1998 Ron Paul 50:1
Mr. PAUL.
Mr. Speaker, today the Congress
will collectively move our nation two steps
closer to a national police state by further expanding
a federal crime and paving the way
for a deluge of federal drug prohibition legislation. Of course, it is much easier to ride the
current wave of federalizing every human misdeed
in the name of saving the world from
some evil than to uphold a Constitutional oath
which prescribes a procedural structure by
which the nation is protected from what is perhaps
the worst evil, totalitarianism. Who, after
all, and especially in an election year, wants to
be amongst those members of Congress who
are portrayed as soft on drugs or deadbeat
parents irrespective of the procedural transgressions
and individual or civil liberties one
tramples in their zealous approach.
1998 Ron Paul 50:2
Our federal government is, constitutionally,
a government of limited powers. Article one,
Section eight, enumerates the legislative areas
for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act
or enact legislation. For every other issue, the
federal government lacks any authority or consent
of the governed and only the state governments
their designees, or the people in
their private market actions enjoy such rights
to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally
clear in stating
“The powers not delegated
to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved
to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Our nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit
the power of central government. No serious
reading of historical events surrounding the
creation of the Constitution could reasonably
portray it differently. Of course, there will be
those who will hang their constitutional “hats”
on the interstate commerce general welfare
clauses, both of which have been popular
“headgear” since the FDR’s headfirst plunge
into New Deal Socialism.
1998 Ron Paul 50:3
The interstate commerce clause, however,
was included to prevent states from engaging
in protectionism and mercantilist policies as
against other states. Those economists who
influenced the framers did an adequate job of
educating them as to the necessarily negative
consequences for consumers of embracing
such a policy. The clause was never intended
to give the federal government carte blanche
to intervene in private economic affairs anytime
some special interest could concoct a
“rational basis” for the enacting such legislation.
1998 Ron Paul 50:4
Likewise, while the general welfare provides
an additional condition upon each of the enumerated
powers of the U.S. Congress detailed
in Article I, Section eight, it does not, in itself,
provide any latitude for Congress to legislatively
take from A and give to B or ignore
every other government-limiting provision of
Constitution (of which there are many), each
of which are intended to limit the central government’s
encroachment on liberty.
1998 Ron Paul 50:5
Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional
limits, Congress today will likely
pass H. Res. 423 and H.R. 3811 under suspension
of the rules meaning, of course, they
are “non-controversial.” House Resolution 423
pledges the House to “pass legislation that
provides the weapons and tools necessary to
protect our children and our communities from
the dangers of drug addiction and violence”. Setting aside for the moment the practicality of
federal prohibition laws, an experiment which
failed miserably in the so-called “Progressive
era”, the threshold question must be: “under
what authority do we act?” There is, after all,
a reason why a Constitutional amendment
was required to empower the federal government
to share jurisdiction with the States in
fighting a war on a different drug (alcohol) —
without it, the federal government had no constitutional
authority. One must also ask, “if the
general welfare and commerce clause were all
the justification needed, why bother with the
tedious and time-consuming process of
amending the Constitution?” Whether any
governmental entity should be in the “business”
of protecting competent individuals
against themselves and their own perceived
stupidity is certainly debatable — Whether the
federal government is empowered to do so is
not. Being stupid or brilliant to one’s sole disadvantage
or advantage, respectively, is exactly
what liberty is all about.
1998 Ron Paul 50:6
Today’s second legislative step towards a
national police state can be found in H.R. 3811, the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act
of 1998. This bill enhances a federal criminal
felony law for those who fail to meet child support
obligations as imposed by the individual
states. Additionally, the bills shifts some of the
burden of proof from the federal government
to the accused. The United States Constitution
prohibits the federal government from depriving
a person of life, liberty, or property without
due process of law. Pursuant to this constitutional
provision, a criminal defendant is presumed
to be innocent of the crime charged
and, pursuant to what is often called “the
Winship doctrine,” the prosecution is allocated
the burden of persuading the fact-finder of
every fact necessary to constitute the
crime . . . charged.” The prosecution must carry
this burden because of the immense interests
at stake in a criminal prosecution, namely that
a conviction often results in the loss of liberty
or life (in this case, a sentence of up to two
years). This departure from the long held notion
of “innocent until proven guilty” alone
warrants opposition to this bill.
1998 Ron Paul 50:7
Perhaps, more dangerous is the loss of another
Constitutional protection which comes
with the passage of more and more federal
criminal legislation. Constitutionally, there are
only three federal crimes. These are treason
against the United States, piracy on the high
seas, and counterfeiting (and, as mentioned
above, for a short period of history, the manufacture,
sale, or transport of alcohol was concurrently
a federal and state crime). “Concurrent”
jurisdiction crimes, such as alcohol prohibition
in the past and federalization of felonious
child support delinquency today, erode
the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy.
1998 Ron Paul 50:8
The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution
specifies that no “person be subject
for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy
of life or limb . . .” In other words, no
person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the
high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that
being tried by both the federal government
and a state government for the same offense
did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding
the federal criminal justice code is that it seriously
increases the danger that one will be
subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal
correction of societal wrongs, a national police
force is neither prudent nor constitutional.
1998 Ron Paul 50:9
The argument which springs from the criticism
of a federalized criminal code and a federal
police force is that states may be less effective
than a centralized federal government
in dealing with those who leave one state jurisdiction
for another. Fortunately, the Constitution
provides for the procedural means for
preserving the integrity of state sovereignty
over those issues delegated to it via the tenth
amendment. The privilege and immunities
clause as well as full faith and credit clause
allow states to exact judgments from those
who violate their state laws. The Constitution
even allows the federal government to legislatively
preserve the procedural mechanisms
which allow states to enforce their substantive
laws without the federal government imposing
its substantive edicts on the states. Article IV,
Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the
rendition of fugitives from one state to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress
passed an act which did exactly this. There is,
of course, a cost imposed upon states in
working with one another than relying on a national,
unified police force. At the same time,
there is a greater cost to centralization of police
power.
1998 Ron Paul 50:10
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 — it is called competition
and, yes, governments must, for the
sake of the citizenry, be allowed to compete. We have obsessed so much over the notion of
“competition” in this country we harangue
someone like Bill Gates when, by offering superior
products to every other similarly-situated
entity, he becomes the dominant provider
of certain computer products. Rather than
allow someone who serves to provide values
as made obvious by their voluntary exchanges
in the free market, we lambaste efficiency and
economies of scale in the private marketplace. Yet, at the same time, we further centralize
government, the ultimate monopoly and one
empowered by force rather than voluntary exchange.
1998 Ron Paul 50:11
When small governments becomes too oppressive,
citizens can vote with their feet to a
“competing” jurisdiction. If, for example, I do
not want to be forced to pay taxes to prevent
a cancer patient from using medicinal marijuana
to provide relief from pain and nausea,
I can move to Arizona. If I want to bet on a
football game without the threat of government
intervention, I can move to Nevada. If I want
my income tax at 4% instead of 10%, I can
leave Washington, DC, for the surrounding
state suburbs. Is it any wonder that many productive
people leave DC and then commute in
on a daily basis? (For this, of course, DC will
try to enact a commuter tax which will further
alienate those who will then, to the extent possible,
relocate their workplace elsewhere). In
other words, governments pay a price (lost
revenue base) for their oppression.
1998 Ron Paul 50:12
As government becomes more and more
centralized, it becomes much more difficult to
vote with one’s feet to escape the relatively
more oppressive governments. Governmental
units must remain small with ample opportunity
for citizen mobility both to efficient governments
and away from those which tend to
be oppressive. Centralization of criminal law
makes such mobility less and less practical.
1998 Ron Paul 50:13
For each of these reasons, among others, I
must oppose the further and unconstitutional
centralization of power in the national government
and, accordingly, H. Res. 423 and H.R. 3811.
Notes:
1998 Ron Paul Chapter 50
The text of this chapter was inserted in CongressionalRecord as an extension of remarks, and was not spoken on the House floor.
1998 Ron Paul 50:2 only the state governments their designees, probably should have a comma after
governments. Compare with
1998 Ron Paul 77:9.
Similar language is found in
1999 Ron Paul 69:3.
1998 Ron Paul 50:2 the interstate commerce general welfare clauses probably should be
the Interstate Commerce and General Welfare clauses.
1998 Ron Paul 50:6 bills shifts probably should have been bill shifts.
Here the quotation marks are garbled in CongressionalRecord.
1998 Ron Paul 50:8 tenth amendment probably should have been capitalized: Tenth Amendment.
The privilege and immunities clause probably should have been The Privileges and Immunities Clause. The clause is found in Article IV of the Constitution of the United States.
full faith and credit clause probably should have been capitalized: Full Faith and Credit Clause. The clause is found in Article IV of the Constitution of the United States.
1998 Ron Paul 50:10 similarly-situated probably should be similarly situated (without a hyphen).
1998 Ron Paul 50:11 When small governments becomes probably should have been When small governments become.
