Home Page

Contents

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul Prohibition Book of Ron Paul Prohibition Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act 31 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 31:4 It has become the accepted political notion in this century that war is a Presidential matter in which Congress may not meddle, and certainly never offer dissenting views. Yet, no place in the Constitution do we find a presidential fiat power to conduct war. To the contrary, we find strict prohibitions placed on the President when it comes to dealing with foreign nations. The Constitution is clear: No war may be fought without a specific declaration by the Congress. Prohibition Federal War On Drugs Bad Idea 5 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 45:16 If we want to go after a problem, let us go after the highways, let us go after the guns, let us go after the drug reaction. What about alcohol? There are 200,000 deaths, approximately, from alcohol. But do we come here and propose that we go back to prohibition? No. We do not. It is a serious problem. It is really the big problem. Prohibition Girl Arrested For Rescuing Classmate In Asthma Attack 5 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 47:2 But prohibition, obviously, when they passed that amendment to the Constitution, recognized that the Congress could not pass laws. And like I mentioned in 1937, when Roosevelt decided that we should attack medical marijuana, that he would do it through raising taxes. So it is only in recent history that we have decided that this is a Federal project. The record is just not very clear it has been very successful. Prohibition National Police State 12 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 50:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today the Congress will collectively move our nation two steps closer to a national police state by further expanding a federal crime and paving the way for a deluge of federal drug prohibition legislation. Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of federalizing every human misdeed in the name of saving the world from some evil than to uphold a Constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure by which the nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil, totalitarianism. Who, after all, and especially in an election year, wants to be amongst those members of Congress who are portrayed as soft on drugs or deadbeat parents irrespective of the procedural transgressions and individual or civil liberties one tramples in their zealous approach. Prohibition National Police State 12 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 50:5 Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress today will likely pass H. Res. 423 and H.R. 3811 under suspension of the rules meaning, of course, they are “non-controversial.” House Resolution 423 pledges the House to “pass legislation that provides the weapons and tools necessary to protect our children and our communities from the dangers of drug addiction and violence”. Setting aside for the moment the practicality of federal prohibition laws, an experiment which failed miserably in the so-called “Progressive era”, the threshold question must be: “under what authority do we act?” There is, after all, a reason why a Constitutional amendment was required to empower the federal government to share jurisdiction with the States in fighting a war on a different drug (alcohol) — without it, the federal government had no constitutional authority. One must also ask, “if the general welfare and commerce clause were all the justification needed, why bother with the tedious and time-consuming process of amending the Constitution?” Whether any governmental entity should be in the “business” of protecting competent individuals against themselves and their own perceived stupidity is certainly debatable — Whether the federal government is empowered to do so is not. Being stupid or brilliant to one’s sole disadvantage or advantage, respectively, is exactly what liberty is all about. Prohibition National Police State 12 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 50:7 Perhaps, more dangerous is the loss of another Constitutional protection which comes with the passage of more and more federal criminal legislation. Constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting (and, as mentioned above, for a short period of history, the manufacture, sale, or transport of alcohol was concurrently a federal and state crime). “Concurrent” jurisdiction crimes, such as alcohol prohibition in the past and federalization of felonious child support delinquency today, erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the federal government and a state government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional. Prohibition Campaign Finance Reform 23 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 64:11 Take, for instance, some of the groups that have tried in the past to get on and become known but are frustrated by all these rules. There are Independents, Socialists, Greens, Taxpayers Party, Populists, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Reform Party, Natural Party, American Party, Liberal Party, Conservative Party, Right to Life, Citizens Party, New Alliance Party, Prohibition Party, States Rights Party. All these people have been totally frustrated because they have so many obstacles put in their way by the requirement of huge numbers of signatures on ballots. Prohibition Federal Communications Commission 25 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 9:3 Perhaps, more dangerous is the loss of another Constitutional protection which comes with the passage of more and more federal criminal legislation. Constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting (and, as mentioned above, for a short period of history, the manufacture, sale, or transport of alcohol was concurrently a federal and state crime). “Concurrent” jurisdiction crimes, such as alcohol prohibition in the past and eavesdropping today, erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the federal government and a state government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the federal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same crime. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional. Prohibition Consumer Protection Legislation 11 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 19:10 Government’s attempt to set the just price for satellite programming outside the market mechanism is inherently impossible. This has resulted in competition among service providers for government privilege rather than consumer-benefits inherent to the genuine free market. Currently, while federal regulation does leave satellite programming service providers free to bypass the governmental royalty distribution scheme and negotiate directly with owners of programming for program rights, there is a federal prohibition on satellite service providers making local network affiliate’s programs available to nearby satellite subscribers. This bill repeals that federal prohibition and allows satellite service providers to more freely negotiate with program owners for programming desired by satellite service subscribers. Technology is now available by which viewers will be able to view network programs via satellite as presented by their nearest network affiliate. This market-generated technology will remove a major stumbling block to negotiations that should currently be taking place between network program owners and satellite service providers. Prohibition Environmental Regulatory Issues 22 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 31:13 A global warming hysteria, based on speculative computer models instead of actual temperature data, to justify a treaty to impose federal and international taxes, rationing and prohibitions on all U.S. carbon-based energy sources. Prohibition On Regulating Satellite TV 27 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 32:2 H.R. 1554, the Satellite Copyright, Competition, and Consumer Protection Act of 1999, the bill before us today, repeals the strict prohibition of local network programming via satellite to local subscribers BUT in so doing is chock full of private sector mandates and bureaucracy expanding provisions. H.R. 1554, for example, requires Satellite carriers to divulge to networks lists of subscribers, expands the current arbitrary, anti-market, government royalty scheme to network broadcast programming, undermines existing contracts between cable companies and network program owners, violates freedom of contract principles, imposes anti-consumer “must-carry” regulations upon satellite service providers, creates new authority for the FCC to “re-map the country” and further empowers the National Telecommunications Information administration (NTIA) to “study the impact” of this very legislation on rural and small TV markets. Prohibition On Regulating Satellite TV 27 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 32:6 I introduced what I believe is the most pro-consumer, competition-friendly legislation to address the current government barrier to competition in television program provision. My bill, the Television Consumer Freedom Act, would repeal federal regulations which interfere with consumers’ ability to avail themselves of desired television programming. It repeals that federal prohibition and allows satellite service providers to more freely negotiate with program owners for just the programming desired by satellite service subscribers. Technology is now available by which viewers will be able to view network programs via satellite as presented by their nearest network affiliate. This market-generated technology will remove a major stumbling block to negotiations that should currently be taking place between network program owners and satellite service providers. Additionally, rather than imposing the burdensome and anti-consumer “must-carry” regulations on satellite service providers to “keep the playing field level,” my bill allows bona fide competition by repealing the must-carry from the already over-regulated cable industry. Prohibition Kosovo War Is Illegal 5 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 40:19 Only chaos can come from ignoring the strict prohibition by the Constitution of a president unilaterally waging war. If a president ignores the absence of a declaration, and we are serious, the only option left to Congress is the power of the purse, which is clearly the responsibility of the Congress. We should not fund this illegal and immoral NATO war. Prohibition Teacher Empowerment Act 20 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 81:7 In order to receive funding under this bill, states must provide certain guarantees that the state’s use of the money will result in improvement in the quality of the state’s education system. Requiring such guarantees assumes that the proper role for the Federal Government is to act as overseer of the states and localities to ensure they provide children with a quality education. There are several flaws in this assumption. First of all, the 10th amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the Federal Government from exercising any control over education. Thus, the Federal Government has no legitimate authority to take money from the American people and use that money in order to bribe states to adopt certain programs that Congress and the federal bureaucracy believes will improve education. The prohibition in the 10th amendment is absolute; it makes no exception for federal education programs that “allow the states flexibility!” Prohibition Population Control 2 August 1999    1999 Ron Paul 84:8 That is not a power. That was a prohibition. It was to keep us from spending money without appropriation. If this is true, we can spend money on anything in the world, and the Constitution has zero meaning. This cannot possibly be. Prohibition Unborn Victims Of Violence Act 30 September 1999    1999 Ron Paul 102:19 Perhaps, equally dangerous is the loss of another Constitutional protection which comes with the passage of more and more federal criminal legislation. Constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting (and, because the constitution was amended to allow it, for a short period of history, the manufacture, sale, or transport of alcohol was concurrently a federal and state crime). “Concurrent” jurisdiction crimes, such as alcohol prohibition in the past and federalization of murder today, erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the federal government and a state government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional. Prohibition Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom 4 October 1999    1999 Ron Paul 103:16 Of course, in a truly free market, HMOs and pre-paid care could and would exist — there would be no prohibition against it. The Kaiser system was not exactly a creature of the government as is the current unnatural HMO-government-created chaos we have today. The current HMO mess is a result of our government interference through the ERISA laws, tax laws, labor laws, and the incentive by many in this country to socialize medicine “American style”, that is the inclusion of a corporate level of management to rake off profits while draining care from the patients. The more government assumed the role of paying for services the more pressure there has been to managed care. Prohibition Quality Care For The Uninsured Act 6 October 1999    1999 Ron Paul 104:11 Of course, in a truly free market, HMOs and pre-paid care could and would exist — there would be no prohibition against it. The Kaiser system was not exactly a creature of the government as is the current unnatural HMO-government-created chaos we have today. The current HMO mess is a result of our government interference through the ERISA laws, tax laws, labor laws, and the incentive by many in this country to socialize medicine “American style,” that is the inclusion of a corporate level of management to rake off profits while draining care from the patients. The more government assumed the role of paying for services the more pressure there has been to managed care. Prohibition A Republic, If You Can Keep It 31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:130 Throughout the 20th Century, with Congress’ obsession for writing laws for everything, the Federal courts were quite willing to support the idea of a huge interventionist Federal Government. The fact that the police officers in the Rodney King case were tried twice for the same crime, ignoring the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy, was astoundingly condoned by the courts, rather than condemned. It is not an encouraging sign that the concept of equal protection under the law will prevail. Prohibition A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2 2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:39 Before the social authoritarians decided to reform the gun and drug culture, they amended the Constitution enacting alcohol prohibition. Prohibition failed to reduce alcohol usage and a crime wave resulted. After 14 years, the American people demanded repeal of this social engineering amendment, and got it. Prohibition A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2 2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:40 Prohibition prompted the production of poor quality alcohol with serious health consequences, while respect for the law was lost as it was flagrantly violated. At least at that time the American people believed the Constitution had to be amended to prohibit the use of alcohol, something that is entirely ignored today in the Federal Government’s effort to stop drug usage. Prohibition A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2 2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:41 In spite of the obvious failure of alcohol prohibition, the Federal Government, after its repeal, turned its sights on gun ownership and drug usage. The many Federal anti-gun laws written since 1934, along with the constant threat of outright registration and confiscation, have put the FBI and the BATF at odds with millions of law abiding citizens who believe the Constitution is explicit in granting the right of gun ownership to all nonviolent Americans. Prohibition A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2 2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:42 Our government pursued alcohol prohibition in the 1920s and confiscation of gold in the 1930s, so it is logical to conclude that our government is quite capable of confiscating all privatelyowned firearms. That has not yet occurred; but as we move into the next century, many in Washington advocate just that and would do it if they did not think the American people would revolt, just as they did against alcohol prohibition. Prohibition A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2 2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:43 Throughout this century, there has been a move toward drug prohibition starting with the Harrison Act of 1912. The first Federal marijuana law was pushed through by FDR in 1938, but the real war on drugs has been fought with intensity for the past 30 years. Prohibition A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2 2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:44 Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent and not only is there no evidence of reduced drug usage, we have instead seen a tremendous increase. Many deaths have occurred from overdoses of street drugs since there is no quality control or labeling. Crime as a consequence of drug prohibition has skyrocketed and our prisons are overflowing. Many prisoners are nonviolent and should be treated as patients with addictions, not as criminals. Irrational mandatory minimum sentences have caused a great deal of harm. We have nonviolent drug offenders doing life sentences, and there is no room to incarcerate the rapists and murderers. Prohibition A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2 2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:47 When we finally decide that drug prohibition has been no more successful than alcohol prohibition, the drug dealers will disappear. The monster drug problem we have created is compounded by moves to tax citizens so government can hand out free needles to drug addicts who are breaking the law in hopes that there will be less spread of hepatitis and AIDS in order to reduce government health care costs. Prohibition A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2 2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:49 Tobacco is about to be categorized as a drug and prohibition of sorts imposed. This will make the drug war seem small if we continue to expand the tobacco war. Talk about insane government policies of the 20th century, tobacco policy wins the prize. First, we subsidize tobacco in response to demands by the special interests, knowing full well even from the beginning that tobacco had many negative health consequences. Then we spend taxpayers’ money warning the people of its dangers, without stopping the subsidies. Prohibition A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2 2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:55 When the rules are required, they should come from the government closest to home as it once did prior to America’s ill-fated 20th Century experiment with alcohol prohibition. Let us hope we show more common sense in the 21st Century in these matters than we did in the 20th. Prohibition AMERICAN HOMEOWNERSHIP AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 2000 April 6, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 27:6 SEC. 408. PROHIBITION ON USE OF AMOUNTS TO ACQUIRE CHURCH PROPERTY. Prohibition AMERICAN HOMEOWNERSHIP AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 2000 April 6, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 27:8 ‘(i) Prohibition on Use of Assistance to Acquire Church Property : Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, no amount from a grant under section 106 may be used to carry out or assist any activity if such activity, or the project for which such activity is to be conducted, involves acquisition of real property owned by a church that is exempt from tax under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 501(a)), unless the governing body of the church has previously consented to such acquisition.’. Prohibition Statement of Ron Paul on the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (HR 220) May 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 38:9 The Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act also contains a blanket prohibition on the use of identifiers to “investigate, monitor, oversee, or otherwise regulate” American citizens. Mr. Chairman, prohibiting the Federal Government from using standard identifiers will ensure that American liberty is protected from the “surveillance state.” Allowing the federal government to use standard identifiers to oversee private transactions present tremendous potential for abuse of civil liberties by unscrupulous government officials. Prohibition Quality Health-Care Coalition Act of 2000 June 29, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 61:5 * Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to interfere with the private contracts of American citizens. Furthermore, the prohibitions on contracting contained in the Sherman antitrust laws are based on a flawed economic theory: that federal regulators can improve upon market outcomes by restricting the rights of certain market participants deemed too powerful by the government. In fact, anti-trust laws harm consumers by preventing the operation of the free-market, causing prices to rise, quality to suffer, and, as is certainly the case with the relationship between the HMOs and medical professionals, favoring certain industries over others. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that my colleagues would see the folly of antitrust laws and support my Market Process Restoration Act (H.R. 1789), which repeals all federal antitrust laws. Prohibition LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR ABORTION, FAMILY PLANNING, OR POPULATION CONTROL EFFORTS July 13, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 64:24 The Mexico City language is something I support and I vote for, and the attempt is very sincere to try to stop the abuse of the way these funds are used. But quite frankly the Mexico City language does not do a whole lot. If the President wants to suspend that language, he can and he takes a penalty of $12 million, a 3 percent reduction in the amount of money that becomes available for these programs. It goes from $385 million down to $373 million and the President can do what he wants. So there is really no prohibition. We as American taxpayers do support these programs. You say, Oh, no, they don’t. We put prohibitions. They’re not allowed to use it for abortion. Prohibition INTERNET GAMBLING PROHIBITION ACT OF 2000 July 19, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 66:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 2000 for several reasons. The bill threatens Internet privacy, invites Federal Government regulation of the Internet and tramples States’ rights. Prohibition 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. Prohibition SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER CONFIDENTIALITY ACT OF 1999 17 October 2000    2000 Ron Paul 87:6 * In order to stop the disturbing trend toward the use of the Social Security number as a uniform ID I have introduced the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (HR 220), which forbids the use of the Social Security number for purposes not related to Social Security. The Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act also contains a blanket prohibition on the use of identifiers to ‘investigate, monitor, oversee, or otherwise regulate’ American citizens. Mr. Speaker, prohibiting the Federal Government from using standard identifiers will help protect Americans from both private and public sector criminals. Prohibition The Medical Privacy Protection Resolution March 15, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 19:7 * Forcing individuals to divulge medical information without their consent also runs afoul of the fifth amendment’s prohibition on taking private property for public use without just compensation. After all, people do have a legitimate property interest in their private information. Therefore, restrictions on an individual’s ability to control the dissemination of their private information represents a massive regulatory taking. The takings clause is designed to prevent this type of sacrifice of individual property rights for the “greater good.” Prohibition Free Trade April 24, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 24:17 William Watson, a Canadian economist, has noted in the Financial Post that the demonstrators who don’t trust governments to negotiate free trade come, contradictorily, from political constituencies generally known for their blind faith in government. As for the small group of anarchists, they apparently do not realize that closed borders, and the prohibition of capitalist acts between consenting adults, actually increase state power. Prohibition Unborn Victims Of Violence Act 26 April 2001    2001 Ron Paul 29:7 Perhaps, equally dangerous is the loss of another Constitutional protection which comes with the passage of more and more federal criminal legislation. Constitutionally, there are only three Federal crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting (and, because the constitution was amended to allow it, for a short period of history, the manufacture, sale, or transport of alcohol was concurrently a Federal and State crime). “Concurrent” jurisdiction crimes, such as alcohol prohibition in the past and federalization of murder today, erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the Federal Government and a State government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the Federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional. Prohibition H.R. 1646 10 May 2001    2001 Ron Paul 32:5 I would like to have struck from the bill all the money for population control. I will support the Mexican City language, but it really does not do that much. All funds are fungible, and if we provide hundreds of millions of dollars for population control and say please do not use it for abortion, it is just shifting some funds around. So there is no real prohibition on the use of American taxpayers’ money for abortion if we do not strike all of these funds. Prohibition 16 May 2001    2001 Ron Paul 35:3 But let me tell my colleagues, this gag rule argument is a red herring if I have ever seen one. This has nothing to do with the first amendment. This would be like arguing that if we had a prohibition in this bill against passing out guns to civilians in some foreign nation, we would say, we cannot have a prohibition on that because of the second amendment, defending the right to own guns. It would be nonsense. So this has nothing to do with the first amendment; but it does have something to do with the rights of U.S. citizens, Mr. Chairman, in forcibly taking funds through taxes from people who believe strongly against abortion their rights are violated. Prohibition Flag Burning Amendment 17 July 2001    2001 Ron Paul 53:3 But I am concerned that we are going to do something here today that Castro did in Cuba for 40 years. There is a prohibition against flag burning in Cuba. And one of the very first things that Red China did when it took over Hong Kong was to pass an amendment similar to this, to make sure there is no desecration of the Red Chinese flag. That is some of the company that we are keeping if we pass this amendment. Prohibition THE PATIENT PRIVACY ACT -- HON. RON PAUL July 24, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 65:4 * It should be clear to every member of Congress that the American public does not want a uniform medical identifier. Therefore, rather than continuing to extend the prohibition on funding for another year, Congress should simply repeal the authorization of the national medical ID this year. Prohibition Stem Cell Research and Human Cloning July 31, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 68:14 There is danger in a blanket national prohibition of some questionable research in an effort to protect what is perceived as legitimate research. Too often there are unintended consequences. National legalization of cloning and financing discredits life and insults those who are forced to pay. Prohibition Patients’ Bill Of Rights 2 August 2001    2001 Ron Paul 74:16 Of course, in a truly free market, HMOs and pre-paid care could and would exist — there would be no prohibition against it. The Kaiser system was not exactly a creature of the government as it the current unnatural HMO-government- created chaos we have today. Prohibition The US Dollar and the World Economy September 6, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 75:50 The extension of the prohibition to bills of credit must give pleasure to every citizen in proportion to his love of justice and his knowledge of the true springs of public prosperity. The loss which America has sustained since the peace, from the pestilent effects of paper money on the necessary confidence between man and man, on the necessary confidence in the public councils, on the industry and morals of the people, and on the character of republican government, constitutes an enormous debt against the States chargeable with this unadvised measure. Prohibition Foreign Interventionism September 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 80:28 If the responsibility had been left with the airlines to provide safety they may have had armed pilots or guards on the planes just as our industrial sites have. Privatizing the FAA, as other countries have, would also give airlines more leeway in providing security. My bill, HR 2896, should be passed immediately to clarify that the federal government will never place a prohibition on pilots being armed. Prohibition Counter-Terrorism and Homeland Security October 9, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 82:9 Pilots overwhelmingly support their right to be armed, with some even threatening not to fly if they are not permitted to do so. This could be done quickly and cheaply by merely removing the prohibition against it, as my bill HR 2896 would do. We must not forget that four well-placed guns could have prevented the entire tragedy of September 11th. Prohibition A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS -- October 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 90:35 Illegal and artificially high priced drugs drive the underworld to produce, sell and profit from this social depravity. Failure to recognize that drug addiction, like alcoholism, is a disease rather than a crime, encourage the drug warriors in efforts that have not and will not ever work. We learned the hard way about alcohol prohibition and crime, but we have not yet seriously considered it in the ongoing drug war. Prohibition The War On Terrorism November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:75 The planned use of military personnel to patrol our streets and airports is another challenge of great importance that should not go uncontested. For years, many in Washington have advocated a national approach to all policing activity. This current crisis has given them a tremendous boost. Believe me, this is no panacea and is a dangerous move. The Constitution never intended that the federal government assume this power. This concept was codified in the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. This act prohibits the military from carrying out law-enforcement duties such as searching or arresting people in the United States, the argument being that the military is only used for this type of purpose in a police state. Interestingly, it was the violation of these principles that prompted the Texas Revolution against Mexico. The military under the Mexican Constitution at that time was prohibited from enforcing civil laws, and when Santa Anna ignored this prohibition, the revolution broke out. We should not so readily concede the principle that has been fought for on more than one occasion in this country. Prohibition Introduction of the ”Human Cloning Prevention Act of 2001“ December 13, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 105:2 Some believe the current prohibition on the use of federal funds for cloning and cloning research is sufficient protection for those taxpayers who object to cloning. However, this argument is flawed for two reasons. First, the current ban is not permanent- and thus could be changed at will by a future Congress or administration. Second, because money is fungible, current law does not necessarily prevent federal funds from subsidizing cloning. After all, whenever a company that engages in cloning research receives federal dollars for any project, the company obviously then has more dollars available to use for cloning. Therefore, any federal funding for companies that engage in human cloning forces taxpayers to subsidize those activities. Thus, the only way to ensure that no American is forced to pay for cloning research is to eliminate all federal funding of such companies or organizations. Prohibition So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:3 The case against this provision was best stated by Herb Titus, one of America’s leading constitutional scholars, in his paper Campaign-Finance Reform: A Constitutional Analysis : “At the heart of the guarantee of the freedom of speech is the prohibition against any law designed to protect the reputation of the government to the end that the people have confidence in their current governors. As seditious libel laws protecting the reputation of the government unconstitutionally abridge the freedom of speech, so also do campaign-finance reform laws.” Prohibition So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:49 IV. Campaign-Finance Reform Abridges the Freedom of Speech and the Press At the heart of campaign-finance reform legislation, is the desire of Congress to eliminate even the “appearance of corruption” to the end that the people have confidence in the current system of representative government. ( Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 27, 1976) At the heart of the guarantee of the freedom of speech is the prohibition against any law designed to protect the reputation of the government to the end that the people have confidence in their current governors. As seditious libel laws protecting the reputation of the government unconstitutionally abridge the freedom of speech so also do campaign-finance reform laws. Prohibition Statement on the Financial Services committee’s “Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2003” February 28, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 12:4 Finally, the committee’s views support expanding the domestic welfare state, particularly in the area of housing. This despite the fact that federal housing subsidies distort the housing market by taking capital that could be better used elsewhere, and applying it to housing at the direction of politicians and bureaucrats. Housing subsidies also violate the constitutional prohibitions against redistributionism. The federal government has no constitutional authority to abuse its taxing power to fund programs that reshape the housing market to the liking of politicians and bureaucrats. Prohibition 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. Prohibition Is America a Police State? June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:30 All 18-year-old males must register to be ready for the next undeclared war. If they don’t, men with guns will appear and enforce this congressional mandate. “Involuntary servitude” was banned by the 13th Amendment, but courts don’t apply this prohibition to the servitude of draftees or those citizens required to follow the dictates of the IRS – especially the employers of the country, who serve as the federal government’s chief tax collectors and information gatherers. Fear is the tool used to intimidate most Americans to comply to the tax code by making examples of celebrities. Leona Helmsley and Willie Nelson know how this process works. Prohibition H.R. 2896 10 July 2002    2002 Ron Paul 67:2 Shortly after 9–11, as a matter of fact, on September 17, I introduced legislation into this body, H.R. 2896. It would have taken care of this problem in a more conclusive way, and it would have removed all the prohibitions and legalized, once again, the right of property owners to defend their property. Prohibition H.R. 2896 10 July 2002    2002 Ron Paul 67:6 A lot of times I get support from the other side of the aisle when they see the prohibitions that our legislation places on the First Amendment. Likewise, I get a lot of support when I would like to reduce the prohibitions on the Fourth Amendment in the area of privacy. Unfortunately, since 9–11, we have moved in the wrong direction. We are making more prohibitions by law on our Bill of Rights. Prohibition H.R. 2896 10 July 2002    2002 Ron Paul 67:7 In this case we are moving in the right direction because we are trying to remove some prohibitions that are limiting our Second Amendment rights. Our job here in the Congress should be to protect the Second Amendment, never to get in the way of the Second Amendment. This is why, although this amendment improves the bill and the bill is moving in that direction, I can support it, but we ought to do a lot more. Prohibition The Tragedy of Partial-Birth Abortion July 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 75:5 For example, 14G in the "Findings" section of this bill states, "...such a prohibition [upon the partial-birth abortion procedure] will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide..." The question I wish to pose in response is this: Is not the fact that life begins at conception the main tenet of the pro-life community? By stating that we are drawing a "bright line" between abortion and infanticide, I fear that we are simply reinforcing the dangerous idea underlying Roe v. Wade, which is the belief that we as human beings can determine which members of the human family are "expendable," and which are not. Prohibition Internet Gambling 1 October 2002    2002 Ron Paul 92:2 In addition to being unconstitutional, H.R. 556 is likely to prove ineffective at ending Internet gambling. Instead, this bill will ensure that gambling is controlled by organized crime. History, from the failed experiment of prohibition to today’s futile “war on drugs,” shows that the government cannot eliminate demand for something like Internet gambling simply by passing a law. Instead, H.R. 556 will force those who wish to gamble over the Internet to patronize suppliers willing to flaunt the ban. In many cases, providers of services banned by the government will be members of criminal organizations. Even if organized crime does not operate Internet gambling enterprises their competitors are likely to be controlled by organized crime. After all, since the owners and patrons of Internet gambling cannot rely on the police and courts to enforce contracts and resolve other disputes, they will be forced to rely on members of organized crime to perform those functions. Thus, the profits of Internet gambling will flow into organized crime. Furthermore, outlawing an activity will raise the price vendors are able to charge consumers, thus increasing the profits flowing to organized crime from Internet gambling. It is bitterly ironic that a bill masquerading as an attack on crime will actually increase organized crime’s ability to control and profit from Internet gambling. Prohibition Internet Gambling 1 October 2002    2002 Ron Paul 92:3 In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 556 violates the constitutional limits on federal power. Furthermore, laws such as H.R. 556 are ineffective in eliminating the demand for vices such as Internet gambling; instead, they ensure that these enterprises will be controlled by organized crime. Therefore I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 556, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act. Prohibition Introduction of the Television Consumer Freedom Act October 1, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 93:4 Government’s attempt to set the just price for satellite programming outside the market mechanism is inherently impossible. This has resulted in competition among service providers for government privilege rather than the consumer benefits inherent to the genuine free market. Currently, while federal regulation does leave satellite programming service providers free to bypass the governmental royalty distribution scheme and negotiate directly with owners of programming for program rights, there is a federal prohibition on satellite service providers making local network affiliates’ programs available to nearby satellite subscribers. This bill repeals that federal prohibition and allows satellite service providers to more freely negotiate with program owners for programming desired by satellite service subscribers. Technology is now available by which viewers will be able to view network programs via satellite as presented by their nearest network affiliate. This market-generated technology will remove a major stumbling block to negotiations that should currently be taking place between network program owners and satellite service providers. Prohibition Truth In Financing Act 8 October 2002    2002 Ron Paul 98:3 In order to insure that taxpayers are not subsidizing this type of unconscionable and illegal behavior, the Truth in Financing Act forbids federal funds from going to anyone who violates a federal law, regulation, or state or local law punishable by 6 months imprisonment or a fine of at least $5,000. The prohibition would also apply to those who aid or abet serious criminal activity, or who lie on an application for federal funds. Prohibition Republic Versus Democracy 29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:12 Subsequently, the same urge to accommodate majority opinion while ignoring the principles of individual liberty led to some other serious errors. Even amending the Constitution in a proper fashion to impose alcohol prohibition turned out to be a disaster. Fortunately, this was rectified after a short time with its repeal. Prohibition Republic Versus Democracy 29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:13 But today, the American people accept drug prohibition, a policy equally damaging to liberty as was alcohol prohibition. A majority vote in Congress has been enough to impose this very expensive and failed program on the American people even without bothering to amend the Constitution. It has been met with only minimal but, fortunately, growing dissent. For the first 150 years of our history, when we were much closer to being a true Republic, there were no Federal laws dealing with the serious medical problem of addiction. Prohibition Republic Versus Democracy 29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:35 Prohibitions placed in the Constitution against programs that serve special interests are the greatest threat to the current system of democracy under which we operate. In order for the benefits to continue, politicians must reject the rule of law and concern themselves only with the control of majority opinion. Sadly, that is the job of almost all politicians. It is clearly the motivation behind the millions spent on constant lobbying, as well as the billions spent on promoting the right candidate in each election. Prohibition Republic Versus Democracy 29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:52 With the growing affection for democracy, it was no giant leap to assume that majority opinion should mold personal behavior. It was no mere coincidence that the 18th amendment, alcohol prohibition, was passed in 1919. Prohibition Stem Cell research 27 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 26:12 There is danger in a blanket national prohibition of some questionable research in an effort to protect what is perceived as legitimate research. Too often there are unintended consequences. National legalization of cloning and financing discredits life and insults those who are forced to pay. Even a national law prohibiting cloning legitimizes national approach that can later be used to undermine this original intent. This national approach rules out states from passing any meaningful legislation and regulation on these issues. Prohibition The Financial Services Committee’s Terrible Blueprint for 2004 February 28, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 27:5 Finally, the committee’s views support expanding the domestic welfare state, particularly in the area of housing. This despite the fact that federal housing subsidies distort the housing market by taking capital that could be better used elsewhere, and applying it to housing at the direction of politicians and bureaucrats. Housing subsidies also violate the constitutional prohibitions against redistributionism. The federal government has no constitutional authority to abuse its taxing power to fund programs that reshape the housing market to the liking of politicians and bureaucrats. Prohibition Quality Health Care Coalition Act 12 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 32:5 Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to interfere with the private contracts of American citizens. Furthermore, the prohibitions on contracting contained in the Sherman antitrust laws are based on a flawed economic theory which holds that federal regulators can improve upon market outcomes by restricting the rights of certain market participants deemed too powerful by the government. In fact, anti-trust laws harm consumers by preventing the operation of the free-market, causing prices to rise, quality to suffer, and, as is certainly the case with the relationship between the HMOs and medical professionals, favoring certain industries over others. Prohibition Repeal the So-Called “Medical Privacy Rule” April 9, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 49:9 Forcing individuals to divulge medical information without their consent also runs afoul of the Fifth amendment’s prohibition on taking private property for public use without just compensation. After all, people do have a legitimate property interest in their private information. Therefore, restrictions on an individual’s ability to control the dissemination of their private information represents a massive regulatory taking. The takings clause is designed to prevent this type of sacrifice of individual property rights for the “greater good.” Prohibition Repeal the So-Called “Medical Privacy Rule” April 9, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 49:14 By now it should be clear to every member of Congress that the American people do not want their health information recorded on a database, and they do not wish to be assigned a unique health identifier. According to a survey by the respected Gallup Company, 91 percent of Americans oppose assigning Americans a unique health care identifier, while 92 percent of the people oppose allowing government agencies the unrestrained power to view private medical records and 88 percent of Americans oppose placing private health care information in a national database. Congress has acknowledge this public concern by including language forbidding the expenditure of funds to implement or develop a medical identifier in the federal budget for the past five fiscal years. Rather than continuing to extend the prohibition on funding for another year, Congress should finally obey the wishes of the American people by repealing the authorization of the individual medical ID this year as well as repealing these dangerous medical privacy rules. Prohibition The Partial Birth Abortion Ban June 4, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 58:5 For example, 14G in the “Findings” section of this bill states, “...such a prohibition [upon the partial-birth abortion procedure] will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide...” The question I pose in response is this: Is not the fact that life begins at conception the main tenet advanced by the pro-life community? By stating that we draw a “bright line” between abortion and infanticide, I fear that we simply reinforce the dangerous idea underlying Roe v. Wade, which is the belief that we as human beings can determine which members of the human family are “expendable,” and which are not. Prohibition Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act 10 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 66:2 In addition to being unconstitutional, H.R. 2143 is likely to prove ineffective at ending Internet gambling. Instead, this bill will ensure that gambling is controlled by organized crime. History, from the failed experiment of prohibition to today’s futile “war on drugs,” shows that the government cannot eliminate demand for something like Internet gambling simply by passing a law. Instead, H.R. 2143 will force those who wish to gamble over the Internet to patronize suppliers willing to flaunt the ban. In many cases, providers of services banned by the government will be members of criminal organizations. Even if organized crime does not operate Internet gambling enterprises their competitors are likely to be controlled by organized crime. After all, since the owners and patrons of Internet gambling cannot rely on the police and courts to enforce contracts and resolve other disputes, they will be forced to rely on members of organized crime to perform those functions. Thus, the profits of Internet gambling will flow into organized crime. Furthermore, outlawing an activity will raise the price vendors are able to charge consumers, thus increasing the profits flowing to organized crime from Internet gambling. It is bitterly ironic that a bill masquerading as an attack on crime will actually increase organized crime’s ability to control and profit from Internet gambling. Prohibition Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act 10 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 66:3 In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2143 violates the constitutional limits on Federal power. Furthermore, laws such as H.R. 2143 are ineffective in eliminating the demand for vices such as Internet gambling; instead, they ensure that these enterprises will be controlled by organized crime. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 2143, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act. Prohibition Medicinal Marijuana 22 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 89:8 Yes, I would grant my colleagues there is danger in all medications. There is some danger in marijuana, but I do not know of any deaths that is purely marijuana-related. If we want to talk about a deadly medication or a deadly drug that kills literally tens of thousands in this country, it is alcohol. And how many people want to go back to prohibition? I mean, nobody’s proposing that, and yet that is a deadly drug. Prohibition American Dream Downpayment Act 1 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 104:7 H.R. 1276 distorts the economy and violates constitutional prohibitions on income redistribution. A better way of guaranteeing an efficient housing market where everyone could meet their own needs for housing would be for Congress to repeal taxes and programs that burden the housing industry and allow housing needs to be met by the free market. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and instead develop housing policies consistent with constitutional principles, the laws of economics, and respect for individual rights. Prohibition Say No To Involuntary Servitude November 21, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 122:9 To get more troops, the draft will likely be reinstated. The implicit prohibition of “involuntary servitude” under the 13th Amendment to the Constitution has already been ignored many times so few will challenge the constitutionality of the coming draft. Prohibition A Wise Consistency February 11, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 2:14 Alcohol Prohibition—For Our Own Protection : Alcohol prohibition was a foolish consistency engaged in for over a decade, but we finally woke up to the harm done. In spite of prohibition, drinking continued. The alcohol being produced in the underground was much more deadly, and related crime ran rampant. The facts stared us in the face, and with time, we had the intelligence to repeal the whole experiment. No matter how logical this reversal of policy was, it did not prevent us from moving into the area of drug prohibition, now in the more radical stages, for the past 30 years. No matter the amount of harm and cost involved, very few in public life are willing to advise a new approach to drug addiction. Alcoholism is viewed as a medical problem, but illicit drug addiction is seen as a heinous crime. Our prisons overflow, with the cost of enforcement now into the hundreds of billions of dollars, yet drug use is not reduced. Nevertheless, the politicians are consistent. They are convinced that a tough stand against usage with very strict laws and mandatory sentences — sometimes life sentences for non-violent offenses — is a popular political stand. Facts don’t count, and we can’t bend on consistently throwing the book at any drug offenders. Our prisons are flooded with non-violent drug users — 84% of all federals prisoners — but no serious reassessment is considered. Sadly, the current war on drugs has done tremendous harm to many patients’ need for legitimate prescribed pain control. Doctors are very often compromised in their ability to care for the seriously and terminally ill by overzealous law enforcement. Throughout most of our history, drugs were legal and at times were abused. But during that time, there was no history of the social and legal chaos associated with drug use that we suffer today. A hundred years ago, a pharmacist openly advertised, “Heroin clears the complexion, gives buoyancy to the mind, regulates the stomach and the bowels and is, in fact, a perfect guardian of health.” Obviously this is overstated as a medical panacea, but it describes what it was like not to have hysterical busybodies undermine our Constitution and waste billions of dollars on a drug war serving no useful purpose. This country needs to wake up! We should have more confidence in citizens making their own decisions, and decide once again to repeal federal prohibition, while permitting regulation by the states alone. Prohibition A Wise Consistency February 11, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 2:16 Few remember that the first federal laws regulating marijuana were written as recently as 1938, which means just a few decades ago our country had much greater respect for individual choices and state regulations in all health matters. The nanny state is relatively new, but well entrenched. Sadly, we foolishly and consistently follow the dictates of prohibition and government control of new medications, never questioning the wisdom of these laws. The silliness regarding illegal drugs and prescription drugs was recently demonstrated. It was determined that a drug used to cause an abortion can be available over the counter. However, Ephedra — used by millions for various reasons and found in nature — was made illegal as a result of one death after being misused. Individuals no longer can make their own decisions, at an affordable price, to use Ephedra. Now it will probably require a prescription and cost many times more. It can never be known, but weight loss by thousands using Ephedra may well have saved many lives. But the real issue is personal choice and responsibility, not the medicinal effect of these drugs. This reflects our moral standards, not an example of individual freedom and responsibility. Prohibition A Wise Consistency February 11, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 2:34 Judicial Review : Respect for the original intent of the Constitution is low in Washington. It’s so low, it’s virtually non-existent. This causes many foolish inconsistencies in our federal courts. The Constitution, we have been told, is a living, evolving document and it’s no longer necessary to change it in the proper fashion. That method is too slow and cumbersome, it is claimed. While we amended it to institute alcohol prohibition, the federal drug prohibition is accomplished by majority vote of the U.S. Congress. Wars are not declared by Congress, but pursued by Executive Order to enforce UN Resolutions. The debate of the pros and cons of the war come afterward — usually following the war’s failure — in the political arena, rather than before with the proper debate on a declaration of war resolution. Laws are routinely written by un-elected bureaucrats, with themselves becoming the judicial and enforcement authority. Little desire is expressed in Congress to alter this monster that creates thousands of pages each year in the Federal Register. Even the nearly 100,000 bureaucrats who now carry guns stir little controversy. For decades, Executive Orders have been arrogantly used to write laws to circumvent a plodding or disagreeable Congress. This attitude was best described by a Clinton presidential aide who bragged: “…stroke of the pen, law of the land, kinda cool!” This is quite a testimonial to the rule of law and constitutional restraint on government power. The courts are no better than the executive or legislative branches in limiting the unconstitutional expansion of the federal monolith. Members of Congress, including committee chairmen, downplay my concern that proposed legislation is unconstitutional by insisting that the courts are the ones to make such weighty decisions, not mere Members of Congress. This was an informal argument made by House leadership on the floor during the debate on campaign finance reform. In essence, they said “We know it’s bad, but we’ll let the courts clean it up.” And look what happened! The courts did not save us from ourselves. Prohibition The Financial Services Committees “Views and Estimates for 2005” February 26, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 7:14 Finally, the committee’s views support expanding the domestic welfare state in the area of housing, despite the fact that federal subsidies distort the housing market by taking capital that could be better used elsewhere and applying it to housing at the direction of politicians and bureaucrats. Housing subsidies also violate the constitutional prohibitions against redistributionism. The federal government has no constitutional authority to abuse its taxing power to fund programs that reshape the housing market to the liking of politicians and bureaucrats. Prohibition Unborn Victims Of Violence Act 26 February 2004    2004 Ron Paul 8:7 Perhaps, equally dangerous is the loss of another constitutional protection which comes with the passage of more and more Federal criminal legislation. Constitutionally, there are only three Federal crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting — and, because the constitution was amended to allow it, for a short period of history, the manufacture, sale, or transport of alcohol was concurrently a Federal and State crime. “Concurrent” jurisdiction crimes, such as alcohol prohibition in the past and federalization of murder today, erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the Federal Government and a State government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the Federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional. Prohibition H. Res. 412 Honoring Men And Women Of The Drug Enforcement Administration — Part 1 3 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 10:13 The second part of the resolution talks about the sacrifice of these men. To me, it is a tragedy. Why should we ever have a policy where men have to sacrifice themselves? I do not believe it is necessary. We gave up on the prohibition of alcohol. I believe the drug war ought to be fought, but in a much different manner. Prohibition H. Res. 412 Honoring Men And Women Of The Drug Enforcement Administration — Part 2 3 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 11:5 The big challenge is will anybody ever be willing to raise the questions and suggest another way. Could we have made a mistake, such as we did with the prohibition of alcohol? This does not mean that everybody has everything they want. Alcohol is legal, but kids get marijuana and other drugs easier on the street than they get their alcohol, because there is such a tremendous incentive. Prohibition H. Res. 412 Honoring Men And Women Of The Drug Enforcement Administration — Part 2 3 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 11:6 During prohibition it was very well known that because alcohol was illegal, the more concentrated it is and the higher price it is because you can move it about and because it is contraband. So there is a tremendous incentive to do that. And then, when it is illegal, it becomes more dangerous. That is exactly what happens on drugs. Prohibition The Television Consumer Freedom Act 24 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 22:4 It is impossible for the government to set the just price for satellite programming. Over regulation of the cable industry has resulted in competition among service providers for government privilege rather than free market competition among providers to offer a better product at a lower price. While federal regulation does leave satellite programming service providers free to bypass the governmental royalty distribution scheme and negotiate directly with owners of programming for program rights, there is a federal prohibition on satellite service providers making local network affiliates’ programs available to nearby satellite subscribers. This bill repeals that federal prohibition so satellite service providers may freely negotiate with program owners for programming desired by satellite service subscribers. Technology is now available by which viewers could view network programs via satellite as presented by their nearest network affiliate. This market-generated technology will remove a major stumbling block to negotiations that should currently be taking place between network program owners and satellite service providers. Prohibition The Lessons of 9/11 April 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 27:26 The complacency of the airlines is one thing, but the intrusiveness of the FAA is another. Two specific regulations proved to be disastrous for dealing with the thugs who, without even a single gun, took over four airliners and created the havoc of 9/11. Both the prohibition against guns in cockpits and precise instructions that crews not resist hijackers contributed immensely to the horrors of 9/11. Prohibition District Of Columbia Personal Protection Act 29 September 2004    2004 Ron Paul 72:2 H.R. 3193 repeals several of the more draconian citywide Washington, DC, gun restrictions enacted in 1976. Restrictions H.R. 3193 will repeal include the requirement that all firearms be registered. Gun registration in other countries has created government lists of who owns what guns. Such lists facilitate the harassment of gun owners and the confiscation of their guns. Also repealed are blanket bans on the possession of handguns and handgun ammunition as well as any semi-automatic guns. These bans exist despite the fact that handguns and semi-automatic guns are regularly used outside Washington, DC, for self-defense. Also repealed is the prohibition on carrying a gun on one’s own property. It is hard to say a person is free if he is prohibited from using the means of protecting himself and his family even in his own home. Prohibition HR 418- A National ID Bill Masquerading as Immigration Reform February 9, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 19:7 This bill could have a chilling effect on the exercise of our constitutionally guaranteed rights. It re-defines “terrorism” in broad new terms that could well include members of firearms rights and anti-abortion groups, or other such groups as determined by whoever is in power at the time. There are no prohibitions against including such information in the database as information about a person’s exercise of First Amendment rights or about a person’s appearance on a registry of firearms owners. Prohibition The Deficit 16 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 33:7 The other day I heard an interview with one of our Members, and he was asked about a particular program about where the authority came from in the Constitution for that program. And his answer was very straightforward; and he explained that in the Constitution there was no prohibition against that program, so therefore it was permitted. In his mind, as it is in the minds of many Members of Congress, if there is no strict prohibition, it is permitted. Prohibition Introducing The Quality Health Care Coalition Act 27 June 2005    2005 Ron Paul 78:5 Under the United States Constitution, the Federal government has no authority to interfere with the private contracts of American citizens. Furthermore, the prohibitions on contracting contained in the Sherman antitrust laws are based on a flawed economic theory which holds that Federal regulators can improve upon market outcomes by restricting the rights of certain market participants deemed too powerful by the government. In fact, anti- trust laws harm consumers by preventing the operation of the free-market, causing prices to rise, quality to suffer, and, as is certainly the case with the relationship between the HMOs and medical professionals, favoring certain industries over others. Prohibition Illegal Drug Problem — Part 1 9 March 2006    2006 Ron Paul 11:6 But, nevertheless, I come down on the side of saying no matter how good legislation like this is, it backfires; there are too many unintended consequences. In such a short period of time, all I can suggest to my colleagues is that prohibition in the ultimate sense was tried with alcohol. Prohibition Illegal Drug Problem — Part 1 9 March 2006    2006 Ron Paul 11:7 And alcohol is still now a severe problem in this country. And we knew that Prohibition produced many more problems than the alcohol itself. I think that is true with drugs. I think we have allowed ourselves to be carried away, to a large degree, because now we have laws that lack compassion. We do know, in the medical field, that marijuana can be helpful to cancer patients and AIDS patients can be helped where our drugs are not helpful; and to me this is just sad that we override State laws that permit it. Prohibition Illegal Drug Problem — Part 2 9 March 2006    2006 Ron Paul 13:3 Mr. Chairman, earlier I mentioned that prohibition was a total failure with alcohol and that it is very similar, and I think the gentleman from Indiana helped make my point. He is a bit frustrated with the enforcement of the laws on the books, and for what reason I do not know, but we certainly ought to be frustrated with the results. But the laws are difficult to enforce and I understand and sense his frustration with this. Prohibition Illegal Drug Problem — Part 2 9 March 2006    2006 Ron Paul 13:7 Once again, I agree with the argument, there are a great deal of problems in this country with the illegal use of drugs, but what I am saying is it does not help to have this type of a war on drugs because it tends to distort things. It raises prices artificially high. It causes all kind of ramifications that actually cause more killing and dying. This is why prohibition of alcohol was stopped, because people died from drinking bad alcohol, and the gangs sold the alcohol. The same thing happens today. Prohibition Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:47 One of the greatest losses suffered these past 60 years from interventionism becoming an acceptable policy of both major parties is respect for the Constitution. Congress flatly has reneged on its huge responsibility to declare war. Going to war was never meant to be an executive decision, used indiscriminately with no resistance from Congress. The strongest attempt by Congress in the past 60 years to properly exert itself over foreign policy was the passage of the Foley amendment, demanding no assistance be given to the Nicaraguan contras. Even this explicit prohibition was flaunted by an earlier administration. Prohibition Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act 11 July 2006    2006 Ron Paul 53:3 I want to make the point that prohibition, as a general principle, is a bad principle because it doesn’t work. It doesn’t solve the problem because it can’t decrease the demand. As a matter of fact, the only thing it does is increase the price. And there are some people who see prohibitions as an enticement, and that it actually increases the demand. Prohibition Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act 11 July 2006    2006 Ron Paul 53:5 Sometimes people say that this prohibition that is proposed is designed to protect other interests because we certainly aren’t going to get rid of gambling, so we might get rid of one type of gambling, but actually enhance the other. Prohibition Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act 11 July 2006    2006 Ron Paul 53:9 H.R. 4411, the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act, should be rejected by Congress since the Federal Government has no constitutional authority to ban or even discourage any form of gambling. Prohibition Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act 11 July 2006    2006 Ron Paul 53:10 In addition to being unconstitutional, H.R. 4411 is likely to prove ineffective at ending Internet gambling. Instead, this bill will ensure that gambling is controlled by organized crime. History, from the failed experiment of prohibition to today’s futile “war on drugs,” shows that the government cannot eliminate demand for something like Internet gambling simply by passing a law. Instead, H.R. 4411 will force those who wish to gamble over the Internet to patronize suppliers willing to flaunt the ban. In many cases, providers of services banned by the government will be members of criminal organizations. Even if organized crime does not operate Internet gambling enterprises their competitors are likely to be controlled by organized crime. After all, since the owners and patrons of Internet gambling cannot rely on the police and courts to enforce contracts and resolve other disputes, they will be forced to rely on members of organized crime to perform those functions. Thus, the profits of Internet gambling will flow into organized crime. Furthermore, outlawing an activity will raise the price vendors are able to charge consumers, thus increasing the profits flowing to organized crime from Internet gambling. It is bitterly ironic that a bill masquerading as an attack on crime will actually increase organized crime’s ability to control and profit from Internet gambling. Prohibition Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act 11 July 2006    2006 Ron Paul 53:11 In conclusion, H.R. 4411 violates the constitutional limits on Federal power. Furthermore, laws such as H.R. 4411 are ineffective in eliminating the demand for vices such as Internet gambling; instead, they ensure that these enterprises will be controlled by organized crime. Therefore I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 4411, the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act. Prohibition Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work 7 september 2006    2006 Ron Paul 74:22 Lack of real choice in economic and personal decisions is commonplace. It seems that too often the only choice we are given is between prohibitions and subsidies. Never is it said, let the people decide on things like stem cell research or alternative medical treatments. Prohibition Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act 20 September 2006    2006 Ron Paul 82:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as a supporter of ensuring our service personnel have access to a wide range of financial products I am concerned with the provision of the Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act, S. 418, enacting a complete prohibition on so- called contractual or periodic payment mutual funds, which, according to testimony received by the House Committee on Financial Services, are sold voluntarily with full disclosure to officers at individual meetings held off base. Prohibition SAFE Ports Act 29 september 2006    2006 Ron Paul 94:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to vote for the SAFE Ports Act when it was considered by Congress in May and I intend to do so tonight. However, I am disturbed that The Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act was added to this bill during conference. My understanding is that this provision was slipped into the bill at the conclusion of the conference even though internet gambling has nothing to do with port security. Prohibition SAFE Ports Act 29 september 2006    2006 Ron Paul 94:2 I have long opposed The Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act since the federal government has no constitutional authority to ban or even discourage any form of internet gambling. In addition to being unconstitutional, this provision is likely to prove ineffective at ending internet gambling. Instead, by passing law proportion to ban internet gambling Congress will ensure that gambling is controlled by organized crime. History, from the failed experiment of prohibition to today’s futile “war on drugs,” shows that the government cannot eliminate demand for something like internet gambling simply by passing a law. Instead, this provision will force those who wish to gamble over the internet to patronize suppliers willing to flaunt the ban. In many cases, providers of services banned by the government will be members of criminal organizations. Even if organized crime does not operate internet gambling enterprises their competitors are likely to be controlled by organized crime. After all, since the owners and patrons of internet gambling cannot rely on the police and courts to enforce contracts and resolve other disputes, they will be forced to rely on members of organized crime to perform those functions. Thus, the profits of internet gambling will flow into organized crime. Furthermore, outlawing an activity will raise the price vendors are able to charge consumers, thus increasing the profits flowing to organized crime from internet gambling. It is bitterly ironic that a bill masquerading as an attack on crime will actually increase organized crime’s ability to control and profit from internet gambling! Prohibition SAFE Ports Act 29 september 2006    2006 Ron Paul 94:3 In conclusion, the ban on internet gambling violates the constitutional limits on federal power. Furthermore, laws such as this are ineffective in eliminating the demand for vices such as internet gambling; instead, they ensure that these enterprises will be controlled by organized crime. It is a shame to clutter an important and good piece of legislation like the Safe Ports Act with a blatantly unconstitutional power grab over the internet like the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act. Prohibition Introducing The Quality Health Care Coalition Act 2 August 2007    2007 Ron Paul 84:5 Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to interfere with the private contracts of American citizens. Furthermore, the prohibitions on contracting contained in the Sherman antitrust laws are based on a flawed economic theory which holds that federal regulators can improve upon market outcomes by restricting the rights of certain market participants deemed too powerful by the government. In fact, anti- trust laws harm consumers by preventing the operation of the free-market, causing prices to rise, quality to suffer, and, as is certainly the case with the relationship between the HMOs and medical professionals, favoring certain industries over others. Prohibition Introducing The Television Consumer Freedom Act 19 September 2007    2007 Ron Paul 91:4 It is impossible for the government to set the just price for satellite programming. Over- regulation of the cable industry has resulted in competition among service providers for government privilege rather than free market competition among providers to offer a better product at a lower price. While federal regulation does leave satellite programming service providers free to bypass the governmental royalty distribution scheme and negotiate directly with owners of programming for program rights, there is a federal prohibition on satellite service providers making local network affiliates’ programs available to nearby satellite subscribers. This bill repeals that federal prohibition so satellite service providers may freely negotiate with program owners for programming desired by satellite service subscribers. Technology is now available by which viewers could view network programs via satellite as presented by their nearest network affiliate. This market-generated technology will remove a major stumbling block to negotiations that should currently be taking place between network program owners and satellite service providers. Prohibition The Intelligence Authorization Act of 2008 11 March 2008    2008 Ron Paul 13:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in somewhat reluctant support of this vote to override the President’s veto of H.R. 2062, the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2008. Although I voted against this authorization when it first came to the floor, the main issue has now become whether we as a Congress are to condone torture as official U.S. policy or whether we will speak out against it. This bill was vetoed by the President because of a measure added extending the prohibition of the use of any interrogation treatment or technique not authorized by the United States Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations to the U.S. intelligence community. Opposing this prohibition is tantamount to endorsing the use of torture against those in United States Government custody. Prohibition Statement on FISA Amendments 14 March 2008    2008 Ron Paul 15:4 The assurances in this bill that Americans will not have their communications monitored without warrant are unconvincing. The bill merely states that the government should do its best to avoid monitoring Americans if possible. We have seen how meaningless such qualified prohibitions have been as we recount the abuses over the past several years. Prohibition INTRODUCING THE QUALITY HEALTH CARE COALITION ACT March 12, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 29:5 Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to interfere with the private contracts of American citizens. Furthermore, the prohibitions on contracting contained in the Sherman antitrust laws are based on a flawed economic theory which holds that federal regulators can improve upon market outcomes by restricting the rights of certain market participants deemed too powerful by the government. In fact, anti- trust laws harm consumers by preventing the operation of the free-market, causing prices to rise, quality to suffer, and, as is certainly the case with the relationship between the HMOs and medical professionals, favoring certain industries over others. Prohibition Let People Decide Whether To Use Tobacco June 12, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 66:4 One part of this bill that I find particularly bad, but it is pervasive in so much of what we do, about 100 years ago we took the First Amendment and freedom of speech and chopped it into two pieces. We have political speech. Of course we like that. We’re in the business of politics. But we take commercial speech, and we put it over here, and we regulate the living daylights out of commercial speech. That’s not a First Amendment. That’s chopping freedom in half, and that just leads to more problems. But this will lead to prohibition, and it won’t work. This will just give us a lot more trouble. Prohibition Let People Decide Whether To Use Tobacco June 12, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 66:5 You say, Well, how will these problems be handled if we just permit people to advertise? Well, you are not allowed to commit fraud; you are not allowed to commit slander; you are not allowed to commit any libel or slander or fraud. So there are prohibitions. But this approach can’t work. It is assumed that people are total idiots, that they won’t respond to education, that we have to be the nanny state. We want to expand the war on drugs, which is a total failure. Prohibition Let People Decide Whether To Use Tobacco June 12, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 66:6 And look at what happened to the prohibition of alcohol. You say, Well, no, this is not going to be a prohibition. It is going to be prohibition. This is a form of prohibition. When you have prohibition or even approach prohibition, what do you create? You create the black market. We will see the black market come. Already the taxes are opening up the doors of the black market. Prohibition INTRODUCING HEALTH FREEDOM LEGISLATION July 29, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 87:6 The Health Freedom Act will force the FDA to at last comply with the commands of Congress, the First Amendment, numerous federal courts, and the American people by codifying the First Amendment prohibition on prior restraint. Specifically, the Health Freedom Act stops the FDA from censoring truthful claims about the curative, mitigative, or preventative effects of dietary supplements. The Health Freedom Act also stops the FDA from prohibiting the distribution of scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in protecting against disease. The FDA has proven that it cannot be trusted to protect consumers’ rights to make informed choices. It is time for Congress to stop the FDA from censoring truthful health information. Texas Straight Talk Prohibition - Fiscal Responsibility: Balance the budget but don't raise taxes or cook the books 20 January 1997    Texas Straight Talk 20 January 1997 verse 9 ... Cached And the worst part is that without the prohibition against tax increases, the big-spenders would be able to say, in all honesty, that it was not they who are raising taxes, but the Constitution! Prohibition US must not trample Constitution to attack Iraq 16 February 1998    Texas Straight Talk 16 February 1998 verse 4 ... Cached Yet no place in the Constitution do we find a presidential fiat power to conduct war. To the contrary, we find strict prohibitions placed on the President when it comes to dealing with foreign nations. The Constitution is clear: No war may be fought without a specific declaration by the Congress. Prohibition Congressional action weakens national defense 06 April 1998    Texas Straight Talk 06 April 1998 verse 10 ... Cached It has become the accepted political notion in this century that war is a Presidential matter in which Congress may not meddle, and certainly never offer dissenting views. Yet, in the Constitution we find strict prohibitions placed on the President when it comes to dealing with foreign nations. The Constitution is clear: No war may be fought without a specific declaration by the Congress. Prohibition Federalization of crime contrary to Constitution 18 May 1998    Texas Straight Talk 18 May 1998 verse 6 ... Cached But rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress recently passed two pieces of legislation - neither containing a shred of constitutional authority - which, of course, were "non-controversial" despite moving us further from the notion of a limited government. One piece of legislation pledged that the Congress will "pass legislation that provides the weapons and tools necessary to protect our children and our communities from the dangers of drug addiction and violence." Setting aside for the moment the practicality of federal prohibition laws, an experiment which failed miserably with alcohol in the 1920s, the threshold question must be: "under what authority do we act?" Whether any governmental entity should be protecting individuals from themselves and their own stupidity is certainly debatable; whether the federal government is constitutionally empowered to do so is not. Being stupid or brilliant to one's sole disadvantage or advantage, respectively, is exactly what liberty is all about. Prohibition Stopping the Surveillance State 18 January 1999    Texas Straight Talk 18 January 1999 verse 6 ... Cached Perhaps the most important section of the legislation is the prohibition against using the Social Security number as an identifier. For all intents and purposes, the Social Security number is now a national ID. The use of the Social Security number has become so widespread that most Americans must produce a Social Security number to get a fishing license, and members of Congress must show their Social Security number in order to vote on the House floor. Prohibition Victory should be call to action 08 March 1999    Texas Straight Talk 08 March 1999 verse 10 ... Cached The real problem is not the specifics of this particular set of regulations, but the entire process that allows these regulations in the first place. Unfortunately, though, there are some in Congress who irrationally believe one can violate the Constitution's strict prohibition against federal crime laws, support a multitude of big-government programs like the failed "war on drugs," yet still respect individual privacy. The logical fallacy of such a belief would be almost laughable, were it not so dangerous and irresponsible. Prohibition Parents, teachers need freedom 10 May 1999    Texas Straight Talk 10 May 1999 verse 11 ... Cached The dream of federal education bureaucrats for three decades has been the takeover of school curriculum decisions, either directly by deciding on textbooks, or slightly less directly by mandating a "national standards" student test. Fortunately, such designs have been curtailed by more sensible minds. However, the Clinton Administration is now poised to make an end-run around such prohibitions by pursuing a "national certification" test for teachers. Prohibition Restricting the Executive Orders 02 August 1999    Texas Straight Talk 02 August 1999 verse 11 ... Cached I have introduced legislation, along with Rep. Jack Metcalf of Washington, that would bring our federal system into proper balance. The Separation of Powers Restoration Act (HR2655) prohibits a presidential order from having the effect of law by restricting the scope of the directives. In addition, it repeals the 1973 War Powers Act, which -- despite the constitutional prohibition -- granted broad war-making authority to the Office of the President. Further, the legislation suspends all of the "national emergencies" which have been declared since 1976, when Congress last canceled them. Still on the books are "emergencies" relating to Iraq and the Soviet bloc. These emergency declarations give presidents great authority, even if the situation no longer presents a threat to our national security. Prohibition 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. Prohibition Medical Privacy Threatened 07 February 2000    Texas Straight Talk 07 February 2000 verse 8 ... Cached Forcing individuals and providers to reveal medical records without their consent also runs afoul of the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on the taking of private property for public use without just compensation. After all, people do have a legitimate property interest in their private records; therefore, restrictions on individuals' ability to control the dissemination of their private information represent a massive taking. The takings clause is designed to prevent this type of sacrifice of individual property rights for the "greater good." Prohibition True Free Trade Benefits Texas Farmers 03 July 2000    Texas Straight Talk 03 July 2000 verse 5 ... Cached "Unfortunately, as details of the final arrangement emerge, it becomes obvious that one significant hurdle remains in place. By keeping in place prohibitions on private financing, the compromise, while being a good first step, does not go far enough. Under the current agreement, farmers seeking to extend credit to Cuban buyers cannot do so through a U.S. bank. Our farmers should not have to seek financing from foreign banks. This hurdle may limit the practical benefits of the repeal of the embargo. Prohibition The Disturbing Trend Toward Federal Police 31 July 2000    Texas Straight Talk 31 July 2000 verse 4 ... Cached ATF gets more than $730 million dollars for fiscal year 2001, an increase of $166 million over its 2000 budget. Why the increase? The administration wants the agency to hire 600 new federal police officers to enforce ever-expanding gun laws. Never mind the obvious failures of gun control legislation and the clear Second Amendment prohibition against such laws. The politicians in Washington are determined to slowly abolish gun rights, and they are determined to use federal police to accomplish the task. Prohibition U.S. Congress Bows to WTO Mandate 30 October 2000    Texas Straight Talk 30 October 2000 verse 4 ... Cached An extraordinary event occurred this week in Washington during the final days of the 106th Congress, an event that did not receive comment in either the media or the halls of Congress, save for my office. This event had been termed "unthinkable" only a few months earlier. It occurred despite clear constitutional prohibitions and at the expense of our precious national sovereignty. For the first time in the history of our country, Congress voted to change our domestic laws because an international body told us to do so. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has begun to dictate American laws. Prohibition International Criminal Court is the Latest U.N. Outrage 08 January 2001    Texas Straight Talk 08 January 2001 verse 4 ... Cached The proposed court will be made up of 18 "judges," elected by an Assembly of member nations ratifying the Rome treaty. Should the U.S. Senate ultimately ratify the treaty, America will have only one vote among hundreds of nations vying to decide which global visionaries will be anointed to judge us (perhaps Kofi Annon? Bill Clinton??). The court will claim international jurisdiction over "crimes against humanity" and the "crime of aggression." The Assembly, of course, is left to define such crimes and aggression. Undoubtedly, leftist political correctness, socialist economic philosophy, and environmentalist falsehoods will decide the definition of a crime with the new court. It clearly is no stretch to predict that the court will attempt to continually expand its jurisdiction in both the civil and criminal realms. 20 years hence, will we see U.S. corporations dragged before the court to answer for "environmental crimes?" Or will U.S. soldiers be prosecuted for their actions in wartime? What about rights guaranteed to all U.S. citizens by the Constitution, such as due process, jury trials, the right against self-incrimination, and the prohibition against unreasonable searches? Prohibition The Fight for Medical Privacy Continues in Washington 26 March 2001    Texas Straight Talk 26 March 2001 verse 4 ... Cached Fortunately, the Supreme Court upheld the Fourth amendment in ruling against the hospital. The drug war has been used for too long as an excuse for unconstitutional actions by government. The Fourth and Fifth amendment prohibitions against unreasonable searches and compelled testimony routinely are ignored by legislators, law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, and especially federal agencies. As a result, all Americans have suffered the loss of liberties guaranteed to them in the Bill of Rights. Prohibition The Deepening United Nations Quagmire 14 May 2001    Texas Straight Talk 14 May 2001 verse 7 ... Cached Undeclared wars are only one of many threats to our sovereignty posed by the UN. The recently proposed International Criminal Court seeks to subject U.S. citizens to the jurisdiction of an unconstitutional world tribunal. Our soldiers are especially at risk, as wartime actions later could be prosecuted as "crimes of aggression" or "crimes against humanity." One amendment to the State Department bill makes a weak attempt to protect soldiers from prosecution, but the validity of the tribunal itself is not challenged. What about rights guaranteed to American citizens under the Constitution, such as due process, jury trials, the right against self-incrimination, and the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures? The conflict between our national laws and a global court is clear. I introduced legislation earlier this year that would rescind U.S. approval of the ICC treaty (signed by a Clinton administration official), yet again Congress sidesteps the issue rather than address the central question of whether the Constitution permits American citizens to be brought before an international court. Prohibition A Court of No Authority 08 April 2002    Texas Straight Talk 08 April 2002 verse 6 ... Cached The more important point, however, is that the ICC clearly has no legitimate authority over American citizens. The US Senate has not ratified the ICC treaty, and constitutionally it cannot- because the Constitution does not permit the judicial function to be surrendered to an international body. Remember, the Constitution guarantees every American various protections- such as due process, jury trials, the right against self-incrimination, and the prohibition against unreasonable searches- and any treaty that denies American citizens those protections by definition is unconstitutional. Furthermore, President Bush thankfully may rescind the US signature to the ICC treaty, undoing the symbolic damage done by Clinton’s acquiescence to the idea of a superior international court. Prohibition The Emerging Surveillance State 07 April 2008    Texas Straight Talk 07 April 2008 verse 4 ... Cached The new FISA bill allows the federal government to compel many more types of companies and individuals to grant the government access to our communications without a warrant. The provisions in the legislation designed to protect Americans from warrantless surveillance are full of loopholes and ambiguities. There is no blanket prohibition against listening in on all American citizens without a warrant. 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. Home Page    Contents    Concordance   E-mail list.