2002 Ron Paul 23:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, in the name of a
truly laudable cause (preventing abortion and
protecting parental rights), today the Congress
could potentially move our nation one step
closer to a national police state by further expanding
the list of federal crimes and usurping
power from the states to adequately address
the issue of parental rights and family law. Of
course, it is much easier to ride the current
wave of criminally federalizing all human malfeasance
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 carried out
by a centralized government. Who, after all,
wants to be amongst those members of Congress
who are portrayed as trampling parental
rights or supporting the transportation of minor
females across state lines for ignoble purposes.
2002 Ron Paul 23:2
As an obstetrician of more than thirty years,
I have personally delivered more than 4,000
children. During such time, I have not performed
a single abortion. On the contrary, I
have spoken and written extensively and publicly
condemning this “medical” procedure. At
the same time, I have remained committed to
upholding the constitutional procedural protections
which leave the police power decentralized
and in control of the states. In the name
of protecting states’ rights, this bill usurps
states’ rights by creating yet another federal
crime.
2002 Ron Paul 23:3
Our federal government is, constitutionally,
a government of limited powers, Article one,
Section eight, enumerates the legislative area
for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act
or enact legislation. For every other issues,
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.
2002 Ron Paul 23:4
Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional
limits, Congress today will likely
pass H.R. 476. H.R. 476 amends title 18, Untied
States Code, to prohibit taking minors
across State line to avoid laws requiring the
involvement of parents in abortion decisions.
Should parents be involved in decisions regarding
the health of their children? Absolutely.
Should the law respect parents rights to
not have their children taken across state lines
for contemptible purposes? Absolutely. Can a
state pass an enforceable statute to prohibit
taking minors across State lines to avoid laws
requiring the involvement of parents in abortion
decisions? Absolutely. But when asked if
there exists constitutional authority for the federal
criminalizing of just such an action the answer
is absolutely not.
2002 Ron Paul 23:5
This federalizing may have the effect of nationalizing
a law with criminal penalties which
may be less than those desired by some
states. To the extent the federal and state
laws could co-exist, the necessity for a federal
law is undermined and an important bill of
rights protection is virtually obliterated. Concurrent
jurisdiction crimes 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 the
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.
2002 Ron Paul 23:6
We have been reminded by both Chief Justice
William H. Rehnquist and former U.S. Attorney
General Ed Meese that more federal
crimes, while they make politicians feel good,
are neither constitutionally sound nor prudent.
Rehnquist has stated that “The trend to federalize
crimes that traditionally have been handled
in state courts . . . threatens to change
entirely the nature of our federal system.”
Meese stated that Congress’ tendency in recent
decades to make federal crimes out of offenses
that have historically been state matters
has dangerous implications both for the
fair administration of justice and for the principle
that states are something more than
mere administrative districts of a nation governed
mainly from Washington.
2002 Ron Paul 23:7
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 rather than relying
on a national, unified police force. At the same
time, there is a greater cost to state autonomy
and individual liberty from centralization of police
power.
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.
2002 Ron Paul 23:9
It is my erstwhile hope that parents will become
more involved in vigilantly monitoring
the activities of their own children rather than
shifting parental responsibility further upon the
federal government. There was a time when a
popular bumper sticker read “It’s ten o’clock;
do you know where your children are?” I suppose
we have devolved to the point where it
reads “It’s ten o’clock; does the federal government
know where your children are.” Further
socializing and burden-shifting of the responsibilities
of parenthood upon the federal
government is simply not creating the proper
incentive for parents to be more involved.
2002 Ron Paul 23:10
For each of these reasons, among others, I
must oppose the further and unconstitutional
centralization of police powers in the national
government and, accordingly, H.R. 476.
