2000 Ron Paul 63:1
Madam Speaker, I
rise to address two shortcomings of S. Con. Res. 129. I am certainly in
agreement with the sentiments behind this resolution. The promotion of
knowledge about, and understanding of, American history are among the
most important activities those who wish to preserve American liberty
can undertake. In fact, I would venture to say that with my work with
various educational organizations, I have done as much, if not more,
than any other member of Congress to promote the study of American
history.
2000 Ron Paul 63:2
Unfortunately,
while I
strongly support efforts to increase the American publics knowledge of
history, I cannot support a resolution claiming to encourage Americans
to embrace their constitutional heritage, while its very language
showcases a fundamental misunderstanding of the beliefs of Americas
founders and the drafters of the United States Constitution. Popular
acceptance of this misunderstanding of the founders thought is much
more dangerous to American liberty than an inability to name the exact
date of the Battle at Bunker Hill.
2000 Ron Paul 63:3
In particular, the
resolution
refers to American democracy and the democratic principles upon
which this country was founded. However, this country was founded not
as a democracy but as a constitutional republic. Madam Speaker, the
distinction between a democracy and a republic is more than just a
matter of semantics. The fundamental principle in a democracy is
majority rule. Democracies, unlike republics, do not recognize
fundamental rights of citizens (outside the right to vote) nor do they
limit the power of the government. Indeed, such limitations are often
scored as intrusions on the will of the majority. Thus in a
democracy, the majority, or their elected representatives, can limit an
individuals right to free speech, defend oneself, form contracts, or
even raise ones children. Democracies recognize only one fundamental
right: the right to participate in the choosing of their rulers at a
pre-determined time.
2000 Ron Paul 63:4
In contrast, in a
republic,
the role of government is strictly limited to a few well-defined
functions and the fundamental rights of individuals are respected. A
constitution limiting the authority of central government and a Bill of
Rights expressly forbidding the federal government from abridging the
fundamental rights of a people are features of a republican form of
government. Even a cursory reading of the Federalist Papers and other
works of the founders shows they understood that obtaining the consent
of 51 percent of the people does not in any way legitimize government
actions abridging individual liberty.
2000 Ron Paul 63:5
Madam Speaker, the
confusion
over whether America is a democracy, where citizens rights may be
violated if the consent of 51 percent of the people may be obtained, or
a republic, where the federal government is forbidden to take any
actions violating a peoples fundamental rights, is behind many of the
flawed debates in this Congress. A constitutionally literate Congress
that understands the proper function of a legislature in a
constitutional republic would never even debate whether or not to
abridge the right of self-defense, instruct parents how to raise and
educate their children, send troops to intervene in distant foreign
quarrels that do not involve the security of the country, or even deny
entire classes of citizens the fundamental right to life.
2000 Ron Paul 63:6
Secondly, it is not
the
proper role of the United States Congress to dictate educational tenets
to states and local governments. After all, the United States
Constitution does not give the federal government any power to dictate,
or even suggest, curriculum. Instead the power to determine what is
taught in schools is reserved to states, local communities, and, above
all, parents.
2000 Ron Paul 63:7
In conclusion, by
mistaking
this countrys founding as being based on mass democracy rather than on
republican principles, and by ignoring the constitutionally limited
role of the federal government, this resolution promotes
misunderstanding about the type of government necessary to protect
liberty. Such constitutional illiteracy may be more dangerous than
historical ignorance, since the belief that America was founded to be a
democracy legitimizes the idea that Congress may violate peoples
fundamental rights at will. I, therefore, encourage my colleagues to
embrace Americas true heritage: a constitutional republic with strict
limitations on the power of the central government.
This chapter appeared in Ron Pauls Congressional website at http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr071000.htm