of one bad decision leading to another. The best way to do that is to follow the advice of the Founders and avoid all entangling alliances, and pursue a policy designed solely to protect U.S. national security interests.
founder
U.S. Intervention In South Korea
25 April 2001 2001 Ron Paul 26:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I am placing into the record the attached article from yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, as I believe it accurately depicts the problem that many nations face in attempting to resolve their difference once our government decides to insert itself into internal or regional matters in other parts of the world. Instead of hindering peace in the ways pointed out by this article, we can play a constructive role in the world. However, to do so will require a change of policy. By maintaining open trade and friendly diplomatic relations with all countries we could fulfill that role as a moral compass that our founders envisioned. Unfortunately, as this article shows, our current policy of intervention is having the exact opposite effect.
founder
Statement on the Congressional Education Plan
May 22, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 38:9
Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to hold states “accountable” for their education performance. In the free society envisioned by the founders, schools are held accountable to parents, not federal bureaucrats. However, the current system of imposing oppressive taxes on America’s families and using those taxes to fund federal education programs denies parental control of education by denying them control over their education dollars.
founder
Faith Based Initiatives
June 13, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 43:2
* Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I recommend to my colleagues the attached article, “The Real Threat of the Faith-Based Initiative” by Star Parker, founder and president of the Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education (CURE). Miss Parker eloquently explains how providing federal monies to faith-based institutions undermines the very qualities that make them effective in addressing social problems. As Miss Parker points out, religious programs are successful because they are staffed and funded by people motivated to help others by their religious beliefs. Government funding of religious organizations will transform them into adjuncts of the federal welfare state, more concerned about obeying federal rules and regulations than fulfilling the obligations of their faith.
founder
Faith Based Initiatives
June 13, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 43:13
When we examine these great documents, we see that the founders referenced our most fundamental rights to our Creator and then defined the role of government to secure these rights. Our great and blessed country, has been a story of unprecedented success because of the crucial premise that man is and must be free to exercise his God-given rights.
founder
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.
founder
Flag Burning Amendment
17 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 53:18
This system has served us well for more than two centuries. After all, our founding fathers correctly recognized that the federal government should be severely limited, and especially in matters of expression. They revolted against a government that prevented them from voicing their politically unpopular views regarding taxation, liberty and property rights. As a result, the founders wanted to ensure that a future monolithic federal government would not exist, and that no federal government of the United States would ever be able to restrict what government officials might find obnoxious, unpopular or unpatriotic. After all, the great patriots of our nation — George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and Benjamin Franklin — were all considered disloyal pests by the British government.
founder
Statement Paul Amendment to Defund the UN
July 18, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 56:8
If anybody understands our history, they will know that taking guns from civilians is exactly opposite of what the Founders intended. In a nation like Afghanistan, they were able to defend the invasion of the Soviet Union because individuals had guns. Likewise, when the Nazis were murdering the Jews, the Jews had been denied the right to own guns. Now we are talking about the United Nations having international gun laws. There have been proposals made for an international tax on all financial transactions. Yes, it is true, it has not been passed, but these are the plans that have been laid and they are continued to be discussed and they are moving in that direction.
founder
Statement on the Community Solutions Act of 2001
July 19, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 60:9
Some supporters of this measure have attempted to invoke the legacy of the founding fathers in support of this legislation. Of course, the founders recognized the importance of religion in a free society, but not as an adjunct of the state. Instead, the founders hoped a religious people would resist any attempts by the state to encroach on the proper social authority of the church. The Founding Fathers would have been horrified by any proposal to put churches on the federal dole, as this threatens liberty by subordinating churches to the state.
founder
Statement on the Community Solutions Act of 2001
July 19, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 60:11
The primary issue both sides of this debate are avoiding is the constitutionality of the welfare state. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to level excessive taxes on one group of citizens for the benefit of another group of citizens. Many of the founders would have been horrified to see modern politicians define compassion as giving away other people’s money stolen through confiscatory taxation. After all, the words of the famous essay by former Congressman Davy Crockett, that money is “Not Yours to Give.”
founder
Statement on the Community Solutions Act of 2001
July 19, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 60:14
Many prominent defenders of the free society and advocates of increasing the role of faith-based institutions in providing services to the needy have also expressed skepticism regarding giving federal money to religious organizations, including the Reverend Pat Robinson, the Reverend Jerry Falwell, Star Parker, Founder and President of the Coalition for Urban Renewal (CURE), Father Robert Sirico, President of the Action Institute for Religious Liberty, Michael Tanner, Director of Health and Welfare studies at the CATO Institute, and Lew Rockwell, founder and president of the Ludwig Von Misses Institute. Even Marvin Olaksy, the above-referenced “godfather of compassionate conservatism,” has expressed skepticism regarding this proposal.
founder
Statement on the Congressional Authorization of the Use of Force
September 14, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 79:9
Although we now must fight to preserve our national security we should not forget that the founders of this great nation advised that for our own sake we should stay out of entangling alliances and the affairs of other nations.
founder
Foreign Interventionism
September 25, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 80:32
The founders and authors of our Constitution provided an answer for the difficult tasks that we now face. When a precise declaration of war was impossible due to the vagueness of our enemy, the Congress was expected to take it upon themselves to direct the reprisal against an enemy not recognized as a government. In the early days the concern was piracy on the high seas. Piracy was one of only three federal crimes named in the original Constitution.
founder
Foreign Interventionism
September 25, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 80:33
Today, we have a new type of deadly piracy, in the high sky over our country. The solution the founders came up with under these circumstances was for Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisal. This puts the responsibility in the hands of Congress to direct the President to perform a task with permission to use and reward private sources to carry out the task, such as the elimination of Osama bin Laden and his key supporters. This allows narrow targeting of the enemy. This effort would not preclude the president’s other efforts to resolve the crisis, but if successful would preclude a foolish invasion of a remote country with a forbidding terrain like Afghanistan- a country that no foreign power has ever conquered throughout all of history.
founder
Counter-Terrorism and Homeland Security
October 9, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 82:3
Most security, especially in a free society, is best carried out by individuals protecting their own property and their own lives. The Founders certainly understood this and is the main reason we have the Second amendment. We cannot have a policeman stationed in each of our homes to prevent burglaries, but owners of property with possession of a gun can easily do it. A new giant agency for Homeland Security cannot provide security but it can severely undermine our liberties. This approach may well in the long run make many American feel less secure.
founder
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:58
It’s easy for elected officials in Washington to tell the American people that the government will do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism. Such assurances inevitably are followed by proposals either to restrict the constitutional liberties of the American people or to spend vast sums of money from the federal treasury. The history of the 20th Century shows that the Congress violates our Constitution most often during times of crisis. Accordingly, most of our worst unconstitutional agencies and programs began during the two World Wars and the Depression. Ironically, the Constitution itself was conceived in a time of great crisis. The founders intended its provision to place severe restrictions on the federal government, even in times of great distress. America must guard against current calls for government to sacrifice the Constitution in the name of law enforcement.
founder
Statement Opposing Unconstitutional “Trade Promotion Authority”
December 6, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 103:2
Our founders understood the folly of trade agreements between nations; that is why they expressly granted the authority to regulate trade to Congress alone, separating it from the treaty-making power given to the President and Senate. This legislation clearly represents an unconstitutional delegation of congressional authority to the President. Simply put, the Constitution does not permit international trade agreements. Neither Congress nor the President can set trade policies in concert with foreign governments or international bodies.
founder
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 1:59
The founders of this country were precise in their beliefs regarding foreign policy. Our Constitution reflects these beliefs, and all of our early Presidents endorsed these views. It was not until the 20th century that our Nation went off to far-away places looking for dragons to slay. This past century reflects the new and less-traditional American policy of foreign interventionism. Our economic and military power, a result of our domestic freedoms, has permitted us to survive and even thrive while dangerously expanding our worldwide influence.
founder
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 1:62
The traditional American foreign policy of the founders and our Presidents for the first 145 years of our history entailed three points: one, friendship with all nations desiring of such; two, as much free trade and travel with those countries as possible; three, avoiding entangling alliances.
founder
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.
founder
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:43
This detailed scheme limiting the role of Congress in the manner of electing the president and the vice president of the United States was deliberately chosen by America’s founders to insulate the federal executive branch from the legislative branch in order to ensure independence of the former from the latter. As Alexander Hamilton put it in Federalist No. 68, the Constitution entrusts the selection of the president and vice president not to “any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose....” The electoral college was designed, therefore, as a buffer between the people and Congress to guard against the risk of corruption of the presidency by congressional participation in the election process.
founder
Statement Opposing Military Conscription
March 20, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 20:6
Mr. Speaker, the most important reason to oppose reinstatement of a military draft is that conscription violates the very principles upon which this country was founded. The basic premise underlying conscription is that the individual belongs to the state, individual rights are granted by the state, and therefore politicians can abridge individual rights at will. In contrast, the philosophy which inspired America’s founders, expressed in the Declaration of Independence, is that individuals possess natural, God-given rights which cannot be abridged by the government. Forcing people into military service against their will thus directly contradicts the philosophy of the Founding Fathers. A military draft also appears to contradict the constitutional prohibition of involuntary servitude.
founder
Stop Perpetuating the Welfare State
May 16, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 42:7
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, federal promotion of marriage opens the door for a level of social engineering that should worry all those concerned with preserving a free society. The federal government has no constitutional authority to promote any particular social arrangement; instead, the founders recognized that people are better off when they form their own social arrangements free from federal interference. The history of the failed experiments with welfarism and socialism shows that government can only destroy a culture; when a government tries to build a culture, it only further erodes the people’s liberty.
founder
Stop Perpetuating the Welfare State
May 16, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 42:11
Releasing the charitable impulses of the American people by freeing them from the excessive tax burden so they can devote more of their resources to charity, is a moral and constitutional means of helping the needy. By contrast, the federal welfare state is neither moral or constitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to level excessive taxes on one group of citizens for the benefit of another group of citizens. Many of the founders would have been horrified to see modern politicians define compassion as giving away other people’s money stolen through confiscatory taxation. In the words of the famous essay by former Congressman Davy Crockett, this money is “Not Yours to Give.”
founder
The Tragedy of Partial-Birth Abortion
July 24, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 75:9
I wish to conclude with a quote from Mother Theresa, who gave a beautiful and powerful speech about abortion on February 3, 1994, at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington DC: "...From here, a sign of care for the weakest of the weak- the unborn child- must go out to the world. If you (in the United States) become a burning light of justice and peace in the world, then really you will be true to what the founders of this country stood for..."
founder
The Tragedy of Partial-Birth Abortion
July 24, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 75:10
May we see bills in the future that stay true to the solid principles the founders of this country stood for, rather than waver and compromise these principles.
founder
The Price Of War
5 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 83:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, Thomas Jefferson spoke for the founders and all our early Presidents when he stated, ‘‘Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none, which is one of the essential principles of our government.’’
founder
The Price Of War
5 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 83:7
By the end of the 20th century, in fact, this occurred. We have totally forgotten that for well over 100 years we followed the advice of the founders by meticulously avoiding overseas conflict. Instead, we now find ourselves in charge of an American hegemony spread to the four corners of the Earth.
founder
The Price Of War
5 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 83:10
What about the future? Has this policy of foreign intervention set the stage for radically changing America and the world in ways not yet seen? Were the founders completely off track because they lived in different times, or was the foreign policy they advised based on an essential principle of lasting value? Choosing the wrong answer to this question could very well be deadly to the grand experiment in liberty begun in 1776.
founder
The Price Of War
5 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 83:16
Throughout history, there has always been a great temptation for rulers to spread their influence and pursue empire over liberty. Resisting this temptation to power rarely has been achieved. There always seems to be a natural inclination to yield to this historic human passion. Could it be that progress and civilization and promoting freedom require ignoring this impulse to control others, as the founders of this great Nation advised?
founder
The Price Of War
5 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 83:35
Long-term foreign interventionism does not serve our interest. Tinkering on the edges with current policy will not help. An announced policy of support for globalist government, assuming the financial and military role of world policemen, maintaining an American world empire while flaunting unilateralism, is a recipe for disaster. U.S. unilateralism is a far cry from the nonintervention that the Founders advised.
founder
The Price Of War
5 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 83:46
A foreign policy for peace and freedom would prompt us to give ample notice, and then we would promptly leave the international organizations that have entangled us for over a half a century. U.S. membership in world government was hardly what the Founders envisioned when writing the Constitution.
founder
The Price Of War
5 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 83:54
We should all be aware that war is a failure of relationships between foreign powers. Since this is such a serious matter, our American tradition as established by the founders made certain that the executive is subservient to the more democratically responsive legislative branch on the issue of war. Therefore, no war is ever to be the prerogative of a President through his unconstitutional use of executive orders, nor should it ever be something where the legal authority comes from an international body such as NATO or the United Nations. Up until 50 years ago, this had been the American tradition.
founder
The Price Of War
5 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 83:62
The most we can hope for will be, once the errors of our ways are acknowledged and we can no longer afford our militarism, we will reestablish the moral principle that underpins the policy of ‘‘peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.’’ Our modern-day war hawks represent neither this American principle nor do they understand how the love of liberty drove the founders in their great battle against tyranny.
founder
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
10 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 86:7
In fact, Congress’ constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our Nation’s founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold. Such a monetary system is the basis of a true free-market economy.
founder
Treatment Of Mr. Martin Mawyer By U.N. Officers Must Be Investigated
16 October 2002 2002 Ron Paul 100:5
[From the Washington Observer, Sept. 2002] U.N. ASSAULTS MARTIN MAWYER Martin Mawyer, President and Founder of THIS NATION, a Project of Christian Action Network, was violently tossed down the steps of U.N. Headquarters in New York City on Wednesday, Sept. 4, by U.N. Security officers. He was then placed under arrest after he attempted to deliver petitions to the United Nations from thousands of THIS NATION supporters. Christian Action Network is a national grassroots pro-family organization with a membership of 250,000.
founder
Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential
January 7, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 4:3
One of the most disturbing abuses of the Social Security number is the congressionally-authorized rule forcing parents to get a Social Security number for their newborn children in order to claim them as dependents. Forcing parents to register their children with the state is more like something out of the nightmares of George Orwell than the dreams of a free republic which inspired this nation’s founders.
founder
Restoring the Second Amendment
January 9, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 5:3
Thomas Jefferson said “The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; ...that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” Jefferson, and all of the Founders, would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans form exercising their right and duty to keep and bear arms. I hope my colleagues will join me in upholding the Founders’ vision for a free society by cosponsoring the Second Amendment Restoration Act.
founder
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, at the close of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Benjamin Franklin told an inquisitive citizen that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention gave the people a Republic, if you can keep it. We should now apologize to Mr. Franklin. It is obvious that the Republic is gone, and we are wallowing in a pure democracy against which the Founders had strongly warned.
founder
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:6
There seems to be complete aversion to defending the Republic and the Constitution that established it. The Founders clearly understood the dangers of a democracy. Edmond Randolph of Virginia described the effort to deal with the issue at the Constitutional Convention: “The general object was to produce a cure for evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origins, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.”
founder
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:7
These strongly held views regarding the evils of democracies and the benefit of a constitutional republic were shared by all the Founders. For them, a democracy meant centralized power, controlled by majority opinion, which was up for grabs and, therefore, completely arbitrary.
founder
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:21
The resolution to the problems we face as a result of this profound transition to pure democracy will be neither quick nor painless. This transition has occurred even though the word “democracy” does not appear in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The Founders explicitly denounced it.
founder
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:29
The prime goal of the concern of the Founders, the protection of liberty, is ignored. Those expressing any serious concern for personal liberty are condemned for their self-centeredness and their lack of patriotism. Even if we could defeat the al Qaeda, which is surely a worthwhile goal, it would do little to preserve our liberties, while ignoring the real purpose of our government. Another enemy would surely replace it, just as the various groups of so-called barbarians never left the Roman Empire alone once its internal republican structure collapsed.
founder
End the Income Tax – Pass the Liberty Amendment
January 28, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 7:4
The Founding Fathers realized that “the power to tax is the power to destroy,” which is why they did not give the federal government the power to impose an income tax. Needless to say, the Founders would be horrified to know that Americans today give more than a third of their income to the federal government.
founder
Do-Not-Call Implementation Act
12 February 2003 2003 Ron Paul 20:2
In addition to exceeding Congress’ constitutional authority, legislation to regulate telemarketing would allow the government to intrude further into our personal lives. Our country’s founders recognized the genius of severely limiting the role of government and reserving to the people extensive liberties, including the freedom to handle problems like this on the local level and through private institutions. The fact that the privately-run Direct Marketing Association is operating its own “do-not-call” list is evidence that consumers need not rely upon the national government to address the problems associated with telemarketers. Furthermore, many state public utility commissions have imposed regulations on telemarketers. Further regulation at the federal level will only result in a greater loss of liberty. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to take the constitutional course and oppose the Do-No- Call Implementation Act.
founder
Oppose the Federal Welfare State
February 13, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 22:7
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, federal promotion of marriage opens the door for a level of social engineering that should worry all those concerned with preserving a free society. The federal government has no constitutional authority to promote any particular social arrangement; instead, the founders recognized that people are better off when they form their own social arrangements free from federal interference. The history of the failed experiments with welfarism and socialism shows that government can only destroy a culture; when a government tries to build a culture, it only further erodes the people’s liberty.
founder
Oppose the Federal Welfare State
February 13, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 22:11
Releasing the charitable impulses of the American people by freeing them from the excessive tax burden so they can devote more of their resources to charity, is a moral and constitutional means of helping the needy. By contrast, the federal welfare state is neither moral nor constitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to level excessive taxes on one group of citizens for the benefit of another group of citizens. Many of the founders would have been horrified to see modern politicians define compassion as giving away other people’s money stolen through confiscatory taxation. In the words of the famous essay by former Congressman Davy Crockett, this money is “Not Yours to Give.”
founder
Another United Nations War
25 February 2003 2003 Ron Paul 24:11
With regard to foreign affairs, the best advice comes from our Founders and the Constitution. It is better to promote peace and commerce with all nations and exclude ourselves from the entangling alliances and complex, unworkable alliances that comes from our membership in the United Nations.
founder
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 31:15
According to the American political and legal tradition and the universal principles of constitution making, a perpetual civil covenant or constitution, obligatory on the people and their rulers throughout the generations, must, first, be proposed in the name of the people and, thereafter, ratified by the people’s representatives elected and assembled for the sole purpose of passing on the terms of a proposed covenant. See 4 The Founders’ Constitution 647–58 (P. Kurland and R. Lerner, eds.) (Univ. Chicago. Press: 1985). Thus, the preamble of the Constitution of the United States of America begins with ’We the People of the United States’ and Article VII provides for ratification by state conventions composed of representatives of the people elected solely for that purpose. Sources of Our Liberties 408, 416, 418–21 (R. Perry, ed.) (ABA Foundation, Chicago: 1978).
founder
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 31:17
First of all, Charter of the United Nations, executed as an agreement in the name of the people, legally and politically displaced previously binding agreements upon the signatory nations. Article 103 provides that ‘[i]n the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.’ Because the 1787 Constitution of the United States of America would displace the previously adopted Articles of Confederation under which the United States was being governed, the drafters recognized that only if the elected representatives of the people at a constitutional convention ratified the proposed constitution, could it be lawfully adopted as a constitution. Otherwise, the Constitution of the United States of America would be, legally and politically, a treaty which could be altered by any state’s legislature as it saw fit. The Founders’ Constitution, supra, at 648–52.
founder
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 31:20
Third, the authority to enter into an agreement made in the name of the people cannot be politically or legally limited by any preexisting constitution, treaty, alliance, or instructions. An agreement made in the name of a nation, however, may not contradict the authority granted to the governing powers and, thus, is so limited. For example, the people ratified the Constitution of the United States of America notwithstanding the fact that the constitutional proposal had been made in disregard to specific instructions to amend the Articles of Confederation, not to displace them. See Sources of Our Liberties 399–403 (R. Perry ed.) (American Bar Foundation: 1972). As George Mason observed at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, ‘Legislatures have no power to ratify’ a plan changing the form of government, only ‘the people’ have such power. 4 The Founders’ Constitution, supra, at 651.
founder
American Citizenship Amendment
20 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 38:2
Mr. Speaker, this is unacceptable and is far from what our Founders intended when they drafted the Constitution. It undermines the very concept of citizenship as enshrined in the United States Constitution: to be constitutionally entitled to U.S. citizenship one must be “born . . . in the United States” and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” This second, and most important, part means that in order to gain U.S. citizenship one must owe and actively express allegiance to the United States in addition to the act of being born on United States soil.
founder
American Citizenship Amendment
20 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 38:4
This proposed Constitutional amendment restores the concept of American citizenship to that of our Founders. This legislation simply states that no child born in the United States whose mother and father do not possess citizenship or owe permanent allegiance to the United States shall be a citizen of the United States. It is essential to the future of our constitutional republic that citizenship be something of value, something to be cherished. It cannot be viewed as merely an express train into the welfare state.
founder
Second Amendment Restoration Act
9 April 2003 2003 Ron Paul 47:2
It is long past time for Congress to recognize that not every problem requires a federal solution. This country’s founders recognized the genius of separating power amongst federal, state and local governments as a means to maximize individual liberty and make government most responsive to those persons who might most responsibly influence it. This separation of powers strictly limited the role of the federal governments in dealing with civil liability matters; instead, it reserved jurisdiction over matters of civil tort, such as gun related alleged-negligence suits, to the state legislatures from which their respective jurisdictions flow.
founder
The Flag Burning Amendment
June 3, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 57:23
Unfortunately, Congress has long since disregarded the original intent of the Founders and has written a lot of laws regulating private property and private conduct. But I would ask my colleagues to remember that every time we write a law to control private behavior, we imply that somebody has to arrive with a gun, because if you desecrate the flag, you have to punish that person. So how do you do that? You send an agent of the government, perhaps an employee of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Flags, to arrest him. This is in many ways patriotism with a gun – if your actions do not fit the official definition of a “patriot,” we will send somebody to arrest you.
founder
Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle.
June 4, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 59:6
Pro-lifers should be fiercely loyal to this system of federalism, because the very same Constitution that created the federal system also asserts the inalienable right to life. In this way, our constitutional system closely links federalism to the fundamental moral rights to life, liberty, and property. For our Founders it was no exaggeration to say federalism is the means by which life, as well as liberty and property, are protected in this nation. This is why the recent direction of the pro-life cause is so disturbing.
founder
Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle.
June 4, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 59:7
Pro-life forces have worked for the passage of bills that disregard the federal system, such as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the federal cloning ban, and the Child Custody Protection Act. Each of these bills rested on specious constitutional grounds and undermined the federalism our Founders recognized and intended as the greatest protection of our most precious rights.
founder
Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle.
June 4, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 59:10
Even the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, which is an integral part of the current pro-life agenda, presents a dilemma. While I have always supported this Act and plan to do so in the future, I realize that it raises questions of federalism because authority over criminal law is constitutionally retained by the states. The only reason a federal law has any legitimacy in this area is that the Supreme Court took it upon itself to federalize abortion via Roe v. Wade. Accordingly, wrestling the abortion issue from the federal courts and putting it back in the hands of the elected legislature comports with the Founder’s view of the separation of powers that protects our rights to life, liberty, and property.
founder
Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle.
June 4, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 59:13
For the pro-life cause to truly succeed without undermining the very freedoms that protect life, it must return to principle and uphold our Founder’s vision of federalism as an essential component of the American system. Undermining federalism ultimately can only undermine the very mechanism that protects the right to life.
founder
Let’s Keep All Representatives Elected
June 4, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 60:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the privately funded and privately constituted “Continuity of Government Commission” has recently proposed that, for the first time in our nation’s history, we should allow the appointment of members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Not only does this proposal fail to comport with the intention of the founders of this nation, but even worse, it advocates a solution that has been repeatedly rejected by this body.
founder
Let’s Keep All Representatives Elected
June 4, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 60:4
Let’s face it: we can scare people and doom-say anytime we wish, but it would only be in the case of a near-complete annihilation that our government would fail to function. In such an instance there is no “system” that will preserve our government. On the other hand, if we surrender the right to elect people to the U.S. House of Representatives under any circumstances, we will be on a slippery slope away from the few remaining vestiges and most precious principles of the government left to us by our founders.
founder
Establishin Joint Committee To Review House And Senate Matters Assuring Continuing Representation And Congressional Operations For The American People
5 June 2003 2003 Ron Paul 64:2
In particular, I hope this Committee does not endorse the proposal contained in “Preserving our Institutions, The Continuity of Government Commission” which recommends that state governors appoint new representatives. Appointing representatives flies in the face of the Founders’ intention that the House of Representatives be the part of the federal government most directly accountable to the people. Even with the direct election of Senators, the fact that members of the House are elected every two years while Senators run for statewide office every six years, means members of the House of Representatives are still more accountable to the people than any other part of the federal government.
founder
Results Of The Attack On Iraq: What Have We Discovered
19 June 2003 2003 Ron Paul 67:20
(20) In Washington, a foreign policy of noninterventionism, as advanced by the Founders and supported by the Constitution, is not considered a reasonable option, though millions of Americans would welcome it.
founder
Keep Out Of Middle East Conflicts
25 June 2003 2003 Ron Paul 70:4
As I keep saying when votes such as this come to the floor, the best foreign policy for the United States is noninterventionism. It is a policy American interests first, costs must less money, and is in keeping with a long American tradition so eloquently described by our Founders.
founder
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 73:49
The money and views of Rupert Murdoch also played a key role in promoting the neocon views, as well as rallying support by the general population, through his News Corporation, which owns Fox News Network, the New York Post , and Weekly Standard. This powerful and influential media empire did more to galvanize public support for the Iraqi invasion than one might imagine. This facilitated the Rumsfeld/Cheney policy as their plans to attack Iraq came to fruition. It would have been difficult for the neocons to usurp foreign policy from the restraints of Colin Powell’s State Department without the successful agitation of the Rupert Murdoch empire. Max Boot was satisfied, as he explained: “Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad.” This attitude is a far cry from the advice of the Founders, who advocated no entangling alliances and neutrality as the proper goal of American foreign policy.
founder
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 73:53
Communism surely lost a lot with the breakup of the Soviet Empire, but this can hardly be declared a victory for American liberty, as the Founders understood it. Neoconservatism is not the philosophy of free markets and a wise foreign policy. Instead, it represents big-government welfare at home and a program of using our military might to spread their version of American values throughout the world. Since neoconservatives dominate the way the U.S. government now operates, it behooves us all to understand their beliefs and goals. The breakup of the Soviet system may well have been an epic event but to say that the views of the neocons are the unchallenged victors and that all we need do is wait for their implementation is a capitulation to controlling the forces of history that many Americans are not yet ready to concede. There is surely no need to do so.
founder
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 73:70
I ’d like someone to glean anything from what the Founders said or placed in the Constitution that agrees with this now-professed doctrine of a “spectacular” state promoted by those who now have so much influence on our policies here at home and abroad. Ledeen argues that this religious element, this fear of God, is needed for discipline of those who may be hesitant to sacrifice their lives for the good of the “spectacular state.”
founder
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 73:76
Recognizing a “need” for a Pearl Harbor event, and referring to Pearl Harbor as being “lucky” are not identical to support and knowledge of such an event, but this sympathy for a galvanizing event, as 9-11 turned out to be, was used to promote an agenda that strict constitutionalists and devotees of the Founders of this nation find appalling is indeed disturbing. After 9-11, Rumsfeld and others argued for an immediate attack on Iraq, even though it was not implicated in the attacks.
founder
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 73:87
Michael Ledeen and other neoconservatives are already lobbying for war against Iran. Ledeen is pretty nasty to those who call for a calmer, reasoned approach by calling those who are not ready for war “cowards and appeasers of tyrants.” Because some urge a less militaristic approach to dealing with Iran, he claims they are betraying America’s best “traditions.” I wonder where he learned early American history! It’s obvious that Ledeen doesn’t consider the Founders and the Constitution part of our best traditions. We were hardly encouraged by the American revolutionaries to pursue an American empire. We were, however, urged to keep the Republic they so painstakingly designed.
founder
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 83:8
In fact, Congress’ constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our nation’s founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold. Such a monetary system is the basis of a true free-market economy.
founder
Medicinal Marijuana
22 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 89:6
That is how far the ninth and tenth amendments have been undermined, that there has been so much usurpation of States’ rights and States’ abilities to manage these affair, and that is why the Founders set the system up this way in order that if there is a mistake it not be monolithic; and believe me, the Federal Government has made a mistake not only here with marijuana, with all the drug laws, let me tell my colleagues.
founder
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:3
The Founders of this country, and a large majority of the American people up until the 1930s, disdained paper money, respected commodity money, and disapproved of a central bank’s monopoly control of money creation and interest rates. Ironically, it was the abuse of the gold standard, the Fed’s credit-creating habits of the 1920s, and its subsequent mischief in the 1930s, that not only gave us the Great Depression, but also prolonged it. Yet sound money was blamed for all the suffering. That’s why people hardly objected when Roosevelt and his statist friends confiscated gold and radically debased the currency, ushering in the age of worldwide fiat currencies with which the international economy struggles today.
founder
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:6
Our Founders thoroughly understood this issue, and warned us against the temptation to seek wealth and fortune without the work and savings that real prosperity requires. James Madison warned of “The pestilent effects of paper money,” as the Founders had vivid memories of the destructiveness of the Continental dollar. George Mason of Virginia said that he had a “Mortal hatred to paper money.” Constitutional Convention delegate Oliver Ellsworth from Connecticut thought the convention “A favorable moment to shut and bar the door against paper money.” This view of the evils of paper money was shared by almost all the delegates to the convention, and was the reason the Constitution limited congressional authority to deal with the issue and mandated that only gold and silver could be legal tender. Paper money was prohibited and no central bank was authorized. Over and above the economic reasons for honest money, however, Madison argued the moral case for such. Paper money, he explained, destroyed “The necessary confidence between man and man, on necessary confidence in public councils, on the industry and morals of people and on the character of republican government.”
founder
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:7
The Founders were well aware of the biblical admonitions against dishonest weights and measures, debased silver, and watered-down wine. The issue of sound money throughout history has been as much a moral issue as an economic or political issue.
founder
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:8
Even with this history and great concern expressed by the Founders, the barriers to paper money have been torn asunder. The Constitution has not been changed, but is no longer applied to the issue of money. It was once explained to me, during the debate over going to war in Iraq, that a declaration of war was not needed because to ask for such a declaration was “frivolous” and that the portion of the Constitution dealing with congressional war power was “anachronistic.” So too, it seems that the power over money given to Congress alone and limited to coinage and honest weights, is now also “anachronistic.”
founder
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:84
If unchecked, the economic and political chaos that comes from currency destruction inevitably leads to tyranny- a consequence of which the Founders were well aware. For 90 years we have lived with a central bank, with the last 32 years absent of any restraint on money creation. The longer the process lasts, the faster the printing presses have to run in an effort to maintain stability. They are currently running at record rate. It was predictable and is understandable that our national debt is now expanding at a record rate.
founder
We Cannot Afford Another $87 Billion in Iraq
September 16, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 98:14
Second, we have no constitutional authority to police the world or involve ourselves in nation building, in making the world safe for our style of democracy. Our founders advised against it and the early presidents followed that advice. If we believe strongly in our ideals, the best way to spread them is to set a good example so that others will voluntarily emulate us. Force will not work. Besides, we do not have the money. The $87 billion appropriations request should be rejected.
founder
American Dream Downpayment Act
1 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 104:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the American dream, as conceived by the Nation’s Founders, has little in common with H.R. 1276, the so-called American Dream Downpayment Act. In the original version of the American dream, individuals earned the money to purchase a house through their own efforts, often times sacrificing other goods to save for their first downpayment. According to the sponsors of H.R. 1276, that old American dream has been replaced by a new dream of having the Federal Government force your fellow citizens to hand you the money for a downpayment.
founder
Commending The National Endowment For Democracy For Contributions To democratic Development Around The World On The 20th Anniversary Of Its Establishment
7 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 105:14
Madam Speaker, the National Endowment for Democracy, by meddling in the elections and internal politics of foreign countries, does more harm to the United States than good. It creates resentment and ill-will toward the United States among millions abroad. It is beyond time to de-fund this Cold War relic and return to the foreign policy of our founders, based on open relations and trade with all countries and free from meddling and manipulation in the internal affairs of others.
founder
Defense Production Reauthorization Act
15 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 107:4
The wide grant of unchecked power to the Executive runs counter to the intent of the drafters of the Constitution. The Founders carefully limited the executive power because they recognized that an executive with unfettered power was a threat to liberty. In recent years we have seen administrations of both parties undermine the Constitutional separation of powers via enhanced reliance on executive orders and unilateral decision-making. The Defense Production Reauthorization Act provides Constitutional blessing to this usurpation of power, and not just in areas clearly related to national defense. For example, the DPA has been used to justify federal interference in the energy market. It is an open question what other exercise of federal power could be justified as related to defense. For example, federal education programs has been justified on the grounds that an educated population is vital to national defense, so perhaps a future president will use DPA to impose a national curriculum!
founder
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 111:2
I think so rarely we deal with policy and we deal only with technicality and accounting and an attempt made at oversight. So I would like to spend a little bit of time emphasizing a different type of foreign policy that we have become unaccustomed to. Because there was an American foreign policy once well known to us, to our country and especially to our founders, a policy of nonintervention. Today, and essentially for a hundred years, we have been following a policy of foreign intervention, that is, that we assume more than I believe we should overseas. And I object to that because I see it as not gaining a constitutional mandate as well as I see it as being a great danger to us both in the area of national defense, national security, as well as the economic dangers it presents.
founder
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 111:11
We are very much involved in nationbuilding in Afghanistan, and the successes there are very shaky. We probably occupy one city and not much more. And everybody reads daily about the shakiness of our occupation of Iraq. And we are very much involved in internal affairs of other nations, the kind of thing our founders said do not get involved in. Do not get involved in the internal affairs of other nations. Stay out of entangling alliances. And we are very much involved. The entangling alliance that I had the strongest objection to is the entangling alliance with the United Nations.
founder
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 111:50
I am a little bit encouraged, though, about the fact that the debate may be shifting. In the Congress, not yet. Not yet. There are not too many supporters, and I know that, for nonintervention, for a constitutional foreign policy, to looking to the Founders. It is considered old-fashioned, and that truths do not stay so static, and times are different, and we have this obligation, and all the reasons why we have this moral obligation to go about the world. But where I am encouraged is outside of this place, where the American people are getting concerned.
founder
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 111:54
“The American people have not embraced the idea of the American empire, and they are unlikely to do so. Since rebelling against the British Empire, Americans have resisted the imperial impulse, guided by the founders’ frequent warnings that republic and empire are incompatible. Empire is problematic because it subverts the freedoms and liberties of freedoms at home while simultaneously thwarting the will of the people abroad. An imperial strategy threatens to entangle America in an assortment of unnecessary and unrewarding wars.
founder
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 111:64
We should have greater faith and greater confidence in freedom. Freedom works. And that was the message of the Founders. That is the message of the Constitution. But we have lost our confidence. We have lost our way. We cannot even have one single problem exist throughout the country without coming here for another law.
founder
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 2:4
It’s quite a distortion of Emerson’s views to use them as justification for the incoherent and nonsensical policies coming out of Washington today. But, the political benefits of not needing to be consistent are so overwhelming that there’s no interest in being philosophically consistent in one’s votes. It is a welcome convenience to be able to support whatever seems best for the moment, the congressional district, or one’s political party. Therefore, it’s quite advantageous to cling to the notion that consistency is a hobgoblin. For this reason, statesmanship in D.C. has come to mean one’s willingness to give up one’s own personal beliefs in order to serve the greater good — whatever that is. But it is not possible to preserve the rule of law or individual liberty if our convictions are no stronger than this. Otherwise something will replace our republic that was so carefully designed by the Founders. That something is not known, but we can be certain it will be less desirable than what we have.
founder
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 2:13
Paper Money, Inflation, and Economic Pain : Paper money and inflation have never provided long-term economic growth, nor have they enhanced freedom. Yet the world, led by the United States, lives with a financial system awash with fiat currencies and historic debt as a consequence. No matter how serious the problems that come from central-bank monetary inflations — the depressions and inflation, unemployment, social chaos, and war — the only answer has been to inflate even more. Except for the Austrian free-market economists, the consensus is that the Great Depression was prolonged and exacerbated by the lack of monetary inflation. This view is held by Alan Greenspan, and reflected in his January 2001 response to the stock market slump and a slower economy — namely a record monetary stimulus and historically low interest rates. The unwillingness to blame the slumps on the Federal Reserve’s previous errors, though the evidence is clear, guarantees that greater problems for the United States and the world economy lie ahead. Though there is adequate information to understand the real cause of the business cycle, the truth and proper policy are not palatable. Closing down the engine of inflation at any point does cause short-term problems that are politically unacceptable. But the alternative is worse, in the long term. It is not unlike a drug addict demanding and getting a fix in order to avoid the withdrawal symptoms. Not getting rid of the addiction is a deadly mistake. While resorting to continued monetary stimulus through credit creation delays the pain and suffering, it inevitably makes the problems much worse. Debt continues to build in all areas — personal, business, and government. Inflated stock prices are propped up, waiting for another collapse. Mal-investment and overcapacity fail to correct. Insolvency proliferates without liquidation. These same errors have been prolonging the correction in Japan for 14 years, with billions of dollars of non-performing loans still on the books. Failure to admit and recognize that fiat money, mismanaged by central banks, gives us most of our economic problems, along with a greater likelihood for war, means we never learn from our mistakes. Our consistent response is to inflate faster and borrow more, which each downturn requires, to keep the economy afloat. Talk about a foolish consistency! It’s time for our leaders to admit the error of their ways, consider the wise consistency of following the advice of our Founders, and reject paper money and central bank inflationary policies.
founder
We The People Act
4 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 13:2
The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Founders intended Congress to use this authority to correct abuses of power by the federal judiciary.
founder
We The People Act
4 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 13:4
In recent years, we have seen numerous abuses of power by federal courts. Federal judges regularly strike down state and local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion. This government by federal judiciary causes a virtual nullification of the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on federal power. Furthermore, when federal judges impose their preferred policies on state and local governments, instead of respecting the policies adopted by those elected by, and thus accountable to, the people, republican government is threatened. Article IV, section 4 of the United States Constitution guarantees each state a republican form of government. Thus, Congress must act when the executive or judicial branch threatens the republican governments of the individual states. Therefore, Congress has a responsibility to stop federal judges from running roughshod over state and local laws. The Founders would certainly have supported congressional action to reign in federal judges who tell citizens where they can and can’t place manger scenes at Christmas.
founder
An Indecent Attack on the First Amendment
March 10, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 14:3
Regulating speech is a dangerous notion, and not compatible with the principles of a free society. The Founders recognized this, and thus explicitly prohibited Congress from making any laws that might abridge freedom of speech or of the press.
founder
Federalizing Tort Law
10 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 15:4
While I oppose the idea of holding food manufactures responsible for their customers’ misuse of their products, I cannot support addressing this problem by nationalizing tort law. It is long past time for Congress to recognize that not every problem requires a federal solution. This country’s founders recognized the genius of separating power among federal, state, and local governments as a means to maximize individual liberty and make government most responsive to those persons who might most responsibly influence it. This separation of powers strictly limits the role of the federal government in dealing with civil liability matters; and reserves jurisdiction over matters of civil tort, such as food related negligence suits, to the state legislatures.
founder
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.
founder
Bill Would Not Bring Middle East Peace
23 June 2004 2004 Ron Paul 40:5
Like my colleagues who have come to the floor to endorse this legislation, I would very much like to see peace in the Middle East — and elsewhere in this troubled world. But this is not the way to achieve that peace. As our Founders recognized, the best way for the United States to have peaceful relations with others is for Americans to trade freely with them. The best way to sow resentment and discontent among the other nations of the world is for the United States to become entangled in alliances with one power against another power, to meddle in the affairs of other nations. One-sided legislation such as this in reality just fuels the worst fears of the Muslim world about the intentions of the United States. Is this wise?
founder
Praising Private Space Exploration
June 25, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 44:2
SpaceShipOne was designed and built by Burt Rutan and piloted by test pilot Michael W. Melvill. It was launched successfully from Mojave California, reaching a height of 100 KM (62 miles ) above the Earth’s surface. Remarkably, SpaceShipOne is entirely privately-financed, chiefly by Microsoft co-founder Paul G. Allen.
founder
End Embargo On Cuba
7 July 2004 2004 Ron Paul 49:4
The founders of this country gave strong advice to us, and for 100 years or so we followed it. They said friendship and trade with everyone who is willing, alliances with none; and that is pretty good advice. But what have we done in recent years? We have a hodgepodge when we deal with other countries.
founder
Taiwan Relations Act — Part 1
14 July 2004 2004 Ron Paul 54:3
I happen to believe that we have ignored for too long in this country and in this body the foreign policy that was designed by our Founders, a foreign policy of nonintervention. I think it is better for us. I think it is healthy in all ways, both financially and in that it keeps us out of wars, and we are allowed to build friendships with all the nations of the world. The politics of nonintervention should be given some serious consideration.
founder
Taiwan Relations Act — Part 3
14 July 2004 2004 Ron Paul 56:4
I would like to just close with quoting from the Founders. First, very simply, from Jefferson. His advice was, “Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”
founder
Opposing Aid To Pakistan
15 July 2004 2004 Ron Paul 61:4
The advice of the Founders was that we should be more balanced in our approach and not favoring special nations, not giving money or weapons or getting involved in any alliances with the different nations of the world and we would all be better off for it.
founder
The Constitution
23 September 2004 2004 Ron Paul 70:13
The nonsense that the Constitution is a living, flexible document taught as gospel in most public schools must be challenged. The Founders were astute enough to recognize the Constitution was not perfect and wisely permitted amendments to the document, but they correctly made the process tedious and difficult. Without a renewed love for liberty and confidence in its results, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to restore once again the rule of law under the Constitution.
founder
Federal Courts and the Pledge of Allegiance
September 23, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 71:4
Ironically, the author of the pledge of allegiance might disagree with our commitment to preserving the prerogatives of state and local governments. Francis Bellamy, the author of the pledge, was a self-described socialist who wished to replace the Founders’ constitutional republic with a strong, centralized welfare state. Bellamy wrote the pledge as part of his efforts to ensue that children put their allegiance to the central government before their allegiance to their families, local communities, state governments, and even their creator! In fact, the atheist Bellamy did not include the words “under God” in his original version of the pledge. That phrase was added to the pledge in the 1950s.
founder
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 81:69
2. The Founders and all the early presidents argued the case for non-intervention overseas, with the precise goals of avoiding entangling alliances and not involving our people in foreign wars unrelated to our security.
founder
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 81:78
Conservatives who profess to uphold the principle of right-to-life should have little trouble supporting the position of the Founders and the Constitution: a foreign policy of “peace and commerce with those who choose and no entangling alliances.”
founder
Introducing The Identity Theft protection Act
4 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 2:3
One of the most disturbing abuses of the Social Security number is the congressionally authorized rule forcing parents to get a Social Security number for their newborn children in order to claim the children as dependents. Forcing parents to register their children with the State is more like something out of the nightmares of George Orwell than the dreams of a free republic that inspired this Nation’s Founders.
founder
Government IDs and Identity Theft
January 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 5:3
One of the most disturbing abuses of the Social Security number is the congressionally-authorized rule forcing parents to get a Social Security number for their newborn children in order to claim the children as dependents. Forcing parents to register their children with the state is more like something out of the nightmares of George Orwell than the dreams of a free republic that inspired this nation’s founders.
founder
Introduction Of The Liberty Amendment
26 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 10:4
The Founding Fathers realized that “the power to tax is the power to destroy,” which is why they did not give the federal government the power to impose an income tax. Needless to say, the Founders would be horrified to know that Americans today give more than a third of their income to the federal government.
founder
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.
founder
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005
8 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 27:15
According to the American political and legal tradition and the universal principles of constitution making, a perpetual civil covenant or constitution, obligatory on the people “and their rulers throughout the generations, must, first, be proposed in the name of the people and, thereafter, ratified by the people’s representatives elected and assembled for the sole purpose of passing on the terms of a proposed covenant. See 4 The Founders’ Constitution 647–58 (P. Kurland and R. Lerner, eds.) (Univ. Chicago Press: 1985). Thus, the preamble of the Constitution of the United States of America begins with “We the People of the United States” and Article VII provides for ratification by state conventions composed of representatives of the people elected solely for that purpose. Sources of Our Liberties 408, 416, 418–21 (R. Perry, ed.) (ABA Foundation, Chicago: 1978).
founder
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005
8 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 27:17
First of all, Charter of the United Nations, executed as an agreement in the name of the people, legally and politically displaced previously binding agreements upon the signatory nations. Article 103 provides that “[i]n the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.” Because the 1787 Constitution of the United States of America would displace the previously adopted Articles of Confederation under which the United States was being governed, the drafters recognized that only if the elected representatives of the people at a constitutional convention ratified the proposed constitution, could it be lawfully adopted as a constitution. Otherwise, the Constitution of the United States of America would be, legally and politically, a treaty which could be altered by any state’s legislature as it saw fit. The Founders’ Constitution, supra, at 648–52.
founder
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005
8 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 27:20
Third, the authority to enter into an agreement made in the name of the people cannot be politically or legally limited by any preexisting constitution, treaty, alliance, or instructions. An agreement made in the name of a nation, however, may not contradict the authority granted to the governing powers and, thus, is so limited. For example, the people ratified the Constitution of the United States of America notwithstanding the fact that the constitutional proposal had been made in disregard to specific instructions to amend the Articles of Confederation, not to displace them. See Sources of Our Liberties 399–403 (R. Perry ed.) (American Bar Foundation: 1972). As George Mason observed at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, “Legislatures have no power to ratify” a plan changing the form of government, only “the people” have such power. 4 The Founders’ Constitution, supra, at 651.
founder
Introducing The “American Citizenship Amendment”
28 April 2005 2005 Ron Paul 44:3
This proposed Constitutional amendment restores the concept of American citizenship to that of our Founders. This legislation simply states that no child born in the United States whose mother and father do not possess citizenship or owe permanent allegiance to the United States shall be a citizen of the United States. It is essential to the future of our constitutional republic that citizenship be something of value, something to be cherished. It cannot be viewed as merely an express train into the welfare state.
founder
United States Should Leave World Trade Organization
9 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 57:4
Therefore, there are many of us who ally together to argue that case, although we may have a disagreement on how much tariffs we should have, because the Congress should decide that. We could have no tariffs; we could have a uniform tariff, which the Founders believed in and permitted; or we could have protective tariffs, which some of those individuals on our side defend, and I am not that much interested in. But the issue that unifies us is who should determine it. For me, the determination should be by the U.S. Congress and not to defer to an international government body.
founder
PATRIOT Act Violates Fourth Amendment
15 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 64:2
The fourth amendment is worth fighting for. The Founders of the country thought it was literally worth fighting for, and yet I see us here in the Congress willing to sacrifice it too easily.
founder
Introduction of the Industrial Hemp Farming Act
June 22, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 70:7
It is unfortunate that the federal government has stood in the way of American farmers, including many who are struggling to make ends meet, competing in the global industrial hemp market. Indeed the founders of our nation, some of who grew hemp, surely would find that federal restrictions on farmers growing a safe and profitable crop on their own land are inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of a limited, restrained federal government. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to stand up for American farmers and cosponsor the Industrial Hemp Farming Act.
founder
Statement on the Flag Burning Amendment
June 22, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 71:14
Unfortunately, Congress has long since disregarded the original intent of the Founders and has written a lot of laws regulating private property and private conduct. But I would ask my colleagues to remember that every time we write a law to control private behavior, we imply that somebody has to arrive with a gun, because if you desecrate the flag, you have to punish that person. So how do you do that? You send an agent of the government, perhaps an employee of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Flags, to arrest him. This is in many ways patriotism with a gun--if your actions do not fit the official definition of a “patriot,” we will send somebody to arrest you.
founder
The Republican Congress Wastes Billions Overseas
July 20, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 86:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this foreign relations authorization bill. Something has gone terribly wrong with our foreign policy when we feel we must take almost 21 billion dollars out of the pockets of the American taxpayer and ship it overseas. Imagine what the Founders of this country would say if they were among us to see this blatant disregard for the Constitution and for the founding principles of this country. This bill proceeds from the view that with enough money we can buy friends and influence foreign governments. But as history shows us, we cannot. The trillions of dollars we have shipped overseas as aid, and to influence and manipulate political affairs in sovereign countries, has not made life better for American citizens. It has made them much poorer without much to show for it, however.
founder
Amend The PATRIOT Act — Part 2
21 July 2005 2005 Ron Paul 88:13
The requirement that law enforcement demonstrate probable cause before a judge preserves the Founders’ system of checks and balances that protects against one branch gathering too much power. The Founders recognized that one of the chief dangers to liberty was the concentration of power in a few hands, which is why they carefully divided power among the three branches. I would remind those of my colleagues who will claim that we must set aside the constitutional requirements during war that the founders were especially concerned about the consolidation of power during times of war and national emergencies. My colleagues should also keep in mind that PATRIOT Act powers have already been used in non-terrorism related cases, most notably in a bribery investigation in Nevada.
founder
Don’t Reauthorize the Patriot Act
July 21, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 89:7
The requirement that law enforcement demonstrate probable cause before a judge preserves the Founders’ system of checks and balances that protects against one branch gathering too much power. The Founders recognized that one of the chief dangers to liberty was the concentration of power in a few hands, which is why they carefully divided power among the three branches. I would remind those of my colleagues who claim that we must set aside the constitutional requirements during war that the founders were especially concerned about the consolidation of power during times of war and national emergences. My colleagues should also keep in mind that PATRIOT Act powers have already been used in non-terrorism related cases, most notably in a bribery investigation in Nevada.
founder
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 95:47
By rejecting the advice of the Founders and our early presidents, our leaders have drifted away from the admonitions against entangling alliances and nation building. Policing the world is not our calling or our mandate. Besides, the Constitution doesn’t permit it. Undeclared wars have not enhanced our national security.
founder
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 95:49
It isn’t only our presidents that deserve the blame when they overstep their authority and lead the country into inappropriate wars. Congress deserves equally severe criticism for acquiescing to the demands of the executive to go needlessly to war. It has been known throughout history that kings, dictators, and the executive branch of governments are always overly eager to go to war. This is precisely why our founders tried desperately to keep decisions about going to war in the hands of the legislature. But this process has failed us for the last 65 years. Congress routinely has rubber stamped the plans of our presidents and even the United Nations to enter into war through the back door.
founder
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3132, Children’s Safety Act Pf 2005
14 September 2005 2005 Ron Paul 97:6
Just as the Founders never intended the Congress to create a national police force, they never intended the Federal courts to dictate criminal procedures to the States. The Founding Fathers knew quite well that it would be impossible for a central government to successfully manage crime prevention programs for as large and diverse a country as America. That is one reason why they reserved to the States the exclusive authority and jurisdiction to deal with crime. Our children would likely be safe today if the police powers and budgets were under the direct and total control of the States as called for in the Constitution.
founder
Personal Responsibility In Food Consumption Act
19 October 2005 2005 Ron Paul 105:4
While I oppose the idea of holding food manufacturers responsible for their customers’ misuse of their products, I cannot support addressing this problem by nationalizing tort law. It is long past time for Congress to recognize that not every problem requires a Federal solution. This country’s founders recognized the genius of separating power among Federal, State, and local governments as a means to maximize individual liberty and make government most responsive to those persons who might most responsibly influence it. This separation of powers strictly limits the role of the Federal Government in dealing with civil liability matters; and reserves jurisdiction over matters of civil tort, such as food related negligence suits, to the State legislatures.
founder
Government Sponsored Enterprises
26 October 2005 2005 Ron Paul 108:10
Furthermore, my colleagues should consider the constitutionality of an “independent regulator.” The Founders provided for three branches of government — an executive, a judiciary, and a legislature. Each branch was created as sovereign in its sphere, and there were to be clear lines of accountability for each branch. However, independent regulators do not fit comfortably within the three branches; nor are they totally accountable to any branch. Regulators at these independent agencies often make judicial-like decisions, but they are not part of the judiciary. They often make rules, similar to the ones regarding capital requirements, that have the force of law, but independent regulators are not legislative. And, of course, independent regulators enforce the laws in the same way, as do other parts of the executive branch; yet independent regulators lack the day-to-day accountability to the executive that provides a check on other regulators.
founder
Government Sponsored Enterprises
26 October 2005 2005 Ron Paul 108:11
Thus, these independent regulators have a concentration of powers of all three branches and lack direct accountability to any of the democratically chosen branches of government. This flies in the face of the Founders’ opposition to concentrations of power and government bureaucracies that lack accountability. These concerns are especially relevant considering the remarkable degree of power and autonomy this bill gives to the regulator. For example, in the scheme established by H.R. 1461 the regulator’s budget is not subject to appropriations. This removes a powerful mechanism for holding the regulator accountable to Congress. While the regulator is accountable to a board of directors, this board may conduct all deliberations in private because it is not subject to the sunshine act.
founder
Introducing We The People
17 November 2005 2005 Ron Paul 122:2
The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower Federal courts and limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Founders intended Congress to use this authority to correct abuses of power by the federal judiciary.
founder
Introducing We The People
17 November 2005 2005 Ron Paul 122:4
In recent years, we have seen numerous abuses of power by Federal courts. Federal judges regularly strike down State and local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion. This government by Federal judiciary causes a virtual nullification of the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on Federal power. Furthermore, when Federal judges impose their preferred polices on State and local governments, instead of respecting the polices adopted by those elected by, and thus accountable to, the people, republican government is threatened. Article IV, section 40 of the Untied States Constitution guarantees each State a republican form of government Thus, Congress must act when the executive or judicial branch threatens the republican governments of the individual States. Therefore, Congress has a responsibility to stop Federal judges from running roughshod over State and local laws. The Founders would certainly have supported congressional action to reign in Federal judges who tell citizens where they can and can’t place manger scenes at Christmas.
founder
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:76
The Founders detested democracy and avoided the use of the word in all the early documents. Today, most Americans accept without question a policy of sacrificing life, property and dollars to force democracy on a country 6,000 miles away. This tells us how little opposition there is to democracy. No one questions the principle that a majority electorate should be allowed to rule the country, dictate rights, and redistribute wealth. Our system of democracy has come to mean worshiping the notion that a majority vote for the distribution of government largesse, loot confiscated from the American people through an immoral tax system, is morally and constitutionally acceptable.
founder
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 23:47
The Founders were especially adamant about avoiding the chaos, inflation and destruction associated with the continental dollar. That is why the Constitution is clear that only gold and silver should be legal tender in the United States. In 1792, the Coinage Act also authorized the death penalty for any private citizen who counterfeited the currency. Too bad they weren’t explicit that counterfeiting by government officials is just as detrimental to the economy and the value of the dollar.
founder
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 23:66
The Founders understood this great danger and voted overwhelmingly to reject “emitting bills of credit,” the term they used for paper money or fiat currency. It is too bad the knowledge and advice of our Founders and their mandate in the Constitution are ignored, and it is ignored at great peril. The current surge in gold prices, which reflects our dollar’s devaluation, is warning us to pay closer attention to our fiscal, monetary, entitlement, and foreign policy.
founder
Introduction Of The We The People Act
29 June 2006 2006 Ron Paul 51:2
The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Founders intended Congress to use this authority to correct abuses of power by the federal judiciary.
founder
Introduction Of The We The People Act
29 June 2006 2006 Ron Paul 51:4
In recent years, we have seen numerous abuses of power by federal courts. Federal judges regularly strike down state and local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion. This government by federal judiciary causes a virtual nullification of the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on federal power. Furthermore, when federal judges impose their preferred polices on state and local governments, instead of respecting the polices adopted by those elected by, and thus accountable to, the people, republican government is threatened. Article IV, section 4 of the United States Constitution guarantees each state a republican form of government. Thus, Congress must act when the executive or judicial branch threatens the republican governments of the individual states. Therefore, Congress has a responsibility to stop federal judges from running roughshod over state and local laws. The Founders would certainly have supported congressional action to reign in federal judges who tell citizens where they can and can’t place manger scenes at Christmas.
founder
Why Are Americans So Angry?
June 29, 2006 2006 Ron Paul 52:8
In the United States over the last century we have witnessed the coming and going of various intellectual influences by proponents of the free market, Keynesian welfarism, varieties of socialism, and supply-side economics. In foreign policy we’ve seen a transition from the founder’s vision of non-intervention in the affairs of others to internationalism, unilateral nation building, and policing the world. We now have in place a policy, driven by determined neo-conservatives, to promote American “goodness” and democracy throughout the world by military force — with particular emphasis on remaking the Middle East.
founder
Noninterventionist Policy — Part 1
19 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 61:4
Generally speaking, I follow a policy in foreign affairs called noninterventionism. It is not generally acceptable in this current time that we do this, but I think there is every reason to consider it. It certainly was something that the founders talked about.
founder
Noninterventionist Policy — Part 1
19 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 61:6
The founders talked about that, about rejecting entangling alliances. And we have been involved in a lot of entangling alliances since World War I, especially after World War II, and we have been doing a lot of things, losing a lot of men and women and costing a lot of money; and too often, these events have come back to haunt us. There is blow-back from our policy.
founder
Noninterventionist Policy — Part 1
19 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 61:12
I believe that the founders were correct in advocating avoiding entangling alliances, to have a strong national defense, to defend this country, I believe that is just plain common sense. Most Americans, if you just flat-out put it to them, think we should not be the policemen of the world. Do you think we should be involved in the internal affairs of other nations? People say no. We shouldn’t do this. The Constitution doesn’t give us the authority to do it.
founder
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 74:31
One of the major reasons we have drifted from the Founders’ vision of liberty in the Constitution was the division of the concept of freedom into two parts. Instead of freedom being applied equally to social and economic transactions, it has come to be thought of as two different concepts. Some in Congress now protect economic liberty and market choices but ignore personal liberty and private choices. Others defend personal liberty but concede the realm of property and economic transaction to government control.
founder
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 74:38
We went into Vietnam and involved ourselves unnecessarily in the civil war to bring peace and harmony to that country. We lost 60,000 troops and spent hundreds of billions of dollars, yet failed to achieve victory. Ironically, since losing in Vietnam, we now have a better relationship with them than ever. We now trade, invest, travel and communicate with a unified Western- leaning country that is catching on quickly to capitalist ways. This policy, not military confrontation, is exactly what the Constitution permits and the Founders encouraged in our relationship with others.
founder
Identity Theft Protection Act
5 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 8:3
One of the most disturbing abuses of the Social Security number is the congressionally- authorized rule forcing parents to get a Social Security number for their newborn children in order to claim the children as dependents. Forcing parents to register their children with the State is more like something out of the nightmares of George Orwell than the dreams of a free republic that inspired this nation’s founders.
founder
Introducing We The People
5 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 9:2
The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Founders intended Congress to use this authority to correct abuses of power by the federal judiciary.
founder
Introducing We The People
5 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 9:4
In recent years, we have seen numerous abuses of power by Federal courts. Federal judges regularly strike down state and local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion. This government by Federal judiciary causes a virtual nullification of the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on federal power. Furthermore, when federal judges impose their preferred polices on state and local governments, instead of respecting the polices adopted by those elected by, and thus accountable to, the people, republican government is threatened. Article IV, section 4 of the Untied States Constitution guarantees each state a republican form of government. Thus, Congress must act when the executive or judicial branch threatens the republican governments of the individual states. Therefore, Congress has a responsibility to stop Federal judges from running roughshod over state and local laws. The Founders would certainly have supported congressional action to reign in Federal judges who tell citizens where they can and can’t place manger scenes at Christmas.
founder
Introduction Of The Liberty Amendment
7 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 24:4
The Founding Fathers realized that “the power to tax is the power to destroy,” which is why they did not give the federal government the power to impose an income tax. Needless to say, the Founders would be horrified to know that Americans today give more than a third of their income to the federal government.
founder
Introduction Of The Industrial Hemp Farming Act
13 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 25:7
It is unfortunate that the Federal Government has stood in the way of American farmers, including many who are struggling to make ends meet, competing in the global industrial hemp market. Indeed, the founders of our Nation, some of whom grew hemp, would surely find that Federal restrictions on farmers growing a safe and profitable crop on their own land are inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of a limited, restrained Federal Government. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to stand up for American farmers and cosponsor the Industrial Hemp Farming Act.
founder
Statement On The Iraq War Resolution
14 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 26:14
There is no logical reason to reject the restraints placed in the Constitution regarding our engaging in foreign conflicts unrelated to our national security. The advice of the founders and our early Presidents was sound then, and it is sound today.
founder
We Just Marched In (So We Can Just March Out)
17 April 2007 2007 Ron Paul 40:5
Congress bears the greater blame for this fiasco. It reneged on its responsibility to declare or not declare war. It transferred this decision-making power to the executive branch and gave open sanction to anything the President did. In fact, the Founders diligently tried to prevent the executive from possessing this power, granting it to Congress alone in article I, section 8, of the Constitution.
founder
Federal Housing Finance Reform Act Of 2007
17 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 52:10
Furthermore, my colleagues should consider the constitutionality of an “independent regulator.” The Founders provided for three branches of government — an executive, a judiciary, and a legislature. Each branch was created as sovereign in its sphere, and there were to be clear lines of accountability for each branch. However, independent regulators do not fit comfortably within the three branches; nor are they totally accountable to any branch. Regulators at these independent agencies often make judicial-like decisions, but they are not part of the judiciary. They often make rules, similar to the ones regarding capital requirements, that have the force of law, but independent regulators are not legislative. And, of course, independent regulators enforce the laws in the same way, as do other parts of the executive branch; yet independent regulators lack the day-to-day accountability to the executive that provides a check on other regulators.
founder
Federal Housing Finance Reform Act Of 2007
17 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 52:11
Thus, these independent regulators have a concentration of powers of all three branches and lack direct accountability to any of the democratically chosen branches of government. This flies in the face of the Founders’ opposition to concentrations of power and government bureaucracies that lack accountability. These concerns are especially relevant considering the remarkable degree of power and autonomy this bill gives to the regulator. For example, in the scheme established by H.R. 1427 the regulator’s budget is not subject to appropriations. This removes a powerful mechanism for holding the regulator accountable to Congress. While the regulator is accountable to a board of directors, this board may conduct all deliberations in private because it is not subject to the Sunshine Act.
founder
Unanticipated Good results (When We leave)
6 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 57:9
After we left Vietnam under dire circumstances, chaos continued, but no more American lives were lost. But, subsequently, we and the Vietnamese have achieved in peace what could not be achieved in war. We now are friends. We trade with each other, and we invest in Vietnam. The result proves the sound advice of the Founders: Trade in friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none. Example and persuasion is far superior to force of arms for promoting America’s goodness.
founder
Introduction Of The American Citizenship Amendment
13 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 63:2
Madam Speaker, this is unacceptable and is far from what our Founders intended when they drafted our Constitution. It undermines the very concept of citizenship as enshrined in the United States Constitution: to be constitutionally entitled to U.S. citizenship one must be “born . . . in the United States” and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” This second, and most important, part means that in order to gain U.S. citizenship one must owe and actively express allegiance to the United States in addition to the act of being born on United States soil.
founder
Introduction Of The American Citizenship Amendment
13 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 63:4
This proposed constitutional amendment restores the concept of American citizenship to that of our Founders. This legislation simply states that no child born in the United States whose mother and father do not possess citizenship or owe permanent allegiance to the United States shall be a citizen of the United States. It is essential to the future of our constitutional republic that citizenship be something of value, something to be cherished. It cannot be viewed as merely an express train into the welfare state. I hope my colleagues will join me as cosponsors of this legislation.
founder
Introduction Of The Honest Money Act
15 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 64:9
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court failed to protect the American people from Congress’ unconstitutional legal tender laws. Supreme Court Justice, and Lincoln Treasury Secretary, Salmon Chase, writing in dissent in the legal tender cases, summed up the main reason why the Founders did not grant Congress the authority to pass legal tender laws: “The legal tender quality [of money] is only valuable for the purposes of dishonesty.” Justice Chase might have added dishonesty is perpetrated by State-favored interests on the average American.
founder
Introduction Of The Federal reserve Board Abolition Act
15 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 65:6
In fact, Congress’ constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our Nation’s founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold. Such a monetary system is the basis of a true free-market economy.
founder
Statement on Coinage
March 11, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 12:5
HR 5512 is a sad commentary on how far we have fallen, not just since the days of the Founders, but only in the last 75 to 100 years. We could not maintain the gold standard nor the silver standard. We could not maintain the copper standard, and now we cannot even maintain the zinc standard. Paper money inevitably breeds inflation and destroys the value of the currency. That is the reason that this proposal is before us today.
founder
Statement on Earmark Reform
April 9, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 23:5
Madame Speaker, the drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the powers of the purse because the drafters feared that allowing the branch of government charged with executing the laws to also write the federal budget would concentrate too much power in one branch of government. The founders correctly viewed the separation of law-making and law-enforcement powers as a vital safeguard of liberty. Whenever the president blatantly disregards orders from Congress as to how federal funds should be spent, he is undermining the constitutional separation of powers.
founder
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT
January 6, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 4:3
One of the most disturbing abuses of the Social Security number is the congressionally- authorized rule forcing parents to get a Social Security number for their newborn children in order to claim the children as dependents. Forcing parents to register their children with the state is more like something out of the nightmares of George Orwell than the dreams of a free republic that inspired this Nation’s founders.
founder
INTRODUCING WE THE PEOPLE
January 14, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 9:2
The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower Federal courts and limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Founders intended Congress to use this authority to correct abuses of power by the Federal judiciary.
founder
INTRODUCING WE THE PEOPLE
January 14, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 9:4
In recent years, we have seen numerous abuses of power by Federal courts. Federal judges regularly strike down State and local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion. This government by Federal judiciary causes a virtual nullification of the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on Federal power. Furthermore, when Federal judges impose their preferred polices on State and local governments, instead of respecting the polices adopted by those elected by, and thus accountable to, the people, republican government is threatened. Article IV, section 4 of the United States Constitution guarantees each State a republican form of government. Thus, Congress must act when the executive or judicial branch threatens the republican governments of the individual States. Therefore, Congress has a responsibility to stop Federal judges from running roughshod over State and local laws. The Founders would certainly have supported congressional action to reign in Federal judges who tell citizens where they can and can’t place manger scenes at Christmas.
founder
FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD ABOLITION ACT
February 3, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 14:6
In fact, Congress’ constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our nation’s founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold. Such a monetary system is the basis of a true free-market economy.
founder
INDUSTRIAL HEMP FARMING ACT
April 2, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 44:7
It is unfortunate that the Federal Government has stood in the way of American farmers, including many who are struggling to make ends meet, competing in the global industrial hemp market. Indeed, the founders of our Nation, some of whom grew hemp, would surely find that Federal restrictions on farmers growing a safe and profitable crop on their own land are inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of a limited, restrained Federal Government. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to stand up for American farmers and cosponsor the Industrial Hemp Farming Act.
founder
TRIBUTE TO BURT BLUMERT
April 2, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 49:2
As the founder and manager of Camino Coins in Burlingame, CA, Burt was one of the nation’s leading dealers in gold and silver coins. A student of Ludwig von Mises and the Austrian school of economics, Burt understood the important role precious metals played in protecting ordinary citizens from the damage wrought by fiat money and inflation. Thus, he regarded his work as a coin dealer not just as a business, but as an opportunity to help people by providing with some protection from the Federal Reserve’s inflation tax.
founder
INTRODUCTION OF THE LIBERTY AMENDMENT
April 30, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 50:4
The Founding Fathers realized that “the power to tax is the power to destroy,” which is why they did not give the Federal government the power to impose an income tax. Needless to say, the Founders would be horrified to know that Americans today give more than a third of their income to the Federal government.
founder
Statement Opposing Resolution on Iran
June 19, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 72:3
I adhere to the foreign policy of our Founders, who advised that we not interfere in the internal affairs of countries overseas. I believe that is the best policy for the United States, for our national security and for our prosperity. I urge my colleagues to reject this and all similar meddling resolutions.
founder
THE QUAGMIRE OF AFGHANISTAN
December 2, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 101:4
But just think of the tragedy of Vietnam, all those years and all those deaths and all that money spent. Eventually we left, and South Vietnam is now a unified country, but we still have troops in Korea, in Europe, and in Japan. And we are bankrupt. So some day we are going to have to wake up and look at the type of foreign policy that the Founders advised us to have, and that is nonintervention: don’t get involved in the internal affairs of other nations, have free and open trade and accept friendship with other countries who offer it, and that we shouldn’t be the policemen of the world and we shouldn’t be telling other people what to do. We cannot be the policemen of the world and pay for all those bills because we are literally bankrupt.
founder
- Line-Item Veto violates separation of powers, threatens America's constitutional form of government
18 August 1997 Texas Straight Talk 18 August 1997 verse 7 ... Cached
But under the Constitution-circumventing power given the executive branch by Congress two years ago, a president can (at least according to legislative edict) strike single lines or portions of legislation and set the revised law into effect without the consent of Congress. If two-thirds of Congress does not object -- and it is almost impossible to imagine finding two-thirds of the Congressional members who agree on anything of substance -- the president's version of the law stands. This line-item veto process is the kind of absolute power our founders sought to escape, not embrace.
founder
- Line-Item Veto violates separation of powers, threatens America's constitutional form of government
18 August 1997 Texas Straight Talk 18 August 1997 verse 13 ... Cached
Sadly, though, regardless of what the courts end up saying, the mere granting of this power has shaken our constitutional heritage of separated powers. The separation of powers in our nation is the hallmark of our form of government, and one attempt by the founders to safeguard individual liberty. The Constitution, and the arrangement of power in federal government, was designed deliberately and specifically and we must respect it, or risk jeopardizing the very foundations of our nation.
founder
- Gun Control? Disarm The Bureaucrats!
20 October 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 October 1997 verse 13 ... Cached
A gun in the hand of a law-abiding citizen serves as a very real, very important deterrent to an arrogant and aggressive government. Guns in the hands of the bureaucrats do the opposite. The founders of this country fully understood this fact, it's a shame our generation has ignored it
founder
Paul legislation will stop national ID card
13 July 1998 Texas Straight Talk 13 July 1998 verse 10 ... Cached
What would the founders of this country say if they knew the limited federal government they bequeathed to future generations would have grown to such a size that it claims power to demand all Americans obtain a federally-approved ID before getting a job? They would no doubt be disappointed.
founder
Paul legislation will stop national ID card
13 July 1998 Texas Straight Talk 13 July 1998 verse 11 ... Cached
But if the disapproval of the founders is not sufficient to cause Congress to repeal the requirements, then perhaps the reaction of the American people when they discover that they must produce a federally-approved ID in order to open a bank account or see the doctor will turn the tide. Already congressional offices are being flooded with complaints about the movement toward a national ID card; imagine the public's surprise when they realize that not only is a national ID movement underway, but will be a reality by October 1, 2000.
founder
Integrity of Social Security Number must be maintained
20 July 1998 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1998 verse 8 ... Cached
Perhaps the most disturbing abuses of the Social Security number is the Congressionally-authorized rule forcing parents to get a Social Security number for their newborn children in order to claim them as a dependent. Mr. Speaker, forcing parents to register their newborn children with the state is more like something out of the nightmare of George Orwell than the dreams of a free Republic that inspired the nation's founders.
founder
Integrity of Social Security Number must be maintained
20 July 1998 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1998 verse 13 ... Cached
The drafters of the Constitution would be horrified if they knew that the federal government would one day have the ability to create a national ID system and demand that every newborn baby be assigned a number by the federal government. One wonders if the Founders would have fought for liberty if they knew how that precious right would be eroded by their political descendants.
founder
The problem is the currency
21 September 1998 Texas Straight Talk 21 September 1998 verse 15 ... Cached
A limited government designed to protect liberty and provide a national offense is one that could easily be managed with minimal taxes, but it would also require that we follow the advise of the Founders who explicitly admonished us not "to emit bills of credit" that is, paper money and use only silver and gold as legal tender. We need to lay plans for our future because we are rapidly approaching a time of crisis and chaos.
founder
Stopping the Surveillance State
18 January 1999 Texas Straight Talk 18 January 1999 verse 7 ... Cached
One of the more disturbing abuses of the Social Security number is the rule forcing parents to get a Social Security number for their newborn children in order to claim them as dependents. Forcing parents to register their children with the government is more in line with the nightmares of George Orwell than the dreams of a free republic that inspired the nation's founders.
founder
Let liberty ring loudly
21 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 21 June 1999 verse 6 ... Cached
The other half of the Congress, on average, is quite capable and anxious to defend the Second Amendment, and that is good. After all, our founding fathers envisioned a well-armed populace as the ultimate check on government tyranny. If some future legislators and presidents had designs on limiting our divinely endowed liberties, our founders believed the Second would hold such impulses in check.
founder
Flag Amendment is a reckless solution
28 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 28 June 1999 verse 9 ... Cached
This system has served us well for more than two centuries. After all, our founding fathers correctly recognized that the federal government should be severely limited, and especially in matters of expression. They revolted against a government that prevented them from voicing their politically unpopular views regarding taxation, liberty and property rights. As a result, the founders wanted to ensure that a future monolithic federal government would not exist, and that no federal government of the United States would ever be able to restrict what government officials might find obnoxious, unpopular or unpatriotic. After all, the great patriots of our nation -- George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and Benjamin Franklin -- were all considered disloyal pests by the British government.
founder
History Repeats Itself, So Let's Repeat History
01 November 1999 Texas Straight Talk 01 November 1999 verse 5 ... Cached
There's an old saying that history often repeats itself, and so it has done concerning recent abuses of power by the executive branch. I believe this is a most serious matter threatening the very structural foundation of freedom established by this nation's founders. James Madison, quoting Montesquieu in the Federalist Papers No. 47, stated, "There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates."
founder
History Repeats Itself, So Let's Repeat History
01 November 1999 Texas Straight Talk 01 November 1999 verse 6 ... Cached
In an effort to resurrect the ingenuity of our founders, I have introduced HR 2655. This act restores the constitutional separation of powers by returning law-making power to Congress ALONE. First, it terminates all existing states of national emergency and removes the executive branch power to declare national emergencies, restoring that power to Congress. It also restricts executive orders by denying to them force of law except as provided for by Congress. Executive orders issued must cite the specific Constitutional provision or Statutory authority… if not, the effect of law is denied. Finally, it repeals the 1973 War Powers Resolution which, despite the constitutional prohibition, granted broad war-making authority to the Office of President.
founder
Time to Change Priorities
08 November 1999 Texas Straight Talk 08 November 1999 verse 9 ... Cached
I have never been in favor of the foreign aid giveaway that is NATO. Frankly, the entanglement in European affairs so central to this organization runs completely contrary to the ideas of our nation's founders. These brave men understood that freedom cannot survive within the confines of a centralized state. How much worse then is the fate of American liberty when the arms of government are so extended that they reach, not simply to every nook and cranny of our own nation, but also to cover much of the globe as well?
founder
Time to Change Priorities
08 November 1999 Texas Straight Talk 08 November 1999 verse 12 ... Cached
As is so often the case, process is linked with policy. Until we relearn the lessons of the founders, and understand the need to decentralize government, we'll continue to spend untold amounts on bombs, weapons and maintaining troops overseas. Only when we prioritize commitments to our own people will we begin the process of repairing our education and health care systems, and keeping our commitments to America's seniors and taxpayers.
founder
International Protectionism
13 December 1999 Texas Straight Talk 13 December 1999 verse 9 ... Cached
When our founding fathers drafted the constitution, they placed the Treaty making authority with the President and the Senate but the authority to regulate commerce with the House. The effect of this is obvious. The founders left us with a system that made no room for agreements regarding international trade. Hence, our nation was to be governed not by protection but rather by market principles. Trade barriers were not to be erected, period.
founder
International Protectionism
13 December 1999 Texas Straight Talk 13 December 1999 verse 10 ... Cached
A revenue tariff was to be a major contributor to the U.S. treasury, but only to fund the limited and constitutionally authorized responsibilities of the federal government, thus the tariff would be low. The colonists and founders clearly recognized that tariffs are taxes on American consumers, they are not truly taxes on foreign companies. This realization was made obvious by the British government's regulation of trade with the colonies, but it is a realization that has apparently been lost by today's protectionists. Simply, protectionists seem to fail even to realize that raising the tariff is a tax hike on the American people.
founder
Overall Review
27 December 1999 Texas Straight Talk 27 December 1999 verse 12 ... Cached
That we will once again see a rebirth of the spirit of our founders is my wish and prayer for our nation in this most holy of holiday seasons. Merry Christmas.
founder
Government Snoops Threaten Privacy
08 May 2000 Texas Straight Talk 08 May 2000 verse 9 ... Cached
When it comes to our privacy rights however, we need to understand the idea from the view of those who ensconced our rights in a constitution. Our founding fathers understood privacy rights are held by individuals and ought not to be violated by the federal government. Mr. Clinton's attempts are to turn the thoughts of the founders upside down. He would have us believe that privacy rights are protected by federal intervention into the information economy. Nothing could be further from the truth and nothing could be more contrary to the ideas of liberty.
founder
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?
founder
A Republic, Not a Democracy
12 December 2000 Texas Straight Talk 12 December 2000 verse 6 ... Cached
Our Founders instituted a republican system to protect individual rights and property rights from tyranny, regardless of whether the tyrant was a king, a monarchy, a congress, or an unelected mob. They believed that a representative government, restrained by the Bill of Rights and divided into three power sharing branches, would balance the competing interests of the population. They also knew that unbridled democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny suffered by the colonies under King George. In other words, the Founders had no illusions about democracy. Democracy represented unlimited rule by an omnipotent majority, while a constitutionally limited republic was seen as the best system to preserve liberty. Inalienable individual liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights would be threatened by the "excesses of democracy."
founder
The Blessings of Liberty at Christmas
25 December 2000 Texas Straight Talk 25 December 2000 verse 4 ... Cached
America is the only nation truly conceived in liberty. The Founding Fathers, weary of oppression and taxation by a faraway king, made the heroic decision to secede and stake a claim to their own nation. They sought to disavow centuries of tribal warring, medieval feudalism, and collectivist rule by tyrants of every stripe. For the first time in human history they created a governmental system where the state existed to serve the individual, rather than vice versa. It is impossible to overstate how radical this notion was at the time (and still is today). They created the first society where individual human happiness was held up as an ideal. The limited state established by the Constitution was charged with fostering that happiness by protecting property rights and preventing aggression. The courage of our Founders, clearly demonstrated in the resulting secessionist war with England, was fueled by their unquenchable desire to be free. Their daring set the stage for the emergence of the America we enjoy today.
founder
Spy Scandal Reveals Deeper Problems with Federal Police Agencies
05 March 2001 Texas Straight Talk 05 March 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
It is important to understand that the Constitution contains no express authorization for federal police agencies. Article I section 8 sets out the only federal crimes, namely counterfeiting, piracy, and treason. The Founders intended all other criminal matters to be policed by the states themselves, not by federal agencies. The unconstitutional federalization of purely state criminal matters has enabled the FBI and other federal police agencies to operate far beyond constitutional limits. Apparently the FBI now considers foreign espionage part of its mission, which mirrors the unfortunate expansion of unconstitutional foreign aid and global interventionism by Congress.
founder
The Case Against the Income Tax
07 May 2001 Texas Straight Talk 07 May 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
The harmful effects of the income tax are obvious. First and foremost, it has enabled government to expand far beyond its proper constitutional limits, regulating virtually every aspect of our lives. It has given government a claim on our lives and work, destroying our privacy in the process. It takes billions of dollars out of the legitimate private economy, with most Americans giving more than a third of everything they make to the federal government. This economic drain destroys jobs and penalizes productive behavior. The ridiculous complexity of the tax laws makes compliance a nightmare for both individuals and businesses. All things considered, our Founders would be dismayed by the income tax mess and the tragic loss of liberty which results.
founder
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.
founder
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.
founder
Congress Sends Billions Overseas
23 July 2001 Texas Straight Talk 23 July 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
Congress recently plunged headlong into its summer appropriations period, making decisions about how to spend nearly two trillion dollars in 2002. Every year, Congress considers 13 massive appropriations bills that fund the federal government, and every year I'm amazed by the staggering amounts spent. The real problem, of course, is that so much of the spending funds agencies and programs not authorized in the Constitution. I especially object to foreign aid spending, which clearly is unconstitutional under the enumerated powers clause. In short, Congress has zero authority to send your tax dollars overseas, and the Founders would be dismayed by the extent of our intervention in the affairs of foreign nations. Yet few in Congress or the media ever question the wisdom of sending literally billions of U.S. tax dollars overseas.
founder
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.
founder
Statement on the Congressional Authorization of the Use of Force
17 September 2001 Texas Straight Talk 17 September 2001 verse 12 ... Cached
Although we now must fight to preserve our national security we should not forget that the founders of this great nation advised that for our own sake we should stay out of entangling alliances and the affairs of other nations.
founder
Expansion of NATO is a Bad Idea
12 November 2001 Texas Straight Talk 12 November 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
America's founders, having survived a violent and protracted struggle to break away from England, shared a belief that their fledgling nation should be free from foreign entanglements. Thomas Jefferson's well-known quote- "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations- entangling alliances with none" -encapsulates perfectly their view of the wisest foreign policy for America. A famous portrait of George Washington depicts him holding a sheaf of paper emblazoned with the admonition: "Beware foreign influence." Yet our modern lawmakers reject the non-interventionist principles of our founders, choosing instead to involve America in conflicts around the globe.
founder
Can Freedom be Exchanged for Security?
26 November 2001 Texas Straight Talk 26 November 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
It's easy for elected officials in Washington to tell the American people that the government will do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism. Such assurances inevitably are followed by proposals either to restrict the constitutional liberties of the American people or spend vast sums from the federal treasury. The history of the 20th century shows that the Constitution is violated most often by Congress during times of crisis; accordingly, most of our worst unconstitutional agencies and programs began during the two world wars and the Depression. Ironically, the Constitution itself was conceived in a time of great crisis. The founders intended its provision to place inviolable restrictions on what the federal government could do even in times of great distress. America must guard against current calls for government to violate the Constitution- break the law- in the name of law enforcement.
founder
WTO Demands Change in U.S. Tax Laws
21 January 2002 Texas Straight Talk 21 January 2002 verse 7 ... Cached
This latest affront to our sovereignty makes it clear we must get out of the WTO if we hope to avoid further international meddling in our domestic affairs. The WTO is not about free trade, but rather government-managed trade that benefits certain corporate interests. The Constitution grants Congress, and Congress alone, the authority to regulate trade and craft tax laws. Congress cannot cede even a small part of that authority to the WTO or any other international body, nor can the President legally sign any treaty which purports to do so. America's Founders never intended for our nation to become entangled in international trade agreements, and they certainly never intended to have our laws overridden by international bureaucrats. Congress may not object to being pushed around by the WTO, but the majority of Americans do.
founder
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:
founder
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.
founder
Will Congress Debate War with Iraq?
05 August 2002 Texas Straight Talk 05 August 2002 verse 7 ... Cached
War is war, no matter what we call it. When we bomb another country, when we send troops, planes, and warships to attack it, we are at war. Calling war a "police action" or a "peacekeeping mission" does not change the reality. War constitutionally cannot be waged by executive order- the President’s status as Commander-in-Chief gives him authority only to execute war, not initiate it. The Constitution requires a congressional declaration of war precisely because the founders wanted the most representative branch of government, not an imperial President, to make the grave decision to send our young people into harm’s way. We owe it to those young people and the Constitution to have a sober congressional debate before we initiate war in Iraq.
founder
Does Government Run the Economy?
19 August 2002 Texas Straight Talk 19 August 2002 verse 5 ... Cached
But should government run the economy in a free society? Remember, there is a simple description for government control of the economy: socialism. America, however, was founded as a capitalist country. The Constitution grants Congress exceedingly limited regulatory and tax powers, because the founders were tired of having their business affairs managed by the Crown. So they created a strictly limited government, which allowed freedom and capitalism to flourish.
founder
Does Government Run the Economy?
19 August 2002 Texas Straight Talk 19 August 2002 verse 6 ... Cached
In a capitalist economy, the government acts only as a referee by protecting property rights, enforcing contracts, and prohibiting force and fraud. Because our modern federal government has strayed so far from its limited constitutional powers, it controls the economy far more than the founders intended. As a result, our economy is becoming more and more socialist. Federal taxes, regulations, welfare, subsidies, wage controls, and price controls, along with Fed manipulation of interest rates and the money supply, all represent socialist government intervention in the economy. No matter what the Democrats or Republicans want to call it, socialism is socialism. We should have the honesty to identify exactly what is being advocated when some call for even more government control of the economy.
founder
Entangling Alliances Distort our Foreign Policy
16 September 2002 Texas Straight Talk 16 September 2002 verse 7 ... Cached
This schizophrenic approach inevitably gives us the worst of both worlds. We give up our sovereignty, but fail to win any real allies. We pay all the bills, risk the lives of our young people, and invite UN meddling in our domestic laws, yet still we sow the seeds of discontent and future hostility with the world community. All because we have abandoned our Constitution and the founder’s ideal of noninterventionism in favor of globalism. What is badly needed today is a coherent foreign policy based on American national security and self-defense, free trade, a rejection of entangling political and military alliances, and a wholesale removal of the U.S. from the clutches of global government.
founder
Assault Weapons and Assaults on the Constitution
21 April 2003 Texas Straight Talk 21 April 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
More importantly, however, the debate about certain types of weapons ignores the fundamental purpose of the Second amendment. The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of the time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms. It’s convenient for gun banners to dismiss this argument by saying “That could never happen here, this is America”- but history shows that only vigilant people can keep government under control. By banning certain weapons today, we may plant the seeds for tyranny to flourish ten, thirty, or fifty years from now.
founder
Assault Weapons and Assaults on the Constitution
21 April 2003 Texas Straight Talk 21 April 2003 verse 7 ... Cached
Tortured interpretations of the Second amendment cannot change the fact that both the letter of the amendment itself and the legislative history conclusively show that the Founders intended ordinary citizens to be armed. The notion that the Second amendment confers rights only upon organized state-run militias is preposterous; the amendment is meaningless unless it protects the gun rights of individuals. Georgetown University professor Robert Levy recently offered this simple explanation:
founder
Independence from England, Dependence on Washington?
07 July 2003 Texas Straight Talk 07 July 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
Today some Americans, including many members of Congress, view both the Constitution and our Founders as quaint anachronisms at best. Times have changed, they argue, and we hardly should be bound by rules established by a bunch of dead white men who could not possibly understand our modern society. The Constitution is relevant only if it “evolves” to allow for new realities, and the federal government certainly should not be constrained by outdated notions about its proper role. This viewpoint steadily gained acceptance throughout the 20th century, exemplified by the blatantly unconstitutional New Deal and Great Society programs, Supreme Court activism, the virtual abolition of states rights, and uncontrolled growth of the federal government.
founder
Independence from England, Dependence on Washington?
07 July 2003 Texas Straight Talk 07 July 2003 verse 9 ... Cached
Those who dismiss the Constitution ignore the link between the wisdom of our Founders and the freedom and prosperity we still enjoy today. America is not prosperous and relatively free merely by accident. It is prosperous and free because we still retain vestiges of our constitutional system of limited government, with its emphasis on property rights and the rule of law. Other nations are similarly filled with bright, hardworking people, and enjoy abundant natural resources. Yet why have they not prospered like America? The simple reason is they enjoy less liberty. Without liberty and property rights, the human spirit diminishes. More freedom always means more prosperity, which is why American enjoys a much higher level of material well-being than almost any other nation.
founder
Independence from England, Dependence on Washington?
07 July 2003 Texas Straight Talk 07 July 2003 verse 10 ... Cached
As we celebrate the Fourth of July, we might consider what our Founders would think of present-day America. Would they find the ideal of a servant government intact? Would they see a society that abides by the principles established in the Constitution?
founder
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.
founder
Reject UN Gun Control
22 September 2003 Texas Straight Talk 22 September 2003 verse 8 ... Cached
More importantly, however, gun control often serves as a gateway to tyranny. Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government.
founder
Congress Grovels for the WTO
17 November 2003 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 2003 verse 9 ... Cached
One critical point must not be ignored. The Constitution grants Congress, and Congress alone, the authority to regulate trade and craft tax laws. Congress cannot cede that authority to the WTO or any other international body, nor can the President legally sign any treaty that purports to do so. Our Founders never intended for America to become entangled in global trade schemes, and they certainly never intended to have our domestic laws overridden by international bureaucrats. Quasi-governmental organizations like the WTO are simply incompatible with American national sovereignty.
founder
"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.
founder
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.
founder
Government and Marriage
19 January 2004 Texas Straight Talk 19 January 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
The idea is not new, as politicians have talked about using government to advance marriage for decades. But federal promotion of marriage, even if well-intentioned, is a form of social engineering that should worry anyone concerned with preserving a free society. The federal government has no authority to promote or discourage any particular social arrangements; instead the Founders recognized that people should live their lives largely free of federal interference. This is not to say that the Founders intended or imagined a libertine America. On the contrary, they envisioned an America with vibrant religious, family, social, and civic institutions that would shape a moral nation. They understood that strong private institutions, so important in a free and just society, could not coexist with a strong, centralized government.
founder
Congress Goes AWOL
09 February 2004 Texas Straight Talk 09 February 2004 verse 4 ... Cached
Congress is to blame for its craven failure to seriously debate, much less declare, war in Iraq. The Constitution squarely charges Congress with the duty to declare war, a weighty responsibility that our founders thought should rest with the body most directly responsible to the people. The president’s status as commander-in-chief grants him the power only to execute war, not to decide whether war is justified. This is not seriously debatable by anyone who honestly examines the Constitution and the Federalist papers.
founder
A Wise Consistency for Liberty
16 February 2004 Texas Straight Talk 16 February 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
“Statesmanship” in Washington has come to mean one’s willingness to abandon any personal beliefs or principles to serve the greater good-- whatever that is. But it is not possible to preserve the rule of law or individual liberty if our convictions are no stronger than this. The more we abandon consistency and a guiding philosophy of liberty, the more we abandon the republic so carefully designed by the Founders. Without a wise consistency, our faltering republic will be replaced by something far less desirable.
founder
Gay Marriage Quicksand
01 March 2004 Texas Straight Talk 01 March 2004 verse 8 ... Cached
It is great comedy to hear the secular, pro-gay left, so hostile to states’ rights in virtually every instance, suddenly discover the tyranny of centralized government. The newly minted protectors of local rule find themselves demanding: “Why should Washington dictate marriage standards for Massachusetts and California? Let the people of those states decide for themselves.” This is precisely the argument conservatives and libertarians have been making for decades! Why should Washington dictate education, abortion, environment, and labor rules to the states? The American people hold widely diverse views on virtually all political matters, and the Founders wanted the various state governments to most accurately reflect those views. This is the significance of the 10th Amendment, which the left in particular has abused for decades.
founder
Iraq One Year Later
22 March 2004 Texas Straight Talk 22 March 2004 verse 9 ... Cached
Even if we assume that anything will be an improvement over the Hussein regime, the fundamental question remains: Why should young Americans be hurt or killed to liberate foreign nations? I have never heard a convincing answer to this question. If we sacrifice 500 lives to liberate Iraq, should we sacrifice five million American lives to liberate the people of North Korea, Taiwan, Tibet, China, Cuba, and countless African nations? Should we invade every country that has an oppressive government? Are nation-building and empire part of our national credo? Those who answer yes to these questions should have the integrity to admit that our founders urged the opposite approach, namely a foreign policy rooted in staying out of the affairs of other nations.
founder
Freedom vs. Security: A False Choice
31 May 2004 Texas Straight Talk 31 May 2004 verse 4 ... Cached
It's easy for elected officials in Washington to tell Americans that government will do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism, but it’s your freedom and your tax dollars at stake- not theirs. The history of the 20th century demonstrates that the Constitution is violated most egregiously during times of crisis. Many of our worst unconstitutional agencies and programs began during the two world wars and the Depression, when the public was anxious and willing to view government as a savior and protector. Ironically, the Constitution itself was conceived in a time of great crisis. The founders intended to place inviolable restrictions on what the federal government could do even in times of great distress. America must guard against current calls for government to violate the Constitution- meaning break the law- in the name of law enforcement.
founder
None of Your Business!
12 July 2004 Texas Straight Talk 12 July 2004 verse 8 ... Cached
At least the national census has its origins in the Constitution, which is more than one can say about the vast majority of programs funded by Congress. Still, Article I makes it clear that the census should be taken every ten years for the sole purpose of congressional redistricting (and apportionment of taxes, prior to the disastrous 16th amendment). This means a simple count of the number of people living in a given area, so that numerically equal congressional districts can be maintained. The founders never authorized the federal government to continuously survey the American people.
founder
Resisting Judicial Tyranny
26 July 2004 Texas Straight Talk 26 July 2004 verse 4 ... Cached
The Founders never intended for a handful of unelected, unaccountable federal judges to decide social policy for the entire nation. Just as Texas is not required to recognize medical licenses, law licenses, or driving licenses from other states, it ought not be forced to recognize gay marriage licenses granted elsewhere. Already some same-sex couples have sued in federal court to force the nationwide recognition of their marriages, so the Marriage Protection Act is needed to preserve states’ rights. Federal judges have flouted the will of the American people for too long, acting as imperial legislators instead of jurists
founder
A Texas Platform for the GOP
30 August 2004 Texas Straight Talk 30 August 2004 verse 3 ... Cached
First and foremost, the Texas GOP is serious about reducing the size and scope of government. The party platform calls for strict congressional adherence to the 10th amendment, and the abolition of all federal agencies not authorized under a strict interpretation of the Constitution. It urges a return to truly republican government, based on limited federal powers and states rights. The language of the platform is refreshingly frank, with quotes like "We believe that government spending is out of control and needs to be reduced" and "We respect our Founders' intent to restrict the power of the federal government over the states and the people." In fact, whole sections of the document are devoted to worthy subjects like "Limiting the expanse of government power." Contrast these words with what you'll hear this week from the big spending, big government Republicans from Washington.
founder
Hands Off the Electoral College
27 December 2004 Texas Straight Talk 27 December 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
The emphasis on democracy in our modern political discourse has no historical or constitutional basis. Yet we have become obsessed with democracy, as though any government action would be permissible if a majority of voters simply approved of it. Democracy has become a sacred cow, a deity which no one dares question. Democracy, we are told, is always good. But the founders created a constitutionally limited republic precisely to protect fundamental liberties from the whims of the masses, to guard against the excesses of democracy. The electoral college likewise was created in the Constitution to guard against majority tyranny in federal elections. The President was to be elected by the states rather than the citizenry as a whole, with votes apportioned to states according to their representation in Congress. The will of the people was to be tempered by the wisdom of the electoral college.
founder
What does Freedom Really Mean?
07 February 2005 Texas Straight Talk 07 February 2005 verse 8 ... Cached
Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and created the least coercive government in the history of the world. The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government to provide national defense and little else. States, not the federal government, were charged with protecting individuals against criminal force and fraud. For the first time, a government was created solely to protect the rights, liberties, and property of its citizens. Any government coercion beyond that necessary to secure those rights was forbidden, both through the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of strictly enumerated powers. This reflected the founders’ belief that democratic government could be as tyrannical as any King.
founder
Lessons from the Kelo Decision
04 July 2005 Texas Straight Talk 04 July 2005 verse 5 ... Cached
Kelo has several important lessons for all of us. We are witnessing the destruction of any last remnants of the separation of powers doctrine, a doctrine our founders considered critical to freedom. The notion that the judicial branch of government serves as a watchdog to curb legislative and executive abuses has been entirely exposed as an illusion. Judges not only fail to defend our freedoms, they actively infringe upon them by acting as de facto legislators. Thus Kelo serves as a stark reminder that we cannot rely on judges to protect our freedoms.
founder
Politics and Judicial Activism
15 August 2005 Texas Straight Talk 15 August 2005 verse 4 ... Cached
It’s sad that so many Americans see their freedoms as dependent on a single Supreme Court justice. Federal judges were never meant to wield the tremendous power that they do in modern America. Our Founders would find it inconceivable that a handful of unelected, unaccountable federal judges can decide social policy for the entire nation.
founder
Politics and Judicial Activism
15 August 2005 Texas Straight Talk 15 August 2005 verse 5 ... Cached
Dozens of political pressure groups stood ready to launch an immediate public relations attack on any judge nominated by President Bush, while dozens of others stood ready to support the nominee no matter what. These groups reflect the unfortunate reality that millions of Americans unquestioningly support or oppose judicial nominees based solely on the party affiliation of the current president. Once again, blind loyalty to political parties has politicized a process that our Founders never intended to be political. When we as voters and citizens allow the nomination of judges to become political, we have only ourselves to blame for the politicization of our courts themselves. When courts become politicized, judges not surprisingly begin to act like politicians.
founder
Borrowing, Spending, Counterfeiting
22 August 2005 Texas Straight Talk 22 August 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
Third, future administrations are unlikely to challenge a foreign policy orthodoxy that views America as the world’s savior. We are hemorrhaging billions of dollars every month in Iraq, and we waste billions more every year through foreign aid and overseas meddling. A foreign policy based on nation-building and the imposition of “democracy” abroad, in direct contravention of our founders’ admonitions, is not economically sustainable. In Korea alone, U.S. taxpayers have spent nearly one trillion in today’s dollars over 55 years. A permanent military presence in Iraq and the wider Middle East will cost enormous amounts of money.
founder
Our Political Federal Courts
10 October 2005 Texas Straight Talk 10 October 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
How did this come to pass? Unfortunately, our nation has embraced the flawed notion that only scholars, judges, or attorneys are qualified to understand and interpret the Constitution. We have come to accept that constitutional law must be revealed to us from on high by our black-robed masters. Yet nothing could be further from the ideal of constitutional jurisprudence envisioned by our founders. The Constitution is written in plain, forthright text, and there is nothing mystical about it. It simply establishes a system of shared, limited power between the three branches of the federal government, while reserving most government power to the states themselves.
founder
Peace and Prosperity in 2006?
02 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 02 January 2006 verse 6 ... Cached
Regardless of the outcome, we must have the courage and integrity to admit that our founders' wise counsel against foreign entanglements was correct. Once the rationale for the war shifted from weapons of mass destruction to installing democracy, our credibility became dependent on true Iraqi sovereignty-- even if the government that emerges is not to our liking. True sovereignty for Iraq cannot be realized unless and until we end our occupation and stop trying to engineer political outcomes.
founder
Federal Courts and the Growth of Government Power
16 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 16 January 2006 verse 3 ... Cached
The Senate hearings regarding the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court demonstrated that few in Washington view the Constitution as our founders did. The Constitution first and foremost is a document that limits the power of the federal government. It prevents the president, Congress, and the Supreme Court from doing all kinds of things. But judging by last week's hearings, the Constitution is an enabling document, one that authorizes the federal government to involve itself in nearly every aspect of our lives.
founder
Federal Courts and the Growth of Government Power
16 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 16 January 2006 verse 10 ... Cached
The ramifications of these assertions are very serious. They mean the Supreme Court not only can invalidate the actions of Congress or the President, but also craft de facto laws that cannot be undone by the people's elected legislators! This is wildly beyond the role of the federal judiciary as envisioned by the founders. They certainly never intended to create an unelected, lifetime-tenured, superlegislature.
founder
Federalizing Social Policy
30 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 30 January 2006 verse 3 ... Cached
As the Senate prepares to vote on the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito this week, our nation once again finds itself bitterly divided over the issue of abortion. It's a sad spectacle, especially considering that our founders never intended for social policy to be decided at the federal level, and certainly not by federal courts. It's equally sad to consider that huge numbers of Americans believe their freedoms hinge on any one individual, Supreme Court justice or not.
founder
Policy is More Important than Personnel
24 April 2006 Texas Straight Talk 24 April 2006 verse 7 ... Cached
It’s interesting to note that our founders warned against maintaining standing armies at all, both because of the taxes required to do so and the threats to liberty posed by a permanent military.
founder
The Worldwide Gun Control Movement
26 June 2006 Texas Straight Talk 26 June 2006 verse 11 ... Cached
The UN claims to serve human freedom and dignity, but gun control often serves as a gateway to tyranny. Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government.
founder
IRS Threatens Political Speech
24 July 2006 Texas Straight Talk 24 July 2006 verse 7 ... Cached
The result is court rulings and laws that separate citizens from their religious beliefs in all public settings, in clear violation of the free exercise clause. Our Founders never envisioned a rigidly secular public society, where people must nonsensically disregard their deeply held beliefs in all matters of government and politics. They certainly never imagined that the federal government would actively work to chill the political activities of some churches.
founder
Elected Officials Threaten Property Rights
04 September 2006 Texas Straight Talk 04 September 2006 verse 4 ... Cached
This is why every American needs to understand that property rights are the foundation of a free society. Without property rights, all citizens live subject to the whims of government officials. When government can seize your property without your consent, all of your other rights are negated. Our founders would roll over in their graves if they knew that the takings clause in the Fifth Amendment was being used to justify unholy alliances between private developers and tax-hungry local governments.
founder
Rethinking Birthright Citizenship
02 October 2006 Texas Straight Talk 02 October 2006 verse 11 ... Cached
Our founders knew that unforeseen problems with our system of government would arise, and that’s precisely why they gave us a method for amending the Constitution. It’s time to rethink birthright citizenship by amending the 14th amendment.
founder
Gun Control on the Back Burner
06 November 2006 Texas Straight Talk 06 November 2006 verse 7 ... Cached
The gun control debate generally ignores the historical and philosophical underpinnings of the Second amendment. The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of that time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms.
founder
Gun Control on the Back Burner
06 November 2006 Texas Straight Talk 06 November 2006 verse 9 ... Cached
Tortured interpretations of the Second amendment cannot change the fact that both the letter of the amendment itself and the legislative history conclusively show that the Founders intended ordinary citizens to be armed. The notion that the Second amendment confers rights only upon organized state-run militias is preposterous; the amendment is meaningless unless it protects the gun rights of individuals.
founder
Rethinking the Draft
27 November 2006 Texas Straight Talk 27 November 2006 verse 7 ... Cached
Military needs aside, some politicians simply love the thought of mandatory service to the federal government. The political right favors sending young people to fight in aggressive wars like Iraq. The political left longs to send young people into harm's way to save the world in places like Darfur. But both sides share the same belief that citizens should serve the needs of the state-- a belief our founders clearly rejected in the Declaration of Independence.
founder
Who Makes Foreign Policy?
11 December 2006 Texas Straight Talk 11 December 2006 verse 11 ... Cached
So Congress is charged not only with deciding when to go to war, but also how to conduct-- and bring to a conclusion-- properly declared wars. Of course the administration has some role to play in making treaties, and the State Department should pursue beneficial diplomacy. But the notion that presidents should establish our broader foreign policy is dangerous and wrong. No single individual should be entrusted with the awesome responsibility of deciding when to send our troops abroad, how to employ them once abroad, and when to bring them home. This is why the founders wanted Congress, the body most directly accountable to the public, to make critical decisions about war and peace.
founder
The Original Foreign Policy
18 December 2006 Texas Straight Talk 18 December 2006 verse 8 ... Cached
Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not we that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.
founder
The DC Gun Ban
12 March 2007 Texas Straight Talk 12 March 2007 verse 5 ... Cached
Can anyone seriously contend that the Founders, who had just expelled their British rulers mostly by use of light arms, did not want the individual farmer, blacksmith, or merchant to be armed? Those individuals would have been killed or imprisoned by the King's soldiers if they had relied on a federal armed force to protect them.
founder
The DC Gun Ban
12 March 2007 Texas Straight Talk 12 March 2007 verse 7 ... Cached
The Founders themselves wrote in the Federalist papers about the need for individuals to be armed. In fact, James Madison argued in Federalist paper 46 that common citizens should be armed to guard against the threat posed by the newly proposed standing federal army.
founder
The DC Gun Ban
12 March 2007 Texas Straight Talk 12 March 2007 verse 10 ... Cached
Gun control historically serves as a gateway to tyranny. Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government.
founder
Rights of Taxpayers is Missing Element in Stem Cell Debate
25 June 2007 Texas Straight Talk 25 June 2007 verse 7 ... Cached
Our founding fathers devised a system of governance that limited federal activity very narrowly. In doing so, they intended to keep issues such as embryonic stem cell research entirely out of Washington’s hands. They believed issues such as this should be tackled by free people acting freely in their churches and medical associations, and in the marketplace that would determine effective means of research. When government policies on this issue were to be developed, our founders would have left them primarily to state legislators to decide in accord with community standards.
founder
Rights of Taxpayers is Missing Element in Stem Cell Debate
25 June 2007 Texas Straight Talk 25 June 2007 verse 10 ... Cached
Only when Washington comes to understand that our founders expressly intended for our federal government to be limited in scope, will policy questions such as this be rightly understood. But that understanding will not come until the people demand their elected officials act in accordance with these principles.
founder
Tax Reform Promises Treats, Delivers Tricks
04 November 2007 Texas Straight Talk 04 November 2007 verse 6 ... Cached
The founding fathers never saw taxation as a method to direct social behavior or enforce equality. Equality to them was equality under the law, not equality of outcome, or income. It was not the founding fathers' job to manage the economy, or make American businesses competitive. That was up to the free market and American businesses. The founders sought to provide only protection of property and civil liberties such that job creation could happen naturally and peacefully in a stable, prosperous environment. They never sought to take from the rich to give to the poor, or rob Peter to pay Paul. But today, the top 5% of earners in this country pay over half of all income taxes collected, but only bring in a third of the income. One third of Americans pay nothing or receive subsidies from 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.