U.S. Rep. Ron Paul | Supreme Court |
Supreme Court
Birth Defects Prevention Act
10 March 1998 1998 Ron Paul 24:7
Congress are [sic] authorized to defend the nation. Ships are necessary for defense, copper is necessary for ships; mines, necessary for copper; a company necessary to work the mines; and who can doubt this reasoning who has ever played at “This is the House that Jack Built”? under such a process of filiation of the necessities the sweeping clause makes clean work. [1 c. Warren, The Supreme Court United States History 501 (Rev. ed. 1926]
Supreme Court
Child Custody Protection Act
15 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 77:13
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions. An inadequate federal law, or a “adequate” federal improperly interpreted by the Supreme Court, preempts states’ rights to adequately address public health concerns. Roe v. Wade should serve as a sad reminder of the danger of making matters worse in all states by federalizing an issue.
Supreme Court
Federal Communications Commission
25 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 9:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 514, and in support of the Wilson amendment. The passage of this legislation will, as does so much of the legislation we pass, move our nation yet another step close to a national police state by further expanding a federal crime and empowering more federal police—this time at the Federal Communications Commission. Despite recent and stern warnings by both former U.S. attorney general Edwin Meese III and current U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Congress seems compelled to ride the current wave of federally criminalizing every human misdeed in the name of saving the world from some evil rather than to uphold a Constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure by which the nation is protected from totalitarianism.
Supreme Court
Introduction of H.R. 1789
18 May 1999 1999 Ron Paul 49:7
Even proponents of antitrust prosecution acknowledge this. In the Standard Oil case, the U.S. Supreme Court declared in its 1911 decision breaking up the company: “Much has been said in favor of the objects of the Standard Oil Trust, and what it has accomplished. It may be true that it has improved the quality and cheapened the costs of petroleum and its products to the consumer.”
Supreme Court
Don’t Undermine First And Second Amendment
16 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 61:8
Along with this, we have also heard Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist say the same thing. “The trend to federalize crimes that traditionally have been handled in State courts threatens to change entirely the nature of our Federal system.”
Supreme Court
Child Custody Protection Act
30 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 69:8
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions. An inadequate federal law, or an “adequate” federal law improperly interpreted by the Supreme Court, preempts states’ rights to adequately address public health concerns. Roe v. Wade should serve as a sad reminder of the danger of making matters worse in all states by federalizing an issue.
Supreme Court
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
30 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 102:4
The Roe v. Wade ruling will in time prove to be the most significantly flawed Supreme Court ruling of the 20th century. Not only for its codification, through an unconstitutional court action, of a social consensus that glorified promiscuity and abortion of convenience and for birth control, but for flaunting as well the constitutional system that requires laws of this sort be left to the prerogative of the states alone. A single “Roe v. Wade” ruling by one state would be far less harmful than a Supreme Court ruling that nullifies all state laws protecting the unborn.
Supreme Court
Paul-Doolittle Amendment To H.R. 3037
14 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 105:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I am placing in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD an amendment I, along with my colleague, Mr. DOOLITTLE of California, are offering to H.R. 3037, the Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations bill, to reduce funding for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) by $30,000,000, increase funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by $25,000,000 and apply $5,000,000 toward debt reduction. Our amendment provides an increase in financial support to help local schools cope with the federal IDEA mandates by reducing funding for an out-of-control bureaucracy that is running roughshod over the rights of workers, and even defying the Supreme Court!
Supreme Court
Paul-Doolittle Amendment To H.R. 3037
14 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 105:2
The NLRB has repeatedly proven itself incapable of acting as an unbiased arbiter for individual employees. Most recently the NLRB established a new nationwide rule that union officials may force employees to pay for union organizing drives as a condition of employment — directly contradicting several Supreme Court rulings!
Supreme Court
Paul-Doolittle Amendment To H.R. 3037
14 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 105:3
It is an outrage that the tax dollars of working men and women are wasted on an agency that flaunts Supreme Court rulings in support of its forced-dues agenda — especially when local schools are struggling with the IDEA mandate that they provide a “free and appropriate” public education to children with disabilities.
Supreme Court
Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999 (H.R. 2260)
27 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 111:12
Being strongly pro-life, I’m convinced that the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision of 1973 is one of the worst, if not the worst, Supreme Court ruling of the 20th century. It has been this institutionalizing into our legal system the lack of respect for life and liberty that has and will continue to play havoc with liberty and life until it is changed. It has been said by many since the early 1970s that any legalization of abortion would put us on a slippery slope to euthanasia. I agree with this assessment.
Supreme Court
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:60
In 1936, the New Deal Supreme Court told Congress and the American people that the Constitution is irrelevant when it comes to limits being placed on congressional spending. In a ruling justifying the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the Court pronounced, “The power of Congress to authorize appropriations of public money for public purposes is not limited by the grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.”
Supreme Court
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:129
The Supreme Court no longer just rules on Constitutionality, but frequently rewrites the laws with attempts at comprehensive social engineering. The most blatant example was the Roe v. Wade ruling. The Federal court should be hearing a lot fewer cases, deferring as often as possible to the states courts.
Supreme Court
THE PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION AND JUDICIAL LIMITATION ACT
February 16, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 9:1
Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Partial Birth Abortion and Judicial Limitation Act. This bill would, in accordance with Article 3, Section 2 of our United States Constitution, prohibit federal courts (exclusive of the US Supreme Court) from hearing cases relative to partial birth abortion.
Supreme Court
PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2000
April 5, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 26:2
As an obstetrician-gynecologist, I can assure my colleagues that the partial-birth abortion procedure is the most egregious legally permitted act known to man. Decaying social and moral attitudes decades ago set the stage for the accommodated Roe vs. Wade ruling that nationalizes all laws dealing with abortion. The fallacious privacy argument the Supreme Court used must some day be exposed for the fraud that it is.
Supreme Court
PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2000
April 5, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 26:4
The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that would refuse to deal with the issues of violence, recognizing that for all such acts the Constitution defers to the States. It is constitutionally permitted to limit Federal courts jurisdiction in particular issues. Congress should do precisely that with regard to abortion. It would be a big help in returning this issue to the States.
Supreme Court
PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2000
April 5, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 26:5
H.R. 3660, unfortunately, takes a different approach, and one that is constitutionally flawed. Although H.R. 3660 is poorly written, it does serve as a vehicle to condemn the 1973 Supreme Court usurpation of State law that has legalized the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure.
Supreme Court
Scouting For All Act
September 12, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 74:2
* On June 28, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts of America was within its rights when the private organization expelled an adult scout leader because he was gay. In its five-to-four opinion, the court found that requiring the Boy Scouts to admit homosexuals violated the group’s free association rights.
Supreme Court
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:37
At worst, such offers are an obfuscation designed to entrench federal control over health care through the HMOs. At best they are deceptive placation. Congress has no desire to eliminate managed care, and federal regulation of HMOs and other managed-care corporations will not protect patients from rationing. Even the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged in its June 12, 2000, Pegram
Supreme Court
International Criminal Court
10 May 2001 2001 Ron Paul 33:7
Today’s amendment, rather than be silent as is currently the case with the bill, supposes that ratification would subject U.S. citizens to the ICC but the Supreme Court stated in Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, 433 (1920), Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), and DeGeofrey v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890) that the United States Government may not enter into a treaty that contravenes prohibitory words in the United States Constitution because the treaty power does not authorize what the Constitution forbids. Approval of the International Criminal Court Treaty is in fundamental conflict with the constitutional oaths of the President and Senators, because the United States Constitution clearly provides that “[a]ll legislative powers shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,” and vested powers cannot be transferred.
Supreme Court
Flag Burning Amendment
17 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 53:15
As always seems to be the case, though, the federal government intervened. After winding through the federal system, the Supreme Court — in direct contradiction to the Constitution’s 10th Amendment — finally ruled against the state law.
Supreme Court
Stem Cell Research and Human Cloning
July 31, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 68:20
Laws inevitably reflect the morality or immorality of the people. The Supreme Court did not usher in the 60s revolution that undermined the respect for all human life and liberty. Instead, the people’s attitude of the 60s led to the Supreme Court Roe vs. Wade ruling in 1973 and contributed to a steady erosion of personal liberty.
Supreme Court
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:22
I. Introduction To date, the legislative debate over campaign-finance reform has focused upon the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech, as interpreted and applied by the courts. The constitutional issues, however, are not limited to the First Amendment, neither are they resolved by citation to Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) nor by the latest Supreme Court opinion, including the one handed down on June 25, 2001 in FEC v . Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee . To the contrary, pursuant to their oaths of office, members of Congress have an independent duty to determine the constitutionality of legislation before them and to decide, before ever reaching the First Amendment, whether they have been vested by the Constitution with any authority, at all, to regulate federal election campaigns.
Supreme Court
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:26
It is maintained by the advocates of the bank that its constitutionality in all its features ought to be considered as settled by precedent and by the decision of the Supreme Court. To this conclusion I cannot assent. Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority...[and] the opinion of the Supreme Court...ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill...presented to them for passage...as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision.
Supreme Court
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:27
It is in light of these principles, then, that the issue of constitutional authority to enact any campaign-finance reform bill is addressed in sections II and III below, before reaching the First Amendment issues raised by particular campaign-finance measures in sections IV and V. Furthermore, those issues are examined in light of the constitutional duty of Congress to decide for itself whether it has the constitutional authority to enact campaign-finance reform legislation and whether any such legislation violates the First Amendment, regardless of the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) and its progeny, including the high court’s most recent pronouncement on June 25, 2001.
Supreme Court
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:35
In 1892, a unanimous Supreme Court rehearsed the history and text governing the election of the president and vice president, concluding that the manner of selection of presidential electors was “placed absolutely and wholly with the legislatures of the several states” and that this “power and jurisdiction of the State” was “so framed that congressional and Federal influence might be excluded.” ( McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 34-36, 1892) (See also Bush v. Gore , supra.) Because the Constitution grants to Congress no authority to regulate the “manner” of the election of the president and vice president, it follows that Congress has no authority over presidential and vice presidential election campaigns.
Supreme Court
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:36
As for congressional regulation of the campaigns of candidates for the United States House of Representatives and United States Senate, four justices of the United States Supreme Court, in 1921, struck down a federal law limiting contributions and expenditures in congressional elections, observing:
Supreme Court
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:50
In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1976), the Supreme Court recognized that the contribution and other limitations imposed by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 could not be justified on the grounds that they prevented only “the most blatant and specific attempts of those with money to influence governmental action.” Rather, the court found, that such limitations served a much broader purpose, namely, the prevention of “the appearance of corruption” to the end that “confidence in the system of representative government is not to be eroded....” ( Id., 424 U.S. at 27)
Supreme Court
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:55
Twice in America’s history, the sovereignty of the people came under direct attack from Congress. Both times the attack came in the form of laws prohibiting “seditious libel” (writing or speaking in such a way as to bring the government into ridicule or disrepute), and thereby threatening the current system of government and its leaders. Finally, in 1964, the United States Supreme Court put an end to seditious libel, ruling that the freedom of speech guarantees a nation in which “debate on the public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” ( New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270, 1964)
Supreme Court
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:58
Such intrusions into the campaign process put the government into the role of editor of campaign literature, a role that is absolutely forbidden to the government by the freedom of the press. ( Miami Herald Tribune v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 258, 1974) Indeed, if the Supreme Court would apply the same principle to election-campaign literature that it has applied to election editorials and stories carried by newspapers, all campaign-finance reform legislation would be clearly unconstitutional. Not only do all campaign-finance reform measures transfer editorial control over an election campaign from the people to the government, but they also continue the unconstitutional licensing system of the Federal Election Commission established by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. In order to engage in a campaign for federal office, a candidate must register and report to the commission. Anyone who does not meet the commission’s registration and reporting rules is denied the right to participate and is subject not only to civil and criminal penalties, but to an injunction. Such a regulatory scheme strikes at the very heart of the freedom of the press which, as Sir William Blackstone wrote in 1769:
Supreme Court
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:64
Had the Supreme Court applied this principle consistently in its review of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, it would have held that the individual contribution limits of that act violated the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of association. As Justice Thomas has pointed out: “If an individual is limited in the amount of resources he can contribute to...a pool, he is certainly limited in his ability to associate for the purposes of effective advocacy.” ( Id., 135 L.Ed.2d at 819) Instead, the court has attempted to distinguish between “issue advocacy” - where the right of the people to associate must remain unfettered - and “express advocacy” for or against individual candidates - where the right of the people to associate may be limited.
Supreme Court
H.R. 476
17 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 23:8
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions. An inadequate federal law, or an “adequate” federal law improperly interpreted by the Supreme Court, preempts states’ rights to adequately address public health concerns. Roe v. Wade should serve as a sad reminder of the danger of making matters worse in all states by federalizing an issue.
Supreme Court
BAD TAX POLICY SENDS COMPANIES OVERSEAS
June 11, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 55:6
[From the Washington Times, May 8, 2002] BAD TAX POLICY: YOU CAN RUN ..... (By Daniel Mitchell) The worst Supreme Court decision of all time? One of the leading candidates has to be the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that slaves did not gain freedom by escaping to nonslave states.
Supreme Court
RESTORING FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS OF RELIGION AND RELIGIOUS SPEECH
June 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 56:2
In case after case, the Supreme Court has used the infamous “separation of church and state” metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty. This "separation" doctrine is based upon a phrase taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. In the letter, Jefferson simply reassures the Baptists that the First amendment would preclude an intrusion by the federal government into religious matters between denominations. It is ironic and sad that a letter defending the principle that the federal government must stay out of religious affairs. should be used two hundred years later to justify the Supreme Court telling a child that he cannot pray in school!
Supreme Court
The Tragedy of Partial-Birth Abortion
July 24, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 75:3
The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction. Something that Congress can do is remove the issue from the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, so that states can deal with the problems surrounding abortion, thus helping to reverse some of the impact of Roe v. Wade.
Supreme Court
End the Income Tax – Pass the Liberty Amendment
January 28, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 7:2
The 16th Amendment gives the federal government a direct claim on the lives of American citizens by enabling Congress to levy a direct income tax on individuals. Until the passage of the 16th amendment, the Supreme Court had consistently held that Congress had no power to impose an income tax.
Supreme Court
Stem Cell research
27 February 2003 2003 Ron Paul 26:15
Laws inevitably reflect the morality or immorality of the people. The Supreme Court did not usher in the 60s revolution that undermined the respect for all human life and liberty. Instead, the people’s attitude of the 60s led to the Supreme Court Roe vs. Wade ruling in 1973 and contributed to a steady erosion of personal liberty. If a centralized government is incapable of doing the right thing, what happens when the people embrace immorality and offer no voluntary ethical approach to difficult questions such as cloning? The government then takes over and predictably makes things much worse. The government cannot instill morality in the people. An apathetic and immoral society inspires centralized, rigid answers while the many consequences to come are ignored. Unfortunately, once centralized government takes charge, the real victim becomes personal liberty.
Supreme Court
The First Amendment Protects Religious Speech
April 2, 2003 Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation restoring First amendment protections of religion and religious speech. For fifty years, the personal religious freedom of this nation’s citizens has been infringed upon by courts that misread and distort the First amendment. The framers of the Constitution never in their worst nightmares imagined that the words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.......” would be used to ban children from praying in school, prohibit courthouses from displaying the Ten Commandments, or prevent citizens from praying before football games. The original meaning of the First amendment was clear on these two points: The federal government cannot enact laws establishing one religious denomination over another, and the federal government cannot forbid mention of religion, including the Ten Commandments and references to God. 2003 Ron Paul 43:1
In case after case, the Supreme Court has used the infamous “separation of church and state” metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty. This “separation” doctrine is based upon a phrase taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. In the letter, Jefferson simply reassures the Baptists that the First amendment would preclude an intrusion by the federal government into religious matters between denominations. It is ironic and sad that a letter defending the principle that the federal government must stay out of religious affairs. Should be used two hundred years later to justify the Supreme Court telling a child that he cannot pray in school!
Supreme Court
The Flag Burning Amendment
June 3, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 57:7
As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court has helped to create this. I know a lot of people depend on the Supreme Court to protect us, but in many ways, I think the Supreme Court has hurt us. So I agree with those who are promoting this amendment that the Supreme Court overreacted, because I think the States should have many more prerogatives than they do. Many states have these laws, and I believe that we should have a Supreme Court that would allow more solutions to occur at the state level. They would be imperfect, no doubt, it would not be perfect protection of liberty by state laws. But let me tell my colleagues, when we come here as politicians and superpatriots and we pass amendments to the Constitution, that will be less than perfect, then it will be just like the Supreme Court- a poor national solution.
Supreme Court
The Flag Burning Amendment
June 3, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 57:19
Mr. Speaker, let me summarize why I oppose this Constitutional amendment. I have myself served 5 years in the military, and I have great respect for the symbol of our freedom. I salute the flag, and I pledge to the flag. I also support overriding the Supreme Court case that overturned State laws prohibiting flag burning. Under the Constitutional principle of federalism, questions such as whether or not Texas should prohibit flag burning are strictly up to the people of Texas, not the United States Supreme Court. Thus, if this amendment simply restored the state’s authority to ban flag burning, I would enthusiastically support it.
Supreme Court
The Flag Burning Amendment
June 3, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 57:34
We must be interested in the spirit of our Constitution. We must be interested in the principles of liberty. I therefore urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Instead, my colleagues should work to restore the rights of the individual states to ban flag burning, free from unconstitutional interference by the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court
The Partial Birth Abortion Ban
June 4, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 58:3
The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction. Something that Congress can do is remove the issue from the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, so that states can deal with the problems surrounding abortion, thus helping to reverse some of the impact of Roe v. Wade.
Supreme Court
Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle.
June 4, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 59:10
Even the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, which is an integral part of the current pro-life agenda, presents a dilemma. While I have always supported this Act and plan to do so in the future, I realize that it raises questions of federalism because authority over criminal law is constitutionally retained by the states. The only reason a federal law has any legitimacy in this area is that the Supreme Court took it upon itself to federalize abortion via Roe v. Wade. Accordingly, wrestling the abortion issue from the federal courts and putting it back in the hands of the elected legislature comports with the Founder’s view of the separation of powers that protects our rights to life, liberty, and property.
Supreme Court
Bring Back Honest Money
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 82:10
Tragically, the Supreme Court has failed to protect the American people from unconstitutional legal tender laws. Salmon Chase, who served as Secretary of the Treasury in President Lincoln’s administration, when he was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, dissenting in Knox vs. Lee, summed up the argument against legal tender laws in twelve words: “The legal tender quality [of money] is only valuable for the purposes of dishonesty .” [emphasis added.]
Supreme Court
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 2:35
Something must be done, however, if we expect to rein in our ever growing and intrusive government. Instead of depending on the courts to rule favorably, when Congress and the executive branch go astray, we must curtail the courts when they overstep their authority by writing laws, rubber stamping bad legislation, or overruling state laws. Hopefully in the future we will have a Congress more cognizant of its responsibility to legislate within the confines of the Constitution. There is something Congress, by majority vote, can do to empower the states to deal with their First Amendment issues. It’s clear that Congress has been instructed to write no laws regarding freedom of speech, religion, or assembly. This obviously means that federal courts have no authority to do so either. Therefore, the remaining option is for Congress to specifically remove jurisdiction of all First Amendment controversies from all federal courts, including the Supreme Court. Issues dealing with prayer, the Ten Commandments, religious symbols or clothing, and songs, even the issue of abortion, are properly left as a prerogative of the states. A giant step in this direction could be achieved with the passage my proposed legislation, the We the People Act.
Supreme Court
We The People Act
4 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 13:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the We the People Act. The We the People Act forbids federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from adjudicating cases concerning state laws and policies relating to religious liberties or “privacy,” including cases involving sexual practices, sexual orientation or reproduction. The We the People Act also protects the traditional definition of marriage from judicial activism by ensuring the Supreme Court cannot abuse the equal protection clause to redefine marriage. In order to hold federal judges accountable for abusing their powers, the act also provides that a judge who violates the act’s limitations on judicial power shall either be impeached by Congress or removed by the president, according to rules established by the Congress.
Supreme Court
We The People Act
4 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 13:2
The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Founders intended Congress to use this authority to correct abuses of power by the federal judiciary.
Supreme Court
We The People Act
4 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 13:5
Mr. Speaker, even some supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, which overturned the abortion laws of all fifty states, is flawed. The Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause jurisdiction has also drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. Perhaps more importantly, attempts to resolve, by judicial fiat, important issues like abortion and the expression of religious belief in the public square increase social strife and conflict. The only way to resolve controversial social issues like abortion and school prayer is to restore respect for the right of state and local governments to adopt policies that reflect the beliefs of the citizens of those jurisdictions. I would remind my colleagues and the federal judiciary that, under our Constitutional system, there is no reason why the people of New York and the people of Texas should have the same policies regarding issues such as marriage and school prayer.
Supreme Court
We The People Act
4 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 13:6
Unless Congress acts, a state’s authority to define and regulate marriage may be the next victim of activist judges. After all, such a decision would simply take the Supreme Court’s decision in the Lawrence case, which overturned all state sodomy laws, to its logical conclusion. Congress must launch a preemptive strike against any further federal usurpation of the states’ authority to regulate marriage by removing issues concerning the definition of marriage from the jurisdiction of federal courts.
Supreme Court
An Indecent Attack on the First Amendment
March 10, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 14:7
Just one year ago we saw a coalition of both left and right push through the radical Campaign Finance Reform Act, which strictly curtails the rights all Americans to speak out against particular candidates at the time of elections. Amazingly, this usurpation by Congress was upheld by the Supreme Court, which showed no concern for the restrictions on political speech during political campaigns. Instead of admitting that money and corruption in government is not a consequence of too much freedom of expression, but rather a result of government acting outside the bounds of the Constitution, this new law addressed a symptom rather than the cause of special interest control of our legislative process.
Supreme Court
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3717, Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act Of 2004
11 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 17:16
Even the proponents of the commercial speech doctrine agreed that the Federal Government should never restrict political speech. Yet, this Congress, this administration, and this Supreme Court have restricted political speech with the recently enacted campaign finance reform law. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice has indicated it will use the war against terrorism to monitor critics of the administration’s foreign policy, thus chilling antiwar political speech. Of course, on many college campuses students have to watch what they say lest they run afoul of the rules of “political correctness.” Even telling a “politically incorrect” joke can bring a student up on charges before the thought police! Now, selfproclaimed opponents of political correctness want to use federal power to punish colleges that allows the expression of views they consider “unpatriotic” and/or punish colleges when the composition of the facility does not meet their definition of diversity.
Supreme Court
Introducing The American Justice For American Citizens Act
1 April 2004 2004 Ron Paul 26:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the American Justice for American Citizens Act, which exercises Congress’s Constitutional authority to regulate the federal judiciary to ensure that federal judges base their decisions solely on American Constitutional, statutory, and traditional common law. Federal judges increasing practice of “transjudicialism” makes this act necessary. Transjudicialism is a new legal theory that encourages judges to disregard American law, including the United States Constitution, and base their decisions on foreign law. For example, Supreme Court justices recently used international law to justify upholding race-based college admissions and overturning all state sodomy laws.
Supreme Court
Introducing The American Justice For American Citizens Act
1 April 2004 2004 Ron Paul 26:2
In an October 28, 2003 speech before the Southern Center for International Studies in Atlanta, Georgia, Justice O’Connor stated: “[i]n ruling that consensual homosexual activity in one’s home is constitutionally protected, the Supreme Court relied in part on a series of decisions from the European Court of Human Rights. I suspect that with time, we will rely increasingly on international and foreign law in resolving what now appear to be domestic issues, as we both appreciate more fully the ways in which domestic issues have an international dimension, and recognize the rich resources available to us in the decisions of foreign courts.”
Supreme Court
Introducing The American Justice For American Citizens Act
1 April 2004 2004 Ron Paul 26:5
All federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, take an oath to obey and uphold the Constitution. The Constitution was ordained and ratified by the people of the United States to provide a charter of governance in accord with fixed and enduring principles, not to empower federal judges to impose the transnational legal elites’ latest theories on the American people.
Supreme Court
Protecting Marriage from Judicial Tyranny
July 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 64:3
Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court last June. The Court determined that Texas has no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because these laws violated the court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Regardless of the advisability of such laws, the Constitution does not give the federal government authority to overturn these laws. Under the Tenth Amendment, the state of Texas has the authority to pass laws concerning social matters, using its own local standards, without federal interference. But rather than adhering to the Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a state matter, the Court decided to stretch the “right to privacy” to justify imposing the justices’ vision on the people of Texas.
Supreme Court
Federal Courts and the Pledge of Allegiance
September 23, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 71:3
While I will support this bill even if the language removing the United States Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over cases regarding the pledge is eliminated, I am troubled that some of my colleagues question whether Congress has the authority to limit Supreme Court jurisdiction in this case. Both the clear language of the United States Constitution and a long line of legal precedents make it clear that Congress has the authority to limit the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. The Framers intended Congress to use the power to limit jurisdiction as a check on all federal judges, including Supreme Court judges , who, after all, have lifetime tenure and are thus unaccountable to the people.
Supreme Court
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 81:26
The problem the country faces is that social issues garnered intense interest and motivated many to vote both for and against the candidates, yet these issues are only a tiny fraction of the issues dealt with at the national level. And since the election has passed, the odds of new legislation dealing with social issues are slim. Getting a new Supreme Court that will overthrow Roe vs. Wade is a long shot despite the promises. Remember, we already have a Supreme Court where seven of the nine members were appointed by Republican presidents with little to show for it.
Supreme Court
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 81:40
This is a reflection of personal moral values and society’s acceptance of abortion more than a reflection of a particular law or court ruling. In the 1960s, as part of the new age of permissiveness, people’s attitudes changed regarding abortion. This led to a change in the law as reflected in court rulings — especially Roe vs. Wade. The people’s moral standards changed first, followed by the laws. It was not the law or the Supreme Court that brought on the age of abortion.
Supreme Court
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 81:42
The 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling caused great harm in two distinct ways. First, it legalized abortion at any stage, establishing clearly that the Supreme Court and the government condoned the cheapening of human life. Second, it firmly placed this crucial issue in the hands of the federal courts and national government. The federalization of abortion was endorsed even by those who opposed abortion. Instead of looking for state-by-state solutions and limiting federal court jurisdiction, those anxious to protect life came to rely on federal laws, eroding the constitutional process. The authors of the Constitution intended for criminal matters and acts of violence (except for a few rare exceptions) to be dealt with at the state level. Now, however, conservatives as well as liberals find it acceptable to nationalize issues such as abortion, marriage, prayer, and personal sexual matters — with more federal legislation offered as the only solution. This trend of transferring power from the states to the federal government compounds our problems — for when we lose, it affects all 50 states, and overriding Congress or the Supreme Court becomes far more difficult than dealing with a single state.
Supreme Court
Introduction Of The Liberty Amendment
26 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 10:2
The 16th Amendment gives the federal government a direct claim on the lives of American citizens by enabling Congress to levy a direct income tax on individuals. Until the passage of the 16th amendment, the Supreme Court had consistently held that Congress had no power to impose an income tax.
Supreme Court
Introducing The Sanity Of Life Act And The Taxpayer Freedom Of Conscience Act
10 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 21:3
One of the bills I am introducing today, the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, reverses some of the damage done by Roe v. Wade. The Sanctity of Life Act provides that the federal courts of the United States, up to and including the Supreme Court, do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases. Congress must use the authority granted to it in Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution to rein in rogue federal judges from interfering with a state’s ability to protect unborn life.
Supreme Court
Regulating The Airwaves
16 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 22:16
Even the proponents of the commercial speech doctrine agreed that the Federal Government should never restrict political speech. Yet, this Congress, this administration, and this Supreme Court have restricted political speech with the campaign finance reform law. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice has indicated it will use the war against terrorism to monitor critics of the administration’s foreign policy, thus chilling anti-war political speech. Of course, on many college campuses students have to watch what they say lest they run afoul of the rules of “political correctness.” Even telling a “politically incorrect” joke can bring a student up on charges before the thought police. Now, self-proclaimed opponents of political correctness want to use Federal power to punish colleges that allow the expression of views they consider “unpatriotic” and/or punish colleges when the composition of the facility does not meet their definition of diversity.
Supreme Court
The American Justice For American Citizens Act
14 April 2005 2005 Ron Paul 41:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the American Justice for American Citizens Act, which exercises Congress’s Constitutional authority to regulate the federal judiciary to ensure that federal judges base their decisions solely on American Constitutional, statutory, and traditional common law. Federal judges increasing practice of “transjudicialism” makes this act necessary. Transjudicialism is a new legal theory that encourages judges to disregard American law, including the United States Constitution, and base their decisions on foreign law. For example, Supreme Court justices have used international law to justify upholding race-based college admissions, overturning all state sodomy laws, and, most recently, to usurp state authority to decide the age at which criminals becomes subject to the death penalty.
Supreme Court
The American Justice For American Citizens Act
14 April 2005 2005 Ron Paul 41:2
In an October 28, 2003 speech before the Southern Center for International Studies in Atlanta, Georgia, Justice O’Connor stated: “[i]n ruling that consensual homosexual activity in one’s home is constitutionally protected, the Supreme Court relied in part on a series of decisions from the European Court of Human Rights. I suspect that with time, we will rely increasingly on international and foreign law in resolving what now appear to be domestic issues, as we both appreciate more fully the ways in which domestic issues have an international dimension, and recognize the rich resources available to us in the decisions of foreign courts.”
Supreme Court
The American Justice For American Citizens Act
14 April 2005 2005 Ron Paul 41:5
All federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, take an oath to obey and uphold the Constitution. The Constitution was ordained and ratified by the people of the United States to provide a charter of governance in accord with fixed and enduring principles, not to empower federal judges to impose the transnational legal elites’ latest theories on the American people.
Supreme Court
Federalizing Abortion Law
27 April 2005 2005 Ron Paul 42:8
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions. An inadequate Federal law, or an “adequate” Federal law improperly interpreted by the Supreme Court, preempts States’ rights to adequately address public health concerns. Roe v. Wade should serve as a sad reminder of the danger of making matters worse in all States by federalizing an issue.
Supreme Court
Introducing The “American Citizenship Amendment”
28 April 2005 2005 Ron Paul 44:2
Thus far the U.S. courts have asserted authority by interpreting the 14th Amendment to include the concept of birthright citizenship. However it is up to the U.S. Congress — and not the U.S. Supreme Court — to define American citizenship. That is why, I am introducing this Constitutional Amendment clarifying that the happenstance of birth on U.S. soil does not a U.S. citizen make.
Supreme Court
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 62:9
In effect, the courts in California were used as a weapon to interfere with our rights to free speech. Along the way, this case resulted in a binding precedent extending First Amendment rights to the Internet. That precedent has been used all the way to the US Supreme Court as well as in several state supreme courts.
Supreme Court
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 62:14
Enter the Supreme Court. In January, 2005, the Supreme Court issued a decision that decreed equal federal tax treatment among all plaintiffs across the breadth of the United States; that attorneys’ fees should be taxed to plaintiffs; and that Alternative Minimum Taxes apply. In effect, the Supreme Court’s decision put almost all plaintiffs in the same tax position as Spina. Taken to its logical and viable extreme, this decision puts civil courts off limits as an alternative to violence to resolve bona fide disputes.
Supreme Court
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 62:17
That is the effect of the Supreme Court ruling. Because ours is technically not a civil rights case, we do not enjoy the benefits of the exemption inspired by the Spina case. We had properly appealed to our government for help, and the government has now placed us in a position where our own best interests are indeterminate, so we cannot settle (ironic, since the intent of most tort reform has been to encourage settlement). When a jury makes an award, the tax exposure will likely be ruinous. Another irony is that the higher the award, the greater our tax exposure. And we are middle-class citizens.
Supreme Court
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 62:18
The basis on which the Supreme Court decided that attorneys’ fees are taxed as income to plaintiffs is that plaintiffs pay attorneys; that the amount they pay comes to them as a result of the award; that money to pay attorneys was something they did not have prior to the award, and therefore coming, as it would from the award, must be income. The rationale is held irrelevant (in contingency cases) that attorneys receive payment only if and after an actual award is received and that there is shared risk between plaintiff and attorney.
Supreme Court
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 62:30
As these things ate contemplated, a figurative call to arms is in order. Taxes imposed on individual citizens across the breadth of the original Thirteen Colonies in our early history were only a fraction of the burden thrust on individual contemporary citizens now carrying these burdens. These unjustly treated citizens already number in thousands; and their numbers will grow rapidly as the effects of the Supreme Court decision become felt.
Supreme Court
Statement on the Flag Burning Amendment
June 22, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 71:3
It was stated earlier that this is the only recourse we have since the Supreme Court ruled the Texas law unconstitutional. That is not true. There are other alternatives.
Supreme Court
Statement on the Flag Burning Amendment
June 22, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 71:10
Mr. Speaker, let me summarize my views on this proposed amendment. I have myself served 5 years in the military, and I have great respect for the symbol of our freedom. I salute the flag, and I pledge to the flag. I also support overriding the Supreme Court case that overturned state laws prohibiting flag burning. Under the constitutional principle of federalism, questions such as whether or not Texas should prohibit flag burning are strictly up to the people of Texas, not the United States Supreme Court. Thus, if this amendment simply restored the states’ authority to ban flag burning, I would enthusiastically support it.
Supreme Court
Statement on the Flag Burning Amendment
June 22, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 71:24
We must be interested in the spirit of our Constitution. We must be interested in the principles of liberty. I therefore urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Instead, my colleagues should work to restore the rights of the individual states to ban flag burning, free from unconstitutional interference by the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court
Congress Lacks Authority To Sell Unocal
30 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 82:3
If in the United States a private company does not have the right to be sold on the free market, should we really be criticizing the lack of freedom in China? Many conservatives who have decried the recent Supreme Court decision that severely undermines the principle of private property in the United States are now on the other side, cheering this blatant Congressional attempt to do something that may be even worse than Kelo vs. New London.
Supreme Court
Introducing We The People
17 November 2005 2005 Ron Paul 122:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the We the People Act. The We the People Act forbids Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from adjudicating cases concerning State laws and polices relating to religious liberties or “privacy,” including cases involving sexual practices, sexual orientation or reproduction. The We the People Act also protects the traditional definition of marriage from judicial activism by ensuring the Supreme Court cannot abuse the equal protection clause to redefine marriage. In order to hold Federal judges accountable for abusing their powers, the act also provides that a judge who violates the act’s limitations on judicial power shall either be impeached by Congress or removed by the President, according to rules established by the Congress.
Supreme Court
Introducing We The People
17 November 2005 2005 Ron Paul 122:2
The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower Federal courts and limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Founders intended Congress to use this authority to correct abuses of power by the federal judiciary.
Supreme Court
Introducing We The People
17 November 2005 2005 Ron Paul 122:5
Mr. Speaker, even some supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, which overturned the abortion laws of all 50 States, is flawed. The Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause jurisdiction has also drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. Perhaps more importantly, attempts to resolve, by judicial fiat, important issues like abortion and the expression of religious belief in the public square increase social strife and conflict The only way to resolve controversial social issues like abortion and school prayer is to restore respect for the right of State and local governments to adopt polices that reflect the beliefs of the citizens of those jurisdictions. I would remind my colleagues and the Federal judiciary that, under our Constitutional system, there is no reason why the people of New York and the people of Texas should have the same polices regarding issues such as marriage and school prayer.
Supreme Court
Introducing We The People
17 November 2005 2005 Ron Paul 122:6
Unless Congress acts, a State’s authority to define and regulate marriage may be the next victim of activist judges. After all, such a decision would simply take the Supreme Court’s decision in the Lawrence case, which overturned all State sodomy laws, to its logical conclusion. Congress must launch a preemptive strike against any further Federal usurpation of the States’ authority to regulate marriage by removing issues concerning the definition of marriage from the jurisdiction of Federal courts.
Supreme Court
Introduction Of The Sunlight Rule
2 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 8:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously said, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” In order to shine sunlight on the practices of the House of Representatives, and thus restore public trust and integrity to this institution, I am introducing the sunlight rule, which amends House rules to ensure that Members have adequate time to study a bill before being asked to vote on it. One of the chief causes of increasing public cynicism regarding Congress is the way major pieces of legislation are brought to the floor without Members having an opportunity to read the bills. This is particularly a problem with the Appropriations conference reports, which are often rushed to the floor of the House in late-night sessions at the end of the year. For example, just this past December, the House voted on the Fiscal Year 2006 Defense Appropriations Conference Report at approximately 4 a.m. — just 4 hours after the report was filed. Yet, the report contained language dealing with avian flu, including controversial language regarding immunity liability for vaccine manufacturers, that was added in the House-Senate conference on the bill. Considering legislation on important issues in this manner is a dereliction of our duty as the people’s elected representatives.
Supreme Court
Tribute To Calhoun High School
11 May 2006 2006 Ron Paul 34:4
We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution is a nationally acclaimed civic education program focusing on the history and principles of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. In addition to the requirements of the standard government class, students in this program must master a rigorous curriculum in the background and philosophy of the U.S. Constitution. They participate in oral assessment that involves both prepared and extemporaneous responses to challenging questions. In this nationwide competition, students play the role of “experts in the Constitution,” testifying before a mock Congressional hearing. Among other criteria, students are evaluated on their depth of knowledge, ability to apply academic data to current problems, and understanding of landmark Supreme Court cases. Teams of three students each present a four-minute prepared testimony to answer questions they have researched all semester, and then they respond to extemporaneous follow- up questions from the judges for another six minutes. Judges at the state contest include practicing attorneys, university professors, historians, and legislative staff members.
Supreme Court
Introduction Of The We The People Act
29 June 2006 2006 Ron Paul 51:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the We the People Act. The We the People Act forbids federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from adjudicating cases concerning state laws and polices relating to religious liberties or “privacy,” including cases involving sexual practices, sexual orientation or reproduction. The We the People Act also protects the traditional definition of marriage from judicial activism by ensuring the Supreme Court cannot abuse the equal protection clause to redefine marriage. In order to hold federal judges accountable for abusing their powers, the act also provides that a judge who violates the act’s limitations on judicial power shall either be impeached by Congress or removed by the president, according to rules established by the Congress.
Supreme Court
Introduction Of The We The People Act
29 June 2006 2006 Ron Paul 51:2
The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Founders intended Congress to use this authority to correct abuses of power by the federal judiciary.
Supreme Court
Introduction Of The We The People Act
29 June 2006 2006 Ron Paul 51:5
Mr. Speaker, even some supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, which overturned the abortion laws of all fifty states, is flawed. The Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause jurisdiction has also drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. Perhaps more importantly, attempts to resolve, by judicial fiat, important issues like abortion and the expression of religious belief in the public square increase social strife and conflict. The only way to resolve controversial social issues like abortion and school prayer is to restore respect for the right of state and local governments to adopt polices that reflect the beliefs of the citizens of those jurisdictions. I would remind my colleagues and the federal judiciary that, under our Constitutional system, there is no reason why the people of New York and the people of Texas should have the same polices regarding issues such as marriage and school prayer.
Supreme Court
Introduction Of The We The People Act
29 June 2006 2006 Ron Paul 51:6
Unless Congress acts, a state’s authority to define and regulate marriage may be the next victim of activist judges. After all, such a decision would simply take the Supreme Court’s decision in the Lawrence case, which overturned all state sodomy laws, to its logical conclusion. Congress must launch a preemptive strike against any further federal usurpation of the states’ authority to regulate marriage by removing issues concerning the definition of marriage from the jurisdiction of federal courts.
Supreme Court
Overstepping Constitutional Authority
26 September 2006 2006 Ron Paul 86:8
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions. An inadequate Federal law, or an “adequate” Federal law improperly interpreted by the Supreme Court, preempts States’ rights to adequately address public health concerns. Roe v. Wade should serve as a sad reminder of the danger of making matters worse in all States by federalizing an issue.
Supreme Court
Introducing We The People
5 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 9:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the We the People Act. The We the People Act forbids federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from adjudicating cases concerning state laws and polices relating to religious liberties or “privacy,” including cases involving sexual practices, sexual orientation or reproduction. The We the People Act also protects the traditional definition of marriage from judicial activism by ensuring the Supreme Court cannot abuse the equal protection clause to redefine marriage. In order to hold federal judges accountable for abusing their powers, the act also provides that a judge who violates the act’s limitations on judicial power shall either be impeached by Congress or removed by the president, according to rules established by the Congress.
Supreme Court
Introducing We The People
5 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 9:2
The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Founders intended Congress to use this authority to correct abuses of power by the federal judiciary.
Supreme Court
Introducing We The People
5 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 9:5
Madam Speaker, even some supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, which overturned the abortion laws of all fifty states, is flawed. The Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause jurisdiction has also drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. Perhaps more importantly, attempts to resolve, by judicial fiat, important issues like abortion and the expression of religious belief in the public square increase social strife and conflict. The only way to resolve controversial social issues like abortion and school prayer is to restore respect for the right of state and local governments to adopt policies that reflect the beliefs of the citizens of those jurisdictions. I would remind my colleagues and the federal judiciary that, under our Constitutional system, there is no reason why the people of New York and the people of Texas should have the same policies regarding issues such as marriage and school prayer.
Supreme Court
Introducing We The People
5 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 9:6
Unless Congress acts, a state’s authority to define and regulate marriage may be the next victim of activist judges. After all, such a decision would simply take the Supreme Court’s decision in the Lawrence case, which overturned all state sodomy laws, to its logical conclusion. Congress must launch a preemptive strike against any further federal usurpation of the states’ authority to regulate marriage by removing issues concerning the definition of marriage from the jurisdiction of federal courts.
Supreme Court
Introducing The Sunlight Rule
12 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 15:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously said, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” In order to shine sunlight on the practices of the House of Representatives, and thus restore public trust and integrity to this institution, I am introducing the sunlight rule, which amends House rules to ensure that members have adequate time to study a bill before being asked to vote on it. One of the chief causes of increasing public cynicism regarding Congress is the way major pieces of legislation are brought to the floor without members having an opportunity to read the bills. For example, concerns have been raised that in the opening days of the 110th Congress, legislation dealing with important topics such as national security are being brought to the floor before members have had an opportunity to adequately study the legislation.
Supreme Court
Mr. Bush, Meet Walter Jones
17 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 18:15
Any doubt how Attorney General Gonzales would come down on those “legal questions”? Any doubt how the Supreme Court would rule?
Supreme Court
Introduction Of The Liberty Amendment
7 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 24:2
The 16th Amendment gives the federal government a direct claim on the lives of American citizens by enabling Congress to levy a direct income tax on individuals. Until the passage of the 16th amendment, the Supreme Court had consistently held that Congress had no power to impose an income tax.
Supreme Court
Introducing The Sanctity Of Life Act And The Taxpayer Freedom Of Conscience Act
15 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 31:3
One of the bills I am introducing today, the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, reverses some of the damage done by Roe v. Wade. The Sanctity of Life Act provides that the federal courts of the United States, up to and including the Supreme Court, do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases. Congress must use the authority granted to it in Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution to rein in rogue federal judges from interfering with a state’s ability to protect unborn life.
Supreme Court
Introducing The Sanctity Of Life Act
6 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 58:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Sanctity of Life Act. The Sanctity of Life Act provides that the Federal courts of the United States, up to and including the Supreme Court, do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases. The legislation also clarifies that State and local courts do not have to treat Federal cases overturning State abortion laws as binding precedent.
Supreme Court
Introduction Of The Honest Money Act
15 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 64:9
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court failed to protect the American people from Congress’ unconstitutional legal tender laws. Supreme Court Justice, and Lincoln Treasury Secretary, Salmon Chase, writing in dissent in the legal tender cases, summed up the main reason why the Founders did not grant Congress the authority to pass legal tender laws: “The legal tender quality [of money] is only valuable for the purposes of dishonesty.” Justice Chase might have added dishonesty is perpetrated by State-favored interests on the average American.
Supreme Court
Introduction Of The Honest Money Act
15 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 64:11
Considering the growth of government since the Supreme Court joined Congress in disregarding the constitutional barriers to legal tender laws, can anyone doubt the accuracy of Justice Field’s words? Repeal of legal tender laws would restore constitutional government and protect the people’s right to use a currency chosen by the market because it serves the needs of the people, instead of having to use a currency chosen by the State because it serves the needs of power hungry politicians and special interests. Therefore, I urge my colleges to cosponsor the Honest Money Act.
Supreme Court
INTRODUCING WE THE PEOPLE
January 14, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 9:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the We the People Act. The We the People Act forbids federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from adjudicating cases concerning State laws and polices relating to religious liberties or “privacy,” including cases involving sexual practices, sexual orientation or reproduction. The We the People Act also protects the traditional definition of marriage from judicial activism by ensuring the Supreme Court cannot abuse the equal protection clause to redefine marriage. In order to hold Federal judges accountable for abusing their powers, the act also provides that a judge who violates the act’s limitations on judicial power shall either be impeached by Congress or removed by the President, according to rules established by the Congress.
Supreme Court
INTRODUCING WE THE PEOPLE
January 14, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 9:2
The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower Federal courts and limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Founders intended Congress to use this authority to correct abuses of power by the Federal judiciary.
Supreme Court
INTRODUCING WE THE PEOPLE
January 14, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 9:5
Madam Speaker, even some supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, which overturned the abortion laws of all 50 States, is flawed. The Supreme Court’s establishment clause jurisdiction has also drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. Perhaps more importantly, attempts to resolve, by judicial fiat, important issues like abortion and the expression of religious belief in the public square increase social strife and conflict. The only way to resolve controversial social issues like abortion and school prayer is to restore respect for the right of State and local governments to adopt polices that reflect the beliefs of the citizens of those jurisdictions. I would remind my colleagues and the Federal judiciary that, under our constitutional system, there is no reason why the people of New York and the people of Texas should have the same policies regarding issues such as marriage and school prayer.
Supreme Court
INTRODUCING WE THE PEOPLE
January 14, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 9:6
Unless Congress acts, a State’s authority to define and regulate marriage may be the next victim of activist judges. After all, such a decision would simply take the Supreme Court’s decision in the Lawrence case, which overturned all State sodomy laws, to its logical conclusion. Congress must launch a preemptive strike against any further Federal usurpation of the States’ authority to regulate marriage by removing issues concerning the definition of marriage from the jurisdiction of Federal courts.
Supreme Court
STATEMENT ON INTRODUCING THE SUNLIGHT RULE
March 5, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 23:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously said, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” In order to shine sunlight on the practices of the House of Representatives, and thus restore public trust and integrity to this institution, I am introducing the sunlight rule, which amends House rules to ensure that members have adequate time to study a bill before being asked to vote on it. One of the chief causes of increasing public cynicism regarding Congress is the way major pieces of legislation are brought to the floor without members having an opportunity to read the bills. For example, the over-one-thousand page economic stimulus bill was first posted on the Internet at 12:30 a.m. the night before the vote. Obviously, this did not give individual members of Congress adequate time to review what is certainly one of, if not the, most significant pieces of legislation that Congress will consider this year.
Supreme Court
INTRODUCTION OF THE LIBERTY AMENDMENT
April 30, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 50:2
The 16th Amendment gives the Federal government a direct claim on the lives of American citizens by enabling Congress to levy a direct income tax on individuals. Until the passage of the 16th amendment, the Supreme Court had consistently held that Congress had no power to impose an income tax.
Supreme Court
INTRODUCING THE SANCTITY OF LIFE ACT
May 20, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 57:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the Sanctity of Life Act. This legislation provides that the federal courts of the United States, up to and including the Supreme Court, do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases. Since the Supreme Court invented a “right” to abortion in Roe v. Wade, federal judges have repeatedly thwarted efforts by democratically elected officials at the state and local level to protect the unborn.
Supreme Court
Statement Before Foreign Affairs Committee
December 10, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 103:8
The president’s top advisor for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, said recently, “I would say this about defining success in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In the simplest sense, the Supreme Court test for another issue, we’ll know it when we see it.” That does not inspire much confidence.
Supreme Court
Abortion and National Sovereignty: No Compromises
26 January 1998 Texas Straight Talk 26 January 1998 verse 3 ... Cached
On January 22, the United States observed the 25th Anniversary of the most controversial decision of the Supreme Court this century, the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion. But the issue is more complex than simply abortion; it has become a part of almost every policy decision in our federal government. And most especially in realm of foreign relations.
Supreme Court
Let liberty ring loudly
21 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 21 June 1999 verse 11 ... Cached
Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist has warned, "The trend to federalize crimes that traditionally have been handled in State courts threatens to change entirely the nature of our Federal system."
Supreme Court
Flag Amendment is a reckless solution
28 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 28 June 1999 verse 6 ... Cached
As always seems to be the case, though, the federal government intervened. After winding through the federal system, the Supreme Court -- in direct contradiction to the Constitution's 10th Amendment -- finally ruled against the state law.
Supreme Court
EPA Regulations Threaten Texas
26 June 2000 Texas Straight Talk 26 June 2000 verse 5 ... Cached
Not surprisingly, the EPA has appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. Truly troubling, however, is the agency's refusal to comply with the standing Court of Appeals decision while its appeal is carried out. The EPA brazenly has decided to continue designating "non-attainment" areas despite the Court's clear finding of the unconstitutionality of its actions. The Linder/Collins amendment was necessary to legislatively prevent the EPA from further unconstitutional actions.
Supreme Court
The Conflict Between Collectivism and Liberty is Reflected in the Presidential Election
27 November 2000 Texas Straight Talk 27 November 2000 verse 3 ... Cached
The controversial presidential election remains unresolved this week, now that the Florida Supreme Court has decided to permit ongoing recounts of votes. The U.S. Supreme Court may well serve as the ultimate arbiter in this controversy. Regardless of the outcome, the popular vote totals for the two candidates will be remarkably close. The contentiousness of the post-election legal wrangling is certain to damage the political credibility of the winner. Even in the popular media, some have begun to question the legitimacy of the incoming administration, citing the deep divisions that seem to exist among voters. Ultimately, of course, the legitimacy of any president or government must be derived from the consent of the governed.
Supreme Court
Activist Courts Threaten Our Liberty
04 December 2000 Texas Straight Talk 04 December 2000 verse 4 ... Cached
The presidential election controversy not surprisingly reached the Florida Supreme Court, which rendered a verdict stunningly at odds with Florida law. Of course both camps in the dispute are guilty of exhibiting a "win at all costs mentality", using teams of lawyers to piously argue against the "injustices"they have suffered. Both are interested only in the final outcome, despite their shameless references to the Constitution and the "rule of law." Even in this atmosphere, however, most Americans still expected the Court to issue an impartial decision based on a rational interpretation of Florida law. It appears, however, that the Court simply ignored the plain language of state voting laws (and the Constitution) and imposed its political will on the people of Florida and the nation as a whole. The decision perhaps is not surprising, however, in light of the trend toward activist courts in our country.
Supreme Court
Activist Courts Threaten Our Liberty
04 December 2000 Texas Straight Talk 04 December 2000 verse 6 ... Cached
Today, however, judges at every level increasingly engage in shaping the law to meet their particular political and social agendas. Liberal/collectivist interests especially have found a sympathetic audience among our federal judges, who have been willing accomplices in crafting liberal legislation and overriding properly enacted state law. Perhaps the most egregious example of judicial legislation is the infamous Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, which created a federal constitutional "right" to abortion out of thin air. While the collectivist agenda is advanced, activist courts have refused to uphold economic due process rights and property rights. The result is a legal landscape where all manner of fabricated social rights are upheld (e.g. entitlements), while true constitutional rights (e.g. gun ownership, religious freedom) are trampled.
Supreme Court
The Bush Administration Must Honor its Commitment to Smaller Government
18 December 2000 Texas Straight Talk 18 December 2000 verse 4 ... Cached
Texas Governor George W. Bush officially became our president-elect last week, following a series of legal challenges to the exceedingly close certified election results. The election seems to have exposed a deep political division in the country: support for the two candidates is decidedly even, mirroring the 50-50 party split in the Senate and an almost evenly divided Congress. The highly criticized 5-4 final Supreme Court decision shows how equally divided the nation really is.
Supreme Court
The Ashcroft Controversy Exposes Disdain for Conservative Principles
22 January 2001 Texas Straight Talk 22 January 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
The code word used by the left to attack Ashcroft's personal politics is extreme, which is repeated like a drumbeat until it is embedded in the minds of the public. We are told his views on abortion are extreme because he "opposes a women's right to choose," despite the utter lack of any such right in the Constitution, and despite the agreement of millions of Americans with Mr. Ashcroft. We are told he is extreme because he opposes some gun control laws, despite the obvious unconstitutionally of all gun control laws. We are told his support for the death penalty is extreme, although millions of Americans and the Supreme Court disagree. Worst of all, the left has gotten away with using "extreme" as a code word for "racist." The exceedingly thin "evidence" given for the racism allegation is that Ashcroft once voted against the nomination of a federal judge who happened to be black. Never mind that more than 50 other Senators voted with Ashcroft; the left is all to eager to assure us that the only conceivable rationale is that Ashcroft is a racist. This type of smearing, aided and abetted by a complicit media, is at the heart of the left's efforts to demonize conservatives who dare oppose their unconstitutional agenda.
Supreme Court
IRS Church Seizure is a Tragedy for Religious Liberty
26 February 2001 Texas Straight Talk 26 February 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
February 13th marked a sad day for religious liberty in America, as the federal government took the unprecedented step of seizing a church to satisfy an alleged tax debt. Armed federal marshals forcibly removed parishioners and clergy from the Indianapolis Baptist Temple (IBT), bringing an end to years of legal challenges that ended with the Supreme Court refusing to hear an IBT appeal.
Supreme Court
The Fight for Medical Privacy Continues in Washington
26 March 2001 Texas Straight Talk 26 March 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
Medical privacy advocates enjoyed a victory last week when the Supreme Court ruled that a government hospital in South Carolina violated the constitutional rights of pregnant women by testing them for drugs without their consent. The hospital ostensibly began the testing program because of concerns about increasing cocaine use by pregnant patients, but if the hospital was concerned only with patient and fetus health, why were test results turned over to law enforcement? Several women were arrested and put in jail because of the tests, with their newborns presumably taken away to become wards of the state. Not surprisingly, the rationale for this terrible violation of doctor-patient confidentiality was the drug war. The real tragedy of this case is that it may cause pregnant women to conceal illegal drug use from their doctors out of fear of arrest. How many babies will be misdiagnosed or go untreated because their mothers no longer have any medical privacy?
Supreme Court
The Fight for Medical Privacy Continues in Washington
26 March 2001 Texas Straight Talk 26 March 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
Fortunately, the Supreme Court upheld the Fourth amendment in ruling against the hospital. The drug war has been used for too long as an excuse for unconstitutional actions by government. The Fourth and Fifth amendment prohibitions against unreasonable searches and compelled testimony routinely are ignored by legislators, law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, and especially federal agencies. As a result, all Americans have suffered the loss of liberties guaranteed to them in the Bill of Rights.
Supreme Court
"Campaign Finance Reform" Serves Entrenched Interests in Washington
09 April 2001 Texas Straight Talk 09 April 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
The liberal mainstream media also benefit from campaign finance restrictions. When lobbies and individuals are limited in what they can give to campaigns and political parties, they instead will spend money on advertisements during election seasons. Media outlets relish the prospect of increased ad revenue. Although the McCain bill places restrictions just prior to elections on issue ads, which only implicitly support one party or candidate, the media know they will sell even more ads before the restriction period starts. Since the issue ad restrictions raise First amendment questions, the media also know that the Supreme Court likely will forbid such restrictions as unconstitutional. The end result is that mainstream media organizations will have more money and influence than ever before. The media will impact the outcomes of elections even more than they do today.
Supreme Court
Respect for Life begins with Respect for the Constitutional Rule of Law
30 April 2001 Texas Straight Talk 30 April 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
As a pro-life obstetrician-gynecologist, I am steadfastly opposed to abortion. I strongly believe that a fetus is a human life, and that a fetus deserves the same legal protections afforded to all Americans. I also believe that the Roe v. Wade decision will prove to be the most flawed Supreme Court ruling of the 20th century. There is no real or imagined "right to abortion" in the Constitution under any serious interpretation of that document. The Supreme Court simply created a nonexistent constitutional right out of thin air to serve the political agenda of the justices.
Supreme Court
Respect for Life begins with Respect for the Constitutional Rule of Law
30 April 2001 Texas Straight Talk 30 April 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
Political expediency is never an excuse for ignoring the Constitution. The Supreme Court did so in Roe v. Wade, with tragic consequences. The states are now unable to enact laws to protect the weakest, smallest, and most innocent human lives. A society that does not respect life cannot be expected to respect liberty. Our goal must be to restore respect for the Constitution and states' rights. Only then can states properly restore respect for unborn life by criminalizing the act of abortion.
Supreme Court
The Case Against the Income Tax
07 May 2001 Texas Straight Talk 07 May 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
Could America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of its history. Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker's paycheck. In the late 1800s, when Congress first attempted to impose an income tax, the notion of taxing a citizen's hard work was considered radical! Public outcry ensued; more importantly, the Supreme Court ruled the income tax unconstitutional. Only with passage of the 16th Amendment did Congress gain the ability to tax the productive endeavors of its citizens.
Supreme Court
Religious Liberty Thwarted by the Supreme Court
04 June 2001 Texas Straight Talk 04 June 2001 verse 2 ... Cached
Religious Liberty Thwarted by the Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Religious Liberty Thwarted by the Supreme Court
04 June 2001 Texas Straight Talk 04 June 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
Last week, a divided Supreme Court declined to hear a potentially landmark case that has tremendous significance to religious believers in this country. The small town of Elkhart, Indiana, has a granite stone inscribed with the Ten Commandments in front of a city building. Predictably, the ACLU brought a lawsuit against the city seeking to have the decades-old stone removed. City officials fought the case in federal court, but lost at the appellate level. Although Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas disagreed, the Supreme Court decided not to hear the case and let the ruling stand. The fate of the stone now lies with a lower federal judge, who undoubtedly will order it removed despite the wishes of Elkhart city officials and local residents. Ironically, the same Ten Commandments deemed so objectionable by the ACLU are depicted in the very Supreme Court building where the decision not to consider the Elkhart case was made! How tragic that our courts have accepted the myth that religious beliefs cannot be represented in any public setting, even when religious symbolism adorns courthouses across the country.
Supreme Court
Religious Liberty Thwarted by the Supreme Court
04 June 2001 Texas Straight Talk 04 June 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
The First amendment (or any other constitutional provision) must be strictly construed to reflect the intent of the Founding Fathers. The language is clear- Congress simply is prohibited from passing laws establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. There certainly is no mention of any "separation of church and state", although Supreme Court jurisprudence over the decades constantly asserts this mystical doctrine. Sadly, the application of this faulty doctrine by judges and lawmakers consistently results in violations of the free exercise clause. Rulings and laws separating citizens from their religious beliefs in all public settings simply restrict religious practices. Our Founders clearly never intended an America where citizens nonsensically are forced to disregard their deeply held beliefs in public life. The religious freedom required by the Constitution should not end the moment one enters a school, courtroom, or city hall.
Supreme Court
Religious Liberty Thwarted by the Supreme Court
04 June 2001 Texas Straight Talk 04 June 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
The Supreme Court also has ignored the obvious point that the amendment applies only to Congress, and not to the states. This means that while the federal government cannot pass laws restricting religion or use federal funds to give preference to one religion over another, state and local governments retain the right under the 10th Amendment to set their own policies regarding religious expression. The Elkhart case is a classic example of the courts ignoring this fundamental distinction between federal and local action. Bluntly, the use of Elkhart city government property is none of the federal government's business. Yet respect for state rights and enumerated powers, not to mention the property rights of the citizens of Elkhart, is nonexistent in our federal courts. The unchallenged assumption is that the federal courts have jurisdiction over all religious matters.
Supreme Court
Religious Liberty Thwarted by the Supreme Court
04 June 2001 Texas Straight Talk 04 June 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
The sad result of this misinterpretation of the Constitution is a legal and political landscape which is unnecessarily hostile to religion. Popular culture and media mirror this hostility in their inaccurate and unflattering portrayals of religious conservatives and fundamentalists. The message is always the same: conservatives want to force their religious beliefs upon society. The truth is that secular humanists have forced their beliefs upon a largely religious nation. In schools, in government, and in the courts, secular values dominate. Secularism, wrongly characterized as neutral toward religious faith, has become the default philosophy for our society. The Supreme Court, by refusing to consider the Elkhart case, has furthered the cause of those who wish to see religion eliminated from American life.
Supreme Court
The Voucher Debate and the Failure of Public Education
25 February 2002 Texas Straight Talk 25 February 2002 verse 3 ... Cached
The Supreme Court heard arguments last week in the now- infamous Cleveland school vouchers case. At issue, at least in the Cleveland case, is whether publicly-funded vouchers can be used by children attending private and parochial schools. While the court will focus on the tenuous argument that a "separation of church and state" renders vouchers unconstitutional, the larger issue for all of us is whether the federal education system needs to be scrapped. After all, if centralized Washington control of education was working, parents wouldn’t be clamoring for vouchers in the first place.
Supreme Court
The Voucher Debate and the Failure of Public Education
25 February 2002 Texas Straight Talk 25 February 2002 verse 7 ... Cached
The Supreme Court, like Congress, should simply follow the Constitution. The Constitution allows states and local governments to decide for themselves whether to have a voucher program. It does not, however, allow the federal government to fund, regulate, or control those voucher programs. The emphasis on local control established in the Constitution is especially important when it comes to education, and it is no coincidence that our schools have declined as federal control has increased. It’s time to end the 40-year Washington stranglehold on education by returning control -which means returning tax dollars- to parents and local school systems. The best immediate approach is to give parents a federal tax credit for amounts spent on education. Ultimately, however, we can only resurrect our public schools by following the Constitution and ending the federal education monopoly.
Supreme Court
President Bush Delivers Victory over UN Court!
13 May 2002 Texas Straight Talk 13 May 2002 verse 3 ... Cached
The American people won a great victory last week in the ongoing battle to preserve our national sovereignty. On Monday, the administration formally announced President Bush’s bold decision to withdraw the United States from the UN International Criminal Court (ICC) treaty. UN bureaucrats have been working quietly for several years to create the ICC, with the ultimate goal of installing an international tribunal that claims jurisdiction over every human on the planet- and judicial supremacy over our own Supreme Court. Given the steady progress of ICC planners to date in convincing about 60 nations to ratify the treaty, the American withdrawal represents a stunning setback for those intent on establishing an international legal system that undermines our Constitution- and a rare but important triumph for American national interests.
Supreme Court
President Bush Delivers Victory over UN Court!
13 May 2002 Texas Straight Talk 13 May 2002 verse 6 ... Cached
We must reassert that the Supreme Court is the court of highest authority for our nation, and that every American citizen enjoys protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. President Bush gave notice to the international community last week that the United States will not participate in a global court that undermines the checks and balances of our Constitution. He deserves our praise and our support for bravely standing against the ICC and against UN bureaucrats who have so little regard for our laws. Congress should follow his lead and respect the Constitution by refusing to send even one penny of taxpayer funds to the ICC bureaucrats.
Supreme Court
Independence from England, Dependence on Washington?
07 July 2003 Texas Straight Talk 07 July 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
Today some Americans, including many members of Congress, view both the Constitution and our Founders as quaint anachronisms at best. Times have changed, they argue, and we hardly should be bound by rules established by a bunch of dead white men who could not possibly understand our modern society. The Constitution is relevant only if it “evolves” to allow for new realities, and the federal government certainly should not be constrained by outdated notions about its proper role. This viewpoint steadily gained acceptance throughout the 20th century, exemplified by the blatantly unconstitutional New Deal and Great Society programs, Supreme Court activism, the virtual abolition of states rights, and uncontrolled growth of the federal government.
Supreme Court
Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution
11 August 2003 Texas Straight Talk 11 August 2003 verse 4 ... Cached
Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights- rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.
Supreme Court
Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution
11 August 2003 Texas Straight Talk 11 August 2003 verse 7 ... Cached
The political left increasingly uses the federal judiciary to do in court what it cannot do at the ballot box: advance an activist, secular, multicultural political agenda of which most Americans disapprove. This is why federal legal precedents in so many areas do not reflect the consensus of either federal or state legislators. Whether it’s gun rights, abortion, taxes, racial quotas, environmental regulations, gay marriage, or religion, federal jurists are way out of touch with the American people. As a society we should reconsider the wisdom of lifetime tenure for federal judges, while Congress and the President should remember that the Supreme Court is supreme only over other federal courts- not over the other branches of government. It’s time for the executive and legislative branches to show some backbone, appoint judges who follow the Constitution, and remove those who do not.
Supreme Court
GOP Abandons Conservatives
01 December 2003 Texas Straight Talk 01 December 2003 verse 7 ... Cached
At what point will conservatives stop accepting these excuses? When does the conservative base of the GOP, a base that remains firmly committed to the principle of limited government, finally demand new leadership and a return to conservative values? Will conservatives abandon the party when they realize the GOP, at least under its current leadership, is simply not interested in reducing the size and scope of the federal government? With Republicans controlling the administration and the legislature, and nominally controlling the Supreme Court, the party has run out of other people to blame. One thing is certain: Republicans who support bigger entitlement programs and bigger federal budgets have lost all credibility as advocates for limited government.
Supreme Court
"Campaign Finance Reform" Muzzles Political Dissent
22 December 2003 Texas Straight Talk 22 December 2003 verse 3 ... Cached
In a devastating blow to political speech, the Supreme Court recently upheld most of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill passed by Congress last year. The legislation will do nothing to curb special interest power or reduce corruption in Washington, but it will make it harder for average Americans to influence government. “Campaign finance reform” really means the bright-line standard of free speech has been replaced by a murky set of regulations and restrictions that will muzzle political dissent and protect incumbents. Justice Scalia correctly accuses the Court of supporting a law “That cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government…This is a sad day for freedom of speech.”
Supreme Court
Gay Marriage Quicksand
01 March 2004 Texas Straight Talk 01 March 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
But the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, explicitly authorizes states to refuse to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. Furthermore, the Supreme Court repeatedly has interpreted the Full Faith and Credit clause to allow Congress to limit the effect of state laws on other states. In fact, federal courts almost universally apply the clause only to state court judgments, not statutes. So a constitutional amendment is not necessary to address the issue of gay marriage, and will only drive yet another nail into the coffin of federalism. If we turn regulation of even domestic family relations over to the federal government, presumably anything can be federalized.
Supreme Court
Gay Marriage Quicksand
01 March 2004 Texas Straight Talk 01 March 2004 verse 7 ... Cached
The choices are not limited to either banning gay marriage at the federal level, or giving up and accepting it as inevitable. A far better approach, rarely discussed, is for Congress to exercise its existing constitutional power to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts. Congress could statutorily remove whole issues like gay marriage from the federal judiciary, striking a blow against judicial tyranny and restoring some degree of states’ rights. We seem to have forgotten that the Supreme Court is supreme only over lower federal courts; it is not supreme over the other branches of government. The judiciary is co-equal under our federal system, but too often it serves as an unelected, unaccountable legislature.
Supreme Court
Whose Justice?
12 April 2004 Texas Straight Talk 12 April 2004 verse 2 ... Cached
Judicial activism, the practice of judges ignoring the law and deciding cases based on their personal political views, has been a problem in America since well before the Supreme Court invented a right to abortion in Roe v. Wade. Many federal judges have become de facto legislators in recent decades, substituting their self-presumed wisdom for the will of Congress. In the process, the American people have lost more and more power to influence the laws under which they must live.
Supreme Court
Whose Justice?
12 April 2004 Texas Straight Talk 12 April 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
As Robert Bork explains, six of the nine Supreme Court justices have either written or joined opinions that favorably cited foreign authorities. These justices have considered the European Court of Human Rights, various United Nations conventions, international human rights treaties, and even judicial decisions from India, Jamaica, and Zimbabwe when writing their opinions! Simply put, these justices are making the incredible argument that American federal courts should consider sources other than US law when deciding cases. In the words of one justice, the Court “cannot afford to ignore the rest of the world.”
Supreme Court
Whose Justice?
12 April 2004 Texas Straight Talk 12 April 2004 verse 7 ... Cached
The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land in America. Congress needs to exercise its constitutional power over federal courts and send judges a strong message that Americans will be governed by American law only. I recently introduced legislation that forbids the Supreme Court and lower federal courts from citing any foreign or international laws, rules, policies, or court decisions as authority for their opinions. Federal judges take an oath of office promising to decide cases in accordance with the Constitution and US federal law. Those judges who insist on considering foreign law and foreign opinions should be removed from their positions for violating that oath, pure and simple. Justice Scalia warns that “Day by day, case by case, the Court is busy designing a Constitution for a country I do not recognize.” Congress needs to act quickly before Mr. Scalia’s fears are fully realized.
Supreme Court
Resisting Judicial Tyranny
26 July 2004 Texas Straight Talk 26 July 2004 verse 3 ... Cached
Americans need to better understand the role of federal courts. The Supreme Court is supreme only over the lower federal courts; it is not supreme over the other branches of government. The judicial branch is co-equal under our federal system, nothing more and nothing less. Yet we’ve allowed federal judges to pursue a social agenda that is at odds with a majority of Americans, in essence converting our courthouses into legislatures. In the process average people have lost even more power to affect the laws under which they must live.
Supreme Court
The Imperial Judiciary
04 October 2004 Texas Straight Talk 04 October 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
But what is to be done? Since many citizens lack basic knowledge of our Constitution and federalist system, they are easily manipulated by media and academic elites who tell them that judges are the absolute and final arbiters of US law. But the Supreme Court is not supreme over the other branches of government; it is supreme only over lower federal courts. If Americans wish to be free of judicial tyranny, they must at least develop basic knowledge of the judicial role in our republican government. The present state of affairs is a direct result of our collective ignorance.
Supreme Court
Lessons from the Kelo Decision
04 July 2005 Texas Straight Talk 04 July 2005 verse 3 ... Cached
One week after the Kelo decision by the Supreme Court, Americans are still reeling from the shock of having our nation’s highest tribunal endorse using government power to condemn private homes to benefit a property developer. Even as we celebrate our independence from England this July 4th, we find ourselves increasingly enslaved by petty bureaucrats at every level of government. The anger engendered by the Kelo case certainly resonates on this holiday based on rebellion against government.
Supreme Court
Lessons from the Kelo Decision
04 July 2005 Texas Straight Talk 04 July 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
It is folly to believe we will regain lost freedoms if only the right individuals are appointed to the Supreme Court. Republican presidents, including conservative icon Ronald Reagan, have appointed some of our very worst Supreme Court Justices. In today’s political context, it frankly matters very little whom President Bush appoints to replace Justice O’Connor. Even the most promising jurist can change radically over the course of a lifetime appointment. We are supposed to be a nation of laws, not men, and the fixation on individuals as saviors of our freedoms is misplaced. America will regain lost freedoms only when her citizens wake up and reclaim a national sense of self-reliance, individualism, and limited government. A handful of judges cannot save a nation from itself.
Supreme Court
Lessons from the Kelo Decision
04 July 2005 Texas Straight Talk 04 July 2005 verse 8 ... Cached
If anything, the Supreme Court should have refused to hear the Kelo case on the grounds that the 5th amendment does not apply to states. If constitutional purists hope to maintain credibility, we must reject the phony incorporation doctrine in all cases-- not only when it serves our interests. The issue in the Kelo case is the legality of the eminent domain action under Connecticut law, not federal law. Congress can and should act to prevent the federal government from seizing private property, but the fight against local eminent domain actions must take place at the local level. The people of New London, Connecticut could start by removing from office the local officials who created the problem in the first place.
Supreme Court
Politics and Judicial Activism
15 August 2005 Texas Straight Talk 15 August 2005 verse 3 ... Cached
The nomination of Judge John Roberts to sit on the Supreme Court has reopened a bitter cultural divide in America, and the Senate confirmation hearings in September may exhibit more of the partisan rancor that characterized the Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas hearings.
Supreme Court
Politics and Judicial Activism
15 August 2005 Texas Straight Talk 15 August 2005 verse 4 ... Cached
It’s sad that so many Americans see their freedoms as dependent on a single Supreme Court justice. Federal judges were never meant to wield the tremendous power that they do in modern America. Our Founders would find it inconceivable that a handful of unelected, unaccountable federal judges can decide social policy for the entire nation.
Supreme Court
Politics and Judicial Activism
15 August 2005 Texas Straight Talk 15 August 2005 verse 9 ... Cached
The public also plays a role in the erosion of our judiciary. Since many citizens lack basic knowledge of our Constitution and federalist system, they are easily manipulated by media and academic elites who tell them that judges are the absolute and final arbiters of US law. But the Supreme Court is not supreme over the other branches of government; it is supreme only over lower federal courts. If Americans wish to be free of judicial tyranny, they must at least develop basic knowledge of the judicial role in our republican government. The present state of affairs is a direct result of our collective ignorance.
Supreme Court
Our Political Federal Courts
10 October 2005 Texas Straight Talk 10 October 2005 verse 3 ... Cached
The nomination of White House lawyer Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court has raised questions about her qualifications and political ideology. Conservatives and liberals alike fear that Ms. Miers will not represent their views, and will rule on issues in ways that harm our nation. But clearly we are not asking the right questions about Supreme Court nominees. The issue is not how candidates intend to wield judicial power, but rather whether they understand that the Constitution imposes limits on that power in the first place. We are guilty of permitting our federal courts to become politicized, when the proper role of those courts is to protect us from the very abuses that arise from politics.
Supreme Court
Our Political Federal Courts
10 October 2005 Texas Straight Talk 10 October 2005 verse 5 ... Cached
The bitterness and controversy that often surround the nomination of Supreme Court justices in recent decades makes perfect sense when we consider the lawmaking and lawbreaking power that activist federal courts possess. Federal courts in general, and the Supreme Court in particular, have long since ceased serving as referees who guard against government overreaching. Instead they have become unelected, unaccountable purveyors of social policy for the entire nation. Bitter partisan fights over Supreme Court nominees are inevitable simply because so much is at stake.
Supreme Court
Our Political Federal Courts
10 October 2005 Texas Straight Talk 10 October 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
It seems that schoolchildren once knew far more about the Constitution than many adults do today. Yet we cannot hold intelligent opinions about Supreme Court nominees unless we understand this basic constitutional framework. It is therefore incumbent upon every American to read the text of the Constitution, study the history of its drafting and ratification, and consider whether federal judicial nominees will properly abide by their originally intended roles.
Supreme Court
Federal Courts and the Growth of Government Power
16 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 16 January 2006 verse 3 ... Cached
The Senate hearings regarding the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court demonstrated that few in Washington view the Constitution as our founders did. The Constitution first and foremost is a document that limits the power of the federal government. It prevents the president, Congress, and the Supreme Court from doing all kinds of things. But judging by last week's hearings, the Constitution is an enabling document, one that authorizes the federal government to involve itself in nearly every aspect of our lives.
Supreme Court
Federal Courts and the Growth of Government Power
16 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 16 January 2006 verse 4 ... Cached
The only controversy, it seems, is whether the current nominee will favor the power of one branch over another, or the preferences of one political party over another. Last week's hearings were purely political, because the role of Supreme Court justices has become increasingly political.
Supreme Court
Federal Courts and the Growth of Government Power
16 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 16 January 2006 verse 5 ... Cached
Nearly all of the Senators, witnesses, and Judge Alito himself spoke repeatedly about the importance of respecting Supreme Court precedents. The clear implication is that we must equate Supreme Court decisions with the text of the Constitution itself, giving them equal legal weight. But what if some precedents are bad? Should the American people be forced to live with unpopular judicial "laws" forever? The Constitution itself can be amended; are we to accept that Supreme Court rulings are written in stone?
Supreme Court
Federal Courts and the Growth of Government Power
16 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 16 January 2006 verse 6 ... Cached
Also troubling was the apparent consensus among both the Senators and Judge Alito that Congress has no authority to limit federal court jurisdiction by forbidding it to hear certain types of cases. This is completely false: Article III Section 2 of the Constitution plainly grants Congress the authority to limit federal court jurisdiction in many kinds of cases. It is perfectly constitutional for Congress to pass court-stripping legislation to reflect public sentiment against an overreaching Supreme Court.
Supreme Court
Federal Courts and the Growth of Government Power
16 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 16 January 2006 verse 8 ... Cached
First, Supreme Court decisions are the absolute law of the land, equal in weight to the text of the Constitution itself. Supreme Court precedents should never be changed, and all nominees to the Court must accept them as settled law or be disqualified.
Supreme Court
Federal Courts and the Growth of Government Power
16 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 16 January 2006 verse 9 ... Cached
Second, if the American people don't like any of the "laws" created by the Supreme Court, they have no choice but to live with them unless by some miracle the Court later overturns itself. The people have no recourse through Congress to address unpopular Court decisions.
Supreme Court
Federal Courts and the Growth of Government Power
16 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 16 January 2006 verse 10 ... Cached
The ramifications of these assertions are very serious. They mean the Supreme Court not only can invalidate the actions of Congress or the President, but also craft de facto laws that cannot be undone by the people's elected legislators! This is wildly beyond the role of the federal judiciary as envisioned by the founders. They certainly never intended to create an unelected, lifetime-tenured, superlegislature.
Supreme Court
Federalizing Social Policy
30 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 30 January 2006 verse 3 ... Cached
As the Senate prepares to vote on the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito this week, our nation once again finds itself bitterly divided over the issue of abortion. It's a sad spectacle, especially considering that our founders never intended for social policy to be decided at the federal level, and certainly not by federal courts. It's equally sad to consider that huge numbers of Americans believe their freedoms hinge on any one individual, Supreme Court justice or not.
Supreme Court
Federalizing Social Policy
30 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 30 January 2006 verse 4 ... Cached
Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion. There is no serious argument based on the text of the Constitution itself that a federal "right to abortion" exists. The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court.
Supreme Court
Federalizing Social Policy
30 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 30 January 2006 verse 8 ... Cached
Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade all 300 million Americans to agree with us. A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person. For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded society. No Supreme Court ruling by itself can instill greater respect for life. And no Supreme Court justice can save our freedoms if we don't fight for them ourselves.
Supreme Court
The Real Washington Scandal
06 February 2006 Texas Straight Talk 06 February 2006 verse 3 ... Cached
Supreme Court nominations, congressional ethics scandals, and insider politics dominated the Washington headlines in recent weeks. But perhaps the most important story, in terms of its impact on average Americans, has gone virtually unreported.
Supreme Court
Elected Officials Threaten Property Rights
04 September 2006 Texas Straight Talk 04 September 2006 verse 5 ... Cached
Now one year removed from the notorious Kelo decision by the Supreme Court, Americans are still reeling from the shock of having our nation's highest tribunal endorse using government power to condemn private homes to benefit a property developer. The silver lining, however, is that many Americans have been stirred to action and are demanding new state laws to prohibit the Kelo scenario from repeating itself in their cities.
Supreme Court
The DC Gun Ban
12 March 2007 Texas Straight Talk 12 March 2007 verse 4 ... Cached
Of course we should not have too much faith in our federal courts to protect gun rights, considering they routinely rubber stamp egregious violations of the 1 st, 4th, and 5th Amendments, and allow Congress to legislate wildly outside the bounds of its enumerated powers. Furthermore, the DC case will be appealed to the Supreme Court with no guarantees. But it is very important nonetheless for a federal court only one step below the highest court in the land to recognize that gun rights adhere to the American people, not to government-sanctioned groups. Rights, by definition, are individual. "Group rights" is an oxymoron.
Supreme Court
The Sunlight Rule
16 September 2007 Texas Straight Talk 16 September 2007 verse 2 ... Cached
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously said “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” Indeed some of the most malignant growth of our government has been nurtured under a cover of darkness.
Supreme Court
Entangling Alliances
11 November 2007 Texas Straight Talk 11 November 2007 verse 2 ... Cached
In the name of clamping down on "terrorist uprisings" in Pakistan, General Musharraf has declared a state of emergency and imposed martial law. The true motivations behind this action however, are astonishingly transparent, as the reports come in that mainly lawyers and opposition party members are being arrested and harassed. Supreme Court justices are held in house arrest after indicating some reluctance to certify the legitimacy of Musharraf's recent re-election.
Supreme Court
Entangling Alliances
11 November 2007 Texas Straight Talk 11 November 2007 verse 5 ... Cached
By the time he complies with the requests of the White House sufficiently to continue to receive his "allowance," courtesy of the American taxpayer, his mission will be accomplished. A more friendly Supreme Court will be installed and enough of the opposition party will be jailed or detained to assure an outcome of the elections that will meet with his approval. All the while, our administration lauds Musharraf as a trusted friend and ally.
Supreme Court
On Foreign Entanglements: The Ties that Strangle
30 December 2007 Texas Straight Talk 30 December 2007 verse 4 ... Cached
Musharraf, unfortunately, appears to have learned how to work our system, much in the way a career welfare recipient has learned to do the same. The perpetual welfare recipient promises to look for a job. Musharraf has promised to look for Bin Laden. Both are terrible investments of American taxpayer dollars, however with Musharraf, its been an astonishing $10 billion loss over the last few years. But it is even worse than that. With his recent actions declaring martial law, and dismissing the justices of the supreme court, he is to the rest of the world, and to Pakistanis, a wildly unpopular, power hungry, brutal military dictator. The perception by most is that we are propping him up while simultaneously urging Ms. Bhutto back into Pakistan as a lamb to the slaughter.
Supreme Court
Second Amendment Battle in DC
10 February 2008 Texas Straight Talk 10 February 2008 verse 4 ... Cached
Ironically, one of the most draconian gun laws in the nation is in the nation's capital. Banning guns did not make DC safer. In fact crime in DC rose after the gun ban went into place! Fortunately, last year, a federal court struck down DC's gun ban in the case of DC v. Heller. This is the first time in years a court found a gun control law violated the second amendment. However, victory is not secured. The city of DC has appealed and the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case. If the lower court's decision is upheld, law abiding citizens should once again be allowed to defend themselves in DC and I would expect it to become a much safer city. It would also set a very positive precedent that could affect gun laws all over the country.
Supreme Court
Second Amendment Battle in DC
10 February 2008 Texas Straight Talk 10 February 2008 verse 5 ... Cached
However, a Supreme Court decision that the District of Columbia 's gun laws are a "reasonable" infringement on constitutional rights could severely setback the gun rights movement.
Supreme Court
Second Amendment Battle in DC
10 February 2008 Texas Straight Talk 10 February 2008 verse 6 ... Cached
This is why I have signed on to a brief headed by Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and signed by a majority of Congress asking the Supreme Court to uphold the lower court's decision and take a stand for stricter standards of constitutional review for gun laws. I am pleased to work with Senator Hutchison, and so many of my other colleagues, on this important issue. As a member of the Second Amendment Caucus, I will continue to work with those of my colleagues who support gun rights and grassroots activists to defend the Second Amendment Rights of Americans.
Texas Straight Talk from 20 December 1996 to 23 June 2008 (573 editions) are included in this Concordance. Texas Straight Talk after 23 June 2008 is in blog form on Rep. Paul’s Congressional website and is not included in this Concordance.
Remember, not everything in the concordance is Ron Paul’s words. Some things he quoted, and he added some newspaper and magazine articles to the Congressional Record. Check the original speech to see.