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.
1999 Ron Paul 9:2 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 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 hand their constitutional “hats”
on the interstate commerce or general welfare
clauses, both of which have been popular
“headgear” since the plunge into New Deal
Socialism.
1999 Ron Paul 9:3 Perhaps, more dangerous is the loss of another
Constitutional protection which comes
with the passage of more and more federal
criminal legislation. Constitutionally, there are
only three federal crimes. These are treason
against the United States, piracy on the high
seas, and counterfeiting (and, as mentioned
above, for a short period of history, the manufacture,
sale, or transport of alcohol was concurrently
a federal and state crime). “Concurrent”
jurisdiction crimes, such as alcohol prohibition
in the past and eavesdropping today,
erode the right of citizens to be free of double
jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S.
Constitution specifies that no “person be subject
for the same offense to be twice put in
jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no
person shall be tried twice for the same offense.
However, in United States v. Lanza, the
high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that
being tried by both the federal government
and a state government for the same offense
did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy.
One danger of unconstitutionally expanding
the federal justice code is that it seriously increases
the danger that one will be subject to
being tried twice for the same crime. Despite
the various pleas for federal correction of societal
wrongs, a national police force is neither
prudent nor constitutional.
1999 Ron Paul 9:4 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. 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
rather than relying on a national, unified police
force. At the same time, there is a greater cost
to centralization of police power.
1999 Ron Paul 9:5 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 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.
1999 Ron Paul 9:6 As government becomes 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.
1999 Ron Paul 9:7 For each of these reasons, among others, I
must oppose the further and unconstitutional
centralization of police power in the national
government and, accordingly, H.R. 514.
Notes:
1999 Ron Paul 9:2
The tenth amendment probably should be capitalized: The Tenth Amendment.
1999 Ron Paul 9:2
those who will hand their constitutional “hats” probably should be
those who will hang their constitutional “hats” as it is rendered in
1998 Ron Paul 50:2
1999 Ron Paul 9:3
(and, as mentioned above, for a short period of history, the manufacture, sale, or transport of alcohol was concurrently a federal and state crime)
Here, Ron Paul is caught red-handed importing text from a previous statement, as there is no mention above of Prohibition. The text comes from
1998 Ron Paul 50:7 but Prohibition was mentioned earlier in that chapter, at
1998 Ron Paul 50:5.
