U.S. Rep. Ron Paul | commerce clause |
commerce clause
National Police State
12 May 1998 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.
commerce clause
National Police State
12 May 1998 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.
commerce clause
H.R. 1691 And Religious Freedom
15 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 74:2
Mr. Speaker, as a legislature of enumerated powers, Congress may enact laws only for constitutionally authorized purposes. Despite citing the general welfare and commerce clause, the purpose of H.R. 1691 is obviously to “protect religious liberty.” However, Congress has been granted no power to protect religious liberty. Rather, the first amendment is a limitation on congressional power. The first amendment of the United States Constitution provides that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, yet H.R. 1691 specifically prohibits the free exercise of religion because it authorizes a government to substantially burden a person’s free exercise if the government demonstrates some nondescript, compelling interest to do so.
commerce clause
H.R. 1691 And Religious Freedom
15 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 74:4
Nowhere does H.R. 1691 purport to enforce the provisions of the fourteenth amendment as applied to the States. Rather, its design imposes a national uniform standard of religious liberty protected beyond that allowed under the United States Constitution, thereby intruding upon the powers of the State to establish their own policies governing protection of religious liberty as preserved under the tenth amendment. The interstate commerce clause was never intended to be used to set such standards for the entire Nation.
commerce clause
Population Control
2 August 1999 1999 Ron Paul 84:6
Of course, the other clause that is generally used in our legislation is the interstate commerce clause. Well, it would be pretty tough, pretty tough, justifying passing out condoms in the various countries of the world under the interstate commerce clause.
commerce clause
No Neeed for Federal Animal Cruelty Laws
19 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 106:4
Now, if they want to use the interstate commerce clause, they should be reminded, up until this century at least, the interstate commerce clause was used in its original intent to open up trade between the States. It was never the excuse to regulate everything between the States. That is a 20th century distortion of the interstate commerce clause. So that is not even a real good excuse for this.
commerce clause
PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2000
April 5, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 26:6
Never in the Founders’ wildest dreams would they have believed that one day the interstate commerce clause, written to permit free trade among the States, would be used to curtail an act that was entirely under State jurisdiction. There is no interstate activity in an abortion. If there were, that activity would not be prohibited but, rather, protected by the original intent of the interstate commerce clause.
commerce clause
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 29:7
Even our Constitution was designed to make sure that there were not trade barriers, and this was what the interstate commerce clause was all about. Unfortunately though, in this century the interstate commerce clause has been taken and twisted around and is the excuse for regulating even trade within a State. Not only interstate trade, but even activities within a State has nothing to do with interstate trade. They use the interstate commerce clause as an excuse, which is a wild distortion of the original intent of the Constitution, but free trade among the States having a unified currency and breaking down the barriers certainly was a great benefit for the development and the industrialization of the United States.
commerce clause
Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, And Transparency Act of 2002 (CARTA)
24 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 24:2
So ingrained is the idea that new Federal regulations will prevent future Enrons, that today’s debate will largely be between CARTA’s supporters and those who believe this bill does not provide enough Federal regulation and control. I would like to suggest that before Congress imposes new regulations on the accounting profession, perhaps we should consider whether the problems the regulations are designed to address were at least in part caused by prior government interventions into the market. Perhaps Congress could even consider the almost heretical idea that reducing Federal control of the markets is in the public’s best interest. Congress should also consider whether the new regulations will have costs which might outweigh any (marginal) gains. Finally, Mr. Speaker, Congress should contemplate whether we actually have any constitutional authorization to impose these new regulations, instead of simply stretching the Commerce Clause to justify the program de jour.
commerce clause
The Partial Birth Abortion Ban
June 4, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 58:6
Another problem with this bill is its citation of the interstate commerce clause as a justification for a federal law banning partial-birth abortion. This greatly stretches the definition of interstate commerce. The abuse of both the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause is precisely the reason our federal government no longer conforms to constitutional dictates but, instead, balloons out of control in its growth and scope. H.R. 760 inadvertently justifies federal government intervention into every medical procedure through the gross distortion of the interstate commerce clause.
commerce clause
Opposing H. Res. 676
23 June 2004 2004 Ron Paul 42:3
This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.
commerce clause
Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act
11 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 53:2
The Interstate Commerce Clause originally was intended to make sure there were no barriers between interstate trade. In this case, we are putting barriers up.
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.