Home Page
Contents

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul
Constitution

Book of Ron Paul


Constitution
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 2:35
But the best way to support our troops and our liberties is to have a policy that avoids unnecessary confrontation. A pro-American constitutional policy of nonintervention would go a long way toward guaranteeing maximum liberty and protection of life and property for all Americans.

Constitution
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 2:44
Under Reagan, as in the early parts of the Republican control of Congress, some signs of deceleration in the growth of government were seen. But even then, there was no pretense made to shrink the size of government. And, once again, the path of least resistance has been to capitulate and allow government to grow as it has been for decades. Heaven forbid, no one ever again wants to be blamed for closing down nonessential government services. Only cruel and heartless Constitution lists would ever suggest such a politically foolish stunt.

Constitution
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 2:86
Real battles. The real battles in the Congress are more often over power and personalities than philosophy. Both sides of most debates represent only a variation of some interventionist program. Moral and constitutional challenges are made when convenient and never follow a consistent pattern. These, along with the States rights arguments, are not infrequently just excuses used to justify opposing or approving a program supported for some entirely different reason. The person who makes any effort at consistency is said to be extreme or unyielding.

Constitution
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 2:87
After giving a short speech criticizing the inconsistency of our foreign policy, another Member quickly rose to his feet and used the Walter Emerson quote to criticize my efforts saying, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.” Criticizing another Member for following a consistent freedom philosophy and strict adherence to the Constitution is more of an attempt to reassure the critics themselves who are uneasy with their own position. Obviously, criticizing one for consistency either means that pragmatism and inconsistency is something to be proud of, or there is little respect for the philosophy that is consistently being defended, a truth the critics are not likely to admit.

Constitution
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 2:92
Most would agree with the fungibility argument, even when funds are sent for reasons other than family planning and abortion like military assistance. The amazing thing is how important the debate can appear by threatening to withhold greatly sought after IMF funds for an argument that does not get to the heart of the issue. What should be debated is whether or not Congress has the moral and Constitutional authority to use force to take funds from American citizens for social engineering around the world, much of which results in resentment toward America.

Constitution
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 2:93
The weak and ineffective conditions placed on foreign aid money to prevent abortions is hardly a legitimate reason for continuing the illegal funding in the first place. At times, in efforts to get more swing votes to endorse Mexico City language, some pro-life forces not only will not challenge the principle of our funding for birth control and population control overseas, but believe in increasing the appropriation for the program. If the Constitutionists cannot change the nature of the debate, we will never win these arguments.

Constitution
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 2:107
A consistent defense of all voluntary associations does not preclude laws against violence, fraud, threat, libel and slander. To punish acts of aggression and protect non-violent economic and social associations is the main purpose of government in a constitutional republic. Moral imperfections cannot be eliminated by government force any more than economic inequalities can be eliminated through welfare or socialist legislation.

Constitution
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 2:116
The political correctness movement and the concept of hate crimes will lead to laws against “hate speech.” Clearly the constitution is designed to protect protesters, even those who express hatred at times and is not limited to the protection of non-controversial speech. Freedom of expression is indeed under serious attack in this country. Already there are laws in two countries prohibiting even questioning the details of the Holocaust. In America that’s certainly not permitted under the rules of political correctness.

Constitution
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 2:121
As long as it is fashionable or humorous to refer to one who consistently defends individual liberty as a “hobgoblin of little minds” our liberties will be threatened. Accepting and rationalizing any inconsistency while rejecting the principal defenders of a free society as impractical represents a danger to the republic. A strict adherence to the Constitution is surely not something that should be encouraged or tolerated, according to these critics.

Constitution
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 2:128
A free society is just the opposite. I argue that a free society is the only “decent” society and the only one that I care to live in. A free society depends entirely on personal rights for which all individuals are naturally entitled. This was the bedrock of the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution and the principle upon which our republic rests.

Constitution
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 2:134
Throughout this century, and as the movement grows for one world government, the linchpin is always democracy, not liberty or a constitutionally restrained republic as our Founders preferred. As long as the democratic vote can modify rights, the politicians will be on the receiving end of bribes and money and will be the greatest influence on legislation.

Constitution
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 2:146
Any effort to limit the size of government while never challenging the moral principle upon which all government force depends, while blindly defending majoritarian rule for making government work, will not restore the American republic. Instead, this approach gives credibility to the authoritarians and undermines the limited government movement by ignoring the basic principles of liberty. Only a restoration of a full understanding of individual rights and the purpose of a constitutional republic can reverse this trend. Our republic is indeed threatened.

Constitution
Supporting H.R. 2846
5 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 5:3
Supporters of protecting the United States Constitution from overreaching by the executive branch should support this bill. The administration’s plan to develop and implement a national testing program without Congressional authorization is a blatant violation of the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers.

Constitution
National Education Test
5 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 6:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of HR 2846, which forbids the use of federal funds to develop or implement a National Test without explicit authorization from Congress. Supporters of protecting the United States Constitution from overreaching by the Executive Branch should support this bill as the Administration’s plan to develop and implement a national education test without Congressional authorization is a blatant violation of the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers.

Constitution
National Education Test
5 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 6:2
However, support for this bill should in no way be interpreted to imply that Congress has the power to authorize national testing. After all, Congress, like the Executive and the Judicial branches of government, must adhere to the limitations on its power imposed by the United States Constitution. Although many seem to have forgotten this, in our system, the limits set by the Constitution, rather than the will of any particular Congress, determine the legitimate authority of the United States Government.

Constitution
National Education Test
5 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 6:3
The United States Constitution prohibits the executive branch from developing and implementing a national test, or any program dealing with education. Education is not one of the powers delegated to the Federal Government, and, as the ninth and tenth amendment make clear, the Federal Government can only act in those areas where there is an explicit delegation of power. Therefore, the Federal Government has no legitimate authority to legislate in the area of education. Rather, all matters concerning education, including testing, remain with those best able to educate children — individual states, local communities, and, primarily, parents.

Constitution
National Education Test
5 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 6:7
National testing is a backdoor means by which the federal government can control the curriculum of every school in the nation. Implementation of national testing would be a fatal blow to constitutional government and parental control of education.

Constitution
National Education Test
5 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 6:8
The Executive Branch has no constitutional authority to implement and develop a national test and the Congress has no authority to authorize the test. I therefore urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 2846, which stops the Administration from ultimately implementing national tests and oppose all legislation authorizing the creation of a national test. Instead, this Congress should work to restore control over their children’s education to the American people by shutting down the federal education bureaucracy and cutting taxes on America’s parents so they may provide for the education of their own children.

Constitution
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:11
Then, once again, we have this potential for going to war in Iraq, again, not because we follow the Constitution, not because we follow the rule of law, but because the United Nations has passed a resolution. Some have even argued that the U.N. resolution passed for the Persian Gulf War is enough for our President to initiate the bombings. Others claim that just the legislation, the resolution-type legislation passed in 1990 that endorsed this process is enough for us to go and pursue this war venture. But the truth is, if we followed the rules and if we followed the law, we would never commit an act of war, which bombing is, unless we have a declaration of war here in the Congress. Somebody told me just yesterday that yes, but that is so old fashioned.

Constitution
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:16
All of the stories about the monstrosities that occur and how terrible the leader might be may have some truth to it, but that does not justify throwing out the rule of law and ignoring our Constitution.

Constitution
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:42
Well, I am not going to defend Iraq. I am not going to defend Hussein. But I do have a responsibility here for us in the Congress to obey the law, and under our law, under the Constitution, and with a sense of morality, we do not go around assassinating dictators. I think history shows that we were involved in that in South Vietnam and it did not help us one bit.

Constitution
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:102
There is nothing wrong with a foreign policy that is consistent based on a moral principle and on our Constitution. That means that the responsibility of the U.S. Congress is to provide for a strong national defense. There is nothing wrong with being friends with everybody who is willing to be friends with us. There is nothing wrong with trading with as many people that will trade with us, and there is nothing wrong with working for as low tariffs as possible.

Constitution
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:106
This whole approach of militancy, believing that we can force our way on other people, will not and cannot work. Matter of fact, the few quotes that I used here earlier are indicating that we are doing precisely the wrong thing; that we are further antagonizing not only our so-called enemies, but we are further antagonizing our allies. So if there is no uniformity of opinion of the neighbors, of Iraq, that we should be doing this, if we will not listen to the moral, if we will not listen to the constitutional issue, we should listen to the practical issue. His neighbors do not want us to do it.

Constitution
Voter Eligibility Verification Act
12 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 10:5
National I.D. cards are trademarks of totalitarian governments, not constitutional republics. I’m sure all of us have seen a movie depicting life in a fascist or communist country where an official of the central state demands to see a citizen’s papers. Well the Founders of the Republic would be horrified if they knew that the Republic they created had turned into an overbearing leviathan where citizens had to present their “papers” containing a valid government identification number before getting a job or voting.

Constitution
Voter Eligibility Verification Act
12 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 10:6
In order to protect the privacy rights of America’s citizens, I plan to soon introduce the Privacy Protection Act, which will forbid the use of the Social Security number for any purpose other than for the administration of the Social Security system. I would urge my colleagues to support this bill when introduced and vote against the Voter Eligibility Act. It is time for Congress to protect the Constitutional rights of all Americans and stop using the Social Security number as a de facto national identification card.

Constitution
Opposing Federal Gun Control
24 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 14:3
Constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting. Despite the various pleas for the federal government’s correction of all societal wrongs, a national police force and mandatory sentencing laws which violate the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. are neither prudent nor constitutional.

Constitution
The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 2
25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 17:8
So this, to me, is a really good time to make us stop and think should we do this? I certainly think that our foreign policy in the interests of the United States should be determined by us here in the Congress, and then some will argue, well, it is not up to Congress to deal in foreign policy. That is up to a President. But that is not what is in the Constitution.

Constitution
The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 2
25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 17:9
As a matter of fact, foreign policy, those words do not even exist in the Constitution, and the Congress has all the responsibility of raising funds, spending funds, raising an army, declaring war, so the responsibilities are on us.

Constitution
The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 3
25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 18:3
There are two very important reasons why one who espouses the constitutional viewpoint of nonintervention, they do it. One, we believe in the rule of law and we should do it very cautiously, and that is what we are bound by here in the Congress. So that is very important.

Constitution
The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 3
25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 18:21
If we argue our case correctly, if we argue the more argument, the constitutional argument, and the argument for peace as well, I cannot see how the American people cannot endorse a policy like that, and I challenge those who think that we should go carelessly and rapidly into battle, killing those who are not responsible, further enhancing the power and the authority of those who would be the dictators. They do not get killed. Sanctions do not hurt them. The innocent people suffer. Just as the economic sanctions that will be put on Southeast Asia as we give them more money, who suffers from the devaluations? The American taxpayer, as well as the poor people, whether they are in Mexico or Southeast Asia, in order to prop up the very special interests. Whether it is the banking interests involved in the loans to the Southeast Asians, or our military-industrial complex who tends to benefit from building more and more weapons so they can go off and test them in wars that are unnecessary.

Constitution
Introducing The Privacy Protection Act
25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 20:6
Unless the abuses of the Social Security number is stopped, Americans will soon have a de facto national identification number, which would provide the federal government the ability to track all citizens from cradle to grave. The drafters of the Constitution would be horrified if they knew that the federal government would have the ability to set up a universal identifier and every newborn baby had to be assigned a number by the federal government. I therefore urge my colleagues to protect America’s freedom by cosponsoring the Privacy Protection Act of 1998.

Constitution
Recommending An Article By R.C. Sproul, Jr.
25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 21:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recommend to my colleagues the following article by a young writher, R.C. Sproul, Jr., the son of the remarkable theologian and author. While this article is indeed instructive and important in regards to the recent situation with Iraq, I believe that the author does a fine job addressing the much broader topic of following the Constitution in all matters, including those of inciting war and promoting peace. His article was written for CovSyn, which is a publication of the Kuyper Institute, in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

Constitution
Recommending An Article By R.C. Sproul, Jr.
25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 21:3
I urge my colleagues to read and consider Mr. Sproul’s article. We all took an oath to uphold the Constitution: an oath which we must take seriously if we are to promote liberty, peace and civil society.

Constitution
Recommending An Article By R.C. Sproul, Jr.
25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 21:4
BOMBING THE CONSTITUTION By R.C. Sproul, Jr. When was the last time the United States went to war? That’s not exactly an easy question to answer. If, however, the Constitution is in fact the law of the land, the answer is December 8, 1941. You see, the Constitution says that only the Congress has the power to declare war on another nation. That would seem to mean that without such a declaration, there is no war. Some kept this pretense the first time the United States went to war after World War II. Some called the Korean War a “police action.” Vietnam, though there was again no declaration of war, was known as a war.

Constitution
Recommending An Article By R.C. Sproul, Jr.
25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 21:5
Since Vietnam U.S. soldiers have shot at soldiers from other countries, and been shot at, in Libya, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, the former Yugoslavia, and Iraq. And it appears we’re going to non-war again in Iraq sometime soon. Where, to quote Mr. Dole, is the outrage? How is it that the Constitution can be so brazenly ignored?

Constitution
Recommending An Article By R.C. Sproul, Jr.
25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 21:6
Some argue that in an age of intercontinental ballistic missiles, that the requirement for a Congressional declaration is outdated. In none of the above “non-wars” however, have such missiles constituted a treat to American safety. And even if such were the case, why not change the Constitution to reflect the current situation?

Constitution
Recommending An Article By R.C. Sproul, Jr.
25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 21:7
Others suggest that we have no need for this old rule since we now have the “War Powers Act” which gives congressional approval for the President to use the military freely within a certain time frame. But that’s not at all the same thing. The Constitution no where gives the Congress the right to shirk their role as declarers of war.

Constitution
Recommending An Article By R.C. Sproul, Jr.
25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 21:8
Still others try to argue that the United Nations security council now serves that role. Again though, the Constitution says nothing about giving them this role. Neither does it say that a sufficient number of handshakes with Madelaine Albright shall be a substitute for Congressional action.

Constitution
Recommending An Article By R.C. Sproul, Jr.
25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 21:10
The only explanation I can think of is that no one really knows what the Constitution says. And while I’m not surprised that government school products would be ignorant (how can they know the Constitution when they can’t read it?), what frightens me is that each and every soldier, from the buck private loading the cargo planes, to the lieutenants fresh out of ROTC, to the Commander-in-Chief, all of them have take a solemn oath to uphold and protect the Constitution.

Constitution
Recommending An Article By R.C. Sproul, Jr.
25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 21:11
These United States are no longer operating under the Constitution. We, like those great nations which have come and gone before us, have sunk to the level of empire. And you, friend, are no free man or woman, but just another subject. Remember that as you wave that flag in honor of the bombing heroes.

Constitution
Wireless Telephone Protection Act
26 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 22:3
The United States Constitution prohibits this 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 persecution 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 ten years).

Constitution
Birth Defects Prevention Act
10 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 24:3
As a Congressman, I have repeatedly come to the house floor to denounce the further expansion of the federal government into areas ranging from “toilet-tank-size mandates” to “public housing pet size;” areas, that is, where no enumerated power exists and the tenth amendment reserves to state governments and private citizens the exclusive jurisdiction over such matters. My visits to the floor have not gone uncontested — proponents of an enlarged federal government and more government spending have justified their pet spending and expansionist projects by distorting the meaning of the “necessary and proper” and “common defense and general welfare” clauses to encompass the constitutionally illegitimate activities they advocate. Even the Export-Import Bank and Overseas Private Investment Corporation during Foreign Operations Appropriations debate were constitutionally “justified” by the express power to “coin money and regulate the value thereof”? In other words, where money exists, credit exists — where credit exists, loans exist — where loans exist, defaulters exist — and from this, the federal government has a duty to bail-out (at taxpayer expense) politically connected corporations who make bad loans in political-risk-laden venues?

Constitution
Birth Defects Prevention Act
10 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 24:5
Chiefly to resolve ambiguities about the national powers, the tenth amendment, proposed as part of the Bill of Rights by the Federalist-controlled first Congress, was added, declaring that 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.” According to constitutional scholar Bernard Siegan, University of San Diego College of Law, the Constitution might never have been ratified had the Federalists’ representations in this regard not been accepted by a portion of the public. Siegan also reminds us that the Framers rejected the notion of empowering the national government to grant charters of incorporation; establish seminaries for the promotion of agriculture, commerce, trades, and manufactures; regulate stages on post roads; establish universities; encourage by premiums and provisions, the advancement of useful knowledge; and opening and establishing canals. Each notion was introduced during the convention and voted down or died in committee.

Constitution
Birth Defects Prevention Act
10 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 24:9
I, for one, am uninterested in further catapulting this country down this “road to serfdom” albeit a road paved with the good intentions of, in this case, “preventing birth defects”. If this matter is so vital that it can only be done via the power of the federal government, then I suggest that members of the House convince their constituents of this and amend the constitution accordingly. I, despite my extensive work as an obstetrician, remain unconvinced. A volunteer group, private charity, hospital trade association, or university could certainly, in this age of advanced computer technology, maintain a database necessary to adequately address the information needs of those hoping to advance the cause of birth defect reduction. This, I believe would be a solution compatible with the framer’s notion of a national government of limited powers.

Constitution
U.S. Obsession With Worldwide Military Occupation Policy
10 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 25:11
Under the Constitution, there is no such authority. Under rules of morality, we have no authority to force others to behave as we believe they should, and force American citizens to pay for it not only with dollars, but with life and limb as well. And by the rules of common sense, the role of world policemen is a dangerous game and not worth playing.

Constitution
Bombing Iraq
18 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 27:2
This is an immensely important constitutional issue and one that we should pay close attention to and obviously support. I would like this same principle, of course, to apply across the board, especially when it comes to bombing foreign countries, like Iraq, because we should not be involved in war efforts without the consent of the Congress.

Constitution
Bombing Iraq
18 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 27:3
The Constitution is very, very clear on this. Unfortunately, policy has drifted away from a noninterventionist constitutional approach. Just in the last 2 days we had five resolutions implying that we have the economic strength, we have the military power and the wisdom to tell other people what to do.

Constitution
Conference Report on H.R. 1757, Foreign Affairs Reform And Restructuring Act Of 1998
26 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 28:3
I believe that the only real answer to the concerns of sovereignty, property rights, constitutionality and pro-life philosophy is for the United States to totally de-fund any foreign aid for international “family planning” purposes. I introduced a resolution to that effect in 1997 and we received 154 votes in support of cutting off this unconstitutional funding program.

Constitution
Illegal Wars
31 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 30:3
Mr. Chairman, it has been stated that only five times we have declared war in our history. True. But who is going to stand here and say that men that died in Vietnam and in Korea were not in a war? They were illegal. They were unconstitutional. This is a very sound effort to bring back once again the constitutional responsibility of all of us to declare war, and only Congress can do that.

Constitution
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act
31 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 31:3
Unfortunately, Congress has refused to acknowledge anytime recently that the proper and constitutional role of the U.S. military is to provide for the national defense and not the security of all foreign entities against attacks by all other foreign entities. It was for this reason that I submitted amendments to defund the military appropriations in H.R. 3579. The proper amount of appropriations for unjustifiable United States peacekeeping missions around the world is zero. Instead, this bill rescinds funding from domestic programs such as airport funding to be spent on our “police-the-world” program.

Constitution
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act
31 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 31:4
It has become the accepted political notion in this century that war is a Presidential matter in which Congress may not meddle, and certainly never offer dissenting views. Yet, no place in the Constitution do we find a presidential fiat power to conduct war. To the contrary, we find strict prohibitions placed on the President when it comes to dealing with foreign nations. The Constitution is clear: No war may be fought without a specific declaration by the Congress.

Constitution
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act
31 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 31:6
There is absolutely no moral or constitutional reason to go to war with Iraq or further intervene in Bosnia at this time. To go to war to enforce the dictates of the United Nations, or to play the part of ‘policemen of the world,’ offends the sensibilities of all who seek to follow the Constitution. I refuse to participate in (or fund) an action which would possibly expose even one soldier to risk when there is absolutely no immediate threat to the territory of the United States.

Constitution
Building Highways Is State Function
1 April 1998    1998 Ron Paul 34:2
I would like to remind my colleagues that in the 1950s when the Federal highway program started it was recognized that it was an improper function of the Federal Government. Therefore the Congress back then, they were still recognizing that the Constitution had some effect as well as the President; they had to come up for a reason for the highway projects, so they did it under national defense.

Constitution
Random Drug Testing Of House Members And Staff Is Ill-Advised
21 April 1998    1998 Ron Paul 35:2
The real issue here is not drugs but rather the issues of privacy, due process, probable cause and the fourth amendment. We are dealing with a constitutional issue of the utmost importance. It raises the question of whether or not we understand the overriding principle of the fourth amendment.

Constitution
Follow The Constitution — Don’t Raise Taxes
22 April 1998    1998 Ron Paul 36:3
Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest to our side that if we all in the Congress did a better job in following the Constitution, we would not need this amendment. Because if we took our oath of office seriously, if we followed the doctrine of enumerated powers, if we knew the original intent of the Constitution, this government and this Congress would be very small and, therefore, we would not have to be worrying.

Constitution
Follow The Constitution — Don’t Raise Taxes
22 April 1998    1998 Ron Paul 36:4
The other contention we have and have to think about is if we do not already follow the Constitution in so many ways, why are we going to follow it next time? Nevertheless, this is a great debate. I am glad I am a cosponsor. I am glad it was brought to the floor.

Constitution
Follow The Constitution — Don’t Raise Taxes
22 April 1998    1998 Ron Paul 36:7
We will limit the borrowing power. We will limit the ability of this Congress to inflate the currency to pay the bills. And we certainly will follow the rules of this House and this Constitution and not raise taxes.

Constitution
Education In America Is Facing Crisis
22 April 1998    1998 Ron Paul 37:13
So I would say there is a very good practical case. I know the constitutional argument does not mean much. But the practical case is there is no evidence that what we have done so far has been helpful.

Constitution
Amendment Number 3 Offered By Mr. Paul
29 April 1998    1998 Ron Paul 42:5
The concern that I have and that many Americans have is that government is too intrusive, wants too many records and knows too much about everybody. The government and nongovernment people can get our names and they can get our Social Security numbers and find out more about us than we know about ourselves, and that is not the intent of our Constitution. It certainly is not the intent of the Privacy Act.

Constitution
Federal War On Drugs Bad Idea
5 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 45:4
I object strongly to the Federal approach to law enforcement. That is one of the major issues I have contention with. When we think about when we tried to make a better world in 1919, and we thought we should prohibit certain substances being used in this country, in those days we had enough respect for the Constitution that we actually believed then that we should amend the Constitution, and we did and we had an experiment and after 14 years of a failed program, we repealed that amendment on alcohol.

Constitution
Federal War On Drugs Bad Idea
5 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 45:26
Now, there is a lot more that has to be said, especially if we can someday open up the debate and go in a new direction, have some new ideas dealing with the drug program. But I want to pause here for a minute, and I want to emphasize just one thing; that is, that, constitutionally, it was never intended that the Federal Government fight the war on drug. And they never did until recent years. For 25 years now, we have done it. We have spent $200 billion.

Constitution
Wasting Money On War On Drugs
5 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 46:2
Mr. Speaker, as I said, in most of our history, the control of drug abuse has never been a Federal issue. This is only very recent. This does not diminish one’s concern. It is respecting the Constitution. It is also emphasizing the fact that the more we have centralized our control and the more that we have tried to enforce the thing at the national level, the worse the problem has gotten.

Constitution
Wasting Money On War On Drugs
5 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 46:8
Why are we at the point now that we permit the war on drugs to be fought without due process of law? All they have to be is a suspect. All we have to do is have cash these days, and the government will come and take it from us. Then we have to prove our innocence. That is not the Constitution. We have gone a long way from the due process.

Constitution
Wasting Money On War On Drugs
5 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 46:9
Our job here is to protect the civil liberties of individuals. Yes, we ought to try to influence behavior. Yes, we ought to make laws against illegal behavior; national, when necessary, but local when the Constitution dictates it. At the rate we are going, we are making very, very little progress.

Constitution
Wasting Money On War On Drugs
5 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 46:12
I would like to suggest in closing some of the things that we can consider. First, let us consider the Constitution, for instance. We have no authority to create a Federal police force. That is not in the Constitution. So we ought to consider that. It is a State problem. It is a State law enforcement problem. Most of our history, it was dealt that way.

Constitution
Wasting Money On War On Drugs
5 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 46:18
Again, we cannot distract from the serious problem of the drug war, but I do beg and plead for my colleagues to just look at the truth. Let us read the news carefully, let us look at the Constitution, like we do when it is convenient, and let us consider another option. It cannot be any worse than what we are doing.

Constitution
Girl Arrested For Rescuing Classmate In Asthma Attack
5 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 47:2
But prohibition, obviously, when they passed that amendment to the Constitution, recognized that the Congress could not pass laws. And like I mentioned in 1937, when Roosevelt decided that we should attack medical marijuana, that he would do it through raising taxes. So it is only in recent history that we have decided that this is a Federal project. The record is just not very clear it has been very successful.

Constitution
Support The National Right To Work Act
6 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 48:3
Compulsory unionism violates employers’ and employees’ constitutional rights of freedom of contract and association. Congress has no constitutional authority to force employees to pay union dues to a labor union as a condition of getting or keeping a job.

Constitution
Higher Education Amendments of 1998
6 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 49:5
The most objectionable program is “teacher training.” The Federal Government has no constitutional authority to dictate, or “encourage,” states and localities to adopt certain methods of education. Yet, this Congress is preparing to authorize the federal government to bribe states, with monies the federal government should never have taken from the people in the first place, to adopt teacher training methods favored by a select group of DC-based congressmen and staffers.

Constitution
Higher Education Amendments of 1998
6 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 49:11
The association also objects to the requirement that campus make police and security logs available to the general public within two business days as this may not allow for an intelligent interpretation of the impact of the availability of the information and may compromise an investigation, cause the destruction of evidence, or the flight of an accomplice. Furthermore, reporting the general location, date, and time for a crime may identify victims against their will in cases of sexual assault, drug arrests, and burglary investigations. The informed views of those who deal with campus crime on a daily basis should be given their constitutional due rather than dictating to them the speculations of those who sit in Washington and presume to mandate a uniform reporting system for campus crimes.

Constitution
National Police State
12 May 1998    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.

Constitution
National Police State
12 May 1998    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.

Constitution
National Police State
12 May 1998    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.

Constitution
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.

Constitution
National Police State
12 May 1998    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.

Constitution
National Police State
12 May 1998    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. 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.

Constitution
National Police State
12 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 50:8
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.

Constitution
Can’t Vote For Amendment
4 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 55:4
Those who attack religious values are, unfortunately, not doing it in the defense of constitutional liberty. Secular humanism, although equivalent to a religion, is passed off as being neutral with respect to spiritual beliefs, and yet too often used to fill the void by forced exclusion of other beliefs.

Constitution
Can’t Vote For Amendment
4 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 55:5
This is indeed a problem deserving our close attention, but the approach through this constitutional amendment is not the solution. I was a cosponsor of the original version of the amendment, but after serious reconsideration, especially after the original version was changed, I now am unable to vote for it.

Constitution
Can’t Vote For Amendment
4 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 55:6
The basic problem is that our courts are filled with judges that have no understanding or concern for the constitutional principles of original intent, the doctrine of enumerated powers, or property rights. As long as that exists, any new amendment to the Constitution will be likewise abused.

Constitution
Can’t Vote For Amendment
4 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 55:8
This amendment further enables the Federal Government to do more mischief. The only solution is to shrink the government and raise a new generation of judges and Congressmen who understand the constitutional principles of original intent, the doctrine of enumerated powers, and property rights. If we do this, the First Amendment, freedom of religious expression, will be protected.

Constitution
Can’t Vote For Amendment
4 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 55:9
Another recourse, less complicated than amending the Constitution, is for Congress to use its constitutional authority to remove jurisdiction from the courts in the areas where the courts have been the most abusive of free expression. Unfortunately, this amendment encourages a government solution to the problems by allowing the Federal Government and Federal courts to instruct States and local school districts on the use of their property. This is in direct contrast to the original purpose of the Constitution, to protect against a strong central government and in support of State and local government.

Constitution
Can’t Vote For Amendment
4 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 55:10
Until our judges and even our Congress have a better understanding of the current Constitution and a willingness to follow it, new constitutional amendments will do little to help and will more likely make things worse.

Constitution
Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act
11 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 58:2
Mr. Chairman, today the Congress will collectively move our nation yet another step closer to a national police state by further expanding the notion of federal crimes and paving the way for a deluge of federal criminal justice activity. Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of federally “criminalizing” all human malfeasance in the name of saving the world from some evil than to uphold a Constitutional oath which prescribes a process 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 child-related sexual crime irrespective of the procedural transgressions and individual or civil liberties one tramples in their zealous approach.

Constitution
Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act
11 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 58:5
Crimes committed against children (as well as adults) are a problem that should concern all Americans. As a doctor of obstetrics I have enjoyed the privilege of bringing more than 3,000 new lives into the world. I know there are few things more tragic than crimes committed against young people. In fact, the types of crimes this bill attempts to federally punish are among the most despicable criminal acts committed. Undoubtedly, strong measures and penalties need to be imposed to deter and punish these criminal actors. Nevertheless, the threshold question in Congress must always be: “under what authority do we act?” Should we cease to concern ourselves about the Constitution in all that we do and moved by emotion speak only of vague theoretical outcomes?

Constitution
Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act
11 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 58:6
Any federal usurpation of criminal law, no matter how flexible, violates the 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The 10th amendment limits the Federal Government to those functions explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. Other than in these few areas, the States are sovereign. Therefore the Federal Government has no authority to federalize crimes whether committed against children, women, or some specific race. Additionally, ours is an individual Bill of Rights rather than a system of rights dependent upon to which group (gender, race, or age) one happens to belong.

Constitution
Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act
11 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 58:8
Some will argue that federal legislation is necessary because communications cross state lines. 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 and in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this.

Constitution
Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act
11 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 58:9
I too find most despicable the criminal acts this bill attempts to make federal crimes, but under the U.S. Constitution criminal law jurisdiction lies with the States. This is why I oppose yet another step toward a national police state. And because I fear the bill’s implications regarding federal monitoring of voice, mail and data communications, I cannot support H.R. 3494.

Constitution
Parent And Student Saving Account Act
18 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 62:14
While the stealth tax increase and the new unconstitutional programs provide significant justification for constitutionalists to oppose this conference report, the new taxes and spending are not even the worst parts of this legislation. The most objectionable provision of H.R. 2646 is one that takes another step toward making the federal government a National School Board by mandating that local schools consider a student’s bringing a weapon to school as evidence in an expulsion hearing.

Constitution
Parent And Student Saving Account Act
18 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 62:15
The issue is not whether local schools should use evidence of possessing a weapon as evidence in a discipline procedure. Before this Congress can even consider the merits of a policy, we must consider first whether or not the matter falls within our constitutional authority. The plain fact is as the tenth amendment to the Bill of Rights makes clear, Congress is forbidden from dictating policy to local schools.

Constitution
Parent And Student Saving Account Act
18 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 62:16
The drafters of the United States Constitution understood that to allow the federal government to meddle in the governance of local schools, much less act as a national school board, would inevitably result in the replacement of parental control by federal control. Parents are best able to control education when the decision making power is located closest to them. Thus, when Congress centralized control over education, it weakens the ability of parents to control, or even influence, the educational system. If Congress was serious about restoring parental control on education, the last thing we would even consider doing is imposing more federal mandates on local schools.

Constitution
Parent And Student Saving Account Act
18 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 62:17
In conclusion, although the Conference Report of Parent and Student Savings Account Act does take a step toward restoring parental control of education, it also raises job-destroying taxes on business. Furthermore, the conference report creates new education programs, including a new literacy program that takes a step toward nationalizing curriculum, as well as imposes yet another mandate on local schools. It violates the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution and reduces parental control over education. Therefore, I cannot, in good conscience, support this bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill and instead support legislation that returns education resources to American parents by returning to them monies saved by deep cuts in the federal bureaucracy, not by raising taxes on other Americans.

Constitution
Drug-Free Workplace Act
23 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 63:7
It should never go unnoticed that, as is so often the case in this Congress, constitutional authority is lacking for the further expansion of the Federal Government into the realm of small business and the means by which they hire reliable employees. The Report on H.R. 3583 cites Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 as the Constitutional authority. This clause reads “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Office thereof” (emphasis added). The authority cited requires a foregoing Power which not only is missing from the authority cited for this bill but in my close examination of Article I, Section 8, simply seems not to exist.

Constitution
Campaign Finance Reform
23 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 64:11
Take, for instance, some of the groups that have tried in the past to get on and become known but are frustrated by all these rules. There are Independents, Socialists, Greens, Taxpayers Party, Populists, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Reform Party, Natural Party, American Party, Liberal Party, Conservative Party, Right to Life, Citizens Party, New Alliance Party, Prohibition Party, States Rights Party. All these people have been totally frustrated because they have so many obstacles put in their way by the requirement of huge numbers of signatures on ballots.

Constitution
The Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
15 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 76:3
Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government has no constitutional authority to require Americans to present any form of identification before engaging in any private transaction such as opening a bank account, seeing a doctor, or seeking employment.

Constitution
Child Custody Protection Act
15 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 77:9
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.

Constitution
Child Custody Protection Act
15 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 77:10
Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress today will likely pass H.R. 3682. H.R. 3682 amends title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines 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.

Constitution
Child Custody Protection Act
15 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 77:11
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 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.

Constitution
Child Custody Protection Act
15 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 77:12
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 centralization of police power.

Constitution
National Right To Work Act
15 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 78:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on this important issue. I am pleased to have this opportunity to reiterate my strong support for the National Right to Work Act, HR 59. Unlike much of the legislation considered before this Congress, this bill expands freedom by repealing those sections of federal law that authorize compulsory unionism, laws that Congress had no constitutional authority to enact in the first place!

Constitution
Exchange Stabilization Fund
16 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 79:2
Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment. I would have to say this amendment is a very modest approach to a serious problem. I see no reason for the Exchange Stabilization Fund to exist. There is no constitutional authority for it. There is no economic benefit for it. It is detrimental to the people.

Constitution
Exchange Stabilization Fund
16 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 79:6
We should be talking about this in terms of a free society. Certainly, if we had a sound currency, under a sound currency we do not have all this kind of mischief going on. And certainly, if we had a lot of respect for the Constitution and actually knew something about the Doctrine of Enumerated Powers, we would say, where do we get this authority to prop up other countries and other currencies at the expense of the American taxpayers?

Constitution
Women’s, Infant, and Children’s Program
20 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 81:2
Providing for the care of the poor is a moral responsibility of every citizen, however, it is not a proper function of the Federal Government to plunder one group of citizens and redistribute those funds to another group of citizens. Nowhere in the United States Constitution is the Federal Government authorized to provide welfare services. If any government must provide welfare services, it should be State and local governments. However, the most humane and efficient way to provide charitable services are through private efforts. Among their other virtues, private charities are much more likely to provide short-term assistance rather than fostering long-term dependency upon government programs.

Constitution
Women’s, Infant, and Children’s Program
20 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 81:5
As an OB/GYN I certainly recognize the importance of proper nutrition for pregnant women and young children. However, as a constitutionalist, I strenuously object to the federal government coercing pregnant women into accepting such services and restricting their choices of food products. The founders of this country would be flabbergasted if they knew that the federal government had monopolized the provisions of charitable services to low-income women, but they would be horrified if they knew the federal government was forbidding poor women from purchasing Post Raisin Bran for their children because some federal bureaucrats had determined that it contains too much sugar!

Constitution
Women’s, Infant, and Children’s Program
20 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 81:11
In conclusion, Congress should reject HR 3874 because the programs contained therein lack constitutional foundation, allow the federal government to control the lives of program recipients, and serve as a means of transferring monies from the taxpayers to big corporations. Instead of funding programs, Congress should return responsibility for helping those in need to those best able to effectively provide assistance; the American people acting voluntarily.

Constitution
The Patient Privacy Act
21 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 82:7
The second, and most important reason, legislation “protecting” the unique health identifier is insufficient is that the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal health identifier, regardless of any attached “privacy protections.” Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty for it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate arbitrator of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress and the American people to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”

Constitution
The Patient Privacy Act
21 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 82:8
For those who claim that the Patient Privacy Act would interfere with the plans to “simplify” and “streamline” the health care system, under the Constitution, the rights of people should never take a backseat to the convenience of the government or politically powerful industries like HMOs.

Constitution
The Patient Privacy Act
21 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 82:9
Mr. Speaker, the federal government has no authority to endanger the privacy of personal medical information by forcing all citizens to adopt a uniform health identifier for use in a national data base. A uniform health ID endangers the constitutional liberties, threatens the doctor-patient relationships, and could allow federal officials access to deeply personal medical information. There can be no justification for risking the rights of private citizens. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Patient Privacy Act.

Constitution
Ballot Access — Part 1
30 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 86:8
Mr. Chairman, I want to make 4 points about the amendment. First, it is constitutional to do this. Article I, section 4, explicitly authorizes the U.S. Congress to, “At any time by law make or alter such regulations regarding the manner of holding elections.” This is the authority that was used for the Voters Rights Act of 1965.

Constitution
Ballot Access — Part 3
30 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 88:2
The gentleman suggests we should leave this to the States. I quoted and cited the constitutional authority for this. It is explicit. We have the authority to do this. There are many, many unfair laws.

Constitution
Ballot Access — Part 2
30 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 91:4
All I am asking for is for us to endorse the notion, and we have the authority, the money comes from congressional appropriations. We have written these laws. These are election laws. We have this authority. We have the authority under the Constitution and we have the authority under our laws to do this.

Constitution
English Language Fluency Act
10 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 96:6
Mr. Chairman, despite having some commendable features, such as eliminating consent decrees, the English Language Fluency Act, H.R. 3892, is not worthy of support because it authorizes increasing the Federal Government’s control over education dollars. I therefore call on my colleagues to reject this legislation and instead work for constitutional education reform by returning money and control over education to America’s parents through legislation such as the Family Education Freedom Act.

Constitution
Head Start Program
14 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 99:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to express my opposition to S. 2206, which reauthorizes the Head Start program, as well as the Community Services Block Grant program and the Low Income Housing Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). While the goals of Head Start and the Community Services Block Grant program are certainly noble, the means these programs use to accomplish these goals (confiscating monies from one group of citizens and sending them to another group of citizens in the form of federal funding for Washington-controlled programs) are immoral and ineffective. There is no constitutional authority for Congress to fund any programs concerning child-rearing or education. Under the constitutional system, these matters are left solely in the hands of private citizens, local government, and the individual states.

Constitution
Head Start Program
14 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 99:6
Congress should also reject S. 2206 because it reauthorizes the Low Income Heating and Energy Program (LIHEAP). LIHEAP is an unconstitutional transfer program which has outlived its usefulness. LIHEAP was instituted in order to help low-income people deal with the high prices resulting from the energy crisis of the late seventies. However, since then, home heating prices have declined by 51.6% residential electricity prices have declined by 25% and residential natural gas prices have declined by 32.7%. Furthermore, the people of Texas are sending approximately $43 million more taxpayer dollars to Washington for LIHEAP than they are receiving in LIHEAP funds. There is no moral or constitutional justification for taking money from Texans, who could use those funds for state and local programs to provide low-income Texans with relief from oppressive heat, to benefit people in other states.

Constitution
The Failed War On Drugs
15 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 100:3
But the way we are going about this is wrong. I am rather surprised in our side of the aisle that champions limited government and States’ rights, that they use the FDA’s ability to regulate nicotine as an excuse and the legal loophole for the Federal Government to be involved in marijuana. I might remind them that 80 years ago when this country decided that we should not have alcohol, they did not come to the Congress and ask for a law. They asked for a constitutional amendment realizing the Congress had no authority to regulate alcohol. Today we have forgotten about that. Many of my colleagues might not know or remember that the first attack on the medicinal use of marijuana occurred under the hero of the left, F.D.R., in 1937. Prior to 1937, marijuana was used medicinally, and it was used with only local control.

Constitution
Dollars To The Classroom Act
18 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 101:2
If H.R. 3248 did not increase Federal expenditures, my support would be unenthusiastic at best as the system of block grants established by this bill continue the unconstitutional practice of taking money from taxpayers and redistributing it to other states. The Federal Government lacks constitutional authority to carry out this type of redistribution between states and taxpayers, regardless of whether the monies are redistributed through Federal programs or through grants. There is no “block grant exception” to the principles of federalism embodied in the United States Constitution.

Constitution
Dollars To The Classroom Act
18 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 101:13
Madam Chairman, while I applaud the attempt by the drafters of this bill to attempt to reduce the federal education bureaucracy, the fact is the Dollars to the Classroom Act represents the latest attempt of this Congress to avoid addressing philosophical and constitutional questions of the role of the Federal and State Governments by means of adjustments in management in the name of devolution. Devolution is said to be a return to state’s rights since it decentralized the management of federal program; this is a new 1990’s definition of the original concept of federalism and is a poor substitute for the original, constitutional definition of federalism.

Constitution
Dollars To The Classroom Act
18 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 101:15
In conclusion, the Dollars to the Classroom Act may repeal some unconstitutional education programs but it continues the federal government’s equally unconstitutional taking of funds from the America people for the purpose of returning them in the form of monies for education only if a state obeys federal mandates. While this may be closer to the constitutional systems, it also lays the groundwork for future federal power grabs by increasing federal spending. Rather than continue to increase spending while pretending to restore federalism, Congress should take action to restore parents to the rightful place as the “bosses” of America’s education system.

Constitution
Don’t Fast-Track Free Trade Deal
25 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 103:2
The fast-track procedure bill, in addition to creating an extra-constitutional procedure by which international agreements become ratified, sets general international economic policy objectives, re-authorizes “Trade Adjustment Assistance” welfare for workers who lose their jobs and for businesses which fail, and creates a new permanent position of Chief Agriculture Negotiator within the office of the United States Trade representative. The bill would reestablish the President’s extra-constitutional “executive authority” to negotiate “side agreements” such as those dealing with environmental and labor issues. Lastly, the bill “pays” the government’s “cost” of free trade by increasing taxes on a number of businesses which recently benefitted by a favorable judgment in federal tax court.

Constitution
Don’t Fast-Track Free Trade Deal
25 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 103:3
The Constitution clearly allows for international agreements and clearly specifies the means by which they are to be accomplished. Treaties, quite clearly are to be negotiated by the President with advice and consent of the Senate and can only become effective upon being ratified by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. The Constitution, however, does not expressly confer authority to make international agreements other than by treaties and, of course, the tenth amendment specifies that “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.” To ignore or allow the one branch of the federal government to delegate it’s powers to others destroys the liberty-protecting ability inherent to the Constitutional separation of powers.

Constitution
Don’t Fast-Track Free Trade Deal
25 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 103:4
Congress does have, amongst its enumerated powers, regulation of commerce with foreign nations. Imposing import tariffs, quotas, and embargoes, however economically detrimental to the macro economy of the United States, are, at least, amongst powers delegated to Congress by Article I of the Constitution. Regulating commerce, of course, refers to enacting domestic laws which effect voluntary exchanges between trading partners who happen to be citizens of different governments. International agreements between the governments of those trading partners cannot be construed to escape the stringent treaty ratification process established by the document’s framers just by suggesting Congress has the power to enact domestic regulation regarding foreign commerce. If this were an allowable justification for bypassing the constitutionally-mandated treaty process, Article I Congressional powers would almost completely undermine the necessity for the Constitutionally-mandated treaty process. Treaties regarding everything from international monetary policy to military policy would suddenly become “ripe” for the “treaty-making” power of the President and Congress. Instead, a bright line process exists whereby entering into agreements with foreign nations under which the U.S. government will do “X” if the government of Ruritania does “Y” must be understood to constitute an international agreement and, as such, require the more restrictive treaty process.

Constitution
Don’t Fast-Track Free Trade Deal
25 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 103:5
Moreover, because international courts regard “treaties” and “agreements” as equally binding on signatory governments, a stronger case is made that they must be made subject to the same constitutional process. Insofar as H.R. 2621 ignores the lake of a congressional role in the international treaty process and instead attempts to make Congress an integral part of a procedure for which it lacks any constitutional authority, this bill can be opposed on constitutional grounds alone.

Constitution
Don’t Fast-Track Free Trade Deal
25 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 103:6
Even if the procedure advocated by the bill were able to survive what should always be the Congressman’s initial threshold of constitutionality, the bill contains provisions which will likely continue our country down the ugly path of internationally-engineered, “managed trade” rather than that of free trade. As explained by economist Murray N. Rothbard:

Constitution
Don’t Fast-Track Free Trade Deal
25 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 103:7
[G]enuine free trade doesn’t require a treaty (or its deformed cousin, a ‘trade agreement’; NAFTA is called an agreement so it can avoid the constitutional requirement of approval by two-thirds of the Senate). If the establishment truly wants free trade, all it has to do is to repeal our numerous tariffs, import quotas, anti-dumping laws, and other American-imposed restrictions of free trade. No foreign policy or foreign maneuvering is necessary.

Constitution
Don’t Fast-Track Free Trade Deal
25 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 103:10
The harmonization language in last year’s FDA reform bill constitutes a perfect example. Harmonization language in this bill has the Health and Human Services Secretary negotiating multilateral and bilateral international agreements to unify regulations in this country with those of others. The bill removes from the state governments the right to exercise their police powers under the tenth amendment to the constitution and, at the same time, creates or corporatist power elite board of directors to review medical devices and drugs for approval. This board, of course, is to be made up of “objective” industry experts appointed by national governments. Instead of the “national” variety, known as the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 (enacted for the “good reason” of protecting railroad consumers from exploitative railroad freight rates, only to be staffed by railroad attorneys who then used their positions to line the pockets of their respective railroads), we now have the same sham imposed upon worldwide consumers on an international scale soon to be staffed by heads of multilateral pharmaceutical corporations.

Constitution
Iraq — Part 2
5 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 108:13
I think there is no doubt in my mind what is best for the United States. We should not pass this resolution. If there need to be more efforts made, do it some other way. But, obviously, this is not a good way to do it. It is sacrificing the principle of law. It is sacrificing the Constitution. It is sacrificing the practicalities of even the people who are supporting it are not quite sure it is going to work.

Constitution
Lake Texana
7 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 111:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, moments ago, HR 4570 was described as a “delicate balance” not to be disturbed by votes against either the resolution or the rule. In fact, the primary justification presented for passage of the bill was the “brilliance” with which a compromise securing the necessary number of votes was “engineered.” Statements such as these are an unfortunate commentary on the state of affairs in the nation’s capital insofar as they represent not advancement of sound policy principles but rather a seriously flawed process by which federal government “favors” are distributed in a means which assures everyone gets a little something if they vote to give enough other districts a little something too. This is not the procedure by which Congress should be deciding matters of federal land disposition and acquisition. In fact, there appears to be no Constitutional authority for most of what HR 4570 proposes to do.

Constitution
Lake Texana
7 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 111:2
Particularly frustrating is that in my attempt to return authority to the State of Texas for a water project located in the 14th District, I introduced HR 2161, The Palmetto Bend Title Transfer Project. Return of such authority comports with my Constitutional notion that local control is preferred to unlimited federal authority to dictate from Washington, the means by which a water project in Edna, Texas will be managed. I understand that certain Members of Congress may disagree with the notion of the proper and limited role of the federal government. The point here, however, is that the “political process” embracing the so-called “high virtue of compromise” means that in order for one to vote for less federal authority one must, at the same time, in this bill, vote for more. Political schizophrenia was never more rampant. One would have to vote to authorize the transfer of 377,000 acres of public land in Utah to the federal government (at taxpayer expense of $50 million for Utah’s public schools) in order to return Lake Texana to the State of Texas.Two unrelated issues; two opposite philosophies as to the proper role of the federal government — a policy at odds with itself (unless, of course, compromise is one’s ultimate end).

Constitution
National Provider ID
8 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 115:13
The most important reason, legislation “protecting” the unique health identifier is insufficient is that the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal health identifier, regardless of any attached “privacy protections.” Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty for it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate arbitrator of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress and the American people to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”

Constitution
National Provider ID
8 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 115:14
For those who claim that this amendment would interfere with the plans to “simplify” and “streamline” the health care system, under the Constitution, the rights of people should never take a backseat to the convenience of the government or politically powerful industries like HMOs.

Constitution
National Provider ID
8 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 115:15
Mr. Chairman, all I ask is that Congress by given the change to correct the mistake made in 1996 when they authorized the National Health ID as part of the Kennedy-Kasebaum bill. The federal government has no authority to endanger the privacy of personal medical information by forcing all citizens to adopt a uniform health identifier for use in a national data base. A uniform health ID endangers the constitutional liberties, threatens the doctor-patient relationships, and could allow federal officials access to deeply personal medical information. There can be no justification for risking the rights of private citizens. I therefore urge the Rules Committee to take the first step toward protecting Americans from a medical ID by ruling my amendment to the Labor-HHS–Education Appropriations bill in order.

Constitution
Monetary Policy
16 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 120:8
The constitutional or credit restraint of a commodity standard of money offers stability and non-inflationary growth but does not accommodate the special interests that demand benefits bigger and faster than normal markets permit. The only problem is the financial havoc that results when the unsound system is forced into a major correction which are inherent to all fiat systems.

Constitution
Monetary Policy
16 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 120:15
Second, Congress should legalize the Constitutional principle that gold and silver be legal tender by prohibiting sales and capital gains taxes from being placed on all American legal tender coins.

Constitution
Education Debate
16 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 121:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to express my thoughts on the education debate that has consumed much of this Congress in recent days. For all the sound and fury generated by the argument over education, the truth is that the difference between the congressional leadership and the administration are not that significant; both wish to strengthen the unconstitutional system of centralized education. I trust I need not go into the flaws with President Clinton’s command-and-control approach to education. However, this Congress has failed to present a true, constitutional alternative to President Clinton’s proposals to further nationalize education.

Constitution
Education Debate
16 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 121:2
It is becoming increasingly clear that the experiment in centralized control of education has failed. Even data from the National Assessment of Education Progress [NAEP] shows that students in States where control over education is decentralized score approximately 10 percentage points higher on NAEP’s tests in math and reading than students from States with highly-centralized education systems. Clearly, the drafters of the Constitution knew what they were doing when they forbade the Federal Government from meddling in education.

Constitution
Education Debate
16 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 121:7
One area where this Congress was successful in fighting for a constitutional education policy was in resisting President Clinton’s drive for national testing. I do wish to express my support for the provisions banning the development of national testing and thank Mr. GOODLING for his leadership in this struggle. However, I wish this provision did no come at the price of $1.1 billion in new Federal spending. In addition, I note that this Congress is taking several steps toward creating a national curriculum, particularly through the Reading Excellence Act, which dictates teaching methodologies to every classroom in the Nation and creates a Federal definition of reading, thus making compliance with Federal standards the goal of education.

Constitution
Education Debate
16 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 121:9
First of all, the Federal Government lacks constitutional authority to redistribute monies between States and taxpayers for the purpose of education, regardless of whether the monies are redistributed through Federal programs or through grants. There is no “block grant exception” to the principles of federalism embodied in the U.S. Constitution.

Constitution
Education Debate
16 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 121:13
Congress has used block grants to avoid addressing philosophical and constitutional questions of the role of the Federal and State governments by means of adjustments in management in the name of devolution. Devolution is said to return to State’s rights by decentralizing the management of Federal programs. This is a new 1990’s definition of the original concept of federalism and is a poor substitute for the original, constitutional definition of federalism.

Constitution
Education Debate
16 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 121:14
While it is true that lower levels of intervention are not as bad as micro-management at the Federal level, Congress’ constitutional and moral responsibility is not to make the Federal education bureaucracy “less bad.” Rather, we must act now to put parents back in charge of education and thus make American education once again the envy of the world.

Constitution
Education Debate
16 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 121:15
Hopefully the next Congress will be more reverent toward their duty to the U.S. Constitution and America’s children. The price of Congress’ failure to return to the Constitution in the area of education will be paid by the next generation of American children. In short, we cannot afford to continue on the policy road we have been going down. The cost of inaction to our future generations is simply too great.

Constitution
Hate Crimes And Individual Rights
16 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 122:7
This would be a mistake. It would be a mistake because hate-crime laws, however well intentioned, are feel-good laws whose primary result is thought control, violating our constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and of conscience. It would be a mistake because it suggests that crimes against some people are worse than crimes against others. And it would be a mistake because it uses a personal tragedy, deeply felt by Shepard’s family and friends, to advance a political agenda.

Constitution
Hate Crimes And Individual Rights
16 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 122:8
Hunter College Professor Wayne Dynes, editor of the Encyclopedia of Homosexuality, notes that hate-crime laws, if they are to be applied in a constitutional manner, must be content-neutral. He notes this example: “Countless numbers of people, aware of the unspeakable atrocities under his leadership, hated Pol Pot. This hate was surely well warranted. If one of the Pol Pot haters had killed him, would this be a hate crime? Why not?”

Constitution
Hate Crimes And Individual Rights
16 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 122:10
Under our system of justice, everyone is equal before the law. Those accused of crimes are entitled to certain constitutional protection, which we must cherish, and the victims of a crime — whether a Bill Gates or the poorest street-sweeper in a slum — are entitled to the same respect. (In the Middle Ages, the law required a greater punishment for killing a rich man or noble than it did for killing a peasant or a laborer. Our law recognizes no such distinctions.)

Constitution
Resolution On Saddam Hussein
17 December 1998    1998 Ron Paul 124:2
Mr. Speaker, it is clearly stated in the Constitution that only Congress has the authority to declare war. It is precisely because of the way we go to war these days that we are continuing to fight the Persian Gulf War. We did not win the Persian Gulf War because we did not declare war since there was no justification to because there was no national security interests involved.

Constitution
Resolution On Saddam Hussein
17 December 1998    1998 Ron Paul 124:10
One evident outcome of the anti-sovereignty philosophy is our dependence on institutions such as the United Nations. It is an affront to our nation’s sovereignty and our constitution that the President presently launches war on Iraq under the aegis of a UN resolution but without the Constitutionally required authorization by the United States Congress.

Constitution
Supports Impeachment Of President Clinton
19 December 1998    1998 Ron Paul 125:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of all four articles of impeachment against the President. There is neither pleasure nor vindictiveness in this vote and I have found no one else taking this vote lightly. It seems though many of our colleagues are not pleased with the investigative process; some believing it to have been overly aggressive and petty, while others are convinced it has been unnecessarily limited and misdirected. It certainly raises the question of whether or not the special prosecutor rather than the Congress itself should be doing this delicate work of oversight. Strict adherence to the Constitution would reject the notion that Congress undermine the separations of power by delivering this oversight responsibility to the administration. The long delays and sharp criticisms of the special prosecutor could have been prevented if the Congress had not been dependent on the actions of an Attorney General’s appointee.

Constitution
Supports Impeachment Of President Clinton
19 December 1998    1998 Ron Paul 125:6
There is a major irony in this impeachment proceeding. A lot has been said the last two months by members of the Judiciary Committee on both side of the aisle regarding the Constitution and how it must be upheld. But if we are witnessing all of a sudden the serious move toward obeying constitutional restraints, I will anxiously look forward to the next session when 80 percent of our routine legislation will be voted down.

Constitution
Supports Impeachment Of President Clinton
19 December 1998    1998 Ron Paul 125:7
But the real irony is that the charges coming out of the Paula Jones sexual harassment suit stem from an unconstitutional federal law that purports to promote good behavior in the work place. It’s based entirely on ignoring the obligations of the states to deal with physical abuse and intimidation. This whole mess resulted from a legal system institutionalized by the very same people who are not the President’s staunchest defenders. Without the federal sexual harassment code of conduct — which the President repeatedly flaunted — there would have been no case against the President since the many other serious charges have been brushed aside. I do not believe this hypocrisy will go unnoticed in the years to come. Hopefully it will lead to the day when the Congress reconsiders such legislation in light of the strict limitations placed on it by the Constitution and to which many members of Congress are now publicly declaring their loyalty.

Constitution
Supports Impeachment Of President Clinton
19 December 1998    1998 Ron Paul 125:18
Let’s declare a victory in despite of the mess we’re in. The President is not likely to be removed from office. We’ll call it a form of “jury nullification” and hope someday this process will be used in our courts to nullify the unconstitutional tax, monetary, gun, anti-privacy, and seizure laws that are heaped upon us by Congress, the President, and perpetuated by a judicial system devoid of respect for individual liberty and the Constitution.

Constitution
Supports Impeachment Of President Clinton
19 December 1998    1998 Ron Paul 125:21
Even though we might claim a victory of sorts, the current impeachment process reveals a defeat for our political system and our society. Since lack of respect for the Constitution is pervasive throughout the Administration, the Congress and the Courts and reflects the political philosophy of the past 60 years, dealing with the President alone, won’t reverse the course on which we find ourselves. There are days when I think we should consider “impeaching” not only the President, but the Congress and the Judiciary. But the desired changes will come only after the people’s attitudes change as to what form of government they desire. When the people demand privacy, freedom and individual responsibility for everyone alike, our government will reflect these views. Hopefully we can see signs in these current events that more Americans are becoming serious about demanding their liberty and rejecting the illusions of government largesse as a panacea.

Constitution
Supports Impeachment Of President Clinton
19 December 1998    1998 Ron Paul 125:25
Yes, the President’s tawdry affair and the acceptance of it to a large degree by the American people is not a good sign for us as a nation. But, let’s hope that out of this we have a positive result by recognizing the public’s rejection of the snooping actions of Big Brother. Let’s hope there’s a renewed interest in the Constitution and that Congress pays a lot more attention to it on a daily basis especially when it comes to waging war.

Constitution
Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
6 January 1999    1999 Ron Paul 1:9
Many of my colleagues will claim that the federal government needs these powers to protect against fraud or some other criminal activities. However, monitoring the transactions of every American in order to catch those few who are involved in some sort of illegal activity turns one of the great bulwarks of our liberty, the presumption of innocence, on its head. The federal government has no right to treat all Americans as criminals by spying on their relationship with their doctors, employers, or bankers. In act, criminal law enforcement is reserved to the state and local governments by the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment.

Constitution
Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
6 January 1999    1999 Ron Paul 1:10
Other members of Congress will claim that the federal government needs the power to monitor Americans in order to allow the government to operate more efficiently. I would remind my colleagues that in a constitutional republic the people are never asked to sacrifice their liberties to make the job of government officials a little bit easier. We are here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy invasion more efficient.

Constitution
Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
6 January 1999    1999 Ron Paul 1:13
The primary reason why any action short of the repeal of laws authorizing privacy violation is insufficient is because the federal government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”

Constitution
Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
6 January 1999    1999 Ron Paul 1:14
Mr. Speaker, those members who are unpersuaded by the moral and constitutional reasons for embracing the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act should consider the overwhelming opposition of the American people toward national identifiers. My office has been inundated with calls from around the country protesting the movement toward a national ID card and encouraging my efforts to thwart this scheme. I have also received numerous complaints from Texans upset that they have to produce a Social Security number in order to receive a state drivers’ license. Clearly, the American people want Congress to stop invading their privacy. Congress risks provoking a voter backlash if we fail to halt the growth of the surveillance state.

Constitution
Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
6 January 1999    1999 Ron Paul 1:15
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again call on my colleagues to join me in putting an end to the federal government’s unconstitutional use of national identifiers to monitor the actions of private citizens. National identifiers are incompatible with a limited, constitutional government. I therefore, hope my colleagues will join my efforts to protect the freedom of their constituents by supporting the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act of 1999.

Constitution
How Long Will The War With Iraq Go On Before Congress Notices?
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 3:2
The recent escalation of bombing in Iraq has caused civilian casualties to mount. The Clinton administration claims U.N. resolution 687, passed in 1991, gives him the legal authority to continue this war. We have perpetuated hostilities and sanctions for more than 8 years on a country that has never threatened our security, and the legal justification comes from not the U.S. Congress, as the Constitution demands, but from a clearly unconstitutional authority, the United Nations.

Constitution
How Long Will The War With Iraq Go On Before Congress Notices?
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 3:3
In the past several months the airways have been filled with Members of Congress relating or restating their fidelity to their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. That is good, and I am sure it is done with the best of intentions. But when it comes to explaining our constitutional responsibility to make sure unconstitutional sexual harassment laws are thoroughly enforced, while disregarding most people’s instincts towards protecting privacy, it seems to be overstating a point, compared to our apathy toward the usurping of congressional power to declare and wage war. That is something we ought to be concerned about.

Constitution
How Long Will The War With Iraq Go On Before Congress Notices?
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 3:4
A major reason for the American Revolution was to abolish the King’s power to wage war, tax, and invade personal privacy without representation and due process of law. For most of our history our presidents and our Congresses understood that war was a prerogative of the congressional authority alone. Even minimal military interventions by our early presidents were for the most part done only with constitutional approval.

Constitution
How Long Will The War With Iraq Go On Before Congress Notices?
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 3:6
The constitution has been blatantly ignored by the President while Congress has acquiesced in endorsing the 8-year war against Iraq. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 has done nothing to keep our presidents from policing the world, spending billions of dollars, killing many innocent people, and jeopardizing the very troops that should be defending America.

Constitution
How Long Will The War With Iraq Go On Before Congress Notices?
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 3:9
It is time for Congress to declare its interest in the Constitution and take responsibility on issues that matter, like the war powers.

Constitution
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:4
The Founders of this great Nation abhorred tyranny and loved liberty. The power of the king to wage war, tax and abuse the personal rights of the American colonists drove them to rebel, win a revolution and codify their convictions in a new Constitution. It was serious business, and every issue was thoroughly debated and explained most prominently in the Federalist Papers. Debate about trade among the States and with other countries, sound money and the constraints on presidential power occupied a major portion of their time.

Constitution
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:5
Initially the Articles of Confederation spoke clearly of just who would be responsible for waging war. It gave the constitutional Congress, quote, sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war. In the debate at the Constitutional Convention it was clear that this position was maintained as the power of the British king was not to be, quote, a proper guide in defining executive war powers, close quote, for the newly formed republic. The result was a Constitution that gave Congress the power to declare war, issue letters of mark and reprisal, call up the militia, raise and train an Army and Navy and regulate foreign commerce, a tool often used in international conflict. The President was also required to share power with the Senate in ratifying treaties and appointing ambassadors.

Constitution
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:6
Let there be no doubt. The President, according to the Constitution, has no power to wage war. However it has been recognized throughout our history that certain circumstances might require the President to act in self-defense if Congress is not readily available to act if the United States is attacked.

Constitution
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:7
Recent flagrant abuse of the power to wage war by modern-day Presidents, including the most recent episodes in Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan, should prompt this Congress to revisit this entire issue of war powers. Certain abuses of power are obviously more injurious than others. The use of the FBI and the IRS to illegally monitor and intimidate citizens is a power that should be easy to condemn, and yet it continues to thrive. The illegal and immoral power to create money out of thin air for the purpose of financing a welfare-warfare state serving certain financial interests while causing the harmful business cycle is a process that most in Washington do not understand nor care about. These are ominous powers of great magnitude that were never meant to be permitted under the Constitution.

Constitution
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:8
But as bad as these abuses are, the power of a single person, the President, to wage war is the most egregious of all presidential powers, and Congress deserves the blame for allowing such power to gravitate into the hands of the President. The fact that nary a complaint was made in Congress for the recent aggressive military behavior of our President in Iraq for reasons that had nothing to do with national security should not be ignored. Instead, Congress unwisely and quickly rubber stamped this military operation. We should analyze this closely and decide whether or not we in the Congress should promote a war powers policy that conforms to the Constitution or continue to allow our Presidents ever greater leverage to wage war any time, any place and for any reason.

Constitution
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:9
This policy of allowing our Presidents unlimited authority to wage war has been in place since the end of World War II, although abuse to a lesser degree has occurred since the beginning of the 20th century. Specifically, since joining the United Nations congressional authority to determine when and if our troops will fight abroad has been seriously undermined. From Truman’s sending of troops to Korea to Bush’s Persian Gulf War, we have seen big wars fought, tens of thousands killed, hundreds of thousands wounded and hundreds of billions of dollars wasted. U.S. security, never at risk, has been needlessly jeopardized by the so-called peacekeeping missions and police exercises while constitutional law has been seriously and dangerously undermined.

Constitution
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:10
Madam Speaker, something must be done. The cost of this policy has been great in terms of life and dollars and our constitutional system of law. Nearly 100,000 deaths occurred in the Vietnam and Korean wars, and if we continue to allow our Presidents to casually pursue war for the flimsiest of reasons, we may well be looking at another major conflict somewhere in the world in which we have no business or need to be involved.

Constitution
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:11
The correction of this problem requires a concerted effort on the part of Congress to reclaim and reassert its responsibility under the Constitution with respect to war powers, and efforts were made to do exactly that after Vietnam in 1973 and more recently in 1995. Neither efforts were successful, and ironically the President emerged with more power, with each effort being undermined by supporters in the Congress of presidential authoritarianism and internationalism. Few objected to the Truman-ordered U.N. police actions in Korea in the 1950s, but they should have. This illegal and major war encouraged all subsequent Presidents to assume greater authority to wage war than was ever intended by the Constitution or assumed by all the Presidents prior to World War II. It is precisely because of the way we have entered in each military action since the 1940s without declaring war that their purposes have been vague and victory elusive, yet pain, suffering and long term negative consequences have resulted. The road on which this country embarked 50 years ago has led to the sacrifice of a lot of congressional prerogatives and citizen control over the excessive power that have fallen into the hands of Presidents quite willing to abuse this authority. No one person, if our society is to remain free, should be allowed to provoke war with aggressive military acts. Congress and the people are obligated to rein in this flagrant abuse of presidential power.

Constitution
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:16
Prior to the Korean War, when the Constitution and historic precedent had been followed, the President could not and for the most part did not engage in any military effort not directly defensive in nature without explicit Congressional approval.

Constitution
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:22
What is needed is a return to the Constitution as a strict guide as to who has the authority to exert the war powers and, as has been scrupulously followed in the 19th century by essentially all political parties and presidents.

Constitution
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:23
The effort to curtail presidential powers while requiring consultation and reporting to the Congress implies that that is all that is needed to avoid the strict rules laid out by the Constitution.

Constitution
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:25
The message here is that clarification of the War Powers Resolution and a return to constitutional law are the only way presidential authority to wage war can be curtailed. If our presidents do not act accordingly, Congress must quickly and forcefully meet its responsibility by denying funds for foreign intervention and aggression initiated by the President.

Constitution
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:28
The sacrifice of this constitutional principle, guarded diligently for 175 years and now severely eroded in the past 50, must be restored if we hope to protect our liberties and avoid yet another unnecessary and, heaven-forbid, major world conflict, and merely changing the law will not be enough to guarantee that future presidents will not violate their trust.

Constitution
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:29
A moral commitment to the principle of limited presidential war powers in the spirit of the republic is required. Even with the clearest constitutional restriction on the President to wage undeclared wars, buffered by precise legislation, if the sentiment of the Congress, the courts and the people or the President is to ignore these restraints, they will.

Constitution
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:30
The best of all situations is when the spirit of the republic is one and the same, as the law itself, and honorable men are in positions of responsibility to carry out the law. Even though we cannot guarantee the future Congress’ or our president’s moral commitment to the principles of liberty by changing the law, we still must make every effort possible to make the law and the Constitution as morally sound as possible.

Constitution
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:31
Our responsibility here in the Congress is to protect liberty and do our best to ensure peace and trade with all who do not aggress against us. But peace is more easily achieved when we reject the notion that some Americans must subsidize foreign nations for a benefit that is intended to flow back to a select few Americans. Maintaining an empire or striving for a world government while allowing excessive war powers to accrue to an imperial president will surely lead to needless military conflicts, loss of life and liberty, and a complete undermining of our constitutional republic.

Constitution
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:49
I have never heard of a proposal to promote the national I.D. card or anything short of this for any reasons other than a good purpose. Essentially all those who vote to allow the continual erosion of our privacy and other constitutional rights never do it because they consciously support a tyrannical government; it is always done with good intentions.

Constitution
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:57
After thousands of complaints were registered at the Federal Reserve and the other agencies, Richard Small was quoted as saying that in essence, the complaints were coming from these strange people who are overly concerned about the Constitution and privacy. Legal justification for the program, Small explained, comes from a court case that states that our personal papers, when in the hands of a third party like a bank, do not qualify for protection under the Fourth Amendment.

Constitution
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:66
Our job is to make a principled, moral, constitutional and practical case for respecting everyone’s privacy, even if it is suspected some private activities, barring violence, do not conform to our own private moral standards. We could go a long way to guaranteeing privacy for all Americans if we, as Members of Congress, would take our oath of office more seriously and do exactly what the Constitution says.

Constitution
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:88
The Constitution is clear that the Congress has responsibility for guaranteeing the value of the currency, and no authority has ever been given to create a central bank. Creating money out of thin air is counterfeiting, even when done by a bank that the Congress tolerates.

Constitution
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:90
Reconsidering the directives given us in the Constitution with regard to money would go a long way towards developing a sound monetary system that best protects our economy and guides us away from casually going to war. Monetary reform is something that we ought to be thinking about now.

Constitution
President Should Get Authority From Congress To Send Troops
9 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 5:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, since World War II, our presidents have been sending troops overseas without Congressional approval. Prior to World War II, it was traditional and constitutional that all presidents came to the Congress for authority to send troops.

Constitution
President Should Get Authority From Congress To Send Troops
9 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 5:2
Recently, the President has announced that he will most likely be sending thousands of American troops under NATO command to Kosovo. I think this is wrong. I have introduced legislation today that says that the President cannot send these troops without Congressional approval, merely restating what the Constitution says and how we followed the rules up until World War II.

Constitution
President Should Get Authority From Congress To Send Troops
9 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 5:5
This is not complicated. It is very precise and very clear and very important that we as a Congress restate our constitutional obligation to supervise the sending of troops around the world.

Constitution
President Should Get Authority From Congress To Send Troops
9 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 5:7
If the President is permitted to do this, he does it not because he has constitutional authority but because the Congress has reneged on their responsibility to supervise the spending.

Constitution
Federal Communications Commission
25 February 1999    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.

Constitution
Federal Communications Commission
25 February 1999    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.

Constitution
Federal Communications Commission
25 February 1999    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.

Constitution
Federal Communications Commission
25 February 1999    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.

Constitution
War Power Authority Should Be Returned To Congress
9 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 13:2
We, the Congress, have been informed through a public statement by the President that troops will be sent. We have not been asked to act in a constitutional fashion to grant the President permission to act. He is not coming to us to fully explain his intentions. The President is making a public statement as to his intentions and we are expected to acquiesce, to go along with the funding, and not even debate the issue, just as we are doing in Iraq.

Constitution
War Power Authority Should Be Returned To Congress
9 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 13:3
That is not a proper constitutional procedure and it should be condemned. Silence in the past, while accommodating our Presidents in all forms of foreign adventurism from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq and Bosnia, should not be the standard the Congress follows.

Constitution
War Power Authority Should Be Returned To Congress
9 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 13:4
The Constitution is clear: Our Presidents, from Washington to Roosevelt, all knew that initiating war was clearly the prerogative of the Congress, but our memories are flawed and our reading of the law is careless. The President should not be telling us what he plans to do, he should be giving us information and asking our advice. We are responsible for the safety of our troops, how taxpayers’ dollars are spent, the security of our Nation, and especially the process whereby our Nation commits itself to war.

Constitution
War Power Authority Should Be Returned To Congress
9 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 13:6
The war power, taken from the Congress 50 years ago, must be restored. If not, the conclusion must be that the Constitution of the United States can and has been amended by presidential fiat or treaty, both excluding the House of Representatives from performing its duty to the American people in preventing casual and illegal wars.

Constitution
War Power Authority Should Be Returned To Congress
9 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 13:9
The war powers process was set early on by our Presidents in dealing with the North African pirates in the early 19th century. Jefferson and Madison, on no less than 10 occasions, got Congress to pass legislation endorsing each military step taken. It has clearly been since World War II that our Presidents have assumed power not granted to them by the Constitution, and Congress has been negligent in doing little to stop this usurpation.

Constitution
War Power Authority Should Be Returned To Congress
9 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 13:11
Vague police actions authorized by the United Nations or NATO, and implemented by the President without congressional approval, invites disasters with perpetual foreign military entanglements. The concept of national sovereignty and the rule of law must be respected or there is no purpose for the Constitution.

Constitution
Opposing Authorization for Kosovo Intervention
11 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 17:5
We should consider the law and the process in the War Powers Resolution and just exactly how we grant authority to the President to wage war. We should be more concerned about the Constitution and how we should give this authority. We should be concerned about this procedure.

Constitution
Kosovo War Resolution
11 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 18:3
Today we are going to have a vote on whether or not troops should be authorized to go to Kosovo. If we vote in favor of this, we are voting for war. This is not a war resolution in the conventional sense of the Constitution, but in this day and age it is about as close as we are going to come to since we have ignored the Constitution with regards to war powers essentially since World War II. If we vote for troops to go to Kosovo, we are complicit in a potential war and the responsibility should be on the shoulders of those who vote to send the troops.

Constitution
Kosovo War Resolution
11 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 18:5
It is said that we should not have much to say about foreign policy because the Constitution has given responsibility to the President. The term “foreign policy” does not even exist in the Constitution. The President has been given the authority to be the Commander-in-Chief; to lead the troops after we direct him as to what he should do. He is the commander. We do not have a military commander, we have a civilian commander. But we do not forego our right to debate and be concerned about what is happening on issues of troop deployment and war.

Constitution
Kosovo War Resolution
11 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 18:6
A report put out by those who sponsor this resolution had this to say. “This measure does not address the underlying question of the merits or misgivings of sending U.S. forces into Kosovo.” We are not even supposed to debate the merits and misgivings of sending troops. Why not? “Instead, the purpose of this resolution” they go on to say, “is to give the House an opportunity to fulfill its constitutional responsibility of authorizing the deployment of U.S. troops into potentially hostile situations.” In other words, we are to do nothing more than rubber stamp what the President has asked for.

Constitution
Kosovo War Resolution
11 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 18:11
It is said that we do not have this authority; that we should give it to the President; that he has it under the Constitution based on his authority to formulate foreign policy. It is not there. The Congress has the responsibility to declare war, write letters of marks and reprisals, call up the militia, raise and train army and regulate foreign commerce. The President shares with the Senate treaty power as well as appointment of ambassadors. The President cannot even do that alone.

Constitution
Consumer Protection Legislation
11 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 19:9
It is, of course, within the constitutionally enumerated powers of Congress to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” However, operating a clearing-house for the subsequent transfer of such property rights in the name of setting a just price or “instilling competition” via “central planning” seems not to be an economically prudent nor justifiable action under this enumerated power. This process is one best reserved to the competitive marketplace.

Constitution
War Powers Resolution
17 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 20:3
Presently, those of us who argued for Congressional responsibility with regards to declaring war and deploying troops cannot be satisfied that the trend of the last 50 years has been reversed. Since World War II, the war power has fallen into the hands of our presidents, with Congress doing little to insist on its own constitutional responsibility. From Korea and Vietnam, to Bosnia and Kosovo, we have permitted our presidents to “wag the Congress,” generating a perception that the United States can and should police the world. Instead of authority to move troops and fight wars coming from the people through a vote of their Congressional representatives, we now permit our presidents to cite NATO declarations and U.N. resolutions.

Constitution
War Powers Resolution
17 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 20:5
Today it is erroneously taken for granted that the President has authority to move troops and fight wars without Congressional approval. It would be nice to believe that this vote on Kosovo was a serious step in the direction of Congress once again reasserting its responsibility for committing U.S. troops abroad. But the President has already notified Congress that, regardless of our sense of Congress resolution, he intends to do what he thinks is right, not what is legal and constitutional, only what he decides for himself.

Constitution
War Powers Resolution
17 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 20:15
Power has been gravitating into the hands of our presidents throughout this century, both in domestic and foreign affairs. Congress has created a maze of federal agencies, placed under the President, that have been granted legislative, police, and judicial powers, thus creating an entire administrative judicial system outside our legal court system where constitutional rights are ignored. Congress is responsible for this trend and it’s Congress’ responsibility to restore Constitutional government.

Constitution
Everybody Supports the Troops
24 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 21:3
Nevertheless, we do have this resolution on the floor, and I will support it. But I just wonder why that occurs, that we feel compelled to do so. I think sometimes it is because we have not met up to our responsibilities, because we have allowed our troops to be placed in harm’s way, and usually in an improper manner. We have not done this properly according to the Constitution. The President did not get permission from the House and the Senate. We may have a little bit of a guilt feeling about having these troops placed in harm’s way without the proper permission, and, therefore, we have to reassure ourselves that we are taking care of the troops.

Constitution
U.S. Military Action Taking Place in Serbia is Unconstitutional
24 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 22:3
As bad as the violence is toward the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, our ability to police and stop all ethnic fighting around the world is quite limited and the efforts are not permitted under constitutional law. We do not even pretend to solve the problems of sub-Saharan Africa, Tibet, East Timor, Kurdistan, and many other places around the world where endless tragic circumstances prevail.

Constitution
U.S. Military Action Taking Place in Serbia is Unconstitutional
24 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 22:7
Only Congress can decide the issue of war. Congress cannot transfer the constitutional war power to the President or to NATO or to the United Nations. The Senate resolution, however, specifically limits the use of force to air operations and missile strikes, but no war has ever been won with air power alone. The Milosevic problem will actually get worse with our attacks, and ground troops will likely follow.

Constitution
Peace
25 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 23:3
Let other nations always keep the idea of their sovereign self-government associated with our Republic and they will befriend us, and no force under heaven will be of power to tear them from our allegiance. But let it be once understood that our government may be one thing and their sovereignty another, that these two things exist without mutual regard one for the other — and the affinity will be gone, the friendship loosened and the alliance hasten to decay and dissolution. As long as we have the wisdom to keep this country as the sanctuary of liberty, the sacred temple consecrated to our common faith, wherever mankind worships freedom they will turn their faces toward us. The more they multiply, the more friends we will have, the more ardently they love liberty, the more perfect will be our relations. Slavery they can find anywhere, as near to us as Cuba or as remote as China. But until we become lost to all feeling of our national interest and natural legacy, freedom and self-rule they can find in none but the American founding. These are precious commodities, and our nation alone was founded them. This is the true currency which binds to us the commerce of nations and through them secures the wealth of the world. But deny others of their national sovereignty and self-government, and you break that sole bond which originally made, and must still preserve, friendship among nations. Do not entertain so weak an imagination as that UN Charters and Security Councils, GATT and international laws, World Trade Organizations and General Assemblies, are what promote commerce and friendship. Do not dream that NATO and peacekeeping forces are the things that can hold nations together. It is the spirit of community that gives nations their lives and efficacy. And it is the spirit of the constitution of our founders that can invigorate every nation of the world, even down to the minutest of these.

Constitution
The Bombing in Serbia Must Stop
15 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 26:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, the bombing in Serbia must stop immediately. Serbia has never aggressed against the United States. Serbia is involved in a bloody civil war of which we should have no part, and have not declared war, as the Constitution requires. That makes this war both immoral and illegal.

Constitution
Why Taxes Are High
15 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 27:4
This is a token effort to move in the right direction of eliminating taxes. Big government is financed in three different ways. First, we borrow money. Borrowing is legal under the Constitution, although that was debated at the Constitutional Convention, and the Jeffersonians lost. Someday we should deal with that. We should not be able to borrow to finance big government.

Constitution
Why Taxes Are High
15 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 27:7
I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. BARTON) for bringing this measure to the floor. I would say this is a modest approach. Today we can raise taxes with a 50 percent vote. I and others would like to make it 100 percent. It would be great if we needed 100 percent of the people to vote to raise taxes. I see this as a modest compromise and one of moderation. So I would say that I strongly endorse this move to make it more difficult in a very modest way. Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute just for the purpose of asking the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) a question. I take it that the gentleman believes that government is too big and that is a function of both what it takes in and what goes out, what it spends out. So would it be fair to say that the gentleman would support a constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds vote for expenditures, too?

Constitution
Opposing Congressional Medal of Honor for Rosa Parks
20 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 28:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 573. At the same time, I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies. However, I oppose the Congressional Gold Medal for Rosa Parks Act because authorizing $30,000 of taxpayer money is neither constitutional nor, in the spirit of Rosa Parks who is widely recognized and admired for standing up against an overbearing government infringing on individual rights.

Constitution
Opposing Congressional Medal of Honor for Rosa Parks
20 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 28:2
Because of my continuing and uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, I must remain consistent in my defense of a limited government whose powers are explicitly delimited under the enumerated powers of the Constitution—a Constitution, which only months ago, each Member of Congress, swore to uphold.

Constitution
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:13
This policy of intervention is paid for by the U.S. taxpayer and promoted illegally by our President without congressional authority, as is required by the Constitution.

Constitution
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:18
Our policy of intervention in the internal affairs of other nations, and their border disputes is not one that comes from American tradition or constitutional law. It is a policy based on our current leaders’ belief that we are the policemen of the world, something we have earnestly and foolishly pursued since World War II and in a more aggressive fashion since the demise of the Soviet Union.

Constitution
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:23
Instead of pretending to be everything to everyone, while shifting alliances and blindly hoping for good to come of it, we should reconsider the advice of the Founders and take seriously the strict restraints on waging war placed in the Constitution.

Constitution
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:32
When our leaders sanctioned NATO in 1949, there were many patriotic Americans who questioned the wisdom and the constitutionality of this organization. It was by its charter to be strictly a defensive organization designed to defend Western Europe from any Soviet threat. The NATO charter clearly recognized the Security Council of the United Nations was responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Constitution
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:50
The same can be said of those who are opposed to the Yugoslavian war. Where they supported the Persian Gulf War, this administration has not garnered their support for partisan reasons. The principle of interventionism, constitutionality and morality have not been applied consistently to each war effort by either political party, and there is a precise reason for this, over and above the petty partisanship of many.

Constitution
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:51
The use of government force to mold personal behavior, manipulate the economy and interfere in the affairs of other nations is an acceptable practice endorsed by nearly everyone in Washington regardless of party affiliation. Once the principle of government force is acknowledged as legitimate, varying the when and to what degree becomes the only issue. It is okay to fight Communists overseas but not Serbs; it is okay to fight Serbs but not Arabs. The use of force becomes completely arbitrary and guided by the politician’s good judgment. And when it pleases one group to use constitutional restraint, it does, but forgets about the restraints when it is not convenient.

Constitution
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:53
Philosophic interventionism is a politician’s dream. It allows arbitrary intervention, domestic or international, and when political circumstances demand opposition, it is easy to cite the Constitution which always and correctly rejects the use of government force, except for national self-defense and for the protection of life, liberty and property.

Constitution
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:54
Politicians love interventionism and pragmatism, the prevailing philosophy of our age, a philosophy based on relative ethics. No rigid adherence to law or morality is required. Even the Constitution can be used in this delicate debate of just when and for whom we go to war. The trick is to grab the political moral high ground while rejecting the entire moral foundation upon which the law rests, natural rights, rejection of force and the requirement politicians be strictly bound by a contract for which all of us take an oath to uphold.

Constitution
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:58
The President, as so many other presidents have done since World War II, took it upon himself to wage an illegal war against Yugoslavia under NATO’s authority, and Congress again chose to do nothing. By ignoring our constitutional responsibility with regards to war power, the Congress implicitly endorsed the President’s participation in NATO’s illegal war against Yugoslavia. We neither declared war nor told the President to cease and desist.

Constitution
On Regulating Satellite TV
27 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 32:5
While it is within the Constitutionally enumerated powers of Congress to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries,” operating a clearinghouse for the subsequent transfer of such property rights in the name of setting a just price or instilling competition seems not to be an economically prudent nor justifiable action under this enumerated power. This can only be achieved within the market process itself.

Constitution
Moral And Constitutional Wars Must Be Fought In Self Defense
28 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 35:16
But I think it is a powerful message that the American people have spoke through this House of Representatives today to not rubber stamp an illegal, unconstitutional and immoral war. The only moral war is a war that is fought in self-defense. Some claim that this is a moral war because there are people who have been injured. But that is not enough justification. The moral and constitutional war has to be fought in self-defense.

Constitution
Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA)
4 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 36:3
This bill further assures that control over the education dollar will remain centered in Washington by calling for Congress to “meet the commitment to fund existing Federal education programs.” Thus, this bill not only calls on Congress to increase funding for IDEA, it also calls on Congress to not cut funds for any program favored by Congress. The practical effect of this bill is to place yet another obstacle in the road of fulfilling Congress’ constitutional mandate to put control of education back into the hands of the people.

Constitution
Kosovo War Is Illegal
5 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 40:2
This war is immoral because Serbia did not commit aggression against us. We were not attacked and there has been no threat to our national security. This war is illegal. It is undeclared. There has been no congressional authorization and no money has been appropriated for it. The war is pursued by the U.S. under NATO’s terms, yet it is illegal even according to NATO’s treaty as well as the U.N. charter. The internationalists do not even follow their own laws and do not care about the U.S. Constitution.

Constitution
Kosovo War Is Illegal
5 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 40:19
Only chaos can come from ignoring the strict prohibition by the Constitution of a president unilaterally waging war. If a president ignores the absence of a declaration, and we are serious, the only option left to Congress is the power of the purse, which is clearly the responsibility of the Congress. We should not fund this illegal and immoral NATO war.

Constitution
Supporting Istook Amendment
6 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 43:4
I think it is interesting, I think we have an interesting constitutional question here, because I agree with the chairman of the committee and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. OBEY) that it is not the prerogative of the Congress to micromanage a war. That is correct. It is the job of the Congress to declare the war. But here we have a Congress involved in diplomacy and micromanaging a war that has not been declared. That is the issue. The issue is not the micromanaging.

Constitution
No Billions In Appropriations Can Make Our Foreign Policy Effective
13 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 46:10
Our policy is flawed. Our nation is at risk. Our defenses are weakened by those people who say they are “hawks” and those who claim they “support the troops.” Our policy is the end to which we must make ourselves effective, and currently our policy is all wrong. Our constitution grants us the obligation to defend this nation, and the right to defend only this nation. I should hope that we will never be prepared to police the world. We should not be militarily prepared nor philosophically prepared for such a policy. We need to refocus our military force policy and the way to do that is clear. It is to return it to the constitutionally authorized role of defending our country. Again, this is not simply a question of policy, and not merely a political question. No Mr. Speaker, the source of our quandary is the minds and hearts of human beings. Bad philosophy will always lead to bad policy precisely because ideas do have consequences.

Constitution
Supplemental Appropriations
18 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 47:3
We are asking the President to seek reimbursement from NATO members since we have assumed the financial burden for fighting this war. This has tremendous appeal but cannot compensate for the shortsightedness of spending so much in the first place. The money may well never be recouped from our allies, and even if some of it is it only encourages a failed policy of military adventurism. If this policy works, the United States, at Congress’ urging, becomes a hired gun for the international order, a modern day government mercenary. This is not constitutional and it is a bad precedent to set.

Constitution
Supplemental Appropriations
18 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 47:13
We should not be in Yugoslavia for obvious constitutional and moral reasons, but the American people should not believe the incessant propaganda that is put out by NATO on a daily basis. NATO’s motives are surely suspect. I meet no one who can with a straight face claim that it was NATO’s concern for the suffering of the refugees that prompted the bombing and demands by some to escalate the war with the introduction of ground troops.

Constitution
Supplemental Appropriations
18 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 47:15
NATO must admit its mistake in entering this civil war. It violates the NATO treaty and the U.N. Charter, as well as the U.S. Constitution. The mission has failed. The policy is flawed. Innocent people are dying. It is costing a lot of money. It is undermining our national security and there are too many accidents.

Constitution
Supplemental Appropriations
18 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 47:18
The only answer to senseless foreign intervention is a pro-American constitutional policy of non-intervention in the affairs of other nations; a policy of friendship and trade with those who are willing and neutrality with others who are involved in conflict. This is the only policy that makes sense and can give us the peace and prosperity all Americans desire.

Constitution
Opposing Supplemental Appropriation
18 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 48:6
But the real principle here today that we are voting on is whether or not we are going to fund an illegal, unconstitutional war. It does not follow the rules of our Constitution. It does not follow the rules of the United Nations Treaty. It does not follow the NATO Treaty. And here we are just permitting it, endorsing it but further funding it. This does not make any sense.

Constitution
National Center For Missing And Exploited Children
25 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 51:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, organizations like the Center for Missing and Exploited Children should be commended and supported for their work on this critical issue. However, I must oppose this legislation as it is outside the proper Constitutional role for the federal government to spend money in this way; such spending is more appropriate coming from the states and private donations. As always, I am amazed that Members of Congress are so willing to be generous with their constituent’s tax dollars, yet do not seem willing to support such causes out of their own pockets.

Constitution
National Center For Missing And Exploited Children
25 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 51:2
This legislation would spend more than $268 million on issues that are simply outside the constitutional jurisdiction of the federal government. In addition, legislation like this blurs the lines between public and private funds, and opens good organizations to needless regulatory control for Congress. The legislation even opens the door to public money being used to support sectarian organizations, in direct violation of the First Amendment.

Constitution
Opposing Endless War In Kosovo
10 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 56:3
It is an undeclared war. It is an immoral, illegal war. It violates the Constitution. It violates the War Powers resolution.

Constitution
Flag Day 1999
14 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 59:3
Was this eternal truth forgotten immediately upon the founding of our nation? Hardly. From the Articles of Confederation through to the original U.S. Constitution a clear understanding of the necessity of the separation of powers was maintained. And the genius of that division of powers lay only so partially in the three federal branches, each reliant upon some different direct authority but all resting government finally on the consent of the governed. Indeed, it has rightly been said that “the genius of the constitution is best summed up in that clause which reserves to the states or to the people those powers which are not specifically delegated to the federal government.”

Constitution
Flag Day 1999
14 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 59:8
This is the idea of federalism and of local self-government. This idea is sacrosanct because it is the necessary precursor to all of those things which we hold dear, most specifically those rights I have enunciated above. Our nation is based on federalism, and state governments, indeed the nation is created by the states which originally ratified our constitution.

Constitution
Flag Day 1999
14 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 59:9
Now confusion has come upon us. We are far removed from the days of the constitution’s ratification and hence it seems we have lost that institutional memory that points to the eternal truths that document affirms.

Constitution
Flag Day 1999
14 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 59:10
Today there are calls to pass federal laws and even constitutional amendments which would take from the states their powers and grant them to the federal government. Some of these are even done in the name of protecting the nation, its symbol, or our liberties. How very sad that must make the founding fathers looking down on our institutions. Those founders held that this centralization of power was and ought always remain the very definition of “unAmerican” and they understood that any short term victory an action of such concentration might bring would be paid for with the ultimate sacrifice of our very liberties.

Constitution
Flag Day 1999
14 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 59:11
To do what is right we must understand and honor the symbol and the sum of our nation. We must contemplate the flag and the constitution, both of which point us to the key basis of liberty that can be found only in local self-government. Our flag and our constitution both honor and symbolize federalism and when we undermine federalism we dishonor our flag, our constitution and our heritage.

Constitution
Flag Day 1999
14 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 59:12
The men who founded our nation risked the ultimate price for freedom. They pledged “their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor” to the founding of a republic based on local self-government. We should honor them, our republic and its most direct symbol, our U.S. flag by taking a stand against any rule, law or constitutional amendment which would expand the role of our federal government.

Constitution
Only A Moral Society Will Make Our Citizens And Their Guns Less Violent
15 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 60:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, we will this week fully debate the issue of school violence. If we had remained a constitutional republic, this debate would not be going on. I sincerely believe this kind of violence would be greatly reduced, and for the violence that did occur, it would be dealt with as a local and school issue. Responding emotionally with feel-good legislation in the Congress serves no worthwhile purpose, but makes the politician feel like he is doing something beneficial.

Constitution
Only A Moral Society Will Make Our Citizens And Their Guns Less Violent
15 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 60:5
Curbing free expression, even that which is violent and profane, is un-American and cannot solve our school problem. Likewise, gun laws do not work, and more of them only attack the liberties of law-abiding citizens. Before the first Federal gun law in 1934, there was a lot less gun violence, and guns were readily accessible to everyone. However, let me remind my colleagues, under the Constitution, gun regulations and crime control are supposed to be State issues.

Constitution
Only A Moral Society Will Make Our Citizens And Their Guns Less Violent
15 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 60:19
More gun laws expanding the role of the Federal government in our daily lives while further undermining the first and second amendment will not curb the violence. Understanding the proper constitutional role for government and preventing the government itself from using illegal force to mold society and police the world would go a long way in helping to diminish the violence.

Constitution
Don’t Undermine First And Second Amendment
16 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 61:5
We should be reminded, though, that traditionally, up until the middle part of this century, crime control was always considered a local issue. That is the way the Constitution designed it. That is the way it should be. But every day we write more laws here in the Congress building a national police force. We now have more than 80,000 bureaucrats in this country carrying guns. We are an armed society, but it is the Federal Government that is armed.

Constitution
What We Would Be Doing By Amending The Constitution To Make It Illegal To Desecrate The American Flag
22 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 63:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we have on our schedule the debate and the vote on a constitutional amendment, the amendment that would make the desecration of the flag illegal. Many who support this amendment imply that those of us who oppose it for some reason might be unpatriotic. That, of course, is not true.

Constitution
What We Would Be Doing By Amending The Constitution To Make It Illegal To Desecrate The American Flag
22 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 63:2
I would like to call attention to my fellow colleagues just exactly what I see us doing by amending the Constitution.

Constitution
What We Would Be Doing By Amending The Constitution To Make It Illegal To Desecrate The American Flag
22 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 63:7
Mr. Speaker, my point is obviously that why do we want to emulate them? There are other countries around the world that have similar laws: Iraq, Cuba, Haiti, Sudan; they all have laws against desecration of the flag. But in this country we have not had this. We have never put it in the Constitution. This debate would dumbfound our Founders to think that we were contemplating such an amendment to the Constitution.

Constitution
What We Would Be Doing By Amending The Constitution To Make It Illegal To Desecrate The American Flag
22 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 63:8
We have existed now for 212 years since the passage of our Constitution, and we have not had laws like this, but all of a sudden we feel compelled. What is the compulsion? Do we see on the nightly news Americans defying our flag and defying our principles of liberty? I cannot recall the last time I saw on television an American citizen burning an American flag or desecrating our flag. So all of a sudden now we decide it is a crisis of such magnitude that we have to amend the Constitution; at the same time, challenging the principles of freedom of expression.

Constitution
What We Would Be Doing By Amending The Constitution To Make It Illegal To Desecrate The American Flag
22 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 63:10
Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks we have had many Members in this Congress cite the Constitution. As a matter of fact, the Constitution is cited all the time. Sometimes I see it inconsistently cited, because when it pleases one to cite the Constitution, they do; and when it does not, they forget about it. But just recently we have heard the citing of the Constitution quite frequently. In the impeachment hearings: We have to uphold the Constitution, we have to live by our traditions and our ideals. Just last week we were citing the Constitution endlessly over the second amendment which I strongly support, and which I said the same thing. We must uphold the Constitution to defend the second amendment. But all of a sudden here we have decided to change the Constitution that we are in some way going to restrict the freedom of expression.

Constitution
What We Would Be Doing By Amending The Constitution To Make It Illegal To Desecrate The American Flag
22 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 63:11
We say, well, this is bad expression. This is ugly people. These are people that are saying unpopular things, and they are being obnoxious. But, Mr. Speaker, the first amendment and the freedom of expression was never put there for easygoing, nice, conventional, noncontroversial speech. There is no purpose to protect that. Nobody cares. The purpose of freedom of expression is to protect controversy, and if somebody is upset and annoyed, the best thing we can do with people like that is to ignore them. If we pass a constitutional amendment and people are so anti-American that they want to display their anti-Americanism, they will love it. They will get more attention because we will be sending in the Federal flag police to do something about it.

Constitution
What We Would Be Doing By Amending The Constitution To Make It Illegal To Desecrate The American Flag
22 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 63:12
Some will argue the Constitution does not protect freedom of expression; it protects freedom of speech, and this is not speech, this is ugly expression. But the Constitution does, does protect freedom of expression. That is what speech is. What about religion? To express one’s religious beliefs. What about one’s property, the right to go in and express what one believes? That is what freedom is all about is the freedom of expression and belief. I do not see how this country can become greater by having an amendment written that is in some ways going to curtail the freedom of Americans to express themselves. We have not had it for 212 years, and here we are going to change it.

Constitution
Opposing Flag Burning Amendment
23 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 65:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from California earlier that said that those of us who oppose this amendment should not be challenged on our patriotism. That certainly should be true. But I do rise in support of the rule because obviously it is constitutional to amend the Constitution; that we cannot object to. But I do have questions about what we are doing to the spirit of America, the spirit of the Constitution in a desire to protect a symbol.

Constitution
Opposing Flag Burning Amendment
23 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 65:5
The spirit of the Constitution did not require this. We have had 212 years of our history since the Constitution was passed. We have not had this pass. We have not required this. Where is the epidemic? I cannot remember ever seeing, and of course I am sure it has been on television where an American citizen burned the flag. It must happen; it will happen again. As a matter of fact, it will probably happen more often because there will be more attention given to it once this law is passed.

Constitution
Opposing Flag Burning Amendment
23 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 65:7
We are dealing with a few deranged individuals that were willing to challenge the spirit of the Constitution. They say this is not free speech, but it is indeed expression, just as religion is, just as the study of philosophy is, just as our personal convictions. To say that this is not protected under the Constitution, the current Constitution, I think is quite wrong. I think we do protect that.

Constitution
Opposing Flag Burning Amendment
23 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 66:2
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I have myself served 5 years in the military, and I have great respect for the symbol of our freedom. I salute the flag, and I pledge to the flag. But I served my country to protect our freedoms and to protect our Constitution. I believe very sincerely that today we are undermining to some degree that freedom that we have had all these many years.

Constitution
Opposing Flag Burning Amendment
23 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 66:3
We have not had a law against flag desecration in the 212 years of our constitutional history. So I do not see where it is necessary. We have some misfits on occasion burn the flag, which we all despise. But to now change the ability for some people to express themselves and to challenge the First Amendment, I think we should not do this carelessly.

Constitution
Opposing Flag Burning Amendment
23 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 66:7
Our Nation was not founded on devotion to symbolic idols, but on principles, beliefs and ideals expressed in the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. American veterans who have protected our banner in battle have not done so to protect a golden calf. Instead, they carried the banner forward with reverence for what it represents, our beliefs and freedom for all. Therein lies the beauty of our flag. A patriot cannot be created by legislation.

Constitution
Opposing Flag Burning Amendment
23 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 66:10
We must be interested in the spirit of our Constitution. We must be interested in the principles of liberty. We should not be careless in accepting this approach to enforce a sense of patriotism.

Constitution
Privacy Project Act
24 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 68:3
Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government has no constitutional authority to require Americans to present any form of identification before engaging in any private transaction such as opening a bank account, seeing a doctor, or seeking employment. Any uniform, national system of identification would allow the federal government to inappropriately monitor the movements and transactions of every citizen. History shows that when government gains the power to monitor the actions of the people, it eventually uses that power to impose totalitarian controls on the populace.

Constitution
Privacy Project Act
24 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 68:5
Although the Transportation Appropriations bill restricts the Department of Transportation from implementing a final rule regarding this provision, the fact is that unless the House acts this year to repeal the provision, states will begin implementing the law so as to be in compliance with the mandate. Therefore, Congress must repeal Section 656 in order to comply with the Constitution and the wishes of the vast majority of the American people who do not want to be forced to carry a national ID card.

Constitution
Privacy Project Act
24 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 68:7
NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES [NCSL]; AND AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION [ACLU]; ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER [EPIC]; NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LA RAZA [NCLR]; EAGLE FORUM; ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION; FREE CONGRESS FOUNDATION/COALITION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTIES; AND AMERICANS FOR TAX REFORM We represent a broad-based coalition of state legislators, county officials, public policy groups, civil libertarians, privacy experts, and consumer groups from across the political spectrum. We urge the Congress to repeal Section 656 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibilities Act of 1996 that requires states to collect, verify and display social security numbers on state-issued driver’s licenses and conform with federally-mandated uniform features for driver’s license. The law preempts state authority over the issuance of the state driver’s licenses, violates the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1994 (UMRA) and poses a threat to the privacy of citizens. Opposition to the law and the preliminary regulation issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has been overwhelmingly evidence by the more than 2,000 comments submitted by individuals, groups, state legislators, and state agencies to NHTSA.

Constitution
Child Custody Protection Act
30 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 69:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, in the name of a truly laudable cause (preventing abortions 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.

Constitution
Child Custody Protection Act
30 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 69:2
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.

Constitution
Child Custody Protection Act
30 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 69:3
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.

Constitution
Child Custody Protection Act
30 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 69:4
Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress today will likely pass H.R. 1218. H.R. 1218 amends title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines 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.

Constitution
Child Custody Protection Act
30 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 69:5
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.

Constitution
Child Custody Protection Act
30 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 69:6
Most recently, 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 stated in his year-end report “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.

Constitution
Child Custody Protection Act
30 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 69:7
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 centralization of police power.

Constitution
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.

Constitution
H.R. 1691 And Religious Freedom
15 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 74:3
The U.S. Constitution vests all legislative powers in Congress and requires Congress to define government policy and select the means by which that policy is to be implemented. Congress, in allowing religious free exercise to be infringed using the least restrictive means whenever government pleads a compelling interest without defining either what constitutes least restrictive or compelling interest delegates, to the courts legislative powers to make these policy choices constitutionally reserved to the elected body.

Constitution
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.

Constitution
H.R. 1691 And Religious Freedom
15 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 74:8
Mr. Speaker, our Nation does not need an unconstitutional Federal standard of religious freedom. We need instead for government, including the courts, to respect its existing constitutional limitations so we can have true religious liberty.

Constitution
Exchange Stabilization Fund
15 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 76:10
What is the purpose of having a Congress? What is the purpose of the Constitution if we have an obligation to guarantee the value of the dollar and if we permit somebody not under our control to do whatever they want to the dollar under the pretense that we are going to protect the value of all the currencies of Asia?

Constitution
Africa Growth And Opportunity Act
16 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 77:7
The Fast Track initiative highlighted in USA ENGAGE’s Congressional scorecard has its own particular set of Constitutional problems, but the free-trade arguments are most relevant and illustrative here. The fast-track procedure bill sets general international economic policy objectives, re-authorizes “Trade Adjustment Assistance” welfare for workers who lose their jobs and for businesses which fail (a gentler, kinder “welfarist” form of protectionism), and creates a new permanent position of Chief Agriculture Negotiator within the office of the United States Trade Representative. Lastly, like today’s legislative mishap, the bill “pays” the government’s “cost” of free trade by increasing taxes on a set of taxpayers further removed from those corporatists who hope to gain by engineering favorable international trade agreements.

Constitution
Africa Growth And Opportunity Act
16 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 77:8
Constitutional questions aside, like today’s H.R. 434, the fast track bill contained provisions which would likely continue our country down the ugly path of internationally-engineered, “managed trade” rather than that of free trade. As explained by the late economist Murray N. Rothbard, Ph.D.:

Constitution
Africa Growth And Opportunity Act
16 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 77:9
[Genuine free trade doesn’t require a treaty (or its deformed cousin, a ‘trade agreement’; NAFTA is called an agreement so it can avoid the constitutional requirement of approval by two-thirds of the Senate). If the establishment truly wants free trade, all it has to do is to repeal our numerous tariff, import quotas, anti-dumping laws, and other American-imposed restrictions of free trade. No foreign policy or foreign maneuvering in necessary.

Constitution
Africa Growth And Opportunity Act
16 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 77:12
The harmonization language in the last Congress’ Food and Drug Administration reform bill constitutes a perfect example. Harmonization language in this bill has the Health and Human Services Secretary negotiating multilateral and bilateral international agreements to unify regulations in this country with those of others. The bill removes from the state governments the right to exercise their police powers under the tenth amendment to the constitution and, at the same time, creates a corporatist power elite board of directors to review medical devices and drugs for approval. This board, of course, is to be made up of “objective” industry experts appointed by national governments. Instead of the “national” variety, known as the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 (enacted for the “good reason” of protecting railroad consumers from exploitative railroad freight rates, only to be staffed by railroad attorneys who then used their positions to line the pockets of their respective railroads), we now have the same sham imposed upon worldwide consumers on an international scale soon to be staffed by heads of multinational pharmaceutical corporations.

Constitution
Teacher Empowerment Act
20 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 81:4
In order to receive any funds under this act, states must further entrench the federal bureaucracy by applying to the Department of Education and describing how local school districts will use the funds in accordance with federal mandates. They must grovel for funds while describing how they will measure student achievement and teacher quality; how they will coordinate professional development activities with other programs; and how they will encourage the development of “proven, innovative strategies” to improve professional development — I wonder how much funding a state would receive if their “innovative strategy” did not meet the approval of the Education Department! I have no doubt that state governments, local school districts, and individual citizens could design a less burdensome procedure to support teacher quality initiatives if the federal government would only abide by its constitutional limits.

Constitution
Teacher Empowerment Act
20 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 81:5
Use of the funds by local school districts is also limited by the federal government. For example, local schools districts must use a portion of each grant to reduce class size, unless it can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the state that it needs the money to fund other priorities. This provision illustrates how this bill offends not just constitutional procedure but also sound education practice. After all, the needs of a given school system are best determined by the parents, administrators, community leaders, and, yes, teachers, closest to the students — not by state or federal bureaucrats. Yet this bill continues to allow distant bureaucrats to oversee the decisions of local education officials.

Constitution
Teacher Empowerment Act
20 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 81:6
Furthermore, this bill requires localities to use a certain percentage of their funds to meet the professional development needs of math and science teachers. As an OB–GYN, I certainly understand the need for quality math and science teachers, however, for Congress to require local education agencies to devote a disproportionate share of resources to one particular group of teachers is a form of central planning — directing resources into those areas valued by the central planners, regardless of the diverse needs of the people. Not every school district in the country has the same demand for math and science teachers. There may be some local school districts that want to devote more resources to English teachers or foreign language instructors. Some local schools districts may even want to devote their resources to provide quality history and civics teachers so they will not produce another generation of constitutionally-illiterate politicians!

Constitution
Teacher Empowerment Act
20 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 81:7
In order to receive funding under this bill, states must provide certain guarantees that the state’s use of the money will result in improvement in the quality of the state’s education system. Requiring such guarantees assumes that the proper role for the Federal Government is to act as overseer of the states and localities to ensure they provide children with a quality education. There are several flaws in this assumption. First of all, the 10th amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the Federal Government from exercising any control over education. Thus, the Federal Government has no legitimate authority to take money from the American people and use that money in order to bribe states to adopt certain programs that Congress and the federal bureaucracy believes will improve education. The prohibition in the 10th amendment is absolute; it makes no exception for federal education programs that “allow the states flexibility!”

Constitution
Teacher Empowerment Act
20 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 81:8
In addition to violating the Constitution, making states accountable in any way to the federal government for school performance is counter-productive. The quality of American education has declined as Federal control has increased, and for a very good reason. As mentioned above, decentralized education systems are much more effective then centralized education systems. Therefore, the best way to ensure a quality education system is through dismantling the Washington-DC-based bureaucracy and making schools more accountable to parents and students.

Constitution
Teacher Empowerment Act
20 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 81:10
Mr. Chairman, the Teacher Empowerment Act not only continues the federal control of education in violation of the Constitution and sound education principles, but it does so at increased spending levels. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to reject the approach of this bill and instead join me in working to eliminate the federal education bureaucracy, cut taxes, and thus return control over education to America’s parents, teachers, and students.

Constitution
Population Control
2 August 1999    1999 Ron Paul 84:5
I would like to spend a minute though on the authority that is cited for doing such a thing. Under the House rules, the committee is required to at least cite the constitutional authority for doing what we do on each of our bills. Of course, I was curious about this, because I was wondering whether this could be general welfare. This does not sound like the general welfare of the U.S. taxpayer, to be passing out condoms and birth control pills and forcing our will on other people, imposing our standards on them and forcing our taxpayers to pay. That does not seem to have anything to do whatsoever with the general welfare of this country.

Constitution
Population Control
2 August 1999    1999 Ron Paul 84:7
So it was very interesting to read exactly what the justification is. The Committee on Appropriations, quoting from the committee report, the Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to report this legislation from clause 7, section 9 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America, which states “no money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriation made by law.” “Appropriations contained in this act,” the report says, “are made pursuant to this specific power granted by the Constitution.”

Constitution
Population Control
2 August 1999    1999 Ron Paul 84:8
That is not a power. That was a prohibition. It was to keep us from spending money without appropriation. If this is true, we can spend money on anything in the world, and the Constitution has zero meaning. This cannot possibly be.

Constitution
Population Control
2 August 1999    1999 Ron Paul 84:9
So all I would suggest is this: Be a little more creative when we talk about the Constitution. There must be a more creative explanation on why we are spending these kinds of monies overseas.

Constitution
Selective Service System
8 September 1999    1999 Ron Paul 92:11
Conscription is not part of the American dream. It is not part of the American philosophy. It is not part of liberty. It is a totalitarian notion. Congress has the authority to raise an army, but it does not have the constitutional authority to enslave a certain group to bear the brunt of the fighting. A society that cherishes liberty will easily find its volunteer defenders if it is attacked. A free society that cannot find those willing to defend itself without coercion cannot survive, and probably does not deserve to.

Constitution
Consistency In Voting
8 September 1999    1999 Ron Paul 93:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. The gentleman has called attention to my voting record. I would say that if I could show the gentleman that I voted 100 percent for the Constitution, would the gentleman still complain about my voting record being 90 percent, 99 percent in opposition? Being for liberty is not a negative position.

Constitution
Campaign Finance Reform
14 September 1999    1999 Ron Paul 97:13
Additionally, the legislative debate over campaign finance reform has seemingly focused upon the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech, as interpreted and applied by the courts. The constitutional issues, however, are not limited to the First Amendment. To the contrary, pursuant to their oaths of office, members of Congress have an independent duty to determine the constitutionality of legislation before it and to decide, before ever reaching the First Amendment, whether they have been vested by the Constitution with any authority, at all, to regulate federal election campaigns. Congress has no authority except that which is “granted” in the Constitution. Thus, the threshold question concerning H.R. 417 is whether the Constitution has conferred upon Congress any authority to regular federal election campaigns. The authority to regulate such campaigns is not found among any enumerated power conferred upon Congress.

Constitution
Preserving Housing for Senior Citizens and Families into the 21st Century
27 September 1999    1999 Ron Paul 98:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 202. “Preserving Housing for Senior Citizens and Families into the 21st Century.” While my views on respecting our Constitution limitations regarding Federal issues are well known and need not be repeated here now, I have other concerns regarding this bill specifically.

Constitution
Humanitarian Aid
28 September 1999    1999 Ron Paul 100:6
So the proposal and the program I am suggesting is a constitutional program. I believe it is best for the people. It has nothing to do with isolating ourselves from the rest of the world. It is to isolate ourselves from doing dumb things that get us involved in things like Korea and Vietnam, where we do not even know why we are there and we end up losing. That is what I am opposed to.

Constitution
War On East Timor
28 September 1999    1999 Ron Paul 101:4
I think there is a better way to proceed, and it is written in the Constitution.

Constitution
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
30 September 1999    1999 Ron Paul 102:4
The Roe v. Wade ruling will in time prove to be the most significantly flawed Supreme Court ruling of the 20th century. Not only for its codification, through an unconstitutional court action, of a social consensus that glorified promiscuity and abortion of convenience and for birth control, but for flaunting as well the constitutional system that requires laws of this sort be left to the prerogative of the states alone. A single “Roe v. Wade” ruling by one state would be far less harmful than a Supreme Court ruling that nullifies all state laws protecting the unborn.

Constitution
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
30 September 1999    1999 Ron Paul 102:6
Traditionally, throughout our history, except for the three constitutional provisions, all crimes of violence have been — and should remain — state matters. Yet this legislation only further undermines the principle of state jurisdiction, and our system of law enforcement, which has served us well for most of our history.

Constitution
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
30 September 1999    1999 Ron Paul 102:8
Making the killing of an unborn infant a federal crime, as this bill does, further institutionalizes the process of allowing federal courts to destroy the constitutional jurisdiction of the states. But more importantly, the measure continues the practice of only protecting some life, by allowing unborn children to be killed by anyone with an “M.D.” after his name.

Constitution
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
30 September 1999    1999 Ron Paul 102:13
Mr. Chairman, today Congress will vote to further instill and codify the ill-advised Roe versus Wade decision. While it is the independent duty of each branch of the federal government to act Constitutionally, Congress will likely ignore not only its Constitutional limits but earlier criticisms from Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well.

Constitution
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
30 September 1999    1999 Ron Paul 102:15
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, wants to be amongst those members of Congress who are portrayed as soft on violent crimes initiated against the unborn?

Constitution
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
30 September 1999    1999 Ron Paul 102:16
Nevertheless, 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.

Constitution
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
30 September 1999    1999 Ron Paul 102:19
Perhaps, equally 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, because the constitution was amended to allow it, 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 murder 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 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.

Constitution
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
30 September 1999    1999 Ron Paul 102:20
Occasionally the argument is put forth 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 centralization of a police power.

Constitution
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
30 September 1999    1999 Ron Paul 102:23
Protection of life (born or unborn) against initiations of violence is of vital importance. So vitally important, in fact, it must be left to the states’ criminal justice systems. We have seen what a legal, constitutional, and philosophical mess results from attempts to federalize such an issue. Numerous states have adequately protected the unborn against assault and murder and done so prior to the federal government’s unconstitutional sanctioning of violence in the Roe v. Wade decision. Unfortunately, H.R. 2436 ignores the danger of further federalizing that which is properly reserved to state governments and, in so doing, throws legal philosophy, the Constitution, the bill of rights, and the insights of Chief Justice Rehnquist out with the baby and the bathwater. For these reasons, I must oppose H.R. 2436, The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 1999.

Constitution
Stop Federal Funding for Schools
20 October 1999    1999 Ron Paul 107:6
If we had a tremendous success with our educational system, if everybody was being taken care of, if these $60 billion were really doing the job, if we were not having the violence and the drugs in the school, maybe you could say, well, let us change the Constitution or let me reassess my position. But I think we are on weak grounds if we think we can continue to do this.

Constitution
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (SEA)
21 October 1999    1999 Ron Paul 108:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, Congress is once again preparing to exceed its constitutional limits as well as ignore the true lesson of the last thirty years of education failure by reauthorizing Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (SEA). Like most federal programs, Title I was launched with the best of intentions, however, good intentions are no excuse for Congress to exceed its constitutional limitations by depriving parents, local communities and states of their rightful authority over education. The tenth amendment does not contain an exception for “good intentions!”

Constitution
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (SEA)
21 October 1999    1999 Ron Paul 108:3
Supporters of a constitutional education policy should be heartened that Congress has finally recognized that simply throwing federal taxpayer money at local schools will not improve education. However, too many in Congress continue to cling to the belief that the “right federal program” conceived by enlightened members and staffers will lead to educational nirvana. In fact, a cursory review of this legislation reveals at least five new mandates imposed on the states by this bill; this bill also increases federal expenditures by $27.7 billion over the next five years — yet the drafters of this legislation somehow manage to claim with a straight face that this bill promotes local control!

Constitution
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (SEA)
21 October 1999    1999 Ron Paul 108:9
Fortunately there is an alternative educational policy to the one before us today that respects the Constitution and improves education by restoring true accountability to America’s education system. Returning real control to the American people by returning direct control of the education dollars to America’s parents and concerned citizens is the only proper solution. This is precisely why I have introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (HR 935). The Family Education Freedom Act provides parents with a $3,000 per child tax credit for the K–12 education expenses. I have also introduced the Education Tax Credit Act (HR 936), which provides a $3,000 tax credit for cash contributions to scholarships as well as any cash and in-kind contribution to public, private, or religious schools.

Constitution
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (SEA)
21 October 1999    1999 Ron Paul 108:11
Instead of fighting over what type of federal intervention is best for education, Congress should honor their constitutional oath and give complete control over America’s educational system to the states and people. Therefore, Congress should reject this legislation and instead work to restore true accountability to America’s parents by defunding the education bureaucracy and returning control of the education dollar to America’s parents.

Constitution
Academic Achievement for All Students Freedom and Accountability Act (STRAIGHT “A’s”)
21 October 1999    1999 Ron Paul 109:2
The fact that this bill increases, however marginally, the ability of states and localities to control education, is a step forward. As long as the federal government continues to levy oppressive taxes on the American people, and then funnel that money back to the states to use for education programs, defenders of the Constitution should support all efforts to reduce the hoops through which states must jump in order to reclaim some of the people’s tax monies.

Constitution
Academic Achievement for All Students Freedom and Accountability Act (STRAIGHT “A’s”)
21 October 1999    1999 Ron Paul 109:4
The primary objection to STRAIGHT “A’s” from a constitutional viewpoint, is embedded in the very mantra of “accountability” stressed by the drafters of the bill. Talk of accountability begs the question: accountable to whom? Under this bill, schools remain accountable to federal bureaucrats and those who develop the state tests upon which a participating school’s performance is judged. Should the schools not live up to their bureaucratically-determined “performance goals,” they will lose the flexibility granted to them under this act. So federal and state bureaucrats will determine if the schools are to be allowed to participate in the STRAIGHT “A’s” programs and bureaucrats will judge whether the states are living up to the standards set in the state’s five-year education plan — yet this is supposed to debureaucratize and decentralize education!

Constitution
Academic Achievement for All Students Freedom and Accountability Act (STRAIGHT “A’s”)
21 October 1999    1999 Ron Paul 109:5
Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to hold states “accountable” for their education performance. In the free society envisioned by the founders, schools are held accountable to parents, not federal bureaucrats. However, the current system of leveling oppressive taxes on America’s families and using those taxes to fund federal education programs denies parental control of education by denying them control over the education dollar. Because “he who pays the piper calls the tune,” when the federal government controls the education dollar schools will obey the dictates of federal “educrats” while ignoring the wishes of the parents.

Constitution
Academic Achievement for All Students Freedom and Accountability Act (STRAIGHT “A’s”)
21 October 1999    1999 Ron Paul 109:9
It is the Family Education Freedom Act, not STRAIGHT “A’s”, which represents the education policy best suited for a constitutional republic and a free society. The Family Education Freedom Act ensures that schools are accountable to parents, whereas STRAIGHT “A’s” continues to hold schools accountable to bureaucrats.

Constitution
Academic Achievement for All Students Freedom and Accountability Act (STRAIGHT “A’s”)
21 October 1999    1999 Ron Paul 109:10
Since the STRAIGHT “A’s” bill does give states an opportunity to break free of some federal mandates, supporters of returning the federal government to its constitutional limits should support it. However, they should keep in mind that this bill represents a minuscule step forward as it fails to directly challenge the federal government’s usurpation of control over education. Instead, this bill merely gives states greater flexibility to fulfill federally-defined goals. Therefore, Congress should continue to work to restore constitutional government and parental control of education by defunding all unconstitutional federal programs and returning the money to America’s parents so that they may once again control the education of their children.

Constitution
Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999.
27 October 1999    1999 Ron Paul 112:7
I am pro-life. I am against abortion. I am absolutely opposed to euthanasis. But euthanasis is killing. Under our Constitution, that is a State issue, not a congressional issue.

Constitution
Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999.
27 October 1999    1999 Ron Paul 112:11
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 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.

Constitution
Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999.
27 October 1999    1999 Ron Paul 112:16
Like the unborn, protection of the lives of palliative care patients is of vital importance. So vitally important, in fact, it must be left to the states’ criminal justice systems and state medical licensing boards. We have seen what a mess results from attempts to federalize such an issue. Numerous states have adequately protected both the unborn and palliative care patients against assault and murder and done so prior to the federal government’s unconstitutional sanctioning of violence in the Roe versus Wade decision. Unfortunately, H.R. 2260 ignores the danger of further federalizing that which is properly reserved to state governments and, in so doing, ignores the Constitution, the bill of rights, and the insights of Chief Justice Rehnquist. For these reasons, I must oppose H.R. 2260, The Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999.

Constitution
Statement on OSHA Home Office Regulations
January 28, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 1:4
Mr. Chairman, the fact that OSHA would even consider exercising regulatory authority over any part of a private home shows just how little respect OSHA has for private property. Private property, of course, was considered one of the bulwarks of liberty by our nation’s founding fathers, and has been seriously eroded in this country. While it is heartening that so many members of Congress have expressed their displeasure with OSHA over this issue, I am concerned that most of the debate has focused on the negative consequences of this regulation instead of on the question of whether OSHA has the constitutional authority to regulate any part of a private residence (or private business for that matter). The economic and social consequences of allowing federal bureaucrats to regulate home offices certainly should be debated. However, I would remind my colleagues that conceding the principle that the only way to protect worker safety is by means of a large bureaucracy with the power to impose a “one-size fits all” model on every workplace in America ensures that defenders of the free market will be always on the defensive, trying to reign in the bureaucracy from going “too far” rather than advancing a positive, pro-freedom agenda. Furthermore, many companies are experiencing great success at promoting worker safety by forming partnerships with their employees to determine how best to create a safe workplace. This approach to worker safety is both more effective, and constitutionally sound, than giving OSHA bureaucrats the power to, for example, force landscapers to use $200 gas cans instead of $5 cans or fining a construction company $7,000 dollars because their employees jumped in a trench to rescue a trapped man without first putting on their OSHA-approved hard hats; or fine a company because it failed to warn employees not to eat copier toner!

Constitution
Statement on OSHA Home Office Regulations
January 28, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 1:7
This is why I have supported several legislative efforts to encourage more cooperative approach to workplace safety. I hope Congress will continue to work to replace the old “command-and control” model with one that respects the constitution and does not treat Americans like children in need of the protection of “big brother” government.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:3
The form of government secured by the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution and the Constitution is unique in history and reflects the strongly held beliefs of the American revolutionaries. At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, “Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?” “A republic, if you can keep it,” responded Franklin.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:5
The American Republic required strict limitation of government power. Those powers permitted would be precisely defined and delegated by the people with all public officials being bound by their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. The democratic process would be limited to the election of our leaders and not used for granting special privileges to any group or individual nor for defining rights.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:6
Federalism, the binding together loosely of the several States, would serve to prevent the concentration of power in a central government and was a crucial element in the new republic. The authors of the Constitution wrote strict limits on the national government and strove to protect the rights and powers of the State and the people.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:7
Dividing and keeping separate the legislative, executive, and the judiciary branches provided the checks and balances thought needed to preserve the Republic the Constitution created and the best way to preserve individual liberty.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:9
The Revolution and subsequent Constitution settled the question as to which authority should rule man’s action, the individual or the state. The authors of the Constitution clearly understood that man has free will to make personal choices and be responsible for the consequences of his own actions. Man, they knew, was not simply to be a cog in a wheel or a single cell of an organism or a branch of a tree but an individual with free will and responsibility for his eternal soul as well as his life on earth. If God could permit spiritual freedom, government certainly ought to permit the political freedom that allows one to pursue life’s dreams and assume one’s responsibilities.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:13
Our constitutional Republic, according to our founders, should above all else protect the rights of the minority against the abuses of an authoritarian majority. They feared democracy as much as monarchy and demanded a weak executive, a restrained court, and a handicapped legislature.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:15
The Constitution made it clear that the government was not to interfere with productive, nonviolent human energy. This is the key element that has permitted America’s great achievements. It was a great plan. We should all be thankful for the bravery and wisdom of those who established this Nation and secured the Constitution for us. We have been the political and economic envy of the world. We have truly been blessed.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:22
The nature of a republic and the current status of our own are of little concern to the American people in general. Yet there is a small minority ignored by political, academic, and media personnel who do spend time thinking about the importance of what the proper role for government should be. The comparison of today’s government to the one established by our Constitution is the subject of deep discussion for those who concern themselves with the future and look beyond the fall election.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:23
The benefits we enjoy are a result of the Constitution our founding fathers had the wisdom to write. However, understanding the principles that were used to establish our Nation is crucial to its preservation and something we cannot neglect.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:33
Quite a few major changes in public policy have occurred in this century. These changes in policy reflect our current attitude toward the American Republic and the Constitution and help us to understand what to expect in the future. Economic prosperity seems to have prevailed. But the appropriate question asked by too few Americans is, have our personal liberties be undermined?

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:47
This public acceptance has occurred in spite of the fact that there is no evidence that welfare is a true help in assisting the needy. Its abject failure around the world where welfarism took the next step into socialism has even a worse record. The transition in the past hundred years from essentially no welfare to an all encompassing welfare state represents a major change in attitude in the United States. Along with the acceptance, the promoters have dramatically reinterpreted the Constitution in the way it had been for our first 150 years.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:49
But the history is clear and the words in the Constitution are precise. Madison and Jefferson, in explaining the General Welfare clause, left no doubt as to its meaning.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:50
Madison said, “With respect to the words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of power connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution and to a character which there is a host of proof not contemplated by its creators.”

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:52
The Constitution granted authority to the Federal Government to do only 20 things, each to be carried out for the benefits of the general welfare of all the people.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:53
This understanding of the Constitution, as described by the Father of the Constitution, has been lost in this century. Jefferson was just as clear, writing in 1798 when he said, “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated.”

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:55
The goal of strictly limiting the power of our national Government as was intended by the Constitution is impossible to achieve as long as it is acceptable for Congress to redistribute wealth in an egalitarian welfare state.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:58
No one asked where the Government gets the money to finance the welfare state. Is it morally right to do so? Is it authorized in the Constitution? Does it help anyone in the long run? Who suffers from the policy? Until these questions are seriously asked and correctly answered, we cannot expect the march toward a pervasive welfare state to stop and we can expect our liberties to be continuously compromised.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:59
The concept of the Doctrine of Enumerated Powers was picked away at in the latter part of the 19th century over strong objection by many constitutionalists. But it was not until the drumbeat of fear coming from the Roosevelt administration during the Great Depression that the courts virtually rewrote the Constitution by reinterpretation of the General Welfare clause.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:60
In 1936, the New Deal Supreme Court told Congress and the American people that the Constitution is irrelevant when it comes to limits being placed on congressional spending. In a ruling justifying the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the Court pronounced, “The power of Congress to authorize appropriations of public money for public purposes is not limited by the grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.”

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:61
With the stroke of a pen, the courts amended the Constitution in such a sweeping manner that it literally legalized the entire welfare state, which, not surprisingly, has grown by leaps and bounds ever since.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:69
Preserving liberty and restoring constitutional precepts are impossible as long as the welfare mentality prevails, and that will not likely change until we have run out of money. But it will become clear as we move into the next century that perpetual wealth and the so-called balanced budget, along with an expanding welfare state, cannot continue indefinitely. Any effort to perpetuate it will only occur with the further erosion of liberty.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:71
After hundreds of billions of dollars, we have yet to see a shred of evidence that the drift toward central control over education has helped. By all measurements, the quality of education is down. There are more drugs and violence in the public schools than ever before. Discipline is impossible out of fear of lawsuits or charges of civil rights violations. Controlled curricula have downplayed the importance of our constitutional heritage while indoctrinating our children, even in kindergarten, with environmental mythology, internationalism and sexual liberation. Neighborhood schools in the early part of the 20th century did not experience this kind of propaganda.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:77
Talk of returning some control of Federal programs to the States is not the same as keeping the Federal Government out of education as directed by the Constitution. Of the 20 congressionally authorized functions granted by the Constitution, education is not one of them. That should be enough of a reason not to be involved. There is no evidence of any benefit and statistics show that great harm has resulted. It has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars, yet we continue the inexorable march toward total domination of our educational system by Washington bureaucrats and politicians. It makes no sense. It is argued that if the Federal funding for education did not continue, education would suffer even more. Yet we see poor and middle-class families educating their children at home or at private school at a fraction of the cost of a government school education, with results fantastically better, and all done in the absence of violence and drugs.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:84
Recently, the Secretary of HUD, using public funds to sue gun manufacturers, claimed this is necessary to solve the problems of crime which government housing perpetuates. If a government agency, which was never meant to exist in the first place under the Constitution, can expand their role into the legislative and legal matters without the consent of the Congress, we indeed have a serious problem on our hands. The programs are bad enough in themselves but the abuse of the rule of law and ignoring the separation of powers makes these expanding programs that much more dangerous to our entire political system and is a direct attack on personal liberty. If one cares about providing the maximum best housing for the maximum number of people, one must consider a free market approach in association with a sound, nondepreciating currency. We have been operating a public housing program directly opposite to this and along with steady inflation and government promotion of housing since the 1960s, the housing market has been grossly distorted. We can soon expect a major downward correction in the housing industry prompted by rising interest rates.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:89
The U.S. monetary system. The U.S. monetary system during the 20th Century has dramatically changed from the one authorized by the Constitution. Only silver and gold were to be used in payment of debt, and no paper money was to be issued. In one of the few restrictions on the states, the Constitution prohibited them from issuing their own money, and they were to use only gold and silver in payment of debt. No Central Bank was authorized.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:90
The authors of the Constitution were well aware of the dangers of inflation, having seen the harm associated with the destruction of the Continental currency. They never wanted to see another system that ended with the slogan, “it’s not worth a Continental.” They much preferred sound as a dollar, or as good as gold, as a description of our currency.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:91
Unfortunately, their concerns as they were reflected in the Constitution have been ignored and as this century closes we do not have a sound dollar as good as gold. The changes to our monetary system are by far the most significant economic events of the 20th Century. The gold dollar of 1900 is now nothing more than a Federal Reserve note with a promise by untrustworthy politicians and the central bankers to pay nothing for it.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:112
A paper money system is dangerous economically and not constitutionally authorized. It is also immoral for government to counterfeit money, which dilutes the value of the currency and steals values from those who hold the currency and those who do not necessary benefit from its early circulation.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:114
Congress must someday restore sound money to America. It is mandated in the Constitution, it is economically sound to do so, and it is morally right to guarantee a standard of value for the money. Our oath of office obligates all Members of Congress to pay attention to this and participate in this needed reform.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:117
A lot of political and police power has shifted from the state and local communities to the Federal Government over the past 100 years. If a constitutional republic is desired and individual liberty is cherished, this concentration of power cannot be tolerated.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:118
Congress has been derelict in creating the agencies in the first place and ceding to the Executive the power to write regulations and even tax without Congressional approval. These agencies enforce their own laws and supervise their own administrative court system where citizens are considered guilty until proven innocent. The Constitution has been thrown out the window for all practical purposes, and although more Americans every day complain loudly, Congress does nothing to stop it.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:128
The Federal courts also have significantly contributed to this trend. Hopefully in the new century our support for a national police state will be diminished. We have in this past century not only seen the undermining of the Federalism that the Constitution desperately tried to preserve, but the principles of separation of powers among the three branches of government has been severely compromised as well.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:129
The Supreme Court no longer just rules on Constitutionality, but frequently rewrites the laws with attempts at comprehensive social engineering. The most blatant example was the Roe v. Wade ruling. The Federal court should be hearing a lot fewer cases, deferring as often as possible to the states courts.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:130
Throughout the 20th Century, with Congress’ obsession for writing laws for everything, the Federal courts were quite willing to support the idea of a huge interventionist Federal Government. The fact that the police officers in the Rodney King case were tried twice for the same crime, ignoring the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy, was astoundingly condoned by the courts, rather than condemned. It is not an encouraging sign that the concept of equal protection under the law will prevail.

Constitution
The Hillory J. Farias Date Rape Prevention Drug Act of 1999
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 3:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today the Congress will collectively move our nation yet another step closer to a national police state by further expanding a federal crime to include amongst the list of controlled substances that of GHB, a nutrient used for 25 years with beneficial effects for those suffering from cataplexy, insomnia, narcolepsy, depression, alcoholism, opiate addiction and numerous other conditions. 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 limitation 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 being soft on drugs or rape, irrespective of the procedural transgressions and individual or civil liberties one tramples in their overzealous approach.

Constitution
The Hillory J. Farias Date Rape Prevention Drug Act of 1999
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 3:2
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.”

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:2
When it comes to executive orders, it has gotten completely out of hand. Executive orders may legitimately be used by a President to carry out his constitutionally authorized duties, but that would require far fewer orders than modern day Presidents have issued as the 20th century comes to a close, we find the executive branch willfully and arrogantly using the executive order to deliberately circumvent the legislative body, and bragging about it.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:16
The Government knew very little about each individual American citizen in 1900. But, starting with World War I, there has been a systematic growth of Government surveillance of everyone’s activities, with multiple records being kept. Today, true privacy is essentially a thing of the past. The FBI and the IRS have been used by various administrations to snoop and harass political opponents, and there has been little effort by Congress to end this abuse. A free society, that is, a constitutional republic, cannot be maintained if privacy is not highly cherished and protected by the Government, rather than abused by it. We can expect it to get worse.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:20
Since 1973, abortion in America has become routine and justified by a contorted understanding of the right to privacy. The difference between American rejection of abortion at the beginning of the century compared to today’s casual acceptance is like night and day. Although a vocal number of Americans express their disgust with abortion on demand, our legislative bodies and the courts claim that the procedure is a constitutionally protected right, disregarding all scientific evidence and legal precedents that recognize the unborn as a legal, living entity, deserving protection of the law.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:30
Second, Roe v. Wade must be replaced by limiting jurisdiction, which can be done through legislation, a constitutional option. If we as a Nation do not once again show respect and protect the life of the unborn, we can expect the factions that have emerged on each side of this issue to become more vocal and violent. A Nation that can casually toss away its smallest and most vulnerable members and call it a “right” cannot continue to protect the lives or rights of its other citizens.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:39
Before the social authoritarians decided to reform the gun and drug culture, they amended the Constitution enacting alcohol prohibition. Prohibition failed to reduce alcohol usage and a crime wave resulted. After 14 years, the American people demanded repeal of this social engineering amendment, and got it.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:40
Prohibition prompted the production of poor quality alcohol with serious health consequences, while respect for the law was lost as it was flagrantly violated. At least at that time the American people believed the Constitution had to be amended to prohibit the use of alcohol, something that is entirely ignored today in the Federal Government’s effort to stop drug usage.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:41
In spite of the obvious failure of alcohol prohibition, the Federal Government, after its repeal, turned its sights on gun ownership and drug usage. The many Federal anti-gun laws written since 1934, along with the constant threat of outright registration and confiscation, have put the FBI and the BATF at odds with millions of law abiding citizens who believe the Constitution is explicit in granting the right of gun ownership to all nonviolent Americans.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:57
The war on drugs is the most important driving force behind the national police state. The excuse given for calling in the Army helicopters and tanks at the Waco disaster was that the authorities had evidence of an amphetamine lab on the Davidian property. This was never proven, but nevertheless it gave the legal cover but not the proper constitutional authority for escalating the attack on the Davidians which led to the senseless killing of so many innocent people.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:64
What happens to our society if the material abundance which we enjoy is ephemeral and human trust is lost? Social disorder will surely result and there will be a clamor for a more authoritarian government. This scenario may indeed threaten the stability of our social order and significantly undermine all our constitutional protections, but there is no law or ethics committee that will solve this problem of diminishing trust and honesty. That is a problem of the heart, mind and character to be dealt with by each individual citizen.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:75
Property ownership has been undermined through environmental regulations and excessive taxation. True ownership of property no longer exists. There has been a systematic undermining of legal and constitutional principles once followed and respected for the protection of individual liberty.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:84
Although there are degrees in various authoritarian societies as to how much power a government may wield, once government is given the authority to wield power, it does so in an ever-increasing manner. The pressure to use government authority to run the economy in our lives depends on several factors. These include a basic understanding of personal liberty, respect for a constitutional republic, economic myths, ignorance, and misplaced good intentions.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:90
A common debate that we hear occurs over how we can write laws protecting normal speech and at the same time limiting commercial speech, as if they were two entirely different things. Many Americans wonder why Congress pays so little attention to the Constitution and are bewildered as to how so much inappropriate legislation gets passed.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:91
But the Constitution is not entirely ignored. It is used correctly at times when it is convenient and satisfies a particular goal, but never consistently across-the-board on all legislation.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:92
Two, the Constitution is all too frequently made to say exactly what the authors of special legislation want it to say. That is the modern way language can be made relative to our times, but without a precise understanding and respect for the supreme law of the land, that is, the Constitution, it no longer serves as the guide for the rule of law. In its place, we have substituted the rule of man and the special interests.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:93
That is how we have arrived at the close of this century without a clear understanding or belief in the cardinal principles of the Constitution: the separation of powers and the principle of Federalism. Instead, we are rushing toward a powerful executive, centralized control, and a Congress greatly diminished in importance.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:95
But this is opposite to what the Constitution was supposed to do. It was meant to protect the rights of the minority from the dictates of the majority. The majority vote of the powerful and influential was never meant to rule the people.

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:130
Samuel Adams, likewise, warned future generations. He referred to “good manners” as the vital ingredient that a free society needs to survive. Adams said, “Neither the wisest Constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.”

Constitution
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:132
Some who are every bit as concerned as I am about our future and the pervasive corrupt influence in our Government in every aspect of our lives offer other solutions. Some say to solve the problem all we have to do is write more detailed laws dealing with campaign finance reform, ignoring how this might undermine the principles of liberty. Similarly, others argue that what is needed is merely to place tighter restrictions on the lobbyists in order to minimize their influence. But they fail to realize this undermines our constitutional right to petition our Government for redress of grievances.

Constitution
REVIEW ARTICLE ON ‘NEW MATH’
February 10, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 7:2
* Mr. Evers’ article points out that the federal government has no constitutional authority to dictate or even recommend to local schools what type of mathematics curriculum they should adopt. Instead, all curriculum decisions are solely under the control of states, local communities, teachers, and parents. I would remind my colleagues that outrages like ‘new math’ did not infiltrate the classroom until the federal government seized control of education, allowing Washington-DC based bureaucrats to use our children as guinea pigs for their politically correct experiments.

Constitution
REVIEW ARTICLE ON ‘NEW MATH’
February 10, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 7:3
* The solution to America’s education crisis lies in returning to the Constitution and restoring parental control. In order to restore true parental control of education, I have introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (HR 935). This bill would give parents a $3,000 per year tax credit for each child’s education related expenses. Unlike other so-called ‘reform’ proposals, my bill would allow parents considerably more freedom in determining how to educate their children. It would also be free of guidelines and restrictions that only dilute the actual number of dollars spent directly on a child.

Constitution
ON PRESENTING CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL TO JOHN CARDINAL O’CONNOR
February 15, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 8:2
I must, however, oppose the Gold Medal for Cardinal O’Connor because appropriating $30,000 of taxpayer money is neither constitutional nor, in the spirit of Cardinal O’Connor who dedicates his life to voluntary and charitable work, particularly humanitarian.

Constitution
ON PRESENTING CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL TO JOHN CARDINAL O’CONNOR
February 15, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 8:3
Because of my continuing and uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, several of my colleagues felt compelled to personally challenge me as to whether, on this issue, I would maintain my resolve and commitment to the Constitution — a Constitution, which only last year, each Member of Congress, swore to uphold. In each of these instances, I offered to do a little more than uphold my constitutional oath.

Constitution
THE PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION AND JUDICIAL LIMITATION ACT
February 16, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 9:1
Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Partial Birth Abortion and Judicial Limitation Act. This bill would, in accordance with Article 3, Section 2 of our United States Constitution, prohibit federal courts (exclusive of the US Supreme Court) from hearing cases relative to partial birth abortion.

Constitution
THE PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION AND JUDICIAL LIMITATION ACT
February 16, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 9:3
The legislation I am introducing today is aimed at moving us toward correcting the federal judicial usurpation of constitutionally-identified state authority. This legislation is needed now more than ever as certain “lower federal courts” have taken it upon themselves to continue the error-ridden ways of Roe v. Wade by overturning legitimate state restrictions on partial birth abortion.

Constitution
INTRODUCING LEGISLATION CALLING FOR THE UNITED STATES TO WITHDRAW FROM THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
March 1, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 12:4
At last reading, the Constitution required that all appropriation bills originate in the House, and specified that only Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes. Taxation without representation was a predominant reason for America’s fight for independence during the American Revolution. Yet, now we face an unconstitutional delegation of taxing authority to an unelected body of international bureaucrats.

Constitution
INTRODUCING LEGISLATION CALLING FOR THE UNITED STATES TO WITHDRAW FROM THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
March 1, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 12:5
Let me assure Members that this Nation does not need yet another bureaucratic hurdle to tax reduction. Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution reserves to Congress alone the authority for regulating foreign commerce. According to Article II, section 2, it reserves to the Senate the sole power to ratify agreements, namely, treaties, between the United States government and other governments.

Constitution
INTRODUCING LEGISLATION CALLING FOR THE UNITED STATES TO WITHDRAW FROM THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
March 1, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 12:9
As a representative of the people of the 14th District of Texas and a Member of the United States Congress sworn to uphold the Constitution of this country, it is not my business to tell other countries whether or not they should be in the World Trade Organization. They can toss their own sovereignty out the window if they choose. I cannot tell China or Britain or anybody else that they should or should not join the World Trade Organization. That is not my constitutional role.

Constitution
INTRODUCING LEGISLATION CALLING FOR THE UNITED STATES TO WITHDRAW FROM THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
March 1, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 12:12
When our Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution, they placed the treaty-making authority with the President and the Senate, but the authority to regulate commerce with the House. The effects of this are obvious. The Founders left us with a system that made no room for agreements regarding international trade; hence, our Nation was to be governed not by protection, but rather, by market principles. Trade barriers were not to be erected, period.

Constitution
INTRODUCING LEGISLATION CALLING FOR THE UNITED STATES TO WITHDRAW FROM THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
March 1, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 12:13
A revenue tariff was to be a major contributor to the U.S. Treasury, but only to fund the limited and constitutionally authorized responsibilities of the Federal government. Thus, the tariff would be low.

Constitution
NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2000
March 22, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 17:1
* Mr. Speaker, while nuclear power has conferred a considerable benefit upon power users in this country, today, we confront the symptoms of a federal government run Constitutionally amok which requires our serious attention. As a Congress, we are faced with the decision of whether to further ignore the federal government’s constitutional limits and ultimately confront additional future symptoms of such action or acknowledge the necessary consequences of such an extra-Constitutional activity and act to correct the initial “enumerated powers doctrine” transgression.

Constitution
NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2000
March 22, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 17:2
* In 1982, the federal government entered into an agreement with nuclear power industry to take possession of their nuclear waste and properly dispose of it in 1998. It should be noted that it is now March 2000 and the federal government has quite simply breached its contract. More importantly, it should be noted that the federal government had no authority to enter such an agreement in the first place. These facts, of course, did nothing to prevent the federal government from collecting from utility companies and their customers tax revenues for placement in a trust fund to accomplish their illegitimate and unfulfilled promise. Lack of constitutional authority also did nothing to stop the federal government from squandering more than $6 billion of that trust fund without having collected one gram of nuclear waste.

Constitution
NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2000
March 22, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 17:3
* Today we are faced with yet another bill which provides mandates for which neither constitutional authority exists nor for which there is any reason to believe that such mandates will be observed by the Department of Energy any more than the previously legislated mandates have been observed. Additionally, this bill further expands the authority of the constitutionally- illegitimate Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and further involves the EPA in the process which could only exponentially increase the difficulty and time required to actually accomplish the legislation’s stated purpose.

Constitution
NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2000
March 22, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 17:4
* These facts stated, we nevertheless remain faced with the current status quo requiring a solution. The initial question which must necessarily be asked and answered is “whether one constitutionally illegitimate action by the federal government may ever be used to justify the second?” The answer to this question must always be answered in the negative. This does not mean, however, that those whose taxes have been illegitimately taken should receive nothing in return — quite the contrary. Numerous breach of contract lawsuits have been filed against the federal government for which a quick remedies must be effectuated. Not only must the ill-taken revenues be returned to the non-breaching parties but attorneys fees and damages imposed upon the non-breaching parties should be awarded them as well. Perhaps, even more should be done, however, as this “contract”can, in many ways, be likened to the car thief who knowingly sells a stolen car to an unsuspecting customer inasmuch as the federal government promised to deliver something for which they themselves have usurped (stolen) from the state authorities and, hence, have no legitimate right to offer.

Constitution
NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2000
March 22, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 17:5
* Of course, returning the trust fund money including interest and damages to ratepayers and utilities companies quite obviously does not dispose of the hazardous waste. Waste disposal and public safety, though, remains a power of the state governments under the tenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution which specifies that “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 the people. The public safety and police power have long been held to be state law matters and most appropriately so.

Constitution
NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2000
March 22, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 17:6
* While citizens of those forty-nine states exclusive of Nevada may believe that Nevada is a fine place to dispose of one’s waste, one must never concede the principle of states right guaranteed by the Constitution nor forget that, in so doing, the next choice of the federal government may be to deposit equally dangerous or harmful materials in the rangeland of Texas. Enlisting the aid of the federal government to impose one’s waste on citizens of another state while efficacious for the dumper is thus neither prudent, Constitutional, nor particularly pleasant for the dumpee.

Constitution
CONGRATULATING THE PEOPLE OF TAIWAN FOR SUCCESSFUL CONCLUSION OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND REAFFIRMING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD TAIWAN AND PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
March 28, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 18:3
* Just as it is wrong to force our preferences on other countries and cultures, it is wrong to dictate politics. The United States has absolutely no moral or constitutional right to do so. In fact, action of that sort could rightfully be considered an act of aggression on our part, and our founding fathers made it very, very clear that war should be contemplated only when national security is immediately threatened. to play the part of policemen of the world degrades all who seek to follow the Constitution. The Constitution does not allow our government to participate in actions against a foreign country when there is no immediate threat to the United States.

Constitution
UNNECESSARY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND UNWISE MILITARY ADVENTURISM IN COLOMBIA
March 29, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 20:4
What we are doing today, if we pass this bill, is we are going to move into an another area of the world where we have no constitutional interest.

Constitution
2000 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT
March 29, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 21:12
Under the Constitution, we should have a strong national defense, and we should provide for national security. Going into Colombia has nothing to do with national security and serves to undermine national defense.

Constitution
Amendment No. 5 Offered By Mr. Paul
30 March 2000    2000 Ron Paul 22:16
That is not correct. Under the Constitution, the words “foreign policy” do not exist. All the obligations fall on the Congress, especially with the power of the purse. The President is the Commander in Chief. But he should never send troops around the world without permission, which all Presidents continuously have done in the last 50 years. This amendment addresses that subject.

Constitution
Fiscal 2000 Supplemental Appropriations/DEA Funding Cuts Amendment
30 March 2000    2000 Ron Paul 23:7
If we want to spend the money, spend it here at home. Spend the money here. Build up our national defense. If we wish to continually expand our interventionism and aggravation overseas, then I guess we have to vote against this amendment and for the bill. But this is a policy statement. Should we continue current policy of forever spending money and being involved overseas? I say it is time to start thinking about what is good for our people, what is good for our taxpayers, what is good for national defense, and what is good for our constitutional republic. Should we be doing this? I do not think so. Are we authorized to do it? No, we are not authorized to police the world.

Constitution
Fiscal 2000 Supplemental Appropriations/DEA Funding Cuts Amendment
30 March 2000    2000 Ron Paul 23:10
Some day we should ask the question of whether is this policy in good for us. I am frightened to think that this will only change either when we are in such a mess, a lot worse than Vietnam, or we totally go broke or both. But we should not wait. We should speak out and do what is best for our country. We have a good guideline as to what we should do in foreign policy, and it comes from the constitution, certainly we should note the tradition of the last 50 years. The Constitution gives us the guidance to pursue a proper foreign policy.

Constitution
AWARDING GOLD MEDAL TO FORMER PRESIDENT AND MRS. RONALD REAGAN IN RECOGNITION OF SERVICE TO NATION
April 3, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 25:1
* Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3591. At the same time, I am very supportive of President Reagan’s publicly stated view of limiting the federal government to it’s proper and constitutional role. In fact, I was one of only four sitting members of the United States House of Representatives who endorsed Ronald Reagan’s candidacy for President in 1976. The United States enjoyed sustained economic prosperity and employment growth during Ronald Reagan’s presidency.

Constitution
AWARDING GOLD MEDAL TO FORMER PRESIDENT AND MRS. RONALD REAGAN IN RECOGNITION OF SERVICE TO NATION
April 3, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 25:2
* I must, however, oppose the Gold Medal for Ronald and Nancy Reagan because appropriating $30,000 of taxpayer money is neither constitutional nor, in the spirit of Ronald Reagan’s notion of the proper, limited role for the federal government.

Constitution
AWARDING GOLD MEDAL TO FORMER PRESIDENT AND MRS. RONALD REAGAN IN RECOGNITION OF SERVICE TO NATION
April 3, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 25:3
* Because of my continuing and uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, I would maintain my resolve and commitment to the Constitution — a Constitution, which only last year, each Member of Congress, swore to uphold. In each of these instances, I offered to do a little more than uphold my constitutional oath.

Constitution
PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2000
April 5, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 26:3
Reaffirming the importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the continuation of a civilized society. There is already strong evidence that we are indeed on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and human experimentation. Although the real problem lies within the hearts and minds of the people, the legal problems of protecting life stems from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, a ruling that constitutionally should never have occurred.

Constitution
PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2000
April 5, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 26:4
The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that would refuse to deal with the issues of violence, recognizing that for all such acts the Constitution defers to the States. It is constitutionally permitted to limit Federal courts jurisdiction in particular issues. Congress should do precisely that with regard to abortion. It would be a big help in returning this issue to the States.

Constitution
PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2000
April 5, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 26:5
H.R. 3660, unfortunately, takes a different approach, and one that is constitutionally flawed. Although H.R. 3660 is poorly written, it does serve as a vehicle to condemn the 1973 Supreme Court usurpation of State law that has legalized the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure.

Constitution
PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2000
April 5, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 26:7
The abuse of the general welfare clause and the interstate commerce laws clause is precisely the reason our Federal Government no longer conforms to the constitutional dictates but, instead, is out of control in its growth and scope. H.R. 3660 thus endorses the entire process which has so often been condemned by limited government advocates when used by the authoritarians as they constructed the welfare State.

Constitution
PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2000
April 5, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 26:8
We should be more serious and cautious when writing Federal law, even when seeking praise-worthy goals. H.R. 3660 could have been written more narrowly, within constitutional constraints, while emphasizing State responsibility, and still serve as an instrument for condemning the wicked partial-birth abortion procedure.

Constitution
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 29:3
I would like to spend some time this evening talking a little bit about that, because as a strict constitutionalist and one who endorses laissez-faire capitalism, I do believe in free trade; and there are good reasons why countries should trade with each other.

Constitution
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 29:6
When the colonies did not thrive well prior to the Constitution, two of the main reasons why the Constitutional Convention was held was, one, there was no unified currency, that provided a great deal of difficulty in trading among the States, and also trade barriers are among the States.

Constitution
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.

Constitution
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 29:26
There is a little bit more to the trade issue than just the benefits of free trade, true free trade, and the disadvantages of managed trade, because we are dealing now when we have a vote on the normal trade status with China, as well as getting out of the World Trade Organization, we are dealing with the issue of sovereignty. The Constitution is very clear. Article I, section 8, gives the Congress the responsibility of dealing with international trade. It does not delegate it to the President, it does not delegate it to a judge, it does not delegate it to an international management organization like the World Trade Organization.

Constitution
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 29:28
The World Trade Organization has been in existence for 5 years. We voted to join the World Trade Organization in the fall of 1994 in the lame duck session after the Republicans took over the control of the House and Senate, but before the new Members were sworn in. So a lame duck session was brought up and they voted, and by majority vote we joined the World Trade Organization, which, under the Constitution, clearly to anybody who has studied the Constitution, is a treaty. So we have actually even invoked a treaty by majority vote.

Constitution
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 29:39
So it is not like it has been hidden, it is not like it is a secret. It is something that those who disagree with me about liberty and the Constitution, they believe in internationalism and the World Trade Organization and the United Nations, and they certainly have the right to that belief, but it contradicts everything America stands for and it contradicts our Constitution, so, therefore, we should not allow this to go unchallenged.

Constitution
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 29:40
Now, the whole idea that treaties could be passed and undermine the ability of our Congress to pass legislation or undermine our Constitution, this was thought about and talked about by the founders of this country. They were rather clear on the idea that a treaty, although the treaty can become the law of the land, a treaty could never be an acceptable law of the land if it amended or changed the Constitution. That would be ridiculous, and they made that very clear.

Constitution
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 29:41
It could have the effect of the law of the land, as long as it was a legitimate constitutional agreement that we entered into. But Thomas Jefferson said if the treaty power is unlimited, then we do not have a Constitution. Surely the President and the Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way.

Constitution
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 29:44
Alexander Hamilton also talked about this. He said a treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution of the country or which infringes any expressed exception to the powers of the Constitution of the United States.

Constitution
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 29:46
Well, since that time we have had a peso crisis in Mexico and we had a crisis with currencies in Southeast Asia. So I would say that the management of finances with the IMF as well as the World Trade Organization has been very unsuccessful, and even if one does not accept my constitutional argument that we should not be doing this, we should at least consider the fact that what we are doing is not very successful.

Constitution
TEXAS HOME SCHOOL APPRECIATION WEEK
May 4, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 32:1
* Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as this is Texas Home School Appreciation week, I am pleased to take this opportunity to salute those Texas parents who have chosen to educate their children at home. While serving in Congress, I have had the opportunity to get to know many of the home schooling parents in my district. I am very impressed by the job these parents are doing in providing their children with a quality education. I have also found that home schooling parents are among the most committed activists in the cause of advancing individual liberty, constitutional government, and traditional values. I am sure my colleagues on the Education Committee would agree that the support of home schoolers was crucial in defeating the scheme to implement a national student test.

Constitution
Statement of Ron Paul on the Misuse of the Social Security Number
May 11, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 35:7
I hope that we in Congress would not once again allow a problem Congress created to become an excuse for disregarding the constitutional limitations of federal police powers or imposing new mandates on businesses in the name of “protecting privacy.” Federal mandates on private businesses may harm consumers by preventing business from offering improved services such as the ability to bring new products that consumers would be interested in immediately to the consumers’ attention. These mandates will also further interfere with matters that should be resolved by private contracts.

Constitution
Statement of Ron Paul on the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (HR 220)
May 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 38:14
I hope that we in Congress would not once again allow a problem Congress created to become an excuse for disregarding the constitutional limitations of federal police powers or imposing new mandates on businesses in the name of “protecting privacy.” Federal mandates on private businesses may harm consumers by preventing business from offering improved services such as the ability to bring new products that consumers would be interested in immediately to the consumers’ attention. These mandates will also further interfere with matters that should be resolved by private contracts.

Constitution
Statement of Ron Paul on the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (HR 220)
May 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 38:16
Some may claim that the federal government needs expanded surveillance powers to protect against fraud or some other criminal activities. However, monitoring the transactions of every American in order to catch those few who are involved in some sort of illegal activity turns one of the great bulwarks of our liberty, the presumption of innocence, on its head. The federal government has no right to treat all Americans as criminals by spying on their relationship with their doctors, employers, or bankers. In fact, criminal law enforcement is reserved to the state and local governments by the Constitution’s tenth amendment.

Constitution
Statement of Ron Paul on the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (HR 220)
May 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 38:17
Others may claim that the federal government needs the power to monitor Americans in order to allow the government to operate more efficiently. However, in a constitutional republic the people are never asked to sacrifice their liberties to make the job of government officials a little bit easier. We are here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy invasion more efficient.

Constitution
Statement of Ron Paul on the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (HR 220)
May 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 38:18
The main reason Congress should take action to stop the use of standard identifiers is because the federal government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”

Constitution
Permanent Normal Trade Relations
May 24, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 40:4
* But all of this said, this new 66 page ‘free trade’ bill is not about free trade at all. It is about empowering and enriching international trade regulators and quasi-governmental entities on the backs of the U.S. taxpayer. Like NAFTA before us, this bill contains provisions which continue our country down the ugly path of internationally-engineered, ‘managed trade’ rather than that of free trade. As explained by Ph.D. economist Murray N. Rothbard: ‘[G]enuine free trade doesn’t require a treaty (or its deformed cousin, a ‘trade agreement’; NAFTA was called an agreement so it can avoid the constitutional requirement of approval by two-thirds of the Senate). If the establishment truly wants free trade, all its has to do is to repeal our numerous tariffs, import quotas, anti-dumping laws, and other American-imposed restrictions of free trade. No foreign policy or foreign maneuvering is necessary.’

Constitution
U.S. Membership In The Wprld Trade Organization
June 19, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 44:2
There are many of us here in the House and many Americans who believe very sincerely that it is not in our best interests to belong to the World Trade Organization, who believe very sincerely that international managed trade, as carried on through the World Trade Organization, does not conform with our Constitution and does not serve our interests.

Constitution
U.S. Membership In The Wprld Trade Organization
June 19, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 44:3
It said by those who disagree with this so often in the media that those of us who disagree with the World Trade Organization that we are paranoid, we worry too much, and that there is no loss of sovereignty in this procedure. But quite frankly, there is strong evidence to present to show that not only do we lose sovereignty as we deliver this power to the World Trade Organization, that it indeed is not a legal agreement. It does not conform with our Constitution; and, therefore, we as Members of Congress should exert this privilege that we have every 5 years to think about the World Trade Organization, whether it is in our best interests and whether it is technically a good agreement.

Constitution
U.S. Membership In The Wprld Trade Organization
June 19, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 44:7
Interestingly enough, in the past, if we dealt with trade matters, they came to the U.S. Congress to change the law; they came to elected representatives to deal with this, and that is the way it should be under the Constitution. Today, though, the effort has to be directed through our world trade representative, our international trade representative, who then goes to bat for our business people at the WTO. So is it any surprise that, for instance, the company of Chiquita Banana, who has these trade wars going on in the trade fights, wants somebody in the administration to fight their battle, and just by coincidence, they have donated $1.5 million in their effort to get influence?

Constitution
U.S. Membership In The Wprld Trade Organization
June 19, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 44:9
The membership in the WTO actually is illegal, illegal any way we look at it. If we are delivering to the WTO the authority to regulate trade, we are violating the Constitution, because it is very clear that only Congress can do this. We cannot give that authority away. We cannot give it to the President, and we cannot give it to an international body that is going to manage trade in the WTO. This is not legal, it is not constitutional, and it is not in our best interests. It stirs up the interest to do things politically, and unelected bureaucrats make the decision, not elected officials. It was never intended to be that way, and yet we did this 5 years ago. We have become accustomed to it, and I think it is very important, it is not paranoia that makes some of us bring this up on the floor.

Constitution
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 45:2
Mr. Speaker, it is true that I believe in low tariffs, because it means low taxes. When we had that problem facing us at the time of the constitutional convention, we were able to correct that problem in one sentence, no tariff barriers between the States, and it has been very successful. That is not what we are talking about here today.

Constitution
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 45:5
So there is something very unfair about the system. It is an unconstitutional approach to managing trade. We cannot transfer the power to manage trade from the Congress to anyone. The Constitution is explicit. ‘Congress shall have the power to regulate foreign commerce.’ We cannot transfer that authority. Transferring that authority to the WTO is like the President transferring his authority as Commander in Chief to the Speaker of the House.

Constitution
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 45:18
Let me state that the Congress is required to state a constitutional justification for any legislation. The Committee on Ways and Means amazingly used article I, section 8 to justify their position on this bill. And let me state their constitutional justification. It says, ‘The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises.’ But the Constitution says the Congress. But what we are doing is allowing the WTO to dictate to us.

Constitution
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 45:22
Earlier today I predicted that we would win this debate. There is no doubt in my mind that we and the American people have won this debate. We will not win the votes, but we will do well. But we have won the debate because we speak for the truth and we speak for the Constitution and we speak for the American people. That is why we have won this debate. It is true there are a lot of complaints about the WTO from those who endorse it. I think the suggestion from the gentleman from Oregon is a good suggestion. Those who are uncomfortable with the WTO and they do not want to rubber-stamp it, and they do not think it is quite appropriate to vote ‘yes’ on this resolution, vote ‘present.’ Send a message. They deserve to hear the message. We have no other way of speaking out. Every 5 years, we get a chance to get out of the WTO--that’s it.

Constitution
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 45:24
Why is it that I have allies on the other side of the aisle where we may well disagree on the specifics of labor law and environmental law. We agree that the American people have elected us, we have taken an oath of office to obey the Constitution, that we have a responsibility to them and we should decide what the labor law ought to be, we should decide what the environmental law should be, we should decide what the tax law should be. That is why we have an alliance.

Constitution
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000    2000 Ron Paul 53:3
Let me state that the Congress is required to state a constitutional justification for any legislation. The Committee on Ways and Means amazingly used article I, section 8 to justify their position on this bill. And let me state their constitutional justification. It says, “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises.” But the Constitution says the Congress. But what we are doing is allowing the WTO to dictate to us.

Constitution
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000    2000 Ron Paul 55:4
Earlier today I predicted that we would win this debate. There is no doubt in my mind that we and the American people have won this debate. We will not win the votes, but we will do well. But we have won the debate because we speak for the truth and we speak for the Constitution and we speak for the American people. That is why we have won this debate. It is true there are a lot of complaints about the WTO from those who endorse it. I think the suggestion from the gentleman from Oregon is a good suggestion. Those who are uncomfortable with the WTO and they do not want to rubber-stamp it, and they do not think it is quite appropriate to vote “yes” on this resolution, vote “present.” Send a message. They deserve to hear the message. We have no other way of speaking out. Every 5 years, we get a chance to get out of the WTO—that’s it.

Constitution
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000    2000 Ron Paul 55:6
Why is it that I have allies on the other side of the aisle where we may well disagree on the specifics of labor law and environmental law. We agree that the American people have elected us, we have taken an oath of office to obey the Constitution, that we have a responsibility to them and we should decide what the labor law ought to be, we should decide what the environmental law should be, we should decide what the tax law should be. That is why we have an alliance.

Constitution
Campbell/Bonior Amendment to Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations Act
June 22, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 57:7
So I plead with my colleagues. I think this is a fine amendment. I think this not only goes along with the Constitution, but it really confirms what was established in 1215 with the Magna Carta. We should strongly support the principle that secret evidence not be permitted to convict anyone in an American court. Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Constitution
Hostettler Amendment to Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary Appropriations Act
June 26, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 59:6
It seems now that the administration sees fit, acting on no authority given it by the Constitution, to dictate to a company who they can sell their products to and in what manner their product can be sold. This forces law-abiding citizens to jump through Government-ordained hoops before they exercise their rights to purchase as many firearms as they choose and to purchase them whenever they choose.

Constitution
Hostettler Amendment to Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary Appropriations Act
June 26, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 59:11
* Let us not allow our authority to be usurped from us any longer. Please stop the funding for this anti-constitutional settlement and vote for the Hostettler Amendment and support H.R. 2655, the Separation of Powers Restoration Act.

Constitution
Quality Health-Care Coalition Act of 2000
June 29, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 61:5
* Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to interfere with the private contracts of American citizens. Furthermore, the prohibitions on contracting contained in the Sherman antitrust laws are based on a flawed economic theory: that federal regulators can improve upon market outcomes by restricting the rights of certain market participants deemed too powerful by the government. In fact, anti-trust laws harm consumers by preventing the operation of the free-market, causing prices to rise, quality to suffer, and, as is certainly the case with the relationship between the HMOs and medical professionals, favoring certain industries over others. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that my colleagues would see the folly of antitrust laws and support my Market Process Restoration Act (H.R. 1789), which repeals all federal antitrust laws.

Constitution
Quality Health-Care Coalition Act of 2000
June 29, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 61:8
* In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Quality Health Care Coalition Act and restore the freedom of contract and association to American’s health care professionals. Antitrust laws are no more legitimate or constitutional in the health care market than they are on the software market. Therefore, I hope my colleagues will not just pass this bill but will also support my Market Process Restoration Act and exempt all Americans from antitrust laws. I also urge my colleagues to join me in working to promote a true free-market in health care by putting patients back in charge of the health care dollar through means such as Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) and individual health care tax credits.

Constitution
Sense Of Congress Regarding Importance And Value Of Education In United States History
July 10, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 63:2
* Unfortunately, while I strongly support efforts to increase the American public’s 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 America’s 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.

Constitution
Sense Of Congress Regarding Importance And Value Of Education In United States History
July 10, 2000    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 individual’s 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.

Constitution
Sense Of Congress Regarding Importance And Value Of Education In United States History
July 10, 2000    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.

Constitution
Sense Of Congress Regarding Importance And Value Of Education In United States History
July 10, 2000    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 people’s 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.

Constitution
Sense Of Congress Regarding Importance And Value Of Education In United States History
July 10, 2000    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.

Constitution
Sense Of Congress Regarding Importance And Value Of Education In United States History
July 10, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 63:7
* In conclusion, by mistaking this country’s 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 people’s fundamental rights at will. I, therefore, encourage my colleagues to embrace America’s true heritage: a constitutional republic with strict limitations on the power of the central government.

Constitution
LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR ABORTION, FAMILY PLANNING, OR POPULATION CONTROL EFFORTS
July 13, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 64:18
Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes all the funding for international population control, birth control, abortion, and family planning. This is not an authorized constitutional expenditure. It should not be spent in this manner.

Constitution
Birth Control Funding
13 July 2000    2000 Ron Paul 65:2
Let me see if I can explain as an obstetrician the fundamentals of the birds and the bees, about the fundamentals of law. Under the Constitution we are not permitted to do these things.

Constitution
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
September 7, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 70:2
* Ironically, this measure’s language permanently authorizes the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary for the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum; a purpose which propels our very own federal government beyond its constitutionally enumerated limits. This nation’s founders were careful to limit the scope of our federal government to those enumerated powers within Article One, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. These limits were further instilled within the bill of rights’ tenth amendment which reserves to States and private parties those powers not specifically given to the federal government.

Constitution
Child Support Distribution Act Of 2000
September 7, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 71:1
* Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to explain why I must oppose H.R. 4678, the Child Support Distribution Act. While I applaud the sections of the bill providing increased flexibility to states to ensure that child support payments go to benefit children, rather than government bureaucrats, other provisions of H.R. 4678 present grave dangers to individual liberty, privacy, constitutional government and the sanctity of the American family.

Constitution
Child Support Distribution Act Of 2000
September 7, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 71:5
* I would also remind my colleagues that the federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in the collection of child support, much less invade the privacy of every citizen in order to ferret out a few wrongdoers. Constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes: treason, counterfeiting, and piracy on the high seas. For Congress to authorize federal involvement in any other law enforcement issue is a violation on the limits on Congressional power contained in Article 1, section 8 and the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution. No less an authority than Chief Justice William Renhquist has stated that Congress is creating too many federal laws and infringing on the proper police powers of the states.

Constitution
Child Support Distribution Act Of 2000
September 7, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 71:6
* In a free society, constitutional limits on government power and the liberty of citizens must never be sacrificed to increase the efficiency of any government program, no matter how noble the program’s goal. Again I ask my colleagues to keep in mind that the dangerous road toward the loss of liberty begins when members of Congress put other goals ahead of our oath to preserve the Constitution and protect the liberty of our constituents.

Constitution
Child Support Distribution Act Of 2000
September 7, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 71:7
* While the expanded use of the new hires database provides sufficient justification for constitutionalists to oppose this bill, H.R. 4678 also must be opposed as it furthers the intrusion of the federal government into family life through the use of federal funds to support ‘fatherhood programs.’ Mr. Speaker, the federal government is neither constitutionally authorized nor institutionally competent to promote responsible fatherhood. In fact, by leveling taxes on responsible parents to provide special programs for irresponsible parents the federal government is punishing responsible fathers!

Constitution
Child Support Distribution Act Of 2000
September 7, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 71:12
* In conclusion, H.R. 4678, the Child Support Distribution Act, violates the Constitution by expanding the use of the new hires database, thus threatening the liberty and privacy of all Americans, as well as by expanding the federal role in family in the misguided belief that the state can somehow promote responsible fatherhood. By expanding the so-called ‘charitable choice’ program this bill also violates the conscience of millions of taxpayers and runs the risk of turning effective religious charities into agents of the welfare state. It also furthers the federalization of crime control by increasing the federal role in child support despite the fact that the federal government has no constitutional authority in this area. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this bill and return responsibility for America’s children to states, local communities and, most importantly, parents.

Constitution
Scouting For All Act
September 12, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 74:1
* Mr. Speaker, today, we find ourselves debating an intolerance-laden bill advanced by those who will claim to be the ‘tolerant’ ones. What the bill’s proponents are really saying is that they are intolerant of an individual’s freedom to associate with those whom they, as individuals, see fit. Two vital issues are raised by this bill’s ascendancy to the House floor. The first is that of our constitutional right to freedom of association. The second being the notion of ‘federal charters.’

Constitution
Scouting For All Act
September 12, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 74:5
* While I hesitate to further propagate this system of federal charters by which the federal government manipulates private groups, I despise more so this congressional attempt to penalize the Boy Scouts for merely exercising their constitutional rights — or as syndicated columnist Charley Reese recently put it in the Orlando Sentinel:

Constitution
Literacy Involves Families Together Act
September 12, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 75:4
* The drafters of the United States Constitution understood that the federal government was incapable of effectively providing services such as education. This is why they carefully limited the federal government’s powers to a few narrowly defined areas. This understanding of the proper role of the federal government was reinforced by the tenth amendment which forbids the Federal Government from controlling education, instead leaving authority over education in the hands of states, local communities and parents.

Constitution
Literacy Involves Families Together Act
September 12, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 75:5
* Reinforcing that the scariest words in the English language are ‘I’m from the federal government and I am here to help you,’ the American education system has deteriorated in the years since Congress disregarded the constitutional limitations on centralizing education in order to ‘improve the schools.’ One could argue that if the federally-controlled schools did a better job of educating children to read, perhaps there would not be a great demand for ‘adult literacy programs!’

Constitution
Literacy Involves Families Together Act
September 12, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 75:9
* In addition to violating the United States Constitution, the LIFT bill raises some serious questions regarding the relationship between the state and the family. Promoting family literacy is a noble goal but programs such as these may promote undue governmental interference in family life. Many people around the country have expressed concern that ‘parenting improvement’ programs have become excuses for the government bureaucrats to intimidate parents into ceding effective control over child-rearing to the government. While none of these complaints are directly related to the Even Start program Even Start does rest on the premise that it is legitimate for the federal government to interfere with the parent-child relationship to ‘improve’ parenting. Once one accepts that premise, it is a short jump to interfering in all aspects of family life in order to promote the federal government’s vision of ‘quality parenting.’

Constitution
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:1
Mr. Speaker, over a half a century has transpired since the United States of America became a member of the United Nations. Purporting to act pursuant to the treaty powers of the Constitution, the President of the United States signed, and the United States Senate ratified, the charter of the United Nations. Yet, the debate in government circles over the United Nations’ charter scarcely has touched on the question of the constitutional power of the United States to enter such an agreement. Instead, the only questions addressed concerned the respective roles that the President and Congress would assume upon the implementation of that charter.

Constitution
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:2
On the one hand, some proposed that once the charter of the United States was ratified, the President of the United States would act independently of Congress pursuant to his executive prerogatives to conduct the foreign affairs of the Nation. Others insisted, however, that the Congress played a major role of defining foreign policy, especially because that policy implicated the power to declare war, a subject reserved strictly to Congress by Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

Constitution
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:10
To date, Congress has attempted to curb the abuse of power of the United Nations by urging the United Nations to reform itself, threatening the nonpayment of assessments and dues allegedly owed by the United States and thereby cutting off the United Nations’ major source of funds. America’s problems with the United Nations will not, however, be solved by such reform measures. The threat posed by the United Nations to the sovereignty of the United States and independence is not that the United Nations is currently plagued by a bloated and irresponsible international bureaucracy. Rather, the threat arises from the United Nation’s Charter which — from the beginning — was a threat to sovereignty protections in the U.S. Constitution. The American people have not, however, approved of the Charter of the United Nations which, by its nature, cannot be the supreme law of the land for it was never ‘made under the Authority of the U.S.,’ as required by Article VI.

Constitution
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:11
H.R. 1146 — The American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 1999 is my solution to the continued abuses of the United Nations. The U.S. Congress can remedy its earlier unconstitutional action of embracing the Charter of the United Nations by enacting H.R. 1146. The U.S. Congress, by passing H.R. 1146, and the U.S. president, by signing H.R. 1146, will heed the wise counsel of our first president, George Washington, when he advised his countrymen to ‘steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world,’ lest the nation’s security and liberties be compromised by endless and overriding international commitments. An excerpt from Herbert W. Titus’ Constitutional Analysis of the United Nations

Constitution
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:13
It is commonly assumed that the Charter of the United Nations is a treaty. It is not. Instead, the Charter of the United Nations is a constitution. As such, it is illegitimate, having created a supranational government, deriving its powers not from the consent of the governed (the people of the United States of America and peoples of other member nations) but from the consent of the peoples’ government officials who have no authority to bind either the American people nor any other nation’s people to any terms of the Charter of the United Nations.

Constitution
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:14
By definition, a treaty is a contract between or among independent and sovereign nations, obligatory on the signatories only when made by competent governing authorities in accordance with the powers constitutionally conferred upon them. I Kent, Commentaries on American Law 163 (1826); Burdick, The Law of the American Constitution section 34 (1922) Even the United Nations Treaty Collection states that a treaty is (1) a binding instrument creating legal rights and duties (2) concluded by states or international organizations with treaty-making power (3) governed by international law.

Constitution
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:15
By contrast, a charter is a constitution creating a civil government for a unified nation or nations and establishing the authority of that government. Although the United Nations Treaty Collection defines a ‘charter’ as a ‘constituent treaty,’ leading international political authorities state that ‘[t]he use of the word ‘Charter’ [in reference to the founding document of the United Nations] . . . emphasizes the constitutional nature of this instrument.’ Thus, the preamble to the Charter of the United Nations declares ‘that the Peoples of the United Nations have resolved to combine their efforts to accomplish certain aims by certain means.’ The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary 46 (B. Simma, ed.) (Oxford Univ. Press, NY: 1995) (Hereinafter U.N. Charter Commentary). Consistent with this view, leading international legal authorities declare that the law of the Charter of the United Nations which governs the authority of the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council is ‘similar . . . to national constitutional law,’ proclaiming that ‘because of its status as a constitution for the world community,’ the Charter of the United Nations must be construed broadly, making way for ‘implied powers’ to carry out the United Nations’ ‘comprehensive scope of duties, especially the maintenance of international peace and security and its orientation towards international public welfare.’ Id. at 27

Constitution
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:16
The United Nations Treaty Collection confirms the appropriateness of this ‘constitutional interpretive’ approach to the Charter of the United Nations with its statement that the charter may be traced ‘back to the Magna Carta (the Great Charter) of 1215,’ a national constitutional document. As a constitutional document, the Magna Carta not only bound the original signatories, the English barons and the king, but all subsequent English rulers, including Parliament, conferring upon all Englishmen certain rights that five hundred years later were claimed and exercised by the English people who had colonized America.

Constitution
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:19
In like manner, the Charter of the United Nations is considered to be a permanent ‘constitution for the universal society,’ and consequently, to be construed in accordance with its broad and unchanging ends but in such a way as to meet changing times and changing relations among the nations and peoples of the world. U.N. Charter Commentary at 28-44.

Constitution
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:20
According to the American political and legal tradition and the universal principles of constitution making, a perpetual civil covenant or constitution, obligatory on the people and their rulers throughout the generations, must, first, be proposed in the name of the people and, thereafter, ratified by the people’s representatives elected and assembled for the sole purpose of passing on the terms of a proposed covenant. See 4 The Founders’ Constitution 647-58 (P. Kurland and R. Lerner, eds.) (Univ. Chicago. Press: 1985). Thus, the preamble of the Constitution of the United States of America begins with ‘We the People of the United States’ and Article VII provides for ratification by state conventions composed of representatives of the people elected solely for that purpose. Sources of Our Liberties 408, 416, 418-21 (R. Perry, ed.) (ABA Foundation, Chicago: 1978)

Constitution
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:21
Taking advantage of the universal appeal of the American constitutional tradition, the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations opens with ‘We the peoples of the United Nations.’ But, unlike the Constitution of the United States of America, the Charter of the United Nations does not call for ratification by conventions of the elected representatives of the people of the signatory nations. Rather, Article 110 of the Charter of the United Nations provides for ratification ‘by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.’ Such a ratification process would have been politically and legally appropriate if the charter were a mere treaty. But the Charter of the United Nations is not a treaty; it is a constitution.

Constitution
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:22
First of all, Charter of the United Nations, executed as an agreement in the name of the people, legally and politically displaced previously binding agreements upon the signatory nations. Article 103 provides that ‘[i]n the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.’ Because the 1787 Constitution of the United States of America would displace the previously adopted Articles of Confederation under which the United States was being governed, the drafters recognized that only if the elected representatives of the people at a constitutional convention ratified the proposed constitution, could it be lawfully adopted as a constitution. Otherwise, the Constitution of the United States of America would be, legally and politically, a treaty which could be altered by any state’s legislature as it saw fit. The Founders’ Constitution, supra, at 648-52.

Constitution
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:23
Second, an agreement made in the name of the people creates a perpetual union, subject to dissolution only upon proof of breach of covenant by the governing authorities whereupon the people are entitled to reconstitute a new government on such terms and for such duration as the people see fit. By contrast, an agreement made in the name of nations creates only a contractual obligation, subject to change when any signatory nation decides that the obligation is no longer advantageous or suitable. Thus, a treaty may be altered by valid statute enacted by a signatory nation, but a constitution may be altered only by a special amendatory process provided for in that document. Id. at 652.

Constitution
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:24
Article V of the Constitution of the United States of America spells out that amendment process, providing two methods for adopting constitutional changes, neither of which requires unanimous consent of the states of the Union. Had the Constitution of the United States of America been a treaty, such unanimous consent would have been required. Similarly, the Charter of the United Nations may be amended without the unanimous consent of its member states. According to Article 108 of the Charter of the United Nations, amendments may be proposed by a vote of two-thirds of the United Nations General Assembly and may become effective upon ratification by a vote of two-thirds of the members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. According to Article 109 of the Charter of the United Nations, a special conference of members of the United Nations may be called ‘for the purpose of reviewing the present Charter’ and any changes proposed by the conference may ‘take effect when ratified by two-thirds of the Members of the United Nations including all the permanent members of the Security Council.’ Once an amendment to the Charter of the United Nations is adopted then that amendment ‘shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations,’ even those nations who did not ratify the amendment, just as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is effective in all of the states, even though the legislature of a state or a convention of a state refused to ratify. Such an amendment process is totally foreign to a treaty. See Id., at 575-84.

Constitution
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:25
Third, the authority to enter into an agreement made in the name of the people cannot be politically or legally limited by any preexisting constitution, treaty, alliance, or instructions. An agreement made in the name of a nation, however, may not contradict the authority granted to the governing powers and, thus, is so limited. For example, the people ratified the Constitution of the United States of America notwithstanding the fact that the constitutional proposal had been made in disregard to specific instructions to amend the Articles of Confederation, not to displace them. See Sources of Our Liberties 399-403 (R. Perry ed.) (American Bar Foundation: 1972). As George Mason observed at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, ‘Legislatures have no power to ratify’ a plan changing the form of government, only ‘the people’ have such power. 4 The Founders’ Constitution, supra, at 651.

Constitution
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:26
As a direct consequence of this original power of the people to constitute a new government, the Congress under the new constitution was authorized to admit new states to join the original 13 states without submitting the admission of each state to the 13 original states. In like manner, the Charter of the United Nations, forged in the name of the ‘peoples’ of those nations, established a new international government with independent powers to admit to membership whichever nations the United Nations governing authorities chose without submitting such admissions to each individual member nation for ratification. See Charter of the United Nations, Article 4, Section 2. No treaty could legitimately confer upon the United Nations General Assembly such powers and remain within the legal and political definition of a treaty.

Constitution
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:27
By invoking the name of the ‘peoples of the United Nations,’ then, the Charter of the United Nations envisioned a new constitution creating a new civil order capable of not only imposing obligations upon the subscribing nations, but also imposing obligations directly upon the peoples of those nations. In his special contribution to the United Nations Human Development Report 2000, United Nations Secretary-General Annan made this claim crystal clear:

Constitution
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:29
While no previous United Nations’ secretary general has been so bold, Annan’s proclamation of universal jurisdiction over ‘human rights and fundamental freedoms’ simply reflects the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations which contemplated a future in which the United Nations operates in perpetuity ‘to save succeeding generations from the scourge of ware . . . to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights . . . to establish conditions under which justice . . . can be maintained, and to promote social progress and between standards of life in larger freedom.’ Such lofty goals and objectives are comparable to those found in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America: ‘to . . . establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the Blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity . . .’

Constitution
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:30
There is, however, one difference that must not be overlooked. The Constitution of the United States of America is a legitimate constitution, having been submitted directly to the people for ratification by their representatives elected and assembled solely for the purpose of passing on the terms of that document. The Charter of the United Nations, on the other hand, is an illegitimate constitution, having only been submitted to the Untied States Senate for ratification as a treaty. Thus, the Charter of the United Nations, not being a treaty, cannot be made the supreme law of our land by compliance with Article II, Section 2 of Constitution of the United States of America. Therefore, the Charter of the United Nations is neither politically nor legally binding upon the United States of America or upon its people.

Constitution
Congratulating Home Educators And Home Schooled Students
September 26, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 81:1
* Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H. Res. 578, which celebrates the accomplishments of parents across the nation who have chosen to educate their children at home by designating the first week of October as ‘National Home Schooling Week.’ While serving in Congress, I have had the opportunity to get to know many of the home-schooling parents in my district. I am very impressed by the job these parents are doing in providing their children with a quality education. I have also found that home schooling parents are among the most committed activists in the cause of advancing individual liberty, constitutional government, and traditional values. I am sure my colleagues on the Education Committee would agree that the support of home schoolers was crucial in defeating the scheme to implement a national student test.

Constitution
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4205, FLOYD D. SPENCE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
October 11, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 83:1
* Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4205, the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 Conference Report. While Federal constitutional authority clearly exists to provide for the national defense, global militarism was never contemplated by the founders. Misnamed like most everything else in Washington, the ‘Defense’ Authorization Act thus funds U.N.-directed peacekeeping in Kosovo and Bosnia to the tune of $3.1 billion dollars, $443 million in aid to the former Soviet Union, $172 million for NATO infrastructure (the formerly defensive alliance which recently initiated force against Kosovo), and $869 million for drug interdiction efforts by the U.S. military in an attempt to take our failed 1920’s prohibition experiment worldwide.

Constitution
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4205, FLOYD D. SPENCE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
October 11, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 83:2
* Certainly a bill authorizing use of resources for the national defense which also properly compensates those military personnel necessary to maintain it would be not only constitutional but most appropriate. Contrarily, a bill which continues our elitist and failed policy of policing the world all the while creating additional enemies of the United States is neither constitutional, justifiable, supportable, nor prudent. By avoiding such a police-the-world approach, which destroys troop morale by isolating them from their families and spreading them dangerously thin, considerably less money could be authorized with seriously improved security results.

Constitution
CONGRESS IGNORES ITS CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY REGARDING MONETARY POLICY
October 11, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 84:5
And what do we do here in the Congress? We continue to ignore our constitutional responsibility to maintain a sound dollar. Our monetary policy of the last 10 years has produced the largest financial bubble in all of history, with the good times paid for by borrowing and an illusion of wealth created in a speculative stock market. Our current account deficit, now running over $400 billion per year, and our $1.5 trillion foreign debt, has been instrumental in financing our extravagance. Be assured, the piper will be paid. The markets are clearly reflecting the excesses of the 1990s.

Constitution
END-OF-SESSION ISSUES
October 11, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 85:1
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from Colorado for allowing me the opportunity to express my thoughts on the education reform debate that is sure to consume much of our time in the remaining days of the 106th Congress. For all the sound and fury generated by the argument over education, the truth is that the differences between the congressional leadership and the administration are not significant; both wish to strengthen the unconstitutional system of centralized education. I trust I need not go into the flaws with President Clinton’s command-and-control approach to education. However, this Congress has failed to present a true, constitutional alternative to President Clinton’s proposal to further nationalize education.

Constitution
END-OF-SESSION ISSUES
October 11, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 85:2
It is becoming increasingly clear that the experiment in centralized control of education has failed, and that the best means of improving education is to put parents back in charge. According to a recent Manhattan Institute study of the effects of state policies promoting parental control over education, a minimal increase in parental control boosts students’ average SAT verbal score by 21 points and students’ SAT math score by 22 points! The Manhattan Institute study also found that increasing parental control of education is the best way to improve student performance on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) tests. Clearly, the drafters of the Constitution knew what they were doing when they forbade the Federal Government from meddling in education.

Constitution
END-OF-SESSION ISSUES
October 11, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 85:8
One area where this Congress has so far been successful in fighting for a constitutional education policy was in resisting President Clinton’s drive for national testing. I do wish to express my support for the provisions banning the development of national testing contained in the Education Appropriations bill, and thank Mr. Goodling for his leadership in this struggle.

Constitution
END-OF-SESSION ISSUES
October 11, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 85:10
However, there are a number of both practical and philosophical concerns regarding these proposals. The primary objection to this approach, from a constitutional viewpoint, is embedded in the very mantra of ‘accountability’ stressed by the plans’ proponents. Talk of accountability begs the question: accountable to whom? Under these type of plans, schools remain accountable to federal bureaucrats and those who develop the state tests upon which a schools’ performance is judged. Should the schools not live up to their bureaucratically-determined ‘performance goals,’ they will lose their limited freedom from federal mandates. So federal and state bureaucrats will determine if the schools are to be allowed to participate in these programs and bureaucrats will judge whether the states are living up to the standards set in the state’s education plan — yet this is supposed to debureaucratize and decentralize education!

Constitution
END-OF-SESSION ISSUES
October 11, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 85:12
First of all, the federal government lacks constitutional authority to redistribute monies between states and taxpayers for the purpose of education, regardless of whether the monies are redistributed through federal programs or through grants. There is no ‘block grant exception’ to the principles of federalism embodied in the U.S. Constitution.

Constitution
END-OF-SESSION ISSUES
October 11, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 85:16
While it is true that lower levels of intervention are not as bad as micro-management at the federal level, Congress’ constitutional and moral responsibility is not to make the federal education bureaucracy ‘less bad.’ Rather, we must act now to put parents back in charge of education and thus make American education once again the envy of the world.

Constitution
END-OF-SESSION ISSUES
October 11, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 85:17
Hopefully the next Congress will be more reverent toward their duty to the U.S. Constitution and America’s children. The price of Congress’s failure to return to the Constitution in the area of education will be paid by the next generation of American children. In short, we cannot afford to continue on the policy read we have been going down. The cost of inaction to our future generations is simply too great.

Constitution
OLDER AMERICANS ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2000
October 24, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 90:1
* Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to express my opinion on the Older Americans Act Reauthorization (H.R. 782) and explain why I must vote against this bill. Of course, I support efforts to ensure America’s senior citizens have access to employment, nutritional and other services; however the federal government is neither constitutionally authorized nor competent to provide such services.

Constitution
OLDER AMERICANS ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2000
October 24, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 90:2
* Under the tenth amendment, the federal government is forbidden from interfering in areas such as providing employment and nutritional services to any group of citizens. Thus, when the federal government uses taxpayer funds to support these services, it is violating the constitution. In a constitutional republic, good intentions are no excuse for constitutional carelessness.

Constitution
OLDER AMERICANS ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2000
October 24, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 90:3
* Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, by involving itself in these areas, the federal government has politicized the offering of these services as well as assured inefficiencies in their delivery — inefficiencies that would not be present if the federal government respected its constitutional limits and allowed states, local communities and private citizens to provide these vital services to seniors. For example, one of the most contentious areas of this bill is the funding that goes to private organization to provide employment services. Many of these organizations are involved in partisan politics, and, because money is fungible, the federal grants to these organizations make taxpayers de facto underwriters of their political activities. As Thomas Jefferson said: ‘To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is both sinful and tyrannical.’ This ‘sinful and tyrannical’ action is inevitable whenever Congress exceeds its constitutional limitations and abuses the taxing power by forcing citizens to support the charitable activities of congressionally-favored organizations. One reason for this is that federal funding encourages these organizations to become involved in lobbying in order to gain more federal support. These organizations may even form alliances with other advocacy groups in order to build greater support for their cause.

Constitution
OLDER AMERICANS ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2000
October 24, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 90:5
* There are ways to ensure that seniors have opportunities for productive lives without violating the constitution and politicizing charity. One way is to repeal the social security earnings limit, which punishes seniors who continue to work in the private sector. Another way is through generous tax credits and deductions for taxpayers who support charitable organization designed to provide services to individuals. Finally, the best way to aide the nation’s seniors, and those who are about to be seniors, is to stop raiding the nation’s social security system to finance other unconstitutional programs. This is why the first piece of legislation I introduced this year was The Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219), which would ensure that social security monies would be spent on social security. I was also a cosponsor of the legislation to end the earnings limit, which passed the House of Representatives this year. I am also cosponsoring several pieces of legislation to allow people to use more of their own resources to help the needy by expanding the charitable tax deduction.

Constitution
OLDER AMERICANS ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2000
October 24, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 90:6
* Mr. Speaker, several years ago, when people still recognized their moral duty to voluntarily help their fellow humans rather than expect the government to coerce their fellow citizens to provide assistance through the welfare state, my parents were involved in a local Meals-on-Wheels program run by their church. I remember how upset they were when their local program was forced to conform to federal standards or close its program because Congress had decided to take control of delivering hot food to the elderly. It is time that this Congress return to the wisdom of the drafters of the Constitution and return responsibility for providing services to the nation’s seniors to states, communities, churches, and other private organizations who can provide those services much more effectively and efficiently than the federal government.

Constitution
NATIONAL SCIENCE EDUCATION ACT
October 25, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 91:1
* Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the National Science Act (H.R. 4271), which violates the limits on congressional power found in Article 1, section 8 and the 10th amendment to the Constitution by using tax monies unjustly taken from the American people to promote the educational objectives favored by a few federal politicians and bureaucrats. As an OB-GYN, I certainly recognize the importance of increasing the quality of science education as well as undertaking efforts to interest children in the sciences. However, while I share the goals of the drafters of this legislation, I recognize that Congress has no constitutional authority to single out any one academic discipline as deserving special emphasis. Instead, the decision about which subjects to emphasize should be made by local officials, educators and parents.

Constitution
NATIONAL SCIENCE EDUCATION ACT
October 25, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 91:3
* I also object to the provision of this bill providing special assistance to science teachers for training and professional development as well as grants for so-called ‘Master Teachers.’ Of course, I recognize that, like other citizens, teachers are underpaid because they are overtaxed. This is why I have introduced the Teacher Tax Cut Act (H.R. 937) which provides all teachers with a $1,000 tax credit. H.R. 937 effectively raises teacher salaries by lowering their taxes. In contrast H.R. 4271 raises the salaries of certain congressionally-favored educators by effectively cutting the pay of engineers, doctors, truck drivers, waiters, and even their fellow educators. Mr. Speaker, I cannot find any constitutional nor moral justification for Congress to redistribute money to any favorite class of professionals.

Constitution
NATIONAL SCIENCE EDUCATION ACT
October 25, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 91:4
* If the steady decline of America’s education system over the past thirty years has shown us anything, it is that centralizing control leads to a declining education system. In fact, according to a recent Manhattan Institute study of the effects of state policies promoting parental control over education, a minimal increase in parental control boosts students’ average SAT verbal score by 21 points and students’ SAT math score by 22 points! The Manhattan Institute study also found that increasing parental control of education is the best way to improve student performance on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) tests. Clearly, the drafters of the Constitution knew what they were doing when they forbade the Federal Government from meddling in education.

Constitution
ECONOMIC PROBLEMS AHEAD
November 13, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 93:8
* Even in the midst of our great imaginary budgetary surpluses, there has been no effort to cut. Once the economy tends to slow and more problems are apparent, expenditures are going to soar not only because of future problems but because of the new programs recently initiated. A huge financial bubble has been created by the GSEs, such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The $33 billion of shareholder equities in these two organizations has been leveraged into $1.07 trillion worth of assets- a bubble waiting to be pricked. The Congress has reacted to all these events irresponsibly by increasing spending, increasing tax revenues, doing nothing to reduce regulations, and being totally apathetic toward the dollar and monetary policy. We in the Congress have a moral and constitutional obligation to protect the value of the dollar and to understand why it is so important to the economy that a central bank not be given the unbelievable power of inflating a currency at will and pretending that it knows how to find tune an economy through this counterfeit system of money.

Constitution
ECONOMIC PROBLEMS AHEAD
November 13, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 93:10
* What must we do? We should develop more sensible priorities. We must restore confidence in freedom and recognize how free markets can solve our problems . We must have more respect for the Rule of Law and demand that Congress, the Courts, and the President live within the Rule of Law and stop arbitrarily flaunting the Constitution. If the Constitution is to be changed, it should be changed slowly and deliberately as is permitted, but never by fiat. We must eventually reconsider the notion of the original constitutional Republic as designed by our Founders. The monolithic centralized state was not the design nor is it supported by the Constitution. We were meant to have loose knit individual states, with the states themselves managing their own affairs.

Constitution
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000    2000 Ron Paul 94:20
Lastly, despite a Constitution which vests in the House authority for regulating foreign commerce (and raising revenue, i.e. taxation), this bill unconstitutionally delegates to the President the “authority” to, by Executive order, suspend the tax break by designating certain property “in short supply.” Any property so designated shall not be treated as qualifying foreign trade property during the period beginning with the date specified in the Executive order.

Constitution
James Madison Commemoration Commission Act
4 December 2000    2000 Ron Paul 96:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the James Madison Commemoration Commission Act secure in the belief that were James Madison on the floor today, he would share my opposition to this bill. Congress has no constitutional authority to use taxpayer funds to promote the life and thought of any individual. Congressional actions exceeding the limitations on congressional power contained in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution undermine the very principles of limited government to which James Madison devoted his life. In fact, few have been as eloquent in pointing out how liberty is threatened when Congress exceeds its enumerated powers:

Constitution
James Madison Commemoration Commission Act
4 December 2000    2000 Ron Paul 96:4
However, the continuing growth of the federal government and Congress’ refusal to abide by its constitutional limits suggest that the people most in need of familiarization with the thought of James Madison are those who would support this bill.

Constitution
James Madison Commemoration Commission Act
4 December 2000    2000 Ron Paul 96:5
Mr. Speaker, S. 3137 exceeds the constitutional limits on Congressional power, and thus violates the principles of limited government upon which our constitutional system was based. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to pay appropriate tribute to James Madison by rejecting this unconstitutional bill.

Constitution
ECONOMIC UPDATE
December 4, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 97:8
* It is something that is directly stated in the Constitution that the Congress shall have the responsibility over the money supply, not a Federal Reserve system. Quite frankly, the Federal Reserve system is not even authorized by the Constitution.

Constitution
ECONOMIC UPDATE
December 4, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 97:32
* Congress does have responsibility for maintaining a sound dollar and a free market and not much else. Unfortunately this responsibility that is clearly stated in the Constitution is ignored.

Constitution
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT — HON. RON PAUL
Wednesday, January 3, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 1:8
* Many of my colleagues will claim that the federal government needs these powers to protect against fraud or some other criminal activities. However, monitoring the transactions of every American in order to catch those few who are involved in some sort of illegal activity turns one of the great bulwarks of our liberty, the presumption of innocence, on its head. The federal government has no right to treat all Americans as criminals by spying on their relationship with their doctors, employers, or bankers. In fact, criminal law enforcement is reserved to the state and local governments by the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment.

Constitution
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT — HON. RON PAUL
Wednesday, January 3, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 1:9
* Other members of Congress will claim that the federal government needs the power to monitor Americans in order to allow the government to operate more efficiently. I would remind my colleagues that in a constitutional republic the people are never asked to sacrifice their liberties to make the job of government officials a little bit easier. We are here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy invasion more efficient.

Constitution
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT — HON. RON PAUL
Wednesday, January 3, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 1:14
* The primary reason why any action short of the repeal of laws authorizing privacy violations is insufficient is because the federal government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with chains of the Constitution.”

Constitution
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT — HON. RON PAUL
Wednesday, January 3, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 1:15
* Mr. Speaker, those members who are unpersuaded by the moral and constitutional reasons for embracing the Identity Theft Prevention Act should consider the overwhelming opposition of the American people toward national identifiers. The overwhelming public opposition to the various “Know-Your-Customer” schemes, the attempt to turn drivers’ licenses into National ID cards, the Clinton Administration’s Medical Privacy proposal, as well as the numerous complaints over the ever-growing uses of the Social Security number show that American people want Congress to stop invading their privacy. Congress risks provoking a voter backlash if we fail to halt the growth of the surveillance state.

Constitution
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT — HON. RON PAUL
Wednesday, January 3, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 1:16
* In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again call on my colleagues to join me in putting an end to the federal government’s unconstitutional use of national identifiers to monitor the actions of private citizens. National identifiers threaten all Americans by exposing them to the threat of identity theft by private criminals and abuse of their liberties by public criminals. In addition, national identifiers are incompatible with a limited, constitutional government. I, therefore, hope my colleagues will join my efforts to protect the freedom of their constituents by supporting the Identity Theft Prevention Act.

Constitution
INTRODUCTION OF THE EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT TAX CUT ACT — HON. RON PAUL
Wednesday, January 31, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 2:2
* I need not remind my colleagues that education is one of, if not the, top priority of the American people. After all, many members of Congress have proposed education reforms and a great deal of time is spent debating these proposals. However, most of these proposals either expand federal control over education or engage in the pseudo-federalism of block grants. Many proposals that claim to increase local control over education actually extend federal power by holding schools “accountable” to federal bureaucrats and politicians. Of course, schools should be held accountable for their results, but under the United States Constitution, they should be held accountable to parents and school boards not to federal officials. Therefore, I propose we move in a different direction and embrace true federalism by returning control over the education dollar to the American people.

Constitution
India Disaster Relief
31 January 2001    2001 Ron Paul 5:2
I do have some concerns about how we respond so often to disasters like this because we believe that we can solve all our problems by just going to the taxpayers. I know that this does not seem like the appropriate time to raise the question, but there was a time in our history when we did not assume that it was a constitutional approach to tax poor people in America to help people in other parts of the world. We have always resorted to charities and volunteer approaches, and I still believe that is proper. I do not think there is evidence to show that aid to governments is necessarily the most efficient manner of helping other people.

Constitution
India Disaster Relief
31 January 2001    2001 Ron Paul 5:5
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to express my sympathy for victims of the recent earthquake in the State of Gujarat, India and, at the same time, my concern for American taxpayers who, once again, will see their constitution ignored and their pockets raided by their representatives in Washington — it is, of course, easy to express sympathy with other people’s money.

Constitution
India Disaster Relief
31 January 2001    2001 Ron Paul 5:7
Setting aside for the moment that nowhere in Article I, Sec. 8 (the enumerated powers clause) of the Federal Constitution can authority be found to take money from U.S. taxpayers for this purpose, additional problems result from passage of this resolution as well as those actions certain to follow as a consequence of the bill’s passage.

Constitution
India Disaster Relief
31 January 2001    2001 Ron Paul 5:8
First, the notion of taxing the fruits of financially struggling Americans with no constitutional authority only to send it to foreign governments is reprehensible. One of the problems with such aid is that it ultimately ends up in the hands of foreign bureaucrats who merely use it to advance their own foreign government agendas thus making it less likely to get to those most deserving. One need only compare the success of private charities in this country with those government relief efforts to clearly see government’s profound and inherently inept record.

Constitution
India Disaster Relief
31 January 2001    2001 Ron Paul 5:11
While I truly do extend my heartfelt sympathy to those victims of the recent natural disaster in India, my duty remains to protect the U.S. taxpayer and uphold the constitutional limits of our Federal Government. For this reason and each of those detailed above, I must oppose this resolution.

Constitution
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:3
The media are demanding the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress immediately yield to those insisting on higher taxes and more federal government intervention for the sake of national unity , because our government is neatly split between two concise philosophic views. But if one looks closely, one is more likely to find only a variation of a single system of authoritarianism, in contrast to the rarely mentioned constitutional, non-authoritarian approach to government.

Constitution
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:6
We can expect most of the media-directed propaganda to be designed to speed up and broaden the role of the federal government in our lives and the economy. Unfortunately, the token opposition will not present a principled challenge to big government, only an argument that we must move more slowly and make an effort to allow greater local decision-making. Without presenting a specific philosophic alternative to authoritarian intervention from the left, the opposition concedes that the principle of government involvement per se is proper, practical, and constitutional.

Constitution
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:12
Already the spirit of bipartisanship has prompted the new president to request another $10 billion, along with many more mandates on public schools. This is a far cry from the clear constitutional mandate that neither the Congress nor the federal courts have any authority to be involved in public education.

Constitution
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:27
Congressional leaders have a responsibility to work together for the good of the country. But working together to promote a giant interventionist state dangerous to us all is far different from working together to preserve constitutionally protected liberties.

Constitution
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:29
If liberals want $46 billion for the Department of Education and conservatives argue for $42 billion, a compromise of $44 billion is a total victory for the advocates of federal government control of public education. “Saving” $2 billion means nothing in the scheme of things, especially since the case for the constitutional position of zero funding was never entertained. When the budget and government controls are expanding each year, a token cut in the proposed increase means nothing, and those who claim it to be a legitimate victory do great harm to the cause of liberty by condoning the process. Instead of it being a Third Way alternative to the two sides arguing over minor details on how to use government force, the three options instead are philosophically the same. A true alternative must be offered if the growth of the state is to be contained. Third-Way bipartisanship is not the answer.

Constitution
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:30
However, if in the future, the constitutionalists argue for zero funding for the Education Department, and the liberals argue to increase it to $50 billion, and finally $25 billion is accepted as the compromise, progress will have been made.

Constitution
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:31
But this is not what is being talked about in DC when an effort is made to find a Third Way . Both sides are talking about expanding government, and neither side questions the legitimacy of the particular program involved. Unless the moral and constitutional debate changes, there can be no hope that the trend toward bigger government with a sustained attack on personal liberty will be reversed. It must become a moral and constitutional issue.

Constitution
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:32
Budgetary tokenism hides the real issue. Even if someone claims to have just saved the taxpayers a couple billion dollars, the deception does great harm in the long run by failure to emphasize the importance of the Constitution and the moral principles of liberty. It instead helps to deceive the people into believing something productive is being done. But it’s really worse than that, because neither party makes an effort to cut the budget. The American people must prepare themselves for ever-more spending and taxes.

Constitution
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:70
If monetary inflation merely raised prices, and all prices and labor costs moved up at the same rate, and it did not cause dis-equilibrium in the market, it would be of little consequence. But inflation is far more than rising prices. Creating money out of thin air is morally equivalent to counterfeiting. It’s fraud and theft, because it steals purchasing power from the savers and those on fixed incomes. That in itself should compel all nations to prohibit it, as did the authors of our Constitution.

Constitution
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:74
We must reassess the responsibility Congress has in maintaining a sound monetary system. In the 19th Century, the constitutionality of a central bank was questioned and challenged. Not until 1913 were the advocates of a strong federalist system able to foist a powerful central bank on us, while destroying the gold standard. This banking system, which now serves as the financial arm of Congress, has chosen to pursue massive welfare spending and a foreign policy that has caused us to be at war for much of the 20th Century.

Constitution
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:77
Talk of a new era the past five years has had many, including Greenspan, believing that this time it really would be different. And it may indeed be different this time. The correction could be an especially big one, since the Fed-driven distortion of the past 10 years, plus the lingering distortions of previous decades have been massive. The correction could be big enough to challenge all our institutions, the entire welfare state, Social Security, foreign intervention, and our national defense. This will only happen if the dollar is knocked off its pedestal. No one knows if that is going to happen soon or later. But when it does, our constitutional system of government will be challenged to the core.

Constitution
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:86
Over the past 50 years, Congress has allowed our presidents to usurp the prerogatives the Constitution explicitly gave only to the Congress. The term foreign policy is never mentioned in the Constitution and it was never intended to be monopolized by the president. Going to war was to be strictly a legislative function, not an Executive one.

Constitution
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:89
For over 50 years, there has been a precise move toward one-world government at the expense of our own sovereignty. Our presidents claim that authority to wage war can come from the United Nations or NATO resolutions, in contradiction of our Constitution and everything our Founding Fathers believed. US troops are now required to serve under foreign commanders and wear UN insignias. Refusal to do so prompts a court martial.

Constitution
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:95
It’s the responsibility of Congress to curtail this trend by reestablishing the principles of the US Constitution and our national sovereignty. It’s time for the United States to give up its membership in all these international organizations.

Constitution
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:109
The political system of interventionism always leads to social discord. Interventionism is based on relative rights, majoritarianism, and disrespect for the Constitution. Degenerating moral standards of the people encourages and feeds on this system of special-interest favoritism, all of which contribute to the friction.

Constitution
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:114
But the system of government we have become accustomed to has, for decades, taken over responsibilities that were never intended to be the prerogative of the federal government under the Constitution. Although mostly well intended, the efforts at social engineering have caused significant damage to our constitutional Republic and have resulted in cynicism toward all politicians. Our presidents are now elected by less than 20% of those old enough to vote. Government is perceived to be in the business of passing out favors rather than protecting individual liberty. The majority of the people are made up of independents and non-voters.

Constitution
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:115
The most dramatic change in 20th Century social attitudes was the acceptance of abortion. This resulted from a change in personal morality that then led to legalization nationally through the courts and only occurred by perverting our constitutional system of government. The federal courts should never have been involved, but the Congress compounded the problem by using taxpayer funds to perform abortions both here and overseas. Confrontation between the pro-life and the pro-abortion forces is far from over. If government were used only to preserve life, rather than act as an accomplice in the taking of life, this conflict would not be nearly so rancorous.

Constitution
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:119
The ill-conceived drug war of the past 30 years has caused great harm to our society. It has undermined privacy and challenged the constitutional rights of all our citizens. The accelerated attack on drug usage since the early 1970s has not resulted in any material benefit. Over $300 billion has been spent on this war, and we are all less free and poorer because of it. Civil liberties are sacrificed in all wars, both domestic and foreign. It’s clear that, even if it were a legitimate function for government to curtail drug usage, eliminating bad habits through government regulation is not achievable. Like so much else that government tries to do, the harm done is not always evenly distributed. Some groups suffer more than others, further compounding the problem by causing dissention and distrust.

Constitution
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:127
Seizure and forfeiture laws, clearly in violation of the Constitution, have served as a terrible incentive for many police departments to raise money for law-enforcement projects outside the normal budgeting process. Nationalizing the police force for various reasons is a trend that should frighten all Americans. The drug war has been the most important factor in this trend.

Constitution
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:140
If the trends we have witnessed over the past 70 years are not reversed, our economic and political system will soon be transposed into a fascist system. The further along we go in that direction, the more difficult it becomes to reverse the tide without undue suffering. This cannot be done unless respect for the rule of law is restored. That means all public officials must live up to their promise to follow the written contract between the people and the government: the US Constitution.

Constitution
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:12
Over the past 50 years, Congress has allowed our Presidents to usurp the prerogatives the Constitution explicitly gave only to the Congress. The term “foreign policy” is never mentioned in the Constitution, and it was never intended to be monopolized by the President. Going to war was to be strictly a legislative function, not an executive one. Operating foreign policy by executive orders and invoking unratified treaties is a slap in the face to the rule of law and our republican form of government. But that is the way it is currently being done.

Constitution
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:15
For over 50 years, there has been a precise move towards one-world government at the expense of our own sovereignty. Our Presidents claim that our authority to wage wars come from the United Nations or NATO resolution, in contradiction to our Constitution and everything our Founding Fathers believed.

Constitution
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:23
It is the responsibility of Congress to curtail this trend by reestablishing the principles of the U.S. Constitution and our national sovereignty. It is time for the United States to give up its membership in all these international organizations.

Constitution
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:40
The political system of interventionism always leads to social discord. Interventionism is based on relative rights, majoritarianism, and disrespect for the Constitution. Degenerating moral standards of the people encourages and feeds on this system of special interest favoritism, all of which contributes to the friction.

Constitution
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:46
Those who feel slighted become more demanding at the same time resources are diminished. But the system of government we have become accustomed to have has for decades taken over responsibilities that have never intended to be the prerogative of the Federal Government under the Constitution.

Constitution
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:47
Although mostly well-intended, the efforts at social engineering have caused significant damage to our constitutional republic and have resulted in cynicism toward all politicians.

Constitution
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:49
The most dramatic change in the 20th century social attitudes was the acceptance of abortion. This resulted from a change in personal morality that then led to legislation nationally through the courts and only occurred by perverting our constitutional system of government.

Constitution
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:54
The ill-conceived drug war of the past 30 years has caused great harm to our society. It has undermined privacy and challenged the constitutional rights of all our citizens. The accelerated attack on drug usage seen since the early 1970s has not resulted in any material benefit. Over $300 billion has been spent on this war, and we are less free and poorer because of it. Civil liberties are sacrificed in all wars, both domestic and foreign.

Constitution
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:67
Seizure and forfeiture laws, clearly in violation of the Constitution, have served as a terrible incentive for many police departments to raise money for law enforcement projects outside the normal budgeting process. Nationalizing the police force for various reasons is a trend that should frighten all Americans. The drug war has been the most important factor in this trend.

Constitution
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:87
If the trends we have witnessed over the past 70 years are not reversed, our economic and political system will soon be transposed into a fascist system. The further along we go in that direction, the more difficult it becomes to reverse the tide without undue suffering. This cannot be done unless respect for the rule of law is restored. That means all public officials must live up to their promise to follow the written contract between the people and the Government, the U.S. Constitution.

Constitution
H. Res 34
13 February 2001    2001 Ron Paul 12:3
What then is the problem with this resolution? In fact, there are two problems and they are closely related. The substantive problem here is summed up in that last clause which “restates the commitment of the United States to a secure peace for Israel.” Certainly we wish peace upon all the people of the world, and in this sense, we are committed to peace. However, we must ask what other sorts of commitments are implied here. The vagary of this resolution leaves open the possibility that those who support it are endorsing unwise and constitutionally-suspect financial and military commitments abroad. Moreover, peace will not best be secured for Israel by the further injection of the United States into regional affairs; rather, it will come when Israel has the unfettered sovereignty necessary to protect its own security.

Constitution
Questions for Secretary of State Colin Powell before the House Committee on International Relations
March 8, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 17:3
2 . Since World War II, each of our Presidents have engaged in wars — both big and small, from Korea to the continued bombing of Iraq — without an explicit declaration of war from Congress. Yet, the Constitution clearly vests the decision to go to war (as opposed to its execution by the commander-in chief, once declared), with the Congress. If, however, the “war decision” is allowed to come from Presidential directives or UN resolutions, of what value to the American people is the Constitutional constraint upon a President who would otherwise wage war without Congressional approval? Do you believe the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional? If so, why? If not, why not?

Constitution
Questions for Secretary of State Colin Powell before the House Committee on International Relations
March 8, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 17:4
3. Is it not clear that a U.S. treaty, although it is called the law of the land, was never intended to be used to amend our Constitution?

Constitution
Questions for Secretary of State Colin Powell before the House Committee on International Relations
March 8, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 17:6
5. Is not the continued bombing of Iraq an act of war? Where does the administration get its authority to pursue this war? Is this policy not in violation of our Constitution that says only Congress can declare war? There is not even a UN resolution calling for the US-British imposed no-fly zone over Iraq. Our allies have almost all deserted us on our policy toward Iraq. Is it not time to talk to the Iraqis? We talked to the Soviets at the height of the Cold War, surely we can do the same with Iraq today. We trade with and subsidize China and we talk to the Iranians, surely we can trade with Iraq . . . ?

Constitution
The Medical Privacy Protection Resolution
March 15, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 19:2
* The so-called “medical privacy” regulations not only reduce an individual’s ability to determine who has access to their personal medical information, they actually threaten medical privacy and constitutionally-protected liberties. For example, these regulations allow law enforcement and other government officials access to a citizen’s private medical record without having to obtain a search warrant.

Constitution
The Medical Privacy Protection Resolution
March 15, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 19:3
* Allowing government officials to access a private person’s medical records without a warrant is a violation of the Fourth amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects American citizens from warrantless searches by government officials. The requirement that law enforcement officials obtain a warrant from a judge before searching private documents is one of the fundamental protections against abuse of the government’s power to seize an individual’s private documents. While the Fourth amendment has been interpreted to allow warrantless searches in emergency situations, it is hard to conceive of a situation where law enforcement officials would be unable to obtain a warrant before electronic medical records would be destroyed.

Constitution
The Medical Privacy Protection Resolution
March 15, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 19:8
* In a free society such as the one envisioned by those who drafted the Constitution, the federal government should never force a citizen to divulge personal information to advance “important social goals.” Rather, it should be up to the individuals, not the government, to determine what social goals are important enough to warrant allowing others access to their personal property, including their personal information. To the extent these regulations sacrifice individual rights in the name of a bureaucratically-determined “common good,” they are incompatible with a free society and a constitutional government.

Constitution
Free Trade
April 24, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 24:4
[G]enuine free trade doesn’t require a treaty (or its deformed cousin, a `trade agreement’; NAFTA is called an agreement so it can avoid the constitutional requirement of approval by two-thirds of the Senate). If the establishment truly wants free trade, all it has to do is to repeal our numerous tariffs, import quotas, anti-dumping laws, and other American-imposed restrictions of free trade. No foreign policy or foreign maneuvering in necessary.

Constitution
A New China Policy
April 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 25:8
The Taiwan Relations Act essentially promises that we will defend Taiwan at all costs and should be reevaluated. Morally and constitutionally a treaty cannot be used to commit us to war at some future date. One generation cannot declare war for another. Making an open-ended commitment to go to war, promising troops, money and weapons, is not permitted by the Constitution.

Constitution
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 April 2001    2001 Ron Paul 29:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, while it is the independent duty of each branch of the Federal Government to act Constitutionally, Congress will likely continue to ignore not only its Constitutional limits but earlier criticisms from Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well.

Constitution
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 April 2001    2001 Ron Paul 29:3
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, wants to be amongst those members of Congress who are portrayed as soft on violent crimes initiated against the unborn?

Constitution
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 April 2001    2001 Ron Paul 29:4
Nevertheless, 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.

Constitution
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 April 2001    2001 Ron Paul 29:7
Perhaps, equally 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, because the constitution was amended to allow it, 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 murder 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 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.

Constitution
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 April 2001    2001 Ron Paul 29:8
Occasionally the argument is put forth 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 centralization of police power.

Constitution
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 April 2001    2001 Ron Paul 29:11
Protection of life (born or unborn) against initiations of violence is of vital importance. So vitally important, in fact, it must be left to the States’ criminal justice systems. We have seen what a legal, constitutional, and philosophical mess results from attempts to federalize such an issue. Numerous States have adequately protected the unborn against assault and murder and done so prior to the Federal Government’s unconstitutional sanctioning of violence in the Roe v. Wade decision. Unfortunately, H.R. 503 ignores the danger of further federalizing that which is properly reserved to State governments and, in so doing, throws legal philosophy, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the insights of Chief Justice Rehnquist out with the baby and the bathwater.

Constitution
AMERICA NOT GETTING FAIR SHAKE FROM UNITED NATIONS —
May 10, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 31:2
The amendments that we are dealing with I see as being very small token efforts to improve the bill, but not really dealing with the essence of whether or not we should be in the United Nations or further funding the peacekeeping missions and doing many of the things that I believe sincerely should not be engaged in if we followed the Constitution, and many Americans agree with this.

Constitution
AMERICA NOT GETTING FAIR SHAKE FROM UNITED NATIONS —
May 10, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 31:6
Essentially since World War II, we have gone to war under U.N. resolutions. No longer does the President come to the Congress and ask for a declaration of war. U.N. resolutions are passed, and we send our troops throughout the world fighting and being engaged in war. That is not the way it is supposed to be. The Constitution is very clear on when we should be involved in war.

Constitution
International Criminal Court
10 May 2001    2001 Ron Paul 33:5
The term “crimes of aggression”, as used in the treaty, is not specifically defined and therefore would, by design and effect, violate the vagueness doctrine and require the United States to receive prior United Nations Security Council approval and International Criminal Court confirmation before engaging in military action — thereby putting United States military officers in jeopardy of an International Criminal Court prosecution. The International Criminal Court Treaty creates the possibility that United States civilians, as well as United States military personnel, could be brought before a court that bypasses the due process requirements of the United States Constitution.

Constitution
International Criminal Court
10 May 2001    2001 Ron Paul 33:6
The people of the United States are selfgoverning, and they have a constitutional right to be tried in accordance with the laws that their elected representatives enact and to be judged by their peers and no others. The treaty would subject United States individuals who appear before the International Criminal Court to trial and punishment without the rights and protections that the United States Constitution guarantees, including trial by a jury of one’s peers, protection from double jeopardy, the right to know the evidence brought against one, the right to confront one’s accusers, and the right to a speedy trial.

Constitution
International Criminal Court
10 May 2001    2001 Ron Paul 33:7
Today’s amendment, rather than be silent as is currently the case with the bill, supposes that ratification would subject U.S. citizens to the ICC but the Supreme Court stated in Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, 433 (1920), Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), and DeGeofrey v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890) that the United States Government may not enter into a treaty that contravenes prohibitory words in the United States Constitution because the treaty power does not authorize what the Constitution forbids. Approval of the International Criminal Court Treaty is in fundamental conflict with the constitutional oaths of the President and Senators, because the United States Constitution clearly provides that “[a]ll legislative powers shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,” and vested powers cannot be transferred.

Constitution
International Criminal Court
10 May 2001    2001 Ron Paul 33:8
Additionally, each of the 4 types of offenses over which the International Criminal Court may obtain jurisdiction is within the legislative and judicial authority of the United States and the International Criminal Court Treaty creates a supranational court that would exercise the judicial power constitutionally reserved only to the United States and thus is in direct violation of the United States Constitution. In fact, criminal law is reserved to the states by way of the tenth amendment and, as such, is not even within the federal government’s authority to “treaty away.”

Constitution
International Criminal Court
10 May 2001    2001 Ron Paul 33:9
Mr. Chairman, the International Criminal Court undermines United States sovereignty and security, conflicts with the United States Constitution, contradicts customs of international law, and violates the inalienable rights of self-government, individual liberty, and popular sovereignty. Therefore, the President should declare to all nations that the United States does not intend to assent to or ratify the treaty and the signature of former President Clinton to the treaty should not be construed otherwise.

Constitution

16 May 2001    2001 Ron Paul 35:2
I would like to address the subject of the gag rule. As many of my colleagues know, if there is any violation whatsoever of any civil liberties or the Constitution, no matter how well intended a piece of legislation is, I will vote against it. On occasion even though I’m strong pro-life, I have occassionally voted against pro-life legislation for that reason.

Constitution
Protecting Privacy and Preventing Misuse of Social Security Numbers
May 22, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 37:6
Many of our colleagues will claim that the federal government needs these powers to protect against fraud or some other criminal activities. However, monitoring the transactions of every American in order to catch those few who are involved in some sort of illegal activity turns one of the great bulwarks of our liberty, the presumption of innocence, on its head. The federal government has no right to treat all Americans as criminals by spying on their relationship with their doctors, employers, or bankers. In fact, criminal law enforcement is reserved to the state and local governments by the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment.

Constitution
Protecting Privacy and Preventing Misuse of Social Security Numbers
May 22, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 37:7
Other members of Congress will claim that the federal government needs the power to monitor Americans in order to allow the government to operate more efficiently. I would remind my colleagues that in a constitutional republic the people are never asked to sacrifice their liberties to make the job of government officials a little bit easier. We are here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy invasion more efficient.

Constitution
Protecting Privacy and Preventing Misuse of Social Security Numbers
May 22, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 37:10
The primary reason why any action short of the repeal of laws authorizing privacy violation is insufficient is because the federal government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”

Constitution
Protecting Privacy and Preventing Misuse of Social Security Numbers
May 22, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 37:11
Mr. Chairman, those members who are unpersuaded by the moral and constitutional reasons for embracing the Identity Theft Prevention Act should consider the overwhelming opposition of the American people toward national identifiers. The overwhelming public opposition to the various “Know-Your-Customer” schemes, the attempt to turn drivers’ licenses into National ID cards, HHS’s misnamed “medical privacy” proposal, as well as the numerous complaints over the ever-growing uses of the Social Security number show that American people want Congress to stop invading their privacy. Congress risks provoking a voter backlash if we fail to halt the growth of the surveillance state.

Constitution
Statement on the Congressional Education Plan
May 22, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 38:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, thirty-six years ago Congress blatantly disregarded all constitutional limitations on its power over K-12 education by passing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). This act of massive federal involvement in education was sold to the American people with promises that federal bureaucrats had it within their power to usher in a golden age of education. Yet, instead of the promised nirvana, federal control over education contributed to a decline in education quality. Congress has periodically responded to the American people’s concerns over education by embracing education “reforms,” which it promises are the silver bullet to fixing American schools. “Trust us,” proponents of new federal edcation programs say, we have learned from the mistakes of the past and all we need are a few billion more dollars and some new federal programs and we will produce the educational utopia in which “all children are above average.” Of course, those reforms only result in increasing the education bureaucracy, reducing parental control, increasing federal expenditures, continuing decline in education and an inevitable round of new “reforms.”

Constitution
Statement on the Congressional Education Plan
May 22, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 38:3
H.R. 1 increases federal control over education through increases in education spending. Because “he who pays the piper calls the tune,” it is inevitable that increased federal expenditures on education will increase federal control. However, Mr. Chairman, as much as I object to the new federal expenditures in H.R. 1, my biggest concern is with the new mandate that states test children and compare the test with a national normed test such as the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP). While proponents of this approach claim that the bill respects state autonomy as states’ can draw up their own tests, these claims fail under close observation. First of all, the very act of imposing a testing mandate on states is a violation of states’ and local communities’ authority, protected by the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution, to control education free from federal interference.

Constitution
Statement on the Congressional Education Plan
May 22, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 38:4
Some will claim that this does not violate states’ control because states are free to not accept federal funds. However, every member here knows that it is the rare state administrator who will decline federal funds to avoid compliance with federal mandates. It is time Congress stopped trying to circumvent the constitutional limitations on its authority by using the people’s own money to bribe them into complying with unconstitutional federal dictates.

Constitution
Statement on the Congressional Education Plan
May 22, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 38:9
Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to hold states “accountable” for their education performance. In the free society envisioned by the founders, schools are held accountable to parents, not federal bureaucrats. However, the current system of imposing oppressive taxes on America’s families and using those taxes to fund federal education programs denies parental control of education by denying them control over their education dollars.

Constitution
Statement on the Congressional Education Plan
May 22, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 38:10
As a constitutional means to provide parents with the means to hold schools accountable, I have introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 368). The Family Education Freedom Act restores parental control over the classroom by providing American parents a tax credit of up to $3,000 for the expenses incurred in sending their child to private, public, parochial, other religious school, or for home schooling their children.

Constitution
Letter to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson Regarding Proposed Medical Privacy Regulation
May 23, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 39:7
In a free society, such as the one envisioned by the drafters of the Constitution, the federal government should never force a citizen to divulge personal information to advance “important social goals.” Rather, it should be up to the individuals, not the government, to determine what social goals are important enough to warrant allowing others access to their personal property, including their personal information. To the extent these regulations sacrifice individual rights in the name of a bureaucratically-determined “common good,” they are incompatible with a constitutional government that respects individual liberty.

Constitution
Sudan Peace Act
13 June 2001    2001 Ron Paul 40:7
Mr. Chairman, with HR 2052, the Sudan Peace Act, we embark upon another episode of interventionism, in continuing our illegitimate and ill-advised mission to “police” the world. It seemingly matters little to this body that it proceeds neither with any constitutional authority nor with the blessings of such historical figures such as Jefferson who, in his first inaugural address, argued for “Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.” Unfortunately, this is not the only bit of history which seemingly is lost on this Congress.

Constitution
Sudan Peace Act
13 June 2001    2001 Ron Paul 40:8
Apparently, it is also lost on this Congress that the Constitution was a grant of limited power to the federal government from the citizens or, in other words, the Constitution was not designed to allow the government to restrain the people, but to allow the people to restrain the government. Of course, the customary lip service is given to the Constitution insofar as the committee report for this bill follows the rule of citing Constitutional authority and cites Art. I, Section 8, which is where one might look to find a specific enumerated power. However, the report cites only clause 18 which begs some further citation. While Clause 18 contains the “necessary and proper” clause, it limits Congress to enacting laws “necessary and proper” to some more specifically (i.e. foregoing) enumerated power. Naturally, no such “foregoing” authority is cited by the advocates of this bill.

Constitution
Sudan Peace Act
13 June 2001    2001 Ron Paul 40:9
Without Constitutional authority, this bill goes on to encourage the spending of $10 million of U.S. taxpayers hard-earned money in Sudan but for what purpose? From the text of the bill, we learn that “The United States should use all means of pressure available to facilitate a comprehensive solution to the war in Sudan, including (A) the multilateralization of economic and diplomatic tools to compel the Government of Sudan to enter into a good faith peace process; [note that it says “compel . . . good faith peace”] and (B) the support or creation of viable democratic civil authority and institutions in areas of Sudan outside of government control.” I believe we used to call that nation-building before that term became impolitic. How self-righteous a government is ours which legally prohibits foreign campaign contributions yet assumes it knows best and, hence, supports dissident and insurgent groups in places like Cuba, Sudan and around the world. The practical problem here is that we have funded dissidents in such places as Somalia who ultimately turned out to be worse than the incumbent governments. Small wonder the U.S. is the prime target of citizen-terrorists from countries with no real ability to retaliate militarily for our illegitimate and immoral interventions.

Constitution
Internationalizing SEC
13 June 2001    2001 Ron Paul 41:6
The foregoing powers were those 18 issued. To use this in a generalized sense means there is no constitution left. That means any power we want, we can do whatever we want. That was specifically designed to pass laws to enforce those 18 enumerated powers. So this bill, in spite of all the good intentions that we hope it will do, really undermines the whole concept of the Doctrine of Enumerated Powers.

Constitution
Internationalizing SEC
13 June 2001    2001 Ron Paul 41:8
The other thing that we tend to ignore here is we concentrate on the good things that we are going to accomplish. Miraculously, we are going to solve this problem by putting $10 million in today and $100 million in the next 5 years, and everything is going to be solved. We do not think about it failing, because that would be a negative, and we do not want to think about that. We do not think about the Constitution, and we do not think about who pays. Somebody always has to pay. This is token. Who cares about $10 million? When we take $10 million out of the economy, there is somebody who suffered; somebody did not get a house or somebody lost a job. But they are not identifiable. They do not have a lobbyist. They are lost. But they are penalized. There is always a cost.

Constitution
Internationalizing SEC
13 June 2001    2001 Ron Paul 41:10
We never really think about the choices that we make, and there is always a trade-off. And we generally always forget about finding the point in the Constitution that gives us authority. In this case, this is the wrong authority, and it is not a proper interpretation of the Constitution as described in the committee report.

Constitution
Conscription Policies
13 June 2001    2001 Ron Paul 42:6
This basic logic is the driving force behind the political anti-draft movement. Others oppose the draft because it represents another governmental intrusion into the lives of America’s young adults. Those lacking skill or ambition to serve will be greatly humiliated once drafted, and those without developed skill in search of an alternative career will be denied an opportunity to choose that direction. The draft also is a blatant attack on the Thirteenth Amendment, which prohibits involuntary servitude. If the federal government fought individual states over the legalization of private-sector slavery, then should it not also be equally compelled to decry public-sector servitude? Of course it should, but an elastically interpreted “living Constitution” makes all sorts of public schemes safe from legal reproach.

Constitution
Faith Based Initiatives
June 13, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 43:5
* Miss Parker points out that the founding fathers recognized the danger that church-state entanglement poses to religious liberty, which is why the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the free exercise of religion and forbids the federal government from establishing a national church. As Miss Parker points out, the most effective and constitutional means for Congress to help those in poverty is to cut taxes on the American people so that they may devote more of their resources to effective, locally-controlled, charitable programs.

Constitution
Faith Based Initiatives
June 13, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 43:6
* In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I hope all my colleagues will read Miss Parker’s article and join her in supporting a return to a constitutional policy that does not put faith in federal programs but instead in the voluntary actions of a free and compassionate people.

Constitution
Faith Based Initiatives
June 13, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 43:12
The truth is that we all are already participating in a great faith-based initiative. It is called the United States of America and its principles and rules are in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Constitution
Faith Based Initiatives
June 13, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 43:14
It is worth noting that although the founders declared this; they then prohibited, in the very first amendment to the Constitution, the establishment of religion by government. Clearly, they did not make haste to keep government out of religion because they were not religious men or because they were opposed to religion or religious activity. They did this because they understood that faith, freedom, and choice cannot be separated and that it is critical to preserve and protect these core elements of our society.

Constitution
INTRODUCTION OF FOODS ARE NOT DRUGS ACT — HON. RON PAUL
June 21, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 46:1
* Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Foods are not Drugs Act, a constitutional and common sense piece of legislation. This bill stops the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from interfering with consumers’ access to truthful information about foods and dietary supplements in order to make informed choices about their health.

Constitution
“Postal Service Has Its Eye On You”
27 June 2001    2001 Ron Paul 47:2
As postal officials admitted to Mr. Berlau, the Post Office is training its employees to assume those purchasing large money orders are criminals. In fact, the training manual for this program explicitly states that “it is better to report many legitimate transactions that seem suspicious than let one illegal one slip through.” This policy turns the presumption of innocence, which has been recognized as one of the bulwarks of liberty since medieval times, on its head. Allowing any federal employee to assume the possibility of a crime based on nothing more than a subjective judgment of “suspicious behavior” represents a serious erosion of our constitutional rights to liberty, privacy, and due process.

Constitution
Brown V. Board Of Education 50th Anniversary Commission
27 June 2001    2001 Ron Paul 48:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in encouraging Americans to commemorate the 40th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education and the end of legal segregation in America. However, I cannot support the legislation before us because it attempts to authorize an unconstitutional expenditure of federal funds for the purpose of establishing a commission to provide federal guidance of celebrations of the anniversary of the Brown decision. This expenditure is neither constitutional nor in the sprit of the brave men and woman of the civil rights moment who are deservedly celebrated for standing up to an overbearing government infringing on individual rights.

Constitution
Brown V. Board Of Education 50th Anniversary Commission
27 June 2001    2001 Ron Paul 48:2
Mr. Speaker, any authorization of an unconstitutional expenditure of taxpayer funds is an abuse of our authority and undermines the principles of a limited government which respects individual rights. Because I must oppose appropriations not authorized by the enumerated powers of the Constitution, I therefore reject this bill. I continue to believe that the best way to honor the legacy of those who fought to ensure that all Americans can enjoy the blessings of liberty and a government that treats citizens of all races equally is by consistently defending the idea of a limited government whose powers do not exceed those explicitly granted it by the Constitution.

Constitution
Re-Importation of Pharmaceuticals
11 July 2001    2001 Ron Paul 50:2
As a representative of an area near the Texas-Mexican border I often hear from constituents angry that they cannot purchase inexpensive quality pharmaceuticals in their local drug store. Many of these constituents regularly travel to Mexico on their own in order to purchase pharmaceuticals. Mr. Chairman, where does the federal government get the Constitutional or moral right to tell my constituents they cannot have access to the pharmaceuticals of their choice?

Constitution
A BAD OMEN
July 17, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 52:3
The U.S. today may enjoy dictating policy to Yugoslavia and elsewhere around the world, but danger lurks ahead. The administration adamantly and correctly opposes our membership in the permanent International Criminal Court because it would have authority to exercise jurisdiction over U.S. citizens without the consent of the U.S. government. But how can we, with a straight face, support doing the very same thing to a small country, in opposition to its sovereignty, courts, and constitution. This blatant inconsistency and illicit use of force does not go unnoticed and will sow the seeds of future terrorist attacks against Americans or even war.

Constitution
Flag Burning Amendment
17 July 2001    2001 Ron Paul 53:7
“Our Nation was not founded on devotion to symbolic idols, but on principles, beliefs, and ideals expressed in the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. American veterans who have protected our banner in battle have not done so to protect a ‘golden calf.’ A patriot cannot be created by legislation.”

Constitution
Flag Burning Amendment
17 July 2001    2001 Ron Paul 53:15
As always seems to be the case, though, the federal government intervened. After winding through the federal system, the Supreme Court — in direct contradiction to the Constitution’s 10th Amendment — finally ruled against the state law.

Constitution
Flag Burning Amendment
17 July 2001    2001 Ron Paul 53:17
After all, the First Amendment clearly states that it is Congress that may “make no laws” and is prohibited from “abridging” the freedom of speech and expression. While some may not like it, under our Constitution state governments are free to restrict speech, expression, the press and even religious activities. The states are restrained, in our federal system, by their own constitutions and electorate.

Constitution
Flag Burning Amendment
17 July 2001    2001 Ron Paul 53:19
Too often in this debate, the issue of patriotism is misplaced. This is well addressed by Keith Kruel, an Army veteran and a past national commander of the American Legion. He has said that, “Our nation was not founded on devotion to symbolic idols, but on principles, beliefs and ideals expressed in the constitution and its Bill of Rights. American veterans who have protected our banner in battle have not done so to protect a ‘golden calf.’ . . . A patriot cannot be created by legislation.”

Constitution
Flag Burning Amendment
17 July 2001    2001 Ron Paul 53:20
Our nation would be far better served that if instead of loyalty to an object — what Mr. Kruel calls the “golden calf” — we had more Members of Congress who were loyal to the Constitution and principles of liberty. If more people demonstrated a strong conviction to the Tenth Amendment, rather than creating even more federal powers, this issue would be far better handled.

Constitution
Flag Burning Amendment
17 July 2001    2001 Ron Paul 53:23
As a proud Air Force veteran, my stomach turns when I think of those who defile our flag. But I grow even more nauseous, though, at the thought of those who would defile our precious constitutional traditions and liberties.

Constitution
Flag Burning Amendment
17 July 2001    2001 Ron Paul 53:24
Loyalty to individual liberty, combined with a conviction to uphold the Constitution, is the best of what our flag can represent.

Constitution
STATEMENT FOR WE THE PEOPLE PRESS CONFERENCE
July 17, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 54:2
The validity of their claims about the tax laws and the 16th Amendment is uncertain. Yet I support Mr. Schulz’s right to petition his government, to have his petition heard and taken seriously. The IRS should meet with him, and respond formally to his questions. His First Amendment petition should not be dismissed simply because his viewpoint is not shared by IRS officials. Indeed, the right to a formal response is inherent in the constitutional right to petition the government.

Constitution
Quasquicentennial Of The Texas State Constitution Of 1876
18 July 2001    2001 Ron Paul 58:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the year 2001 marks the quasquicentennial of the Constitution of the great State of Texas.

Constitution
Quasquicentennial Of The Texas State Constitution Of 1876
18 July 2001    2001 Ron Paul 58:3
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 319 Whereas, The year 2001 marks the quasquicentennial of the Texas Constitution, and the 125th anniversary of this foundation document is indeed worthy of special recognition; and

Constitution
Quasquicentennial Of The Texas State Constitution Of 1876
18 July 2001    2001 Ron Paul 58:4
Whereas, On August 2, 1875, Texas voters approved the calling of a convention to write a new state constitution; the convention, held in Austin, began on September 6, 1875, and adjourned sine die on November 24, 1875; then its draft was ratified in a statewide referendum on February 15, 1876, by a vote of 136,606 to 56,652; and

Constitution
Quasquicentennial Of The Texas State Constitution Of 1876
18 July 2001    2001 Ron Paul 58:5
Whereas, The more than 90 delegates to the 1875 Constitutional Convention were a diverse group — most were farmers and lawyers; some were merchants, editors, and physicians; some were legislators and judges; some had fought in the Civil War armies of the South as well as of the North; at least five were African-American; 75 were Democrats; 15 were Republicans; and 37 belonged to the Grange, a non-partisan and agrarian order of patrons of husbandry; one delegate had even served nearly four decades earlier as a delegate to the 1836 Constitutional Convention; and

Constitution
Quasquicentennial Of The Texas State Constitution Of 1876
18 July 2001    2001 Ron Paul 58:6
Whereas, The Constitution of 1876, a richly detailed instrument, reflects several historical influences; the Spanish and Mexican heritage of the state was evident in such provisions as those pertaining to land titles and land law, as well as to water and mineral law, and remains evident in judicial procedures, legislative authority, and gubernatorial powers; and

Constitution
Quasquicentennial Of The Texas State Constitution Of 1876
18 July 2001    2001 Ron Paul 58:8
Whereas, Other sections, such as those providing for low taxation and decreased state spending, were aimed at creating a government quite different from the centralized and more expensive one that had existed under the Constitution of 1869, which was itself a product of the post-Civil War Reconstruction Era in Texas; and

Constitution
Quasquicentennial Of The Texas State Constitution Of 1876
18 July 2001    2001 Ron Paul 58:9
Whereas, Notwithstanding its age, Texas voters have been reluctant to replace this charter, which is the sixth Texas constitution to have been adopted since independence from Mexico was gained in 1836; and

Constitution
Quasquicentennial Of The Texas State Constitution Of 1876
18 July 2001    2001 Ron Paul 58:10
Whereas, The Constitution of 1876 has been the organic law of Texas for 125 years, and this document, which still bears the imprint of the region’s long and dramatic history, has had — and continues to have — a profound influence on the development of the Lone Star State; now, therefore, be it

Constitution
Quasquicentennial Of The Texas State Constitution Of 1876
18 July 2001    2001 Ron Paul 58:11
Resolved, That the 77th Legislature of the State of Texas, Regular Session, 2001, hereby commemorate the quasquicentennial of the Texas constitution.

Constitution
Statement on the Community Solutions Act of 2001
July 19, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 60:11
The primary issue both sides of this debate are avoiding is the constitutionality of the welfare state. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to level excessive taxes on one group of citizens for the benefit of another group of citizens. Many of the founders would have been horrified to see modern politicians define compassion as giving away other people’s money stolen through confiscatory taxation. After all, the words of the famous essay by former Congressman Davy Crockett, that money is “Not Yours to Give.”

Constitution
Statement on the Community Solutions Act of 2001
July 19, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 60:15
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, because H.R. 7 extends the reach of the immoral, unconstitutional welfare state and thus threatens the autonomy and the effectiveness of the very faith-based charities it claims to help, I urge my colleagues to reject it. Instead, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting a constitutional and compassionate agenda of returning control over charity to the American people through large tax cuts and tax credits.

Constitution
Export-Import Bank
24 July 2001    2001 Ron Paul 61:11
Those who do not like China should vote for this because there is a suggestion that the Export-Import Bank serves the interest of China. So to me it should be an easy vote. The only problem with this amendment is that it is so small. It does not really address the big subject on whether or not the Congress should be in this business. Obviously they should not be. Where do you find the authorization to give subsidy appropriations in the Constitution? It is not there.

Constitution
Export-Import Bank
24 July 2001    2001 Ron Paul 61:12
This is a charade. This is fiction when it comes to looking at constitutional law.

Constitution
THE PATIENT PRIVACY ACT -- HON. RON PAUL
July 24, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 65:9
* The second, and most important reason, legislation “protecting” the unique health identifier is insufficient is that the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal health identifier, or force citizens to divulge their personal health information to the government, regardless of any attached “privacy protections.” Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty as it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate arbitrator of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for congress and the American people to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the constitution.”

Constitution
THE PATIENT PRIVACY ACT -- HON. RON PAUL
July 24, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 65:10
* Those who claim that the Patient Privacy act would interfere with the plans to “simplify” and “streamline” the health care system, should remember that under the constitution, the rights of people should never take a backseat to the convenience of the government or politically powerful industries like HMOs.

Constitution
THE PATIENT PRIVACY ACT -- HON. RON PAUL
July 24, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 65:11
* Mr. Speaker, the federal government has no authority to endanger the privacy of personal medical information by forcing all citizens to adopt a uniform health identifier for use in a national data base. A uniform health ID endangers constitutional liberties, threatens the doctor-patient relationships, and could allow federal officials access to deeply personal medical information. There can be no justification for risking the rights of private citizens. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Patient Privacy Act.

Constitution
Stem Cell Research and Human Cloning
July 31, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 68:24
Second, the President should issue no Executive Order because under the Constitution he does not have the authority either to promote or stop any particular research nor does the Congress. And third, there should be no sacrifice of life. Local law officials are responsible for protecting life or should not participate in its destruction.

Constitution
Stem Cell Research and Human Cloning
July 31, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 68:25
We should continue the ethical debate and hope that the medical leaders would voluntarily do the self-policing that is required in a moral society. Local laws, under the Constitution, could be written and the reasonable ones could then set the standard for the rest of the nation.

Constitution
TRUTH IN EMPLOYMENT ACT -- HON. RON PAUL
Thursday, August 2, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 71:4
* Passing the Truth in Employment Act is a good first step toward restoring the constitution rights of property and contract to employers and employees. I therefore urge my colleagues to stand up for those workers who do not wish to be forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment by cosponsoring the Truth in Employment Act.

Constitution
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001    2001 Ron Paul 74:2
The proper way to examine health care issues is to apply the same economic and constitutional principles that one would apply to every other issue. As an M.D., I know that when I advise on medical legislation that I may be tempted to allow my emotional experience as a physician to influence my views. But, nevertheless, I am acting in the role as legislator and politician.

Constitution
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001    2001 Ron Paul 74:8
We all should become suspicious when it is declared we need a new Bill of Rights, such as a Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights, or now a Patients’ Bill of Rights. Why do more Members not ask why the original Bill of Rights is not adequate in protecting all rights and enabling the market to provide all services? In fact, if Congress respected the Constitution we would not even be debating this bill, and we would have never passed any of the special-interest legislation that created and empowered the HMOs in the first place!

Constitution
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001    2001 Ron Paul 74:10
Disregard for constitutional limitations on government, ignorance of the basic principles of economics combined with the power of special interests influencing government policy has brought us this managed-care monster. If we pursue a course of more government management in an effort to balance things, we are destined to make the system much worse. If government mismanagement in an area that the government should not be managing at all is the problem, another level of bureaucracy, no matter how well intended, will not be helpful. The law of unintended consequences will prevail and the principle of government control over providing a service will be further entrenched in the Nation’s psyche. The choice in actually is government-provided medical care and its inevitable mismanagement or medical care provided by a market economy.

Constitution
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 75:1
Congress has a constitutional responsibility to maintain the value of the dollar by making only gold and silver legal tender and not to “emit bills of credit.”

Constitution
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 75:40
Someday, stable money based on the gold standard must be reconsidered. Stable money is a constitutional responsibility of Congress. The Federal Reserve Board’s goal of stable prices, economic growth and low interest rates, through centralized economic planning by manipulating money and credit, is a concoction of 20 th Century Keynesian economics. These efforts are not authorized by the Constitution, and are economically detrimental.

Constitution
Statement on the New York City and Washington, DC Terrorist Attacks
September 12, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 78:5
In our grief, we must remember our responsibilities. The Congress’ foremost obligation in a constitutional republic is to preserve freedom and provide for national security. Yesterday our efforts to protect our homeland came up short. Our policies that led to that shortcoming must be reevaluated and changed if found to be deficient.

Constitution
Statement on the New York City and Washington, DC Terrorist Attacks
September 12, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 78:6
When we retaliate for this horror we have suffered, we must be certain that only the guilty be punished. More killing of innocent civilians will only serve to flame the fires of war and further jeopardize our security. Congress should consider its constitutional authority to grant letters of marque and reprisal to meet our responsibility.

Constitution
Statement on the Congressional Authorization of the Use of Force
September 14, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 79:3
The best tool the framers of the Constitution provided under these circumstances was the power of Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisals, in order to narrow the retaliation to only the guilty parties. The complexity of the issue, the vagueness of the enemy, and the political pressure to respond immediately limits our choices. The proposed resolution is the only option we’re offered and doing nothing is unthinkable.

Constitution
Foreign Interventionism
September 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 80:7
It is obviously no easy task to destroy an almost invisible, ubiquitous enemy spread throughout the world, without expanding the war or infringing on our liberties here at home. But above all else, that is our mandate and our key constitutional responsibility- protecting liberty and providing for national security. My strong belief is that in the past, efforts in the US Congress to do much more than this, have diverted our attention and hence led to our neglect of these responsibilities.

Constitution
Foreign Interventionism
September 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 80:32
The founders and authors of our Constitution provided an answer for the difficult tasks that we now face. When a precise declaration of war was impossible due to the vagueness of our enemy, the Congress was expected to take it upon themselves to direct the reprisal against an enemy not recognized as a government. In the early days the concern was piracy on the high seas. Piracy was one of only three federal crimes named in the original Constitution.

Constitution
Foreign Interventionism
September 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 80:52
What I have said today is different from what is said and accepted in Washington as conventional wisdom, but it is not in conflict with our history or our constitution. It’s a policy that has, whenever tried, generated more peace and prosperity than any other policy for dealing with foreign affairs. The authors of the Constitution clearly understood this. Since the light of truth shines brightest in the darkness of evil and ignorance, we should all strive to shine that light.

Constitution
Intelligence Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2002
5 October 2001    2001 Ron Paul 81:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, HR 2883, the Intelligence Authorization Act, is brought before us today under a process which denies members of Congress our constitutional right as elected officials to be informed on crucial aspects of the programs we are asked to authorize. Information about this bill is limited to dollars amounts and personnel ceilings for the individual intelligence programs and even that information is restricted to viewing in a classified annex available to members during regular business hours for “security reasons.”

Constitution
Intelligence Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2002
5 October 2001    2001 Ron Paul 81:4
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it is inexcusable for members to be denied crucial facts regarding the intelligence program authorized by this bill, especially at a time when the nation’s attention is focused on security issues. Therefore, I hope my colleagues will reject HR 2883 and all other intelligence authorization or funding bills until every member of Congress is allowed to fully perform their constitutional role of overseeing these agencies and participating in the debate on this vital aspect of America’s national security policy.

Constitution
Safe Act
9 October 2001    2001 Ron Paul 83:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Securing American Families Effectively (SAFE) Act. The SAFE Act makes commonsense changes to federal law that will enhance the government’s ability to prevent terrorist incidents. Unlike other proposals, my legislation in no way threatens the constitutional liberties of the American people. In fact, the only people threatened under the SAFE Act are terrorists.

Constitution
Safe Act
9 October 2001    2001 Ron Paul 83:4
Perhaps the most significant change made to procedures is codifying that probable cause is the maximum standard for an investigation of terrorism. According to information received by my office some federal agencies actually have to meet a higher standard than the constitutional standard of probable cause in order to launch an investigation of suspected terrorists. It is absurd to make the FBI meet a higher standard to initiate an investigation of a terrorist than to initiate an investigation of an insider trader!

Constitution
AIR PIRACY REPRISAL AND CAPTURE ACT OF 2001 -- HON. RON PAUL
October 10, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 84:1
* Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act of 2001 and the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. The Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act of 2001 updates the federal definition of “piracy” to include acts committed in the skies. The September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 provides Congressional authorization for the President to issue letters of marque and reprisal to appropriate parties to seize the person and property of Osama bin Laden and any other individual responsible for the terrorist attacks of September 11. Authority to grant letters of marque and reprisal are provided for in the Constitution as a means of allowing Congress to deal with aggressive actions where a formal declaration of war against a foreign power is problematic, Originally intended to deal with piracy, letters of marque and reprisal represent an appropriate response to the piracy of the twentieth century: hijacking terrorism.

Constitution
AIR PIRACY REPRISAL AND CAPTURE ACT OF 2001 -- HON. RON PAUL
October 10, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 84:3
* Congress must use every means available to fight the terrorists behind this attack if we are to fulfill our constitutional obligations to provide for the common defense of our sovereign nation. Issuance of letters of marque and reprisal are a valuable tool in the struggle to exact just retribution on the perpetrators of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In fact, they may be among the most effective response available to Congress.

Constitution
AIR PIRACY REPRISAL AND CAPTURE ACT OF 2001 -- HON. RON PAUL
October 10, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 84:4
* Since the bombing there has been much discussion of how to respond to warlike acts carried out by private parties. The drafters of the Constitution also had to wrestle with the problem of how to respond to sporadic attacks on American soil and citizens organized by groups not formally affiliated with a government. In order to deal with this situation, the Constitution authorized Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal. In the early days of the Republic, marque and reprisal were usually used against pirates who, while they may have enjoyed the protection and partnership of governments, where not official representatives of a government.

Constitution
AIR PIRACY REPRISAL AND CAPTURE ACT OF 2001 -- HON. RON PAUL
October 10, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 84:6
* Like the pirates who once terrorized the high seas, terrorists today are also difficult to punish using military means. While bombs and missiles may be sufficient to knock out the military capability and the economic and technological infrastructure of an enemy nation that harbors those who committed the September 11 attacks, traditional military force may not be suitable to destroy the lawless terrorists who are operating in the nations targeted for military force. Instead, those terrorists may simply move to another base before our troops can locate them. It is for these reasons that I believe that, were the drafters of the Constitution with us today, they would counsel in favor of issuing letters of marque and reprisal against the terrorists responsible for this outrageous act.

Constitution
Ron Paul statement on HR 3004 before the House Financial Services committee
October 11, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 86:1
Mr. Chairman, the so-called Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 (HR 3004) has more to do with the ongoing war against financial privacy than with the war against international terrorism. Of course, the federal government should take all necessary and constitutional actions to enhance the ability of law enforcement to locate and seize funds flowing to known terrorists and their front groups. For example, America should consider signing more mutual legal assistance treaties with its allies so we can more easily locate the assets of terrorists and other criminals.

Constitution
Ron Paul statement on HR 3004 before the House Financial Services committee
October 11, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 86:5
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this package of unconstitutional expansions of the financial police state, most of which will prove ultimately ineffective in the war against terrorism. Instead, I hope this Committee will work to fashion a measure aimed at giving the government a greater ability to locate and seize the assets of terrorists while respecting the constitutional rights of American citizens.

Constitution
Statement on Counter-Terrorism Proposals and Civil Liberties
October 12, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 87:3
Still, there are areas where our laws could be strengthened with no loss of liberties, and I am pleased that HR 3108 appears to contain many common sense provisions designed to strengthen the government’s ability to prevent terrorist attacks while preserving constitutional liberty.

Constitution
Statement on Counter-Terrorism Proposals and Civil Liberties
October 12, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 87:4
However, other provisions of this bill represent a major infringement of the American people’s constitutional rights. I am afraid that if these provisions are signed into law, the American people will lose large parts of their liberty--maybe not today but over time, as agencies grow more comfortable exercising their new powers. My concerns are exacerbated by the fact that HR 3108 lacks many of the protections of civil liberties which the House Judiciary Committee worked to put into the version of the bill they considered. In fact, the process under which we are asked to consider this bill makes it nearly impossible to fulfill our constitutional responsibility to carefully consider measures which dramatically increase government’s power.

Constitution
Statement on Counter-Terrorism Proposals and Civil Liberties
October 12, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 87:5
Many of the most constitutionally offensive measures in this bill are not limited to terrorist offenses, but apply to any criminal activity. In fact, some of the new police powers granted the government could be applied even to those engaging in peaceful protest against government policies. The bill as written defines terrorism as acts intended “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.” Under this broad definition, should a scuffle occur at an otherwise peaceful pro-life demonstration the sponsoring organization may become the target of a federal investigation for terrorism. We have seen abuses of law enforcement authority in the past to harass individuals or organizations with unpopular political views. I hope my colleagues consider that they may be handing a future administration tools to investigate pro-life or gun rights organizations on the grounds that fringe members of their movements advocate violence. It is an unfortunate reality that almost every political movement today, from gun rights to environmentalism, has a violent fringe.

Constitution
Statement on Counter-Terrorism Proposals and Civil Liberties
October 12, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 87:7
Among other disturbing proposals, H.R. 3108 grants the President the authority to seize all the property of any foreign national that the President determines is involved in hostilities against the United States. Giving the executive branch discretionary authority to seize private property without due process violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the fifth amendment to the Constitution. Furthermore, given that one of the (unspoken) reasons behind the shameful internment of Americans of Japanese ancestry in the 1940s was to reward favored interests with property forcibly taken from innocent landowners, how confident are we that future, less scrupulous executives will refrain from using this power to reward political allies with the property of alleged “hostile nationals?”

Constitution
Statement on Counter-Terrorism Proposals and Civil Liberties
October 12, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 87:11
Some defenders of individuals rights may point to the provisions establishing new penalties for violations of individual rights and the provisions “sunsetting” some of the government’s new powers as justifying support for this bill. Those who feel that simply increasing the penalties for “unauthorized” disclosure of information collected under this act should consider that existing laws did not stop the ineffectiveness of such laws in preventing the abuse of personal information collected by the IRS or FBI by administrations of both parties. As for “sunsetting,” I would ask if these provisions are critical tools in the fight against terrorism, why remove the government’s ability to use them after five years? Conversely, if these provisions violate American’s constitutional rights why is it acceptable to suspend the Constitution at all?

Constitution
Statement on Counter-Terrorism Proposals and Civil Liberties
October 12, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 87:15
In conclusion, I reiterate my commitment to effective ways of enhancing the government’s powers to combat terrorism. However, H.R. 3108 sacrifices too many of our constitutional liberties and will not even effectively address the terrorist menace. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and instead support reasonable common-sense measures that are aimed at terrorism such as those contained in my SAFE Act.

Constitution
Statement on HR 3004
October 17, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 88:1
Mr. Speaker, the so-called Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 (HR 3004) has more to do with the ongoing war against financial privacy than with the war against international terrorism. Of course, the federal government should take all necessary and constitutional actions to enhance the ability of law enforcement to locate and seize funds flowing to known terrorists and their front groups. For example, America should consider signing more mutual legal assistance treaties with its allies so we can more easily locate the assets of terrorists and other criminals.

Constitution
Statement on HR 3004
October 17, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 88:4
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this package of unconstitutional expansions of the financial police state, most of which will prove ultimately ineffective in the war against terrorism. Instead, I hope Congress will work to fashion a measure aimed at giving the government a greater ability to locate and seize the assets of terrorists while respecting the constitutional rights of American citizens.

Constitution
A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS --
October 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 90:5
America’s heart and soul is more embedded in our love of liberty, self-reliance, and tolerance than by our foreign policy, driven by powerful special interests with little regard for the Constitution.

Constitution
A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS --
October 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 90:17
Emotions are running high in our Nation’s capital, and in politics emotions are more powerful tools than reason and the rule of law. The use of force to serve special interests and help anyone who claims to be in need unfortunately is an acceptable practice. Obeying the restraints placed in the Constitution is seen as archaic and insensitive to the people’s needs. But far too often the claims of those responding to human tragedies are nothing more than politics as usual. While one group supports bailing out the corporations, another wants to prop up wages and jobs. One group supports federalizing tens of thousands of airport jobs to increase union membership, while another says we should subsidize corporate interests and keep the jobs private.

Constitution
A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS --
October 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 90:20
It is aggravating to listen to the daily rhetoric regarding liberty and the Constitution while the same people participate in their destruction. It is aggravating to see all the money spent and civil liberties abused while the pilot’s right to carry guns in self-defense is denied. It is even more aggravating to see our government rely on foreign AWACS aircraft to provide security to U.S. territory. A $325 billion military budget, and we cannot even patrol our own shores. This, of course, is just another sign of how little we are concerned about U.S. sovereignty and how willing we are to submit to international government.

Constitution
Statement on Funding for the Export- Import Bank
October 31, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 91:1
Mr. Chairman, the Financial Services committee should reject HR 2871, the Export-Import Reauthorization Act, for economic, constitutional, and moral reasons. The Export-Import Bank (Eximbank) takes money from American taxpayers to subsidize exports by American companies. Of course, it is not just any company that receives Eximbank support- rather, the majority of Eximbank funding benefits large, politically powerful corporations.

Constitution
Statement on Funding for the Export- Import Bank
October 31, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 91:6
The case for Eximbank is further weakened considering that small businesses receive only 12-15% of Eximbank funds; the vast majority of Eximbank funds benefit large corporations. These corporations can certainly afford to support their own exports without relying on the American taxpayer. It is not only bad economics to force working Americans, small business, and entrepreneurs to subsidize the exports of the large corporations: it is also immoral. In fact, this redistribution from the poor and middle class to the wealthy is the most indefensible aspect of the welfare state, yet it is the most accepted form of welfare. Mr. Chairman, it never ceases to amaze me how members who criticize welfare for the poor on moral and constitutional grounds see no problem with the even more objectionable programs that provide welfare for the rich.

Constitution
Statement on Funding for the Export- Import Bank
October 31, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 91:8
There is simply no constitutional justification for the expenditure of funds on programs such as Eximbank. In fact, the drafters of the Constitution would be horrified to think the federal government was taking hard-earned money from the American people in order to benefit the politically powerful.

Constitution
Statement on Air Safety Legislation
November 1, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 94:1
Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Securing America For Effective Transportation, or Safety, Act. This legislation is in stark contrast to the bureaucracy laden approaches of other bills. My bill would not create new federal spending nor new federal bureaucracies. The actions taken by this legislation fit into a few broad categories. First, it would give airline pilots the right to defend themselves, their aircraft, and their passengers by permitting them to bear arms. Second, it would clearly define the act of skyjacking as an act of piracy and provide appropriate punishment for any such act, up to and including capital punishment. Next, this legislation would provide appropriate strengthening of regulation of airline security in a fashion consistent with our constitutional framework. This would be done by requiring, for example, that law enforcement personnel be posted at screening locations rather than simply in the confines of an airport, and by requiring the production of passenger manifests for international flights. Finally, this bill would give airlines a strong incentive to improve passenger security, not by giving them taxpayer funded grants nor by creating new bureaucracies tasked with making administrative law, but rather by providing a tax incentive to airlines and other companies performing screening and security duties.

Constitution
Statement on Preventing Identity Theft by Terrorists and Criminals
November 8, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 96:6
My colleagues should remember that the federal government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”

Constitution
Statement for the Government Reform Committee Hearing on National ID Card Proposals
November 16, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 97:2
However, Congress should reject proposals which provide only the illusion of security, while in reality simply eroding constitutional government and individual liberty. Perhaps the most onerous example of a proposal that creates the illusion of security (yet really promotes servitude) is the plan to force all Americans to carry a national ID card. A uniform national system of identification would allow the federal government to inappropriately monitor the movements and transactions of every citizen. History shows that when government gains the power to monitor the actions of the people, it inevitably uses that power in harmful ways.

Constitution
Statement for the Government Reform Committee Hearing on National ID Card Proposals
November 16, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 97:4
Furthermore, the federal government has no constitutional authority to require law-abiding Americans to present any form of identification before engaging in private transactions (e.g. getting a job, opening a bank account, or seeking medical assistance). As we consider how best to enhance the federal government’s ability to ensure the safety of the people, it is more important then ever that Congress remain mindful of the constitutional limitations on its power.

Constitution
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:47
Granting bailouts is not new for Congress, but current conditions have prompted many takers to line up for handouts. There has always been a large constituency for expanding federal power for whatever reason, and these groups have been energized. The military-industrial complex is out in full force and is optimistic. Union power is pleased with recent events and has not missed the opportunity to increase membership rolls. Federal policing powers, already in a bull market, received a super shot in the arm. The IRS, which detests financial privacy, gloats, while all the big spenders in Washington applaud the tools made available to crack down on tax dodgers. The drug warriors and anti-gun zealots love the new powers that now can be used to watch the every move of our citizens. “Extremists” who talk of the Constitution, promote right-to-life, form citizen militias, or participate in non-mainstream religious practices now can be monitored much more effectively by those who find their views offensive. Laws recently passed by the Congress apply to all Americans- not just terrorists. But we should remember that if the terrorists are known and identified, existing laws would have been quite adequate to deal with them.

Constitution
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:53
It is estimated that approximately 1,200 men have been arrested as a consequence of 9-11, yet their names and the charges are not available, and according to Ashcroft, will not be made available. Once again, he uses the argument that he’s protecting the privacy of those charged. Unbelievable! Due process for the detainees has been denied. Secret government is winning out over open government. This is the largest number of people to be locked up under these conditions since FDR’s internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Information regarding these arrests is a must, in a constitutional republic. If they’re terrorists or accomplices, just let the public know and pursue their prosecution. But secret arrests and silence are not acceptable in a society that professes to be free. Curtailing freedom is not the answer to protecting freedom under adverse circumstances.

Constitution
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:58
It’s easy for elected officials in Washington to tell the American people that the government will do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism. Such assurances inevitably are followed by proposals either to restrict the constitutional liberties of the American people or to spend vast sums of money from the federal treasury. The history of the 20th Century shows that the Congress violates our Constitution most often during times of crisis. Accordingly, most of our worst unconstitutional agencies and programs began during the two World Wars and the Depression. Ironically, the Constitution itself was conceived in a time of great crisis. The founders intended its provision to place severe restrictions on the federal government, even in times of great distress. America must guard against current calls for government to sacrifice the Constitution in the name of law enforcement.

Constitution
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:60
Almost all of the new laws focus on American citizens rather than potential foreign terrorists. For example, the definition of “terrorism,” for federal criminal purposes, has been greatly expanded A person could now be considered a terrorist by belonging to a pro-constitution group, a citizen militia, or a pro-life organization. Legitimate protests against the government could place tens of thousands of other Americans under federal surveillance. Similarly, internet use can be monitored without a user’s knowledge, and internet providers can be forced to hand over user information to law-enforcement officials without a warrant or subpoena.

Constitution
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:64
The executive order that has gotten the most attention by those who are concerned that our response to 9-11 is overreaching and dangerous to our liberties is the one authorizing military justice, in secret. Nazi war criminals were tried in public, but plans now are laid to carry out the trials and punishment, including possibly the death penalty, outside the eyes and ears of the legislative and judicial branches of government and the American public. Since such a process threatens national security and the Constitution, it cannot be used as a justification for their protection.

Constitution
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:66
The argument that FDR did it and therefore it must be OK is a rather weak justification. Roosevelt was hardly one that went by the rule book- the Constitution. But the situation then was quite different from today. There was a declared war by Congress against a precise enemy, the Germans, who sent eight saboteurs into our country. Convictions were unanimous, not 2/3 of the panel, and appeals were permitted. That’s not what’s being offered today. Furthermore, the previous military tribunals expired when the war ended. Since this war will go on indefinitely, so too will the courts.

Constitution
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:72
The ongoing debate regarding the use of torture in rounding up the criminals involved in the 9-11 attacks is too casual. This can hardly represent progress in the cause of liberty and justice. Once government becomes more secretive, it is more likely this tool will be abused. Hopefully the Congress will not endorse or turn a blind eye to this barbaric proposal. For every proposal made to circumvent the justice system, it’s intended that we visualize that these infractions of the law and the Constitution will apply only to terrorists and never involve innocent U.S. citizens. This is impossible, because someone has to determine exactly who to bring before the tribunal, and that involves all of us. That is too much arbitrary power for anyone to be given in a representative government and is more characteristic of a totalitarian government.

Constitution
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:75
The planned use of military personnel to patrol our streets and airports is another challenge of great importance that should not go uncontested. For years, many in Washington have advocated a national approach to all policing activity. This current crisis has given them a tremendous boost. Believe me, this is no panacea and is a dangerous move. The Constitution never intended that the federal government assume this power. This concept was codified in the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. This act prohibits the military from carrying out law-enforcement duties such as searching or arresting people in the United States, the argument being that the military is only used for this type of purpose in a police state. Interestingly, it was the violation of these principles that prompted the Texas Revolution against Mexico. The military under the Mexican Constitution at that time was prohibited from enforcing civil laws, and when Santa Anna ignored this prohibition, the revolution broke out. We should not so readily concede the principle that has been fought for on more than one occasion in this country.

Constitution
Statement on Terrorism Reinsurance Legislation
November 30, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 99:1
Mr. Speaker, no one doubts that the government has a role to play in compensating American citizens who are victimized by terrorist attacks. However, Congress should not lose sight of fundamental economic and constitutional principles when considering how best to provide the victims of terrorist attacks just compensation. I am afraid that HR 3210, the Terrorism Risk Protection Act, violates several of those principles and therefore passage of this bill is not in the best interests of the American people.

Constitution
Let Privateers Troll For Bin Laden
4 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 100:4
When a terrorist stronghold has been destroyed by military power, terrorists simply may move to another base before military forces locate them. It is for these reasons that I believe the drafters of the Constitution would counsel in favor of issuing letters of marque and reprisal against the terrorists responsible for the September 11 attacks.

Constitution
Let Privateers Troll For Bin Laden
4 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 100:5
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld recently acknowledged the role that private parties, when provided sufficient incentives by government, can play in bringing terrorists to justice. Now is the time for Congress to ensure President Bush can take advantage of every effective and constitutional means of fighting the war on terrorism. This is why I have introduced the Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act of 2001 (HR 3074) and the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 (HR 3076). The Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act of 2001 updates the federal definition of “piracy” to include acts committed in the skies. The September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 provides Congressional authorization for the President to issue letters of marque and reprisal to appropriate parties to seize the person and property of Osama bin Laden and any other individuals responsible for the terrorist attacks of September 11. I encourage my colleagues to read Professor Sechrest’s article on the effectiveness of privateers, and to help ensure President Bush can take advantage of every available tool to capture and punish terrorists by cosponsoring my Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act and the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act.

Constitution
Let Privateers Troll For Bin Laden
4 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 100:10
During the War of 1812, 526 American vessels were commissioned as privateers. This was not piracy, because the privateers were licensed by their own governments and the ships were bonded to ensure that their captains followed the accepted laws of the sea, including the humane treatment of those who were taken prisoner. Congress granted privateers “letters of marque and reprisal,” under the authority of Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

Constitution
Statement Opposing Unconstitutional “Trade Promotion Authority”
December 6, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 103:2
Our founders understood the folly of trade agreements between nations; that is why they expressly granted the authority to regulate trade to Congress alone, separating it from the treaty-making power given to the President and Senate. This legislation clearly represents an unconstitutional delegation of congressional authority to the President. Simply put, the Constitution does not permit international trade agreements. Neither Congress nor the President can set trade policies in concert with foreign governments or international bodies.

Constitution
Statement Opposing Unconstitutional “Trade Promotion Authority”
December 6, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 103:3
The loss of national sovereignty inherent in government-managed trade cannot be overstated. If you don’t like GATT, NAFTA, and the WTO, get ready for even more globalist intervention in our domestic affairs. As we enter into new international agreements, be prepared to have our labor, environmental, and tax laws increasingly dictated or at least influenced by international bodies. We’ve already seen this with our foreign sales corporation tax laws, which we changed solely to comply with a WTO ruling. Rest assured that TPA will accelerate the trend toward global government, with our Constitution fading into history.

Constitution
Statement Opposing Unconstitutional “Trade Promotion Authority”
December 6, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 103:4
Congress can promote true free trade without violating the Constitution. We can lift the trade embargo against Cuba, end Jackson-Vanik restrictions on Kazakhstan, and repeal sanctions on Iran. These markets should be opened to American exporters, especially farmers. We can reduce our tariffs unilaterally- taxing American consumers hardly punishes foreign governments. We can unilaterally end the subsidies that international agreements purportedly seek to reduce. We can simply repeal protectionist barriers to trade, so-called NTB’s, that stifle economic growth.

Constitution
Statement Opposing Unconstitutional “Trade Promotion Authority”
December 6, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 103:5
Mr. Speaker, we are not promoting free trade today, but we are undermining our sovereignty and the constitutional separation of powers. We are avoiding the responsibilities with which our constituents have entrusted us. Remember, congressional authority we give up today will not be restored when less popular Presidents take office in the future. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to vote NO on TPA.

Constitution
H.R. 3054
16 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 106:5
Because of my continuing and uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, I must remain consistent in my defense of a limited government whose powers are explicitly delimited under the enumerated powers of the Constitution — a Constitution which each Member of Congress swore to uphold. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this legislation and respectfully suggest that perhaps we should begin a debate among us on more appropriate processes by which we spend other people’s money. Honorary medals and commemorative coins, under the current process, come from other people’s money. It is, of course, easier to be generous with other people’s money, but using our own funds to finance these gold medal is true to the sprit of the heros of September 11.

Constitution

19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 111:3
Mr. Speaker, very quickly, borders are important because that is what our Constitution gives us the authority to defend. Our Constitution does not give us the authority to defend Europe or anybody else. Also we have a moral authority to defend ourselves and not to pretend that we are the policemen of the world. What would Americans say if China were in the Gulf of Mexico and said it was their oil and had troops stationed in Texas. That is the equivalent of us having our Navy in the Persian Gulf and saying it is our oil and placing troops in Saudi Arabia.

Constitution
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002    2002 Ron Paul 1:4
The problem is that we have Members of Congress that yield to the temptation and influence of money. If we had enough Members around here that did not yield to the temptation, we would not have to have campaign finance reform, we would not have to regulate money, we would not have to undermine the first amendment, and we would not have to undermine the Constitution in that effort.

Constitution
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002    2002 Ron Paul 1:5
I agree we have a problem, but I believe the resistance could be here without much change. The ultimate solution to the need for campaign finance reform comes only when we have a constitutional- type government, where government is not doing the things they should be doing. There is a logical incentive for corporations and many individuals to come to Washington, because they can buy influence and buy benefits and buy contracts. The government was never meant to do that.

Constitution
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002    2002 Ron Paul 1:6
The government was set up to protect liberty, and yet we have devised a system here where money talks and it is important; but let me tell my colleagues one thing, the Campaign Finance Reform Act that is coming down the pike will do nothing to solve the problem and will do a lot to undermine our freedoms, a lot to undermine the first amendment and do nothing to preserve the Constitution.

Constitution
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002    2002 Ron Paul 1:20
This attitude is healthy, practical, and legal under the Constitution. Unfortunately, too many people who have come to this conclusion still cling to the notion that economic security is a responsibility of the U.S. Government. That, of course, is the reason we have a $2 trillion annual budget and a growing $6 trillion national debt.

Constitution
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002    2002 Ron Paul 1:31
No matter how sincere and well motivated the effort to fight terrorism and provide for homeland security, if ill-advised it will result neither in vanquishing terrorism nor in preserving our liberties. I am fearful that here in Washington there is little understanding of the real cause of the terrorist attacks on us, little remembrance of the grand purpose of the American experiment with liberty, or even how our Constitution was written to strictly limit government officials and all that they do.

Constitution
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002    2002 Ron Paul 1:42
The point being, of course, that it may be good to have a new Afghan government, but the question is whether that is our responsibility and whether we should be doing it under the constraints of our Constitution. There is a real question of whether it will serve our best interests in the long term.

Constitution
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002    2002 Ron Paul 1:47
Why look for more of these kinds of problems when it does not serve our interests? Jeopardizing our security violates the spirit of the Constitution and inevitably costs us more than we can afford. Our permanent air bases built in Saudi Arabia are totally unessential to our security, contributed to the turmoil in the Middle East, and they continue to do so. We are building a giant new air base in Kyrgyzstan, a country once part of the Soviet Union and close to Russia. China, also a neighbor with whom we eagerly seek a close relationship as a trading partner, will not ignore our military buildup in that region.

Constitution
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002    2002 Ron Paul 1:59
The founders of this country were precise in their beliefs regarding foreign policy. Our Constitution reflects these beliefs, and all of our early Presidents endorsed these views. It was not until the 20th century that our Nation went off to far-away places looking for dragons to slay. This past century reflects the new and less-traditional American policy of foreign interventionism. Our economic and military power, a result of our domestic freedoms, has permitted us to survive and even thrive while dangerously expanding our worldwide influence.

Constitution
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002    2002 Ron Paul 1:68
The American people are not in sync with the assumption that we must commitment ourselves endlessly to being the world’s policemen. If we do not reassess our endless entanglements as we march toward world government, economic law will one day force us to do so anyway under very undesirable circumstances. In the meantime, we can expect plenty more military confrontations around the world while becoming even more vulnerable to attack by terrorists here at home. A constitutional policy and informed relations of nonintervention is the policy that will provide America the greatest and best national defense.

Constitution
Statement before the House Capital Markets Subcommittee
Monday, February 4, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 3:10
This does not mean Enron is to be excused. There seems to be little question that executives at Enron deceived employees and investors, and any fraudulent conduct should of course be fully prosecuted. However, Mr. Chairman, I hope we will not allow criminal fraud in one company, which constitutionally is a matter for state law, to justify the imposition of burdensome new accounting and stock regulations. Instead, we should focus on repealing those monetary and fiscal policies that distort the market and allow the politically powerful to enrich themselves at the expense of the American taxpayer.

Constitution
Statement on the Argentine crisis
February 6 2002    2002 Ron Paul 4:9
In addition, Mr. Chairman, the IMF violates basic constitutional and moral principles. The federal government has no constitutional authority to fund international institutions such as the IMF, and it is simply immoral to take money form hard-working Americas to support the economic schemes of politically-powerful special interests and third-world dictators.

Constitution
Statement on the Argentine crisis
February 6 2002    2002 Ron Paul 4:11
Mr. Chairman, the damage inflicted by the IMF on Argentina is immense and inexcusable. This is yet further proof that the IMF was a bad idea from the very beginning- economically, constitutionally, and morally. However, perhaps some good can come out of this debacle if it causes Congress to at last rethink America’s foolish participation in the IMF. This is why I will soon be introducing legislation to withdraw America from the IMF. I hope my colleagues will join me in working to protect the American taxpayer from underwriting the destruction of countries like Argentina, by working with me to end America’s support for the IMF.

Constitution
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 5:2
No one challenges the need to protect American citizens from further terrorist attacks, but there is much debate throughout the country as to how it should be done and whether personal liberty here at home must be sacrificed. Many are convinced that our efforts overseas might escalate the crisis and actually precipitate more violence. A growing number of Americans are becoming concerned that our efforts to preserve our freedoms and security will result in the unnecessary sacrifice of that which we’ve pledge to protect- our constitutionally protected liberty.

Constitution
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 5:19
Since rejecting the current system and endorsing economic freedom diminishes the power and influence of politicians, it’s difficult to get political support for such a program. The necessary changes will only come when the American people wake up to the reality and insist that the Congress pursues only those goals permitted under the Constitution.

Constitution
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 5:25
This is a well-known problem and prompts some serious-minded and well-intentioned Members to want to legislate campaign finance reforms. But the reforms proposed would actually make the whole mess worse. They would regulate access to the members of Congress, and dictate how private money is spent in campaigns. This merely curtails liberty, while ignoring the real problem- a government that ignores the Constitution naturally passes out largesse. Even under today’s conditions, where money talks in Washington, if enough members would refuse either to accept or be influenced by the special interests, government favors would no longer be up for sale. Since politicians are far from perfect, the solution is having a government of limited size acting strictly within the framework of the Constitution. No matter how strictly campaign finance laws are written, they will do only harm if the rule of law is not restored and if Congress refuses to stop being manipulated by the special interests.

Constitution
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 5:61
7. In the area of personal liberty, we face some real dangers. Throughout our history, starting with the Civil War, our liberties have been curtailed and the Constitution has been flaunted. Although our government continued to grow with each crisis, many of the liberties curtailed during wartime were restored. War was precise and declared, and when the war was over, there was a desire to return to normalcy. With the current war on terrorism, there is no end in sight and there is no precise enemy, and we’ve been forewarned that this fight will go on for a long time. This means that a return to normalcy after the sacrifices we are making with our freedoms is not likely. The implementation of a national ID card, pervasive surveillance, easy-to-get search warrants, and loss of financial and medical privacy will be permanent. If this trend continues, the Constitution will become a much weaker document.

Constitution
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 5:68
Optimism or Pessimism? Many realists who see the world as it really is and who recognize the dilemma we face in the United States to preserve our freedoms in this time of crisis are despondent and pessimistic, believing little can be done to reverse the tide against liberty. Others who share the same concern are confident that efforts to preserve the true spirit of the Constitution can be successful. Maybe next month or next year or at some later date, I’m convinced that, in time, the love for liberty can be rejuvenated. Once it’s recognized that government has no guarantee of future success, promoting dependency and security can quickly lose it allure.

Constitution
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 5:74
We must have faith that those who now are apathetic, anxious for security at all costs, forgetful of the true spirit of American liberty, and neglectful of the Constitution, will rise to the task and respond accordingly.

Constitution
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:3
The case against this provision was best stated by Herb Titus, one of America’s leading constitutional scholars, in his paper Campaign-Finance Reform: A Constitutional Analysis : “At the heart of the guarantee of the freedom of speech is the prohibition against any law designed to protect the reputation of the government to the end that the people have confidence in their current governors. As seditious libel laws protecting the reputation of the government unconstitutionally abridge the freedom of speech, so also do campaign-finance reform laws.”

Constitution
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:4
The damage this bill does to the First amendment is certainly a sufficient reason to oppose it. However, as Professor Titus demonstrates in his analysis of the bill, the most important reason to oppose this bill is that the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to regulate campaigns. In fact, article II expressly authorizes the regulation of elections, so the omission of campaigns is glaring.

Constitution
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:5
This legislation thus represents an attempt by Congress to fix a problem created by excessive government intervention in the economy with another infringement on the people’s constitutional liberties. The real problem is not that government lacks power to control campaign financing, but that the federal government has excessive power over our economy and lives.

Constitution
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:15
The case against this bill was eloquently made by Herb Titus in the paper referenced above: ACampaign-finance reform is truly a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Promising reform, it hides incumbent perquisites. Promising competition, it favors monopoly. Promising integrity, it fosters corruption. Real campaign-finance reform calls for a return to America’s original constitutional principles of limited and decentralized governmental power, thereby preserving the power of the people.”

Constitution
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:16
I urge my colleagues to listen to Professor Titus and reject this unconstitutional proposal. Instead, I hope my colleagues will work to reduce special interest influence in Washington and restore integrity to politics by reducing the federal government to its constitutional limits. I would like to take this opportunity to introduce the excellent article by Mr. Titus into the record:

Constitution
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:17
Campaign-Finance Reform A Constitutional Analysis by Herbert W. Titus

Constitution
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:18
1. Introduction 2. Congress Has No Constitutional Authority to Pass Any Campaign-Finance

Constitution
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:22
I. Introduction To date, the legislative debate over campaign-finance reform has focused upon the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech, as interpreted and applied by the courts. The constitutional issues, however, are not limited to the First Amendment, neither are they resolved by citation to Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) nor by the latest Supreme Court opinion, including the one handed down on June 25, 2001 in FEC v . Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee . To the contrary, pursuant to their oaths of office, members of Congress have an independent duty to determine the constitutionality of legislation before them and to decide, before ever reaching the First Amendment, whether they have been vested by the Constitution with any authority, at all, to regulate federal election campaigns.

Constitution
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:23
The original Constitution did not contain the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment. Writing in Federalist No. 84, Alexander Hamilton defended this omission, claiming that a bill of rights was not needed in a republic with a written constitution expressly enumerating the powers of government. Indeed, Hamilton observed a bill of rights attached to such a constitution might well prove dangerous because placing express limits upon the exercise of a power might give rise to the assumption that such a power had been previously granted.

Constitution
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:24
Hamilton’s warning has proved prophetic in the case of campaign-finance reform. As the debate swirls around the impact of such reform measures on the freedom of speech and association, the question whether Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate federal election campaigns is being ignored. Yet, that question would have been hotly debated and quickly answered in America’s founding era in light of the constitutional text carefully circumscribing Congress’s authority in relation to federal elections. (See Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 and Article II, Section 1, Clause 4; Federalist No. 60 and Federalist No. 68, I Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution , Sections 814-826 and II Story’s Commentaries , Sections 1453-75, 5th ed. 1891.)

Constitution
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:25
Additionally, the issue of constitutional authority would have been examined, in the first instance, by Congress and the president without their being bound by previous court opinions. It had already been well established that each representative, each senator, and the president and his cabinet had a constitutional duty, independent of the judiciary, to determine the constitutionality of legislation before them. As President Andrew Jackson observed, in his 1832 veto message rejecting a bill extending the charter of the Bank of the United States:

Constitution
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:26
It is maintained by the advocates of the bank that its constitutionality in all its features ought to be considered as settled by precedent and by the decision of the Supreme Court. To this conclusion I cannot assent. Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority...[and] the opinion of the Supreme Court...ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill...presented to them for passage...as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision.

Constitution
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:27
It is in light of these principles, then, that the issue of constitutional authority to enact any campaign-finance reform bill is addressed in sections II and III below, before reaching the First Amendment issues raised by particular campaign-finance measures in sections IV and V. Furthermore, those issues are examined in light of the constitutional duty of Congress to decide for itself whether it has the constitutional authority to enact campaign-finance reform legislation and whether any such legislation violates the First Amendment, regardless of the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) and its progeny, including the high court’s most recent pronouncement on June 25, 2001.

Constitution
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:28
II.Congress Has No Constitutional Authority to Pass Any Campaign-Finance Reform Legislation According to Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, Congress is a legislature of enumerated powers, having only those “powers herein granted.” As a legislature of enumerated powers, Congress may enact laws only for constitutionally authorized purposes. ( McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S., 4 Wheat. 316, 1819) (“Let the end be legitimate, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end which are not prohibited, are constitutional.”) The stated purpose of all campaign-finance reform legislation, like the Federal Election Campaign Act that it amends, is to “reform the financing of campaigns for election to Federal office,” thereby preventing the “corruption and the appearance of corruption” in government and “equaliz[ing] the relative ability of all citizens to affect the outcomes of elections.” ( Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 25-26, 1976) Congress has been granted no such power.

Constitution
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:29
The threshold question concerning any campaign-finance reform bill is whether the Constitution has conferred upon Congress any authority to regulate federal election campaigns . Such authority is not found among any enumerated power conferred upon Congress. Therefore, Congress may not justify any campaign-finance reform measure on the grounds that its purpose is to reform the financing of campaigns for federal office. Thus, campaign-finance reform laws may be constitutionally justified only if enacted as a means to achieve some other purpose that is constitutionally authorized. ( McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S., 4 Wheat. 316, 1819)

Constitution
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:30
The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended in 1974, presumed that the Constitution authorized Congress to regulate federal election campaigns for the purposes of “the prevention of corruption and the appearance of corruption” in government and of the equalization of “the relative ability of all citizens to affect the outcome of elections.” ( Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 25-26, 1976) According to the proponents of campaign-finance reform, both then and now, Congress has power to regulate federal election campaigns because it has the general power “to regulate federal elections....” ( Id., 424 U.S. at 13-14) A careful examination of the Constitution, as it is written, uncovers no such broad power, but only a carefully circumscribed one.

Constitution
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:31
As for congressional elections, Article I, Section 4 limits Congress to the making of regulations prescribing the “times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives.” As for the election of the president and vice president Article II, Section 1 limits Congress only to “determin[ing] the time of choosing the [presidential] electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.” (Emphasis added.) As for the place and manner of the selection of the presidential electors, and hence the president and vice president of the United States, the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution determines the place and, according to Article II, Section 1, the state legislatures choose the manner by which the electors are chosen. ( Bush v. Gore , 531 U.S. --, 148 L.Ed.2d 388, 2000)

Constitution
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:33
As for congressional elections, Alexander Hamilton observed, in Federalist No. 60, that congressional authority was “expressly restricted to the regulation of the times, the places , the manner of elections,” and did not, for example, extend to the qualifications of voters. Likewise, Joseph Story noted that congressional authority over federal elections was explicitly confined to regulations concerning the mechanics and integrity of the election process itself, and did not extend to the integrity of government generally or the relative power of voters. ( I Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution , Section 826, 5th ed., 1891)

Constitution
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:34
As for presidential elections, Hamilton noted that the detailed plan set forth in the original constitution was deliberately designed to ensure that the president would not be elected according to rules promulgated by Congress, lest the president be too dependent upon that body. ( Federalist No. 68 ) Likewise, Justice Story asserted that both the original Constitution and the Twelfth Amendment immunized the “mode of election of the President and Vice-President” from congressional regulation, limiting congressional authority only to setting the “time” of the election. ( II Story’s Commentaries , Sections 1453-75, 5th ed., 1891)

Constitution
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:35
In 1892, a unanimous Supreme Court rehearsed the history and text governing the election of the president and vice president, concluding that the manner of selection of presidential electors was “placed absolutely and wholly with the legislatures of the several states” and that this “power and jurisdiction of the State” was “so framed that congressional and Federal influence might be excluded.” ( McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 34-36, 1892) (See also Bush v. Gore , supra.) Because the Constitution grants to Congress no authority to regulate the “manner” of the election of the president and vice president, it follows that Congress has no authority over presidential and vice presidential election campaigns.

Constitution
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:37
We find no support in reason or authority for the argument that because the offices were created by the Constitution, Congress has some indefinite, undefined power over elections for Senators and Representatives not derived from [Article I] Section 4. ( Newberry v. United States , 256 U.S. 232, 249, 1921)

Constitution
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:38
From this constitutional premise, these justices ruled that the “authority to regulate the manner of holding... [elections] gives no right to control” things that are “prerequisites to elections or [that] may affect their outcomes - voters, education, means of transportation, health, public discussion , immigration, private animosities, even the face and figure of the candidate....” ( Id., 256 U.S. at 257 [emphasis added]) Therefore, they concluded that Congress had authority only to regulate congressional elections to protect voters from fraud { Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 382-88 (1880)}, from intimidation { Ex Parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 660-62 (1884)} and from other acts designed to protect the integrity of the election process, as such. ( Newberry v. United States, supra, 256 U.S. at 255)

Constitution
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:39
This was the original understanding, as set forth in the constitutional text and as stated by Hamilton and Story. Congressional regulation of political campaigns, beginning in the 1930’s, disregards the founding principle of limited federal authority. Instead, such regulation is based upon the assumption that Congress is a legislature of plenary power, rather than enumerated powers as stated in Article I, Section 1.

Constitution
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:41
III. Campaign-Finance Reform Violates Separation of Powers and Federalism Under the Constitution, Congress has no role in the manner by which the president and vice president are selected. In order to ensure the independence of the president from Congress, the electors of the president and vice president are state officers, governed exclusively by the Constitution and by state law. (See Bush v. Gore , supra.) All current campaign-finance measures, such as the Federal Campaign Act of 1971, as amended in 1974, subvert these separation of powers and federalism principles by imposing a national uniform rule governing the conduct of election campaigns for president and vice-president. They also undermine the federalism principle underpinning the limited role of Congress in the governance of elections of representatives and senators.

Constitution
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:42
According to Article II, Section 1, the state legislatures, not Congress, determine the “manner” of the election of presidential electors who, in turn, are governed by the Twelfth Amendment as to the “manner” of the election of the president and vice president of the United States. The only constitutionally prescribed role for the Senate in that election process is to serve as an objective observer of the final count of votes cast by the presidential electors. The House also is limited to the role of an objective observer, unless on final count of the electors’ votes, no person achieves a majority of votes for president. Then, and only then, may the House intervene in the manner of electing a president, casting one vote per state until a candidate achieves a majority. As for the vice president, both houses of Congress are limited to serving as objective observers of the final tally of votes, except that the Senate plays the same role as the House if no candidate for vice president receives a majority.

Constitution
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:43
This detailed scheme limiting the role of Congress in the manner of electing the president and the vice president of the United States was deliberately chosen by America’s founders to insulate the federal executive branch from the legislative branch in order to ensure independence of the former from the latter. As Alexander Hamilton put it in Federalist No. 68, the Constitution entrusts the selection of the president and vice president not to “any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose....” The electoral college was designed, therefore, as a buffer between the people and Congress to guard against the risk of corruption of the presidency by congressional participation in the election process.

Constitution
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:44
Thus, the electoral college system was designed to prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption of the offices of the president and the vice president. That system was set up in such a way as to deny to Congress any authority over the manner of selecting those two officers, leaving the selection process to be exclusively and absolutely determined by the legislatures of the several states. This delegation to the several state legislatures necessarily precludes Congress from imposing any uniform rule governing the election of the president and the vice president. (See McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 1892.) By continuing the regulation of presidential election campaigns as provided for in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended in 1974, and by adding new regulations that extend to candidates for the presidency and vice presidency, all current campaign-finance reform measures subvert the constitutionally prescribed decentralized manner by which the president and vice president of the United States are selected.

Constitution
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:45
By design and effect, such measures perpetuate the current regulations governing the selection of presidential and vice presidential electors who are, according to the Constitution, state officers, and not federal ones. ( In re Green, 134 U.S. 377, 1890) (“Although the electors are appointed and act under and pursuant to the Constitution of the United States, they are no more officers or agents of the United States than are... the people of the States when acting as electors of representatives in Congress.”); Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214, 224-25 (1952) (“The presidential electors exercise a federal function in balloting for President and Vice-President but they are not federal officers or agents any more than the state elector who votes for congressmen.”) Thus, all current campaign-finance reform bills violate the principles of separation of powers and federalism protecting the independence of the federal executive branch.

Constitution
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:46
Additionally, campaign-finance regulations applied to the election of members of Congress also intrude upon the power of their electors who, like presidential electors, are state officers. According to Article I, Section 2 and the Seventeenth Amendment, the qualifications of the electors of United States representatives and senators are set by state law, not by federal law. ( In re Green, supra, 134 U.S. 379; Ray v. Blair, supra, 343 U.S. at 224-25) The Constitution did not grant to Congress any power to determine the eligibility of their electors, and thus insulated those electors from having their power reduced, or otherwise affected, by their representatives in Congress.

Constitution
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:47
Although no current campaign-finance reform bill sets the qualifications of electors for Congress, each one does, like its predecessors, impose a uniform system of campaign rules designed to govern the power to be exercised by citizens at the voting booth. Some of the measures, like the McCain-Feingold bill passed in the Senate and Shays-Meehan bill pending before the House, extend that uniform system, exercising power over the state, district and local committees of political parties as well as the national committees of those parties. While such laws do not change state laws governing voter eligibility, as such, they do change the power exercised by those eligible voters. Indeed, one of the stated purposes of campaign reform legislation is to “equalize” the power of citizens “to affect the outcome of elections.” ( Buckley v. Valeo, supra, 424 U.S. at 25-26) Such a purpose, however, is illegitimate. It imposes a national uniform standard limiting the power of voters to the detriment of a constitutionally prescribed system of state diversity.

Constitution
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:48
In his Commentaries on the Constitution , Justice Story observed that the framers deliberately chose not to impose a standard of “equality” among the voters of the several states, but rather to accommodate a “mixed system, embracing and representing and combining distinct interests, classes and opinions.” ( I Story , Commentaries on the Constitution Sections 583-84, 5th ed., 1891) More recently, in a column published in the September 5, 1999, issue of The Washington Post, columnist George Will reminded his fellow Americans that the Constitution does not authorize one federal election, but many. All current campaign-finance reform measures disregard this decentralized federal structure governing elections to Congress and to the presidency and, for that reason, are unconstitutional.

Constitution
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:54
Such contentions and consequences as these undermine the foundation of America’s constitutional republic. Our nation’s continued existence - its sovereignty - is not embodied in its current system of government or in its current elected and appointed leaders. Instead, the civil sovereignty of the nation resides in the people. To preserve popular sovereignty, the First Amendment secures to the people the freedom of speech, which, in turn, protects the people from any legislation the purpose of which is to preserve the current government and its leaders.

Constitution
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:61
V. Campaign-Finance Reform Abridges the Right of the People to Assemble The right of the people to assemble is the right of the people to associate freely together to consult for the common good, subject only to the requirement that their association be “peaceable.” Any law that is not designed to keep the physical peace of the community is, therefore, unconstitutional. No campaign-finance reform measure has ever been designed to keep the “physical peace”; rather, each is designed to keep the “political peace;” a constitutionally impermissible goal abridging the right of the people to assemble.

Constitution
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:64
Had the Supreme Court applied this principle consistently in its review of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, it would have held that the individual contribution limits of that act violated the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of association. As Justice Thomas has pointed out: “If an individual is limited in the amount of resources he can contribute to...a pool, he is certainly limited in his ability to associate for the purposes of effective advocacy.” ( Id., 135 L.Ed.2d at 819) Instead, the court has attempted to distinguish between “issue advocacy” - where the right of the people to associate must remain unfettered - and “express advocacy” for or against individual candidates - where the right of the people to associate may be limited.

Constitution
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:66
Compounding these intrusions upon the people’s right to choose how and with whom they will associate to advance their political agenda, all campaign-finance reform measures depend upon forced disclosure of the names and addresses of even the smallest contributor to an election campaign. Such required public disclosure hearkens back to the days when the English monarchy required the publication of the names and addresses of all printers of all publications circulated throughout the realm. Requiring disclosure of the names of contributors to federal election campaigns departs from an American tradition and practice that dates back to the founding of the nation and from a long line of cases affording constitutional protection of anonymity in associative relationships. ( McIntyre v. Ohio, 514 U.S. 334, 1995; NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 1958) Forced divulgence of the names of contributors to federal election campaigns exposes people not only to retaliation by employers and union leaders, whose political choices are not the same as their employees and their members, but it also exposes people who support challengers to the inevitable cold shoulder of a re-elected incumbent. ( Buckley v. Valeo, supra, 424 U.S. at 237, Burger, C.J., dissenting)

Constitution
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:68
VI. Conclusion Campaign-finance reform is truly a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Promising reform, it hides incumbent perquisites. Promising competition, it favors monopoly. Promising integrity, it fosters corruption. Real campaign-finance reform calls for a return to America’s original constitutional principles of limited and decentralized governmental power, thereby preserving the power of the people.

Constitution
Introduction of the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 8:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act. This simple bill takes a step toward restoring Congress’ constitutional authority over U.S. monetary policy by requiring congressional approval before the President or the Treasury secretary buys or sells gold.

Constitution
Introduction of the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 8:8
Given the tremendous effects on the American economy from federal dealings in the gold market, it certainly is reasonable that the people’s representatives have a role in approving these transactions, especially since Congress has a neglected but vital constitutional role in overseeing monetary policy. Therefore, I urge all my colleagues to stand up for sound economics, open government, and Congress’ constitutional role in monetary policy by cosponsoring the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act.

Constitution
Before We Bomb Iraq...
February 26, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 9:11
While we trade with, and subsidize to the hilt, the questionable government of China, we place sanctions on and refuse to trade with Iran and Iraq, which only causes greater antagonism. But if the warmongers’ goal is to have a war, regardless of international law and the Constitution, current policy serves their interests.

Constitution
Before We Bomb Iraq...
February 26, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 9:16
Let it be clearly understood- there is no authority to wage war against Iraq without Congress passing a Declaration of War. HJ RES 65, passed in the aftermath of 9/11, does not even suggest that this authority exists. A UN Resolution authorizing an invasion of Iraq, even if it were to come, cannot replace the legal process for the United States going to war as precisely defined in the Constitution. We must remember that a covert war is no more justifiable, and is even more reprehensible.

Constitution
Before We Bomb Iraq...
February 26, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 9:18
We must understand that the American people become less secure when we risk a major conflict driven by commercial interests and not constitutionally authorized by Congress. Victory under these circumstances is always elusive, and unintended consequences are inevitable.

Constitution
Statement on Ending US Membership in the IMF
February 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 10:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to withdraw the United States from the Bretton Woods Agreement and thus end taxpayer support for the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Rooted in a discredited economic philosophy and a complete disregard for fundamental constitutional principles, the IMF forces American taxpayers to subsidize large, multinational corporations and underwrite economic destruction around the globe. This is because the IMF often uses the $37 billion line of credit provided to it by the American taxpayers to bribe countries to follow destructive, statist policies.

Constitution
Statement on Ending US Membership in the IMF
February 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 10:7
In addition, the IMF violates basic constitutional and moral principles. The federal government has no constitutional authority to fund international institutions such as the IMF. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, it is simply immoral to take money from hard-working Americans to support the economic schemes of politically-powerful special interests and third-world dictators.

Constitution
Statement on Ending US Membership in the IMF
February 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 10:9
The Argentine debacle is yet further proof that the IMF was a bad idea from the very beginning- economically, constitutionally, and morally. The IMF is a relic of an era when power-hungry bureaucrats and deluded economists believed they could micromanage the world’s economy. Withdrawal from the IMF would benefit American taxpayers, as well as workers and consumers around the globe. I hope my colleagues will join me in working to protect the American taxpayer from underwriting the destruction of countries like Argentina, by cosponsoring my legislation to end America’s support for the IMF.

Constitution
Statement on the Financial Services committee’s “Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2003”
February 28, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 12:1
Supporters of limited, constitutional government and free markets will find little, if anything, to view favorably in the Financial Services committee’s “Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2003.” Almost every policy endorsed in this document is unconstitutional and a threat to the liberty and prosperity of the American people.

Constitution
Statement on the Financial Services committee’s “Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2003”
February 28, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 12:2
For example, this document gives an unqualified endorsement to increased taxpayer support for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN). According to the committee, these increased funds are justified by FINCEN’s new authority under the PATRIOT Act. However, Mr. Chairman, FINCEN’s powers to snoop into the private financial affairs of American citizens raise serious constitutional issues. Whether the expansion of FINCEN’s power threatens civil liberties is ignored in this document; instead, the report claims the only problem with the PATRIOT Act is that the federal financial police state does not have enough power and taxpayer money to invade the privacy of United States citizens!

Constitution
Statement on the Financial Services committee’s “Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2003”
February 28, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 12:4
Finally, the committee’s views support expanding the domestic welfare state, particularly in the area of housing. This despite the fact that federal housing subsidies distort the housing market by taking capital that could be better used elsewhere, and applying it to housing at the direction of politicians and bureaucrats. Housing subsidies also violate the constitutional prohibitions against redistributionism. The federal government has no constitutional authority to abuse its taxing power to fund programs that reshape the housing market to the liking of politicians and bureaucrats.

Constitution
Statement on the Financial Services committee’s “Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2003”
February 28, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 12:5
Rather than embracing an agenda of expanded statism, I hope my colleagues will work to reduce government interference in the market that only benefits the politically powerful. For example, the committee could take a major step toward ending corporate welfare by holding hearings and a mark-up on my legislation to withdrawal the United States from the Bretton Woods Agreement and end taxpayer support for the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The Financial Services committee can also take a step toward restoring Congress’ constitutional role in monetary policy by acting on my Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act (HR 3732), which requires Congressional approval before the federal government buys or sells gold.

Constitution
Statement on the International Criminal Court
February 28, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 13:6
The International Criminal Court is to be modeled after the tribunals dealing with Rwanda and Yugoslavia, that is a fact. Knowing how these tribunals operate should therefore terrify any American who loves our Constitution and our system of justice. In the Yugoslav and Rwandan tribunals, anonymous witnesses and secret testimony are permitted; the defendant cannot identify his accusers. There is no independent appeals procedure. As one observer of the Hague in action noted, “the prosecutor’s use of conspiracy as a charge recalls the great Soviet show trials of 1936-1938. In one case, the Orwellian proportions of the Prosecution mindset was revealed as the accused was charged with conspiring, despite the admitted lack of evidence. It is not the destruction of evidence but its very absence which can be used to convict!”

Constitution
Statement on the International Criminal Court
February 28, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 13:7
Indeed in the showcase trial of the ICTY, that of former Serb leader Slobodan Milosevic, chief prosecutor Carla del Ponte told the French paper Le Monde last year that no genocide charge had been brought against Milosevic for Kosovo “because there is no evidence for it.” What did the Court do in the face of this lack of evidence? They simply disregarded a basic principle of extradition law and announced that they would try Milosevic for crimes other than those for which he had been extradited. Thus they added two additional sets of charges- for Bosnia and Croatia- to the indictment for Kosovo. The Kosovo extradition itself was nothing more than bribery and kidnapping. Milosevic was snatched up off the streets of Serbia after the United States promised the government it had helped install millions of dollars in aid. That national sovereignty was to be completely disregarded by this international tribunal was evident in its ignoring a ruling by the Yugoslav Constitutional Court that extradition was illegal and unconstitutional. Yugoslav officials preferred to put Milosevic on trial in Yugoslavia, under the Yugoslav system of jurisprudence, for whatever crimes he may have committed in Yugoslavia. The internationalists completely ignored this legitimate right of a sovereign state.

Constitution
Statement on the International Criminal Court
February 28, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 13:8
Supporters of the International Criminal Court, like the World Federalist Association, claim that ICC procedures are in full accordance with the Bill of Rights. They aren’t. One pro-ICC website sponsored by the World Federalist Association, attempting to dispel “myths” about the Court, perhaps unintentionally provided some real insight. In response to the “myth” that the ICC is unconstitutional, the website argues that “The Rome Treaty establishing the International Criminal Court provides almost all the same due process protections as the U.S. Constitution. Every due process protection provided for in the Constitution is guaranteed by the Rome Treaty, with the exception of a trial by jury.” Since when is “almost all” equal to “all”? Either the Rome Treaty provides all the protections or it does not provide all the protections, and here we have by its own admission that the ICC is indeed at odds with American due process protections. So what else are they not telling the truth about? Another claim on the World Federalist Association website is that the ICC is that the rights of the accused to a presumption of innocence is guaranteed. Interestingly, on the very same website the accused Slobodan Milosevic is referred to as a “criminal.” Not very reassuring.

Constitution
Federal Penalties For Child Sexual Abuse
14 March 2002    2002 Ron Paul 16:2
The bill before us today simply expands Federal penalties for already existing Federal crimes, and does not in any way infringe on the jurisdiction of the States. However, Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to consider whether child sexual abuse should be a Federal crime at all. The Constitution specifies three Federal crimes, namely treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. It is a stretch, to say the least, to define child abuse as a form of treason, piracy, or counterfeiting. Therefore, perhaps the best means of dealing with child sexual abuse occurring on Federal lands across State lines is to turn the suspected perpetrator over to the relevant local jurisdiction and allow the local authorities to prosecute the crime.

Constitution
Federal Penalties For Child Sexual Abuse
14 March 2002    2002 Ron Paul 16:4
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, while I believe this is a worthy piece of legislation, I hope someday we will debate whether expanding Federal crimes (along with the use of congressionally mandated mandatory minimum sentences) is consistent with constitutional government and fundamental principles of justice.

Constitution
Export-Import Reauthorization Act
19 March 2002    2002 Ron Paul 17:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, reauthorizing taxpayer support for the Export-Import Reauthorization Act for every 1 day, much less for a month violates basic economic, constitutional, and moral principles. Therefore, Congress should reject S. 2019.

Constitution
Export-Import Reauthorization Act
19 March 2002    2002 Ron Paul 17:7
The case for Eximbank is further weakened considering that small businesses receive only 12–15 percent of Eximbank funds; the vast majority of Eximbank funds benefit large corporations. These corporations can certainly afford to support their own exports without relying on the American taxpayer. It is not only bad economics to force working Americans, small business, and entrepreneurs to subsidize the exports of the large corporations; it is also immoral. In fact, this redistribution from the poor and middle class to the wealthy is the most indefensible aspect of the welfare state, yet it is the most accepted form of welfare. Mr. Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me how members who criticize welfare for the poor on moral and constitutional grounds see no problem with the even more objectionable programs that provide welfare for the rich.

Constitution
Export-Import Reauthorization Act
19 March 2002    2002 Ron Paul 17:9
There is simply no constitutional justification for the expenditure of funds on programs such as Eximbank. In fact, the drafters of the Constitution would be horrified to think the federal government was taking hard-earned money from the American people in order to benefit the politically powerful.

Constitution
Do Not Initiate War On Iraq
March 20, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 19:2
Number one, Congress has not given the President the legal authority to wage war against Iraq as directed by the Constitution, nor does he have U.N. authority to do so. Even if he did, it would not satisfy the rule of law laid down by the Framers of the Constitution.

Constitution
Statement Opposing Military Conscription
March 20, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 20:6
Mr. Speaker, the most important reason to oppose reinstatement of a military draft is that conscription violates the very principles upon which this country was founded. The basic premise underlying conscription is that the individual belongs to the state, individual rights are granted by the state, and therefore politicians can abridge individual rights at will. In contrast, the philosophy which inspired America’s founders, expressed in the Declaration of Independence, is that individuals possess natural, God-given rights which cannot be abridged by the government. Forcing people into military service against their will thus directly contradicts the philosophy of the Founding Fathers. A military draft also appears to contradict the constitutional prohibition of involuntary servitude.

Constitution
Statement Opposing Military Conscription
March 20, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 20:7
During the War of 1812, Daniel Webster eloquently made the case that a military draft was unconstitutional: “ Where is it written in the Constitution , in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty? Sir, I almost disdain to go to quotations and references to prove that such an abominable doctrine had no foundation in the Constitution of the country. It is enough to know that the instrument was intended as the basis of a free government, and that the power contended for is incompatible with any notion of personal liberty. An attempt to maintain this doctrine upon the provisions of the Constitution is an exercise of perverse ingenuity to extract slavery from the substance of a free government. It is an attempt to show, by proof and argument, that we ourselves are subjects of despotism, and that we have a right to chains and bondage, firmly secured to us and our children, by the provisions of our government.”

Constitution
American Servicemember And Civilian Protection Act Of 2002
April 11, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 22:4
Mr. Speaker, today in New York and Rome celebrations are underway to mark the formal establishment of this International Criminal Court. Though the United States has not ratified the treaty establishing the Court, as required by the U.S. Constitution, this body will claim jurisdiction over every American citizen -- military personnel and civilian alike.

Constitution
American Servicemember And Civilian Protection Act Of 2002
April 11, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 22:6
The International Criminal Court was established contrary to the American Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. It puts United States citizens in jeopardy of unlawful and unconstitutional criminal prosecution.

Constitution
American Servicemember And Civilian Protection Act Of 2002
April 11, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 22:7
The International Criminal Court does not provide many of the Constitutional protections guaranteed every American citizen, including the right to trial by jury, the right to face your accuser, and the presumption of innocence, and the protection against double jeopardy.

Constitution
American Servicemember And Civilian Protection Act Of 2002
April 11, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 22:8
Members of the United States Armed Forces are particularly at risk for politically motivated arrests, prosecutions, fines, and imprisonment for acts engaged in for the protection of the United States. These are the same brave men and women who place their lives on the line to protect and defend our Constitution. Do they not deserve the full protections of that same Constitution?

Constitution
H.R. 476
17 April 2002    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.

Constitution
H.R. 476
17 April 2002    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.

Constitution
H.R. 476
17 April 2002    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.

Constitution
H.R. 476
17 April 2002    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.

Constitution
H.R. 476
17 April 2002    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.

Constitution
H.R. 476
17 April 2002    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.

Constitution
H.R. 476
17 April 2002    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.

Constitution
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.

Constitution
Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, And Transparency Act of 2002 (CARTA)
24 April 2002    2002 Ron Paul 24:16
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would remind my colleagues that Congress has no constitutional authority to regulate the financial markets or the accounting profession. Instead, responsibility for enforcing laws against fraud are under the jurisdiction of the state and local governments. This decentralized approach actually reduces the opportunity for the type of corruption referred to above — after all, it is easier to corrupt one Federal official than 50 State Officials.

Constitution
Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, And Transparency Act of 2002 (CARTA)
24 April 2002    2002 Ron Paul 24:17
In conclusion, the legislation before us today expands Federal power over the accounting profession and the financial markets. By creating new opportunities for unscrupulous actors to maneuver through the regulatory labyrinth, increasing the costs of investing, and preempting the market’s ability to come up with creative ways to hold corporate officials accountable, this legislation harms the interests of individual workers and investors. Furthermore, this legislation exceeds the constitutional limits on Federal power, interfering in matters the 10th amendment reserves to state and local law enforcement. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this bill. Instead, Congress should focus on ending corporate welfare programs which provide taxpayer dollars to large politically-connected companies, and ending the misguided regulatory and monetary policies that helped create the Enron debacle.

Constitution
Predictions
24 April 2002    2002 Ron Paul 25:22
This is the most important of my predictions: Policy changes could prevent all of the previous predictions from occurring. Unfortunately, that will not occur. In due course, the Constitution will continue to be steadily undermined and the American Republic further weakened.

Constitution
Honoring Calhoun High School
29 April 2002    2002 Ron Paul 26:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay honor to the Calhoun High School “We the People . . . the Citizen and the Constitution” team from Port Lavaca, Calhoun County, Texas. Under the exemplary leadership of Gennie Burleson Westbrook, the 2001–2002 Calhoun High School team placed third in the statewide competition held on Janaury 5, 2002, at the University of Texas Law School in Austin, Texas, which was hosted by the State Bar of Texas. The team included the following students: Karin Chen, Candice Cook, Chelsea Ghiselin, Tiffany Harvey, Kimberlee Hobizal, Major Hoffman, Stephen Jedlicka, Scott Kelly, Josh McClellan, Thomas Nguyen, Matt Thomas, Vanessa Thorne, and Andrew Wu.

Constitution
Honoring Calhoun High School
29 April 2002    2002 Ron Paul 26:2
The “We the People” program was begun in 1987, with the goal of enhancing students’ understanding of the institutions of American constitutional democracy, while guiding them to discover modern day applications of the Constitution and the Bill if Rights. It is a time consuming study requiring many hours of preparation, both in and out of the classroom. Each participant takes a multiple-choice test, and prepares for a simulated Congressional hearing in which students “testify” before a panel of judges.

Constitution
Honoring Calhoun High School
29 April 2002    2002 Ron Paul 26:3
Following a prepared five-minute presentation covering specific topics demonstrating their knowledge and understanding of constitutional principals, the judges quizzed the students with thought-provoking questions pertaining to their subject. The students took and defended their positions, using both historic and contemporary examples.

Constitution
Honoring Calhoun High School
29 April 2002    2002 Ron Paul 26:6
I trust all my colleagues join me in congratulating the 2001–2002 “We the People . . . the Citizen and the Constitution” team on their third place win in state competition.

Constitution
Honoring San Marcos High School
29 April 2002    2002 Ron Paul 27:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay honor to the San Marcos High School “We the People . . . the Citizen and the Constitution” team from San Marcos, Hays County, Texas. Under the exemplary leadership of Paula Wolking and Lezlie Wiederhold, the 2001– 2002 Calhoun High School team placed second in the statewide competition held on January 5, 2002, at the University of Texas Law School in Austin, Texas, which was hosted by the State Bar of Texas. The team included the following 29 seniors: Kelli Avila, Jason Baen, Marisa Bell-Metereau, Erin Blum, Paul Buntyn, Mariah Campbell, Amy Carlson, John David Carson, Samantha Charleston, Justyn Contreras, Heather Davis, Jacob Delgado, Veronica De La Garza, Matt Diaz, Shelby Eastland, Jessica Gifford, Megan Hansen, Kari Howe, J R Manrique, Rachel Martin, Genesis McCoo, Jenny Morrison, Lani Ogle, Valerie Perez, Amara Richardson, Orlando Sanchez, Francesca Scanio, Kim Spire, and Joshua Yanity.

Constitution
Honoring San Marcos High School
29 April 2002    2002 Ron Paul 27:2
The “We the People” program was begun in 1987, with the goal of enhancing students’ understanding of the institutions of American constitutional democracy, while guiding them to discover modern day applications of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is a time consuming study requiring many hours of preparation, both in and out of the classroom. Each participant takes a multiple-choice test, and prepared for a simulated Congressional hearing in which students “testify” before a panel of judges.

Constitution
Honoring San Marcos High School
29 April 2002    2002 Ron Paul 27:3
Following a prepared five-minute presentation covering specific topics demonstrating their knowledge and understanding of constitutional principals, the judges quizzed the students with thought-provoking questions pertaining to their subject. The students took and defended their positions, using both historic and contemporary examples.

Constitution
Honoring San Marcos High School
29 April 2002    2002 Ron Paul 27:5
I trust all my colleagues join me in congratulating the 2001–2002 “We the People . . . the Citizen and the Constitution” team on their second place win in state competition.

Constitution
Statement Opposing Taxpayer Funding of Multinational Development Banks
May 1, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 28:2
Congress has no constitutional authority to take money from American taxpayers and send that money overseas for any reason . Furthermore, foreign aid undermines the recipient countries’ long-term economic progress by breeding a culture of dependency. Ironically, foreign aid also undermines long-term United States foreign policy goals by breeding resentment among recipients of the aid, which may manifest itself in a foreign policy hostile to the United States.

Constitution
International Fund For Agricultural Development
1 May 2002    2002 Ron Paul 29:2
Congress has no constitutional authority to take money from American taxpayers and send that money overseas for any reason. Furthermore, foreign aid undermines the recipient countries’ long-term economic progress by breeding a culture of dependency. Ironically, foreign aid also undermines long-term United States foreign policy goals by breeding resentment among recipients of the aid, which may manifest itself in a foreign policy hostile to the United States.

Constitution
Statement Opposing Export-Import Bank Corporate Welfare
May 1, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 31:1
Mr. Chairman, we are here today to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, but it has nothing to do with a bank, do not mislead anybody. This has to do with an agency of the government that allocates credit to special interests and to the benefit of foreign entities. So it is not a bank in that sense. To me it is immoral in the fact that it takes from some who cannot defend themselves to give to the rich who get the benefits. And I just do not see that as being a very good function and a very good program for the U.S. Congress. Besides, I would like to see where somebody gives me the constitutional authority for doing what we do here and we have been doing, of course, for a long time.

Constitution
Statement Opposing Export-Import Bank Corporate Welfare
May 1, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 31:5
Mr. Chairman, Congress should reject H.R. 2871, the Export-Import Reauthorization Act, for economic, constitutional, and moral reasons. The Export-Import Bank (Eximbank) takes money from American taxpayers to subsidize exports by American companies. Of course, it is not just any company that receives Eximbank support; the majority of Eximbank funding benefit large, politically powerful corporations.

Constitution
Statement Opposing Export-Import Bank Corporate Welfare
May 1, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 31:8
It is not only bad economics to force working Americans, small business, and entrepreneurs to subsidize the export of the large corporations: it is also immoral. In fact, this redistribution from the poor and middle class to the wealthy is the most indefensible aspect of the welfare state, yet it is the most accepted form of welfare. Mr. Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me how members who criticize welfare for the poor on moral and constitutional grounds see no problem with the even more objectionable programs that provide welfare for the rich.

Constitution
Statement Opposing Export-Import Bank Corporate Welfare
May 1, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 31:14
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind my colleagues that there is simply no constitutional justification for the expenditure of funds on programs such as Eximbank. In fact, the drafters of the Constitution would be horrified to think the Federal Government was taking hard-earned money from the American people in order to benefit the politically powerful.

Constitution
Statement in Support of a Balanced Approach to the Middle East Peace Process
May 2, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 32:3
It is, when speaking of the dead, the one-sidedness of this bill that is so unfortunate. How is it that the side that loses seven people to every one on the other side is portrayed as the sole aggressor and condemned as terrorist? This is only made worse by the fact that Palestinian deaths are seen in the Arab world as being American-inspired, as it is our weapons that are being used against them. This bill just reinforces negative perceptions of the United States in that part of the world. What might be the consequences of this? I think we need to stop and think about that for a while. We in this body have a Constitutional responsibility to protect the national security of the United States. This one-sided intervention in a far-off war has the potential to do great harm to our national security.

Constitution
Statement in Support of a Balanced Approach to the Middle East Peace Process
May 2, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 32:4
Perhaps this is why the Administration views this legislation as "not a very helpful approach" to the situation in the Middle East. In my view, it is bad enough that we are intervening at all in this conflict, but this legislation strips any lingering notion that the United States intends to be an honest broker. It states clearly that the leadership of one side - the Palestinians - is bad and supports terrorism just at a time when this Administration negotiates with both sides in an attempt to bring peace to the region. Talk about undermining the difficult efforts of the president and the State Department. What incentive does Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat or his organization have to return to the negotiating table if we as "honest broker" make it clear that in Congress’s eyes, the Palestinians are illegitimate terrorists? Must we become so involved in this far-off conflict that we are forced to choose between Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon? The United States Congress should not, Constitutionally, be in the business of choosing who gets to lead which foreign people.

Constitution
Expressing Solidarity With Israel In Its Fight Against Terrorism
2 May 2002    2002 Ron Paul 33:3
It is, when speaking of the dead, the onesidedness of this bill that is so unfortunate. How is it that the side that loses seven people to every one on the other side is portrayed as the sole aggressor and condemned as terrorist? This is only made worse by the fact that Palestinian deaths are seen in the Arab world as being American-inspired, as it is our weapons that are being used against them. This bill just reinforces negative perceptions of the United States in that part of the world. What might be the consequences of this? I think we need to stop and think about that for a while. We in this body have a Constitutional responsibility to protect the national security of the United States. This one-sided intervention in a far-off war has the potential to do great harm to our national security.

Constitution
Expressing Solidarity With Israel In Its Fight Against Terrorism
2 May 2002    2002 Ron Paul 33:4
Perhaps this is why the Administration views this legislation as “not a very helpful approach” to the situation in the Middle East. In my view, it is bad enough that we are intervening at all in this conflict, but this legislation strips any lingering notion that the United States intends to be an honest broker. It states clearly that the leadership of one side — the Palestinians — is bad and supports terrorism just at a time when this Administration negotiates with both sides in an attempt to bring peace to the region. Talk about undermining the difficult efforts of the president and the State Department. What incentive does Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat or his organization have to return to the negotiating table if we as “honest broker” make it clear that in Congress’s eyes, the Palestinians are illegitimate terrorists? Must we become so involved in this far-off conflict that we are forced to choose between Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon? The United States Congress should not, Constitutionally, be in the business of choosing who gets to lead which foreign people.

Constitution
Seeks More Balance Of Interests
2 May 2002    2002 Ron Paul 34:6
There is a lot of talk about democracy and peace. I take a position of nonintervention in the affairs of other people. I believe very sincerely that it is consistent with the Constitution and very sincerely that it works to our best interest for national security and for defense; and that even though this is intended very sincerely to help Israel, motions like this, resolutions like this, can very well backfire and actually hurt Israel more so than they will help.

Constitution
Say No to Conscription
May 9, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 35:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues who believe that the current war on terrorism justifies violating the liberty of millions of young men by reinstating a military draft will consider the eloquent argument against conscription in the attached speech by Daniel Webster. Then-representative Webster delivered his remarks on the floor of the House in opposition to a proposal to institute a draft during the War of 1812. Webster’s speech remains one of the best statements of the Constitutional and moral case against conscription.

Constitution
Say No to Conscription
May 9, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 35:6
This bill indeed is less undisguised in its object, and less direct in its means, than some of the measures proposed. It is an attempt to exercise the power of forcing the free men of this country into the ranks of an army, for the general purposes of war, under color of a military service. It is a distinct system, introduced for new purposes, and not connected with any power, which the Constitution has conferred on Congress.

Constitution
Say No to Conscription
May 9, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 35:7
But, Sir, there is another consideration. The services of the men to be raised under this act are not limited to those cases in which alone this Government is entitled to the aid of the militia of the States. These cases are particularly stated in the Constitution--“to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, or execute the laws.”

Constitution
Say No to Conscription
May 9, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 35:10
Is this, Sir, consistent with the character of a free Government? Is this civil liberty? Is this the real character of our Constitution? No, Sir, indeed it is not. The Constitution is libeled, foully libeled. The people of this country have not established for themselves such a fabric of despotism. They have not purchased at a vast expense of their own treasure and their own blood a Magna Carta to be slaves. Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty? Sir, I almost disdain to go to quotations and references to prove that such an abominable doctrine has no foundation in the Constitution of the country. It is enough to know that that instrument was intended as the basis of a free Government, and that the power contended for is incompatible with any notion of personal liberty. An attempt to maintain this doctrine upon the provisions of the Constitution is an exercise of perverse ingenuity to extract slavery from the substance of a free Government. It is an attempt to show, by proof and argument, that we ourselves are subjects of despotism, and that we have a right to chains and bondage, firmly secured to us and our children, by the provisions of our Government.

Constitution
Say No to Conscription
May 9, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 35:12
But it is said, that it might happen that any army would not be raised by voluntary enlistment, in which case the power to raise armies would be granted in vain, unless they might be raised by compulsion. If this reasoning could prove any thing, it would equally show, that whenever the legitimate powers of the Constitution should be so badly administered as to cease to answer the great ends intended by them, such new powers may be assumed or usurped, as any existing administration may deem expedient. This is a result of his own reasoning, to which the Secretary does not profess to go. But it is a true result. For if it is to be assumed, that all powers were granted, which might by possibility become necessary, and that Government itself is the judge of this possible necessity, then the powers of Government are precisely what it chooses they should be.

Constitution
Say No to Conscription
May 9, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 35:13
The tyranny of Arbitrary Government consists as much in its means as in its end; and it would be a ridiculous and absurd constitution which should be less cautious to guard against abuses in the one case than in the other. All the means and instruments which a free Government exercises, as well as the ends and objects which it pursues, are to partake of its own essential character, and to be conformed to its genuine spirit. A free Government with arbitrary means to administer it is a contradiction; a free Government without adequate provision for personal security is an absurdity; a free Government, with an uncontrolled power of military conscription, is a solecism, at once the most ridiculous and abominable that ever entered into the head of man.

Constitution
Say No to Conscription
May 9, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 35:17
I express these sentiments here, Sir, because I shall express them to my constituents. Both they and myself live under a Constitution which teaches us, that “the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.” With the same earnestness with which I now exhort you to forbear from these measures, I shall exhort them to exercise their unquestionable right of providing for the security of their own liberties.

Constitution
Amendment 9
9 May 2002    2002 Ron Paul 37:7
Mr. Chairman, earlier this week President Bush took the bold step of renouncing the signature of the United States on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Bush Administration, in explaining this move, correctly pointed out that this court has unchecked power that contradicts our Constitution and its system of checks and balances; that the Court is “open for exploitation and politically- motivated prosecutions;” and that “the ICC asserts jurisdiction over citizens of states that have not ratified the treaty” — which undermines American sovereignty.

Constitution
Amendment 9
9 May 2002    2002 Ron Paul 37:9
But there is no time to rest on this victory. As Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated this week, upon our renunciation of the ICC: “Unfortunately, the ICC will not respect the U.S. decision to stay out of the treaty. To the contrary, the ICC provisions claim the authority to detain and try American citizens — U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, as well as current and future officials — even though the United States has not given its consent to be bound by the treaty.” Secretary Rumsfeld added, “When the ICC treaty enters into force this summer, U.S. citizens will be exposed to the risk of prosecution by a court that is unaccountable to the American people, and that has no obligation to respect the Constitutional rights of our citizens.”

Constitution
Amendment 9
9 May 2002    2002 Ron Paul 37:11
I have introduced this amendment to the Defense Authorization Act, therefore, to support the president’s decision and to indicate that Congress is behind him in his rejection of this unconstitutional global court. it is imperative that we not award the International Criminal Court a single tax dollar to further its objective of undermining our sovereignty and our Constitutional protections. How could we do anything less: each of us in this body has taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?

Constitution
Statement on the introduction of H. Res. 416, Expressing the Sense of the Congress regarding the International Criminal Court
May 9, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 39:3
By taking this action, President Bush has put the international community on notice that the United States will defend its sovereignty and citizens from this global court. The Bush Administration correctly pointed out that the ICC has unchecked power that contradicts our Constitution and its system of checks and balances; that the Court is "open for exploitation and politically-motivated prosecutions;" and that "the ICC asserts jurisdiction over citizens of states that have not ratified the treaty" – which seriously threatens American sovereignty.

Constitution
Statement on the introduction of H. Res. 416, Expressing the Sense of the Congress regarding the International Criminal Court
May 9, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 39:5
But this is only a first step. As Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated this week, upon our renunciation of the ICC: "Unfortunately, the ICC will not respect the U.S. decision to stay out of the treaty. To the contrary, the ICC provisions claim the authority to detain and try American citizens-U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, as well as current and future officials-even though the United States has not given its consent to be bound by the treaty." Secretary Rumsfeld added, "When the ICC treaty enters into force this summer, U.S. citizens will be exposed to the risk of prosecution by a court that is unaccountable to the American people, and that has no obligation to respect the Constitutional rights of our citizens."

Constitution
Statement on the introduction of H. Res. 416, Expressing the Sense of the Congress regarding the International Criminal Court
May 9, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 39:8
I am introducing this legislation to also to commend President Bush for his courageous move, to assure the president that this body supports his action to protect the Constitution and American sovereignty. We have all taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and we should stand with the president.

Constitution
No Forced Dress Code for U.S. Soldiers Abroad
May 14, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 41:2
I am voting for this bill because I believe, on the whole, that it is preferable to place concerns about our own citizens over those whose homeland is being defended by American troops. Young Americans join the all-volunteer military as an act of patriotism in hopes of defending their country and their constitution. We in Congress must honor that sacrifice. it is bad enough that our troops are sent around the world to defend foreign soil. Asking them to comply with foreign customs which violate basic American beliefs about freedom in order to appease the very governments our troops are defending adds insult to injury. I do not believe a single female member of the armed forces enlisted for the “privilege” of wearing an abaya while defending the House of Saud or that one single male member of the armed forces enlisted in order to force his female colleagues to wear an abaya.

Constitution
Stop Perpetuating the Welfare State
May 16, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 42:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, no one can deny that welfare programs have undermined America’s moral fabric and constitutional system. Therefore, all those concerned with restoring liberty and protecting civil society from the maw of the omnipotent state should support efforts to eliminate the welfare state, or, at the very last, reduce federal control over the provision of social services. Unfortunately, the misnamed Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act (H.R. 4737) actually increases the unconstitutional federal welfare state and thus undermines personal responsibility, the work ethic, and the family.

Constitution
Stop Perpetuating the Welfare State
May 16, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 42:2
H.R. 4737 reauthorizes the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) block grant program, the main federal welfare program. Mr. Speaker, increasing federal funds always increases federal control as the recipients of the funds must tailor their programs to meet federal mandates and regulations. More importantly, since federal funds represent resources taken out of the hands of private individuals, increasing federal funding leaves fewer resources available for the voluntary provision of social services, which, as I will explain in more detail later, is a more effective, moral, and constitutional means of meeting the needs of the poor.

Constitution
Stop Perpetuating the Welfare State
May 16, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 42:7
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, federal promotion of marriage opens the door for a level of social engineering that should worry all those concerned with preserving a free society. The federal government has no constitutional authority to promote any particular social arrangement; instead, the founders recognized that people are better off when they form their own social arrangements free from federal interference. The history of the failed experiments with welfarism and socialism shows that government can only destroy a culture; when a government tries to build a culture, it only further erodes the people’s liberty.

Constitution
Stop Perpetuating the Welfare State
May 16, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 42:11
Releasing the charitable impulses of the American people by freeing them from the excessive tax burden so they can devote more of their resources to charity, is a moral and constitutional means of helping the needy. By contrast, the federal welfare state is neither moral or constitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to level excessive taxes on one group of citizens for the benefit of another group of citizens. Many of the founders would have been horrified to see modern politicians define compassion as giving away other people’s money stolen through confiscatory taxation. In the words of the famous essay by former Congressman Davy Crockett, this money is “Not Yours to Give.”

Constitution
Stop Perpetuating the Welfare State
May 16, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 42:13
In conclusion, H.R. 4737 furthers federal control over welfare programs by imposing new mandates on the states which furthers unconstitutional interference in matters best left to state local governments, and individuals. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose it. Instead, I hope my colleagues will learn the lessons of the failure of the welfare state and embrace a constitutional and compassionate agenda of returning control over the welfare programs to the American people through large tax cuts.

Constitution
Statement on New Internet Regulations and Expanded Federal Wiretap Powers
May 21, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 44:1
Mr. Speaker, as a parent, grandparent, and OB-GYN who has delivered over three thousand babies, I certainly share the desire to protect children from pornography and other inappropriate material available on the internet. However, as a United States Congressman, I cannot support measures which exceed the limitations on constitutional power contained in Article one, Section 8 of the Constitution. The Constitution does not provide Congress with the authority to spend taxpayer funds to create new internet domains.

Constitution
Statement on New Internet Regulations and Expanded Federal Wiretap Powers
May 21, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 44:4
In addition to creating new internet domains, Congress is also expanding federal wiretapping powers. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues should also remember that the Constitution creates only three federal crimes, namely treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. Expansion of federal police power for crimes outside these well-defined areas thus violates the Constitution. In addition, expansion of federal wiretapping powers raises serious civil liberties concerns, as such powers easily can be abused by federal officials.

Constitution
Statement on New Internet Regulations and Expanded Federal Wiretap Powers
May 21, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 44:5
I therefore hope my colleagues will respect the constitutional limitations on federal power. Instead of usurping powers not granted the federal government, Congress should allow state and local law enforcement, schools, local communities, and most of all responsible parents to devise the best measures to protect children.

Constitution
Don’t Expand Federal Deposit Insurance
May 22, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 47:7
Finally, I would remind my colleagues that the federal deposit insurance program lacks constitutional authority. Congress’ only mandate in the area of money and banking is to maintain the value of the money. Unfortunately, Congress abdicated its responsibility over monetary policy with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which allows the federal government to erode the value of the currency at the will of the central bank. Congress’ embrace of fiat money is directly responsible for the instability in the banking system that created the justification for deposit insurance.

Constitution
Don’t Expand Federal Deposit Insurance
May 22, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 47:8
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, HR 3717 imposes new taxes on financial institutions, forces sound institutions to pay for the mistakes of their reckless competitors, increases the chances of taxpayers being forced to bail out unsound financial institutions, reduces individual depositors’ incentives to take action to protect their deposits, and exceeds Congress’s constitutional authority. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this bill. Instead of extending this federal program, Congress should work to prevent the crises which justify government programs like deposit insurance, by fulfilling our constitutional responsibility to pursue sound monetary policies.

Constitution
No More Taxpayer Funds for the Failed Drug War in Colombia
May 23, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 49:5
What we are doing is we are appropriating for something for the administration to do without a proper authority. He has no authority to get involved in the civil war down there. We cannot imply that the issue of war is granted through the appropriation process. It is not the way the system works. The constitutional system works with granting explicit authority to wage war. The President has no authority, and now he wants the money; and we are ready to capitulate. Let me tell my colleagues, if we care about national defense, we must reconsider this.

Constitution
Oppose the "Supplemental" Spending Bill
May 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 50:1
Mr. Speaker, supporters of fiscal responsibility, a rational foreign policy, and constitutional government can find little, it anything, to support in the Supplemental Appropriations bill (HR 4775). HR 4775 enlarges the federal deficit, increases the size of the federal government, jeopardizes the Social Security trust fund, and, by removing resources from individuals and placing them under government control, depresses economic growth.

Constitution
Oppose the "Supplemental" Spending Bill
May 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 50:3
Even much of the military spending in this bill has no relationship to legitimate national security needs. Instead it furthers an interventionist foreign policy which is neither constitutional nor in the best interests of the American people. For example, this supplemental contains a stealth attempt to shift our policy toward Colombia, expanding our already failed drug war to include direct participation in Colombia’s 38-year civil war. Though a bill on Colombia was scheduled for markup in the International Relations committee, for some reason it was pulled at the last minute. Therefore, the committee has not been able to debate this policy shift on Colombia. We are instead expected just not to notice, I suppose, that the policy shift has been included in this bill.

Constitution
Beware Dollar Weakness
June 5, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 52:1
Mr. Speaker, I have for several years come to the House floor to express my concern for the value of the dollar. It has been, and is, my concern that we in the Congress have not met our responsibility in this regard. The constitutional mandate for Congress should only permit silver and gold to be used as legal tender and has been ignored for decades and has caused much economic pain for many innocent Americans. Instead of maintaining a sound dollar, Congress has by both default and deliberate action promoted a policy that systematically depreciates the dollar. The financial markets are keenly aware of the minute-by-minute fluctuations of all the fiat currencies and look to these swings in value for an investment advantage. This type of anticipation and speculation does not exist in a sound monetary system.

Constitution
Export-Import Bank Is Corporate Welfare
5 June 2002    2002 Ron Paul 53:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. This bill is nothing more than subsidies for big corporations. If one were to look at the Constitution and look for authority for legislation of this sort in article I, section 8, it would not be found. That in itself should be reason to stop and think about this, but we do not look at that particular article too often any more.

Constitution
BAD TAX POLICY SENDS COMPANIES OVERSEAS
June 11, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 55:4
One also could argue that it is those who oppose reincorporation who do not grasp the essence of the American system. After all, two of the main principles underlying the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are limited government and respect for private property. In contrast, opponents of reincorporation implicitly assume that the government owns all of a nation’s assets; therefore taxpayers never should take any actions to deny government what the politicians have determined to be their “fair share.” Mr. Speaker, this philosophy has more in common with medieval feudalism than with the constitutional republic created by the drafters of the Constitution.

Constitution
BAD TAX POLICY SENDS COMPANIES OVERSEAS
June 11, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 55:5
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again urge my colleagues to read Mr. Mitchell’s article, which forcefully makes the case that taxing offshore income is economically destructive. Such taxation also is inconsistent with the respect for individual liberty and private property rights which forms the foundation of America’s constitutional republic, as well as a threat to the sovereign right of nations to determine the tax treatment of income earned inside national borders. I hope my colleagues will reject efforts to subject companies that reincorporate overseas to burdensome new taxes and regulations. Expanding federal power in order to prevent companies from reincorporating will only kill American jobs and further weaken America’s economy.

Constitution
RESTORING FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS OF RELIGION AND RELIGIOUS SPEECH
June 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 56:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation restoring First amendment protections of religion and religious speech. For fifty years, the personal religious freedom of this nation’s citizens has been infringed upon by courts that misread and distort the First amendment. The framers of the Constitution never in their worst nightmares imagined that the words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech .....” would be used to ban children from praying in school, prohibit courthouses from displaying the Ten Commandments, or prevent citizens from praying before football games. The original meaning of the First amendment was clear on these two points: The federal government cannot enact laws establishing one religious denomination over another, and the federal government cannot forbid mention of religion, including the Ten Commandments and references to God.

Constitution
RESTORING FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS OF RELIGION AND RELIGIOUS SPEECH
June 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 56:3
The Court completely disregards the original meaning and intent of the First amendment. It has interpreted the establishment clause to preclude prayer and other religious speech in a public place, thereby violating the free exercise clause of the very same First amendment. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Congress to correct this error, and to perform its duty to support and defend the Constitution. My legislation would restore First amendment protections of religion and speech by removing all religious freedom-related cases from federal district court jurisdiction, as well as from federal claims court jurisdiction. The federal government has no constitutional authority to reach its hands in the religious affairs of its citizens or of the several states.

Constitution
Lifetime Consequences For Sex Offenders Act
25 June 2002    2002 Ron Paul 58:2
However, Mr. Speaker, questions of the proper punishment for sexual crimes are not issues properly under federal jurisdiction. The Constitution grants the federal government jurisdiction over only three crimes: treason, counterfeiting, and piracy. It is hard to stretch the definition of treason, counterfeiting, or piracy to include sex crimes. Therefore, even though I agree with the policy behind H.R. 4679, I must remind my colleagues that the responsibility for investigating, prosecuting and punishing sex crimes is solely that of state and local governments.

Constitution
Lifetime Consequences For Sex Offenders Act
25 June 2002    2002 Ron Paul 58:3
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.

Constitution
Lifetime Consequences For Sex Offenders Act
25 June 2002    2002 Ron Paul 58:4
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I am in fundamental agreement with the policies expressed in H.R. 4679, the Lifetime Consequences for Sex Offenders Act, I must remind my colleagues that this is an area over which Congress has no constitutional responsibility. I hope my colleagues will join me in restoring state and local government’s constitutional authority over criminal activities not related to treason, piracy, and counterfeiting.

Constitution
Child Obscenity And Pornography Prevention Act
25 June 2002    2002 Ron Paul 62:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as a parent, grandparent and OB–GYN who has had the privilege of delivering over 4,000 babies, I share the revulsion of all decent people at child pornography. Those who would destroy the innocence of children by using them in sexuallyexplicit material deserve the harshest punishment. However, the Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act (H.R. 4623) exceeds Congress’ constitutional power and does nothing to protect any child from being abused and exploited by pornographers. Instead, H.R. 4623 redirects law enforcement resources to investigations and prosecutions of “virtual” pornography which, by definition, do not involve the abuse or exploitation of children. Therefore, H.R. 4623 may reduce law enforcement’s ability to investigate and prosecute legitimate cases of child pornography.

Constitution
Child Obscenity And Pornography Prevention Act
25 June 2002    2002 Ron Paul 62:2
H.R. 4623 furthers one of the most disturbing trends in modern politics, the federalization of crimes. 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.

Constitution
Child Obscenity And Pornography Prevention Act
25 June 2002    2002 Ron Paul 62:3
Legislation outlawing virtual pornography is, to say the least, of dubious constitutionality. The constitution grants the federal government jurisdiction over only three crimes: treason, counterfeiting, and piracy. It is hard to stretch the definition of treason, counterfeiting, or piracy to cover sending obscene or pornographic materials over the internet. Therefore, Congress should leave the issue of whether or not to regulate or outlaw virtual pornography to states and local governments.

Constitution
Child Obscenity And Pornography Prevention Act
25 June 2002    2002 Ron Paul 62:4
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I share my colleagues’ revulsion at child pornography, I do not believe that this justifies expanding the federal police state to outlaw distribution of pornographic images not containing actual children. I am further concerned by the possibility that passage of H.R. 4623 will divert law enforcement resources away from the prosecution of actual child pornography. H.R. 4623 also represents another step toward the nationalization of all police functions, a dangerous trend that will undermine both effective law enforcement an constitutional government. It is for these reasons that I must oppose this well-intentioned but fundamentally flawed bill.

Constitution
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:63
What if the al Qaeda is telling the truth and we ignore it? If we believe only the official line from the administration and proceed to change our whole system and undermine our constitutional rights, we may one day wake up to find that the attacks have increased, the numbers of those willing to commit suicide for their cause have grown, our freedoms are diminished, and all this has contributed to making our economic problems worse. The dollar cost of this "war" could turn out to be exorbitant, and the efficiency of our markets can be undermined by the compromises placed on our liberties.

Constitution
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:88
Removing the power of the executive branch to wage war, as was done through our revolution and the writing of the Constitution, is now being casually sacrificed on the altar of security. In a free society, and certainly in the constitutional republic we have been given, it should never be assumed that the President alone can take it upon himself to wage war whenever he pleases.

Constitution
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:89
The publicly announced plan to murder Saddam Hussein in the name of our national security draws nary a whimper from Congress. Support is overwhelming, without a thought as to its legality, morality, constitutionality, or its practicality. Murdering Saddam Hussein will surely generate many more fanatics ready to commit their lives to suicide terrorist attacks against us.

Constitution
Unintended Consequences of the Drug War
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 65:2
In conclusion, I once again recommend Mr. Donlan’s article to my colleagues. I hope the author’s explanation of how the war on drugs is inadvertently strengthening terrorist organizations will lead them to embrace a more humane, constitutional and rational approach to dealing with the legitimate problems associated with drug abuse.

Constitution
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY – WHO NEEDS IT?
July 23, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 73:10
Who believes for a moment that the military will not be used to enforce civil law in the near future? Posse comitatus will be repealed by executive order or by law, and liberty, the Constitution, and the republic will suffer another major setback.

Constitution
The Tragedy of Partial-Birth Abortion
July 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 75:2
Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or contempt determines the outcome of that civilization. Reaffirming the importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the continuation of a civilized society. There is already strong evidence that we are indeed on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and human experimentation. Although the real problem lies within the hearts and minds of the people, the legal problems of protecting life stem from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, a ruling that constitutionally should never have occurred.

Constitution
The Tragedy of Partial-Birth Abortion
July 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 75:4
Unfortunately, H.R. 4965 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well. Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that the language and reasoning used in this bill do not further the pro-life cause, but rather cement fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system.

Constitution
Statement on Expulsion of Congressman Jim Traficant
July 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 76:2
However, before expelling a member we must consider more than eccentric behavior and ethical standards. We must first consider whether Mr. Traficant’s received a fair trial and a fair ethics hearing. His constitutional right to a fair trial, and the right to be judged by those who elected him to office, are every bit as important.

Constitution
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 5005, Homeland Security Act Of 2002
25 July 2002    2002 Ron Paul 79:3
Instead of a carefully crafted product of meaningful deliberations, I fear we are once again about to pass a hastily drafted bill in order to appear that we are “doing something.” Over the past several months, Congress has passed a number of hastily crafted measures that do little, if anything, to enhance the security of the American people. Instead, these measures grow the size of the Federal Government, erode constitutional liberties, and endanger our economy by increasing the federal deficit and raiding the social security trust fund. The American people would be better served if we gave the question of how to enhance security from international terrorism the serious consideration it deserves rather than blindly expanding the Federal Government. Congress should also consider whether our hyper-interventionist foreign policy really benefits the American people.

Constitution
Department of Homeland Security
26 July 2002    2002 Ron Paul 80:7
We have also received a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cost estimate suggesting that it will cost no less than $3 billion just to implement this new department. That is $3 billion dollars that could be spent to capture those responsible for the attacks of September 11 or to provide tax-relief to the families of the victims of that attack. It is three billion dollars that could perhaps be better spent protecting against future attacks, or even simply to meet the fiscal needs of our government. Since those attacks this Congress has gone on a massive spending spree. Spending three billion additional dollars now, simply to rearrange offices and command structures, is not a wise move. In fact, Congress is actually jeopardizing the security of millions of Americans by raiding the social security trust fund to rearrange deck chairs and give big spenders yet another department on which to lavish porkbarrel spending. The way the costs of this department have skyrocketed before the Department is even open for business leads me to fear that this will become yet another justification for Congress to raid the social security trust fund in order to finance pork-barrel spending. This is especially true in light of the fact that so many questions remain regarding the ultimate effect of these structural changes. Moreover, this legislation will give the Executive Branch the authority to spend money appropriated by Congress in ways Congress has not authorized. This clearly erodes Constitutionally- mandated Congressional prerogatives relative to control of federal spending.

Constitution
Department of Homeland Security
26 July 2002    2002 Ron Paul 80:10
Mr. Speaker, government reorganizations, though generally seen as benign, can have a deleterious affect not just on the functioning of government but on our safety and liberty as well. The concentration and centralization of authority that may result from today’s efforts should give us all reason for pause. But the current process does not allow for pause. Indeed, it militates toward rushing decisions without regard to consequence. Furthermore, this particular reorganization, in an attempt to provide broad leeway for the new department, undermines our Congressional oversight function. Abrogating our Constitutionally-mandated responsibilities so hastily now also means that future administrations will find it much easier to abuse the powers of this new department to violate constitutional liberties.

Constitution
Congress Sgould Think Twice Before Thrusting U.S. Into War
September 4, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 81:12
There is a constitutional argument and a constitutional mistake that could be made. If we once again go to war, as we have done on so many occasions since World War II, without a clear declaration of war by Congress, we blatantly violate the Constitution. I fear we will once again go to war in a haphazard way, by executive order, or even by begging permission from the rotten, anti-American United Nations. This haphazard approach, combined with a lack of clearly defined goal for victory, makes it almost inevitable that true victory will not come. So we should look at this from a constitutional perspective. Congress should assume its responsibility, because war is declared by Congress, not by a President and not by a U.N.

Constitution
Avoid War With Iraq
4 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 82:7
There is a constitutional argument and a constitutional mistake that could be made. If we once again go to war, as we have done on so many occasions since World War II, without a clear declaration of war and a clear goal of victory, a haphazard way of slipping into war by Executive Order or, heaven forbid, getting permission from the United Nations makes it so that it is almost inevitable that true victory will not come.

Constitution
Avoid War With Iraq
4 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 82:8
So we should look at this in a very constitutional fashion. We in the Congress should assume our responsibility because war is declared by Congress, not by a President and not by a U.N.

Constitution
The Price Of War
5 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 83:13
Disregarding for the moment the moral and constitutional arguments against foreign intervention, a strong case can be made against it for other reasons. It is clear that one intervention begets another. The first problem is rarely solved and the new ones are created. Indeed, in foreign affairs a slippery slope does exist.

Constitution
The Price Of War
5 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 83:32
Acting in our own interest is to be applauded, but what we are getting is not a good alternative to one-world government. We do not get our sovereignty back, yet we continue to subject ourselves to great potential financial burden and loss of liberty as we shift from a national government with constitutional protection of rights to an international government where our citizens’ rights are threatened by treaties we have not even ratified, like the Kyoto and the international criminal court treaties.

Constitution
The Price Of War
5 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 83:36
The term foreign policy does not exist in the Constitution. All members of the Federal Government have sworn to uphold the Constitution and should do only those things that are clearly authorized. Careful reading of the Constitution reveals Congress has a lot more responsibility than does the President in dealing with foreign affairs. The President is the Commanderin- Chief, but cannot declare war or finance military action without explicit congressional approval. A good starting point would be for all of us in the Congress to assume the responsibility given us to make sure the executive branch does not usurp any authority explicitly given to the Congress.

Constitution
The Price Of War
5 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 83:39
Protecting our national sovereignty and guaranteeing constitutional protection of our citizens’ rights are crucial. Respecting the sovereignty of other nations, even when we are in disagreement with some of their policies, is also necessary. Changing others then becomes a job of persuasion and example, not force and intimidation, just as it is in trying to improve the personal behavior of our fellow citizens here at home.

Constitution
The Price Of War
5 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 83:46
A foreign policy for peace and freedom would prompt us to give ample notice, and then we would promptly leave the international organizations that have entangled us for over a half a century. U.S. membership in world government was hardly what the Founders envisioned when writing the Constitution.

Constitution
The Price Of War
5 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 83:49
If we followed a constitutional policy of nonintervention, we would never have to entertain the aggressive notion of preemptive war based on speculation of what a country might do at some future date. Political pressure by other countries to alter our foreign policy for their benefit would never be a consideration. Commercial interests of our citizens investing overseas could not expect our armies to follow them and to protect their profits.

Constitution
The Price Of War
5 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 83:57
Wisdom, morality and the Constitution are very unlikely to invade the minds of the policymakers that control our foreign affairs. We have institutionalized foreign intervention over the past 100 years by the teachings of all our major universities and the propaganda that the media spews out. The powerful influence over our policy, both domestic and foreign, is not soon going to go away.

Constitution
The Price Of War
5 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 83:58
I am convinced, though, that eventually restraint in our interventions overseas will be guided by a more reasonable constitutional policy. Economic reality will dictate it. Although political pressure in times of severe economic downturn and domestic strife encourages planned distractions overseas, these adventures always cause economic harm due to the economic costs. When the particular country or empire involved overreaches, as we are currently doing, national bankruptcy and a severely weakened currency call the whole process to a halt.

Constitution
The Price Of War
5 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 83:63
We must prepare for the day when our financial bankruptcy and the failure of our effort at world domination are apparent. The solution to such a crisis can be easily found in our Constitution and in our traditions. But ultimately, the love of liberty can only come from a change in the hearts and minds of the people and with an answered prayer for the blessings of divine intervention.

Constitution
Questions That Will Not Be Asked About Iraq
September 10, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 85:15
14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go to war?

Constitution
Questions That Will Not Be Asked About Iraq
September 10, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 85:31
30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?

Constitution
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
10 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 86:6
Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over monetary policy. The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not empower the Federal Government to erode Americans’ living standard via an inflationary monetary policy.

Constitution
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
10 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 86:7
In fact, Congress’ constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our Nation’s founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold. Such a monetary system is the basis of a true free-market economy.

Constitution
A Political Mistake
September 18, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 87:1
Mr. Speaker, I have for years advocated a moral and constitutional approach to our foreign policy. This has been done in the sincerest belief that a policy of peace, trade, and friendship with all nations is far superior in all respects to a policy of war, protectionism, and confrontation. But in the Congress I find, with regards to foreign affairs, no interest in following the precepts of the Constitution and the advice of our early Presidents.

Constitution
A Political Mistake
September 18, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 87:8
Since no one wants to hear anymore of morality and constitutionality and justice, possibly some will listen to the politics of war, since that is what drives so many. A token victory at the polls this fall by using a vote on the war as a lever will be to little avail. It may not even work in the short run. Surely, history shows that war is never a winner, especially when the people who have to pay, fight, and die for it come to realize that the war was not even necessary and had nothing to do with national security or fighting for freedom, but was promoted by special interests who stood to gain from taking over a sovereign country.

Constitution
Rent-To-Own Contracts
18 september 2002    2002 Ron Paul 88:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1701, the Consumer Rental Purchase Agreement bill, rewriters every rent-to-own contract in the nation to conform to the dictates of federal politicians and bureaucrats. This bill thus represents another usurpation by Congress of powers reserved by the 9th and 10th amendments of the Constitution to the states and the people.

Constitution
Rent-To-Own Contracts
18 september 2002    2002 Ron Paul 88:3
Proponents of H.R. 1701 admit the benefits of rent-to-own but fret that rent-to-own transactions are regulated by the states, not the federal government. Proponents of this legislation claim that state regulations are inadequate, thus making federal regulations necessary. My well-intentioned colleagues ignore the fact that Congress has no legitimate authority to judge whether or not state regulations are adequate. This is because the Constitution gives the federal government no authority to regulate this type of transaction. Thus, whether or not state regulations are adequate is simply not for Congress to judge.

Constitution
Rent-To-Own Contracts
18 september 2002    2002 Ron Paul 88:4
Some may claim that H.R. 1701 respects states’ rights, because it does not preempt those state regulations acceptable to federal regulators. However, Mr. Chairman, this turns the constitutional meaning of federalism on its head. After all, the 10th amendment does not limit its protections to state laws approved of by the federal bureaucracy.

Constitution
Rent-To-Own Contracts
18 september 2002    2002 Ron Paul 88:5
In addition to exceeding Congress’s constitutional authority, H.R. 1701, like all federal regulatory schemes, could backfire and harm the very people it was intended to help. This is because any regulation inevitably raises the cost of doing business. These higher costs are passed along to the consumer in the form of either higher prices or fewer choices. The result of this is that marginal customers are priced out of the market. These consumers may prefer to sign contracts that do not meet federal standards as opposed to not having access to any rent-to-own contracts, but the Congress will deny them that option. According to the proponents of H.R. 1701, if people cannot obtain desired goods and services under terms satisfactory to the government, they are better off being denied those goods and services. Mr. Chairman, this type of “government knows best” legislation represents the worst type of paternalism and is totally inappropriate for a free society.

Constitution
Rent-To-Own Contracts
18 september 2002    2002 Ron Paul 88:6
In conclusion, H.R. 1701 exceeds Congress’s constitutional authority by regulating areas constitutionally left to the states. It also raises the cost of forming rent-to-own contracts and thus will deny those contracts to consumers who desire them. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this paternalistic and unconstitutional bill.

Constitution
Statement on Medical Malpractice Legislation
September 26, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 90:2
However this bill raises several question of constitutionality, as well as whether it treats those victimized by large corporations and medical devices fairly. In addition, it places de facto price controls on the amounts injured parties can receive in a lawsuit and rewrites every contingency fee contract in the country. Yet, among all the new assumptions of federal power, this bill does nothing to address the power of insurance companies over the medical profession. Thus, even if the reforms of HR 4600 become law, there will be nothing to stop the insurance companies from continuing to charge exorbitant rates.

Constitution
Statement on Medical Malpractice Legislation
September 26, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 90:4
HR 4600 does contain some positive elements. For example, the language limiting joint and several liability to the percentage of damage someone actually caused, is a reform I have long championed. However, Mr. Speaker, HR 4600 exceeds Congress’ constitutional authority by preempting state law. Congressional dissatisfaction with the malpractice laws in some states provides no justification for Congress to impose uniform standards on all 50 states. The 10th amendment does not authorize federal action in areas otherwise reserved to the states simply because some members of Congress are unhappy with the way the states have handled the problem. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, by imposing uniform laws on the states, Congress is preventing the states from creating innovative solutions to the malpractice problems.

Constitution
Statement on Medical Malpractice Legislation
September 26, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 90:9
I am working on legislation to provide tax incentives to individuals who agree to purchase malpractice insurance, which will automatically provide coverage for any injuries sustained in treatment. This will insure that those harmed by spiraling medical errors receive timely and full compensation. My plan spares both patients and doctors the costs of a lengthy, drawn-out trial and respects Congress’ constitutional limitations.

Constitution
Statement on Medical Malpractice Legislation
September 26, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 90:11
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I support the efforts of the sponsors of HR 4600 to address the crisis in health care caused by excessive malpractice litigation and insurance premiums, I cannot support this bill. HR 4600 exceeds Congress’ constitutional limitations and denies full compensation to those harmed by the unintentional effects of federal vaccine mandates. Instead of furthering unconstitutional authority, my colleagues should focus on addressing the root causes of the malpractice crisis by supporting efforts to restore the primacy of contract to the doctor-patient relationships.

Constitution
“Say ‘No’ To UNESCO” Act
26 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 91:4
Mr. Speaker, even if UNESCO has been “reforming” its finances over the past two years, its programmatic activities are still enough to cause great concern among those of us who value American sovereignty and honor our Constitution. Consider the following as a partial list of UNESCO’s ongoing highly questionable activities:

Constitution
Internet Gambling
1 October 2002    2002 Ron Paul 92:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 556 limits the ability of individual citizens to use bank instruments, including credit cards or checks, to finance Internet gambling. This legislation should be rejected by Congress since the federal government has no constitutional authority to ban or even discourage any form of gambling.

Constitution
Internet Gambling
1 October 2002    2002 Ron Paul 92:3
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 556 violates the constitutional limits on federal power. Furthermore, laws such as H.R. 556 are ineffective in eliminating the demand for vices such as Internet gambling; instead, they ensure that these enterprises will be controlled by organized crime. Therefore I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 556, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act.

Constitution
Introduction of the Television Consumer Freedom Act
October 1, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 93:3
It is, of course, within the constitutionally enumerated powers of Congress to "promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." However, operating a clearing-house for the subsequent transfer of such property rights in the name of setting a just price or "instilling competition" via "central planning" seems not to be an economically prudent nor justifiable action under this enumerated power. This process is one best reserved to the competitive marketplace.

Constitution
Is Congress Relevant with Regards to War?
October 3, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 94:3
The process by which we’ve entered wars over the past 57 years, and the inconclusive results of each war since that time, are obviously related to Congress’ abdication of its responsibility regarding war, given to it by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.

Constitution
Is Congress Relevant with Regards to War?
October 3, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 94:4
Congress has either ignored its responsibility entirely over these years, or transferred the war power to the executive branch by a near majority vote of its Members, without consideration of it by the states as an amendment required by the Constitution.

Constitution
Is Congress Relevant with Regards to War?
October 3, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 94:5
Congress is about to circumvent the Constitution and avoid the tough decision of whether war should be declared by transferring this monumental decision-making power regarding war to the President. Once again, the process is being abused. Odds are, since a clear-cut decision and commitment by the people through their representatives are not being made, the results will be as murky as before. We will be required to follow the confusing dictates of the UN, since that is where the ultimate authority to invade Iraq is coming from- rather than from the American people and the U.S. Constitution.

Constitution
Is Congress Relevant with Regards to War?
October 3, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 94:7
A declaration of war limits the presidential powers, narrows the focus, and implies a precise end point to the conflict. A declaration of war makes Congress assume the responsibilities directed by the Constitution for this very important decision, rather than assume that if the major decision is left to the President and a poor result occurs, it will be his fault, not that of Congress. Hiding behind the transfer of the war power to the executive through the War Powers Resolution of 1973 will hardly suffice.

Constitution
Is Congress Relevant with Regards to War?
October 3, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 94:15
An up or down vote on declaring war against Iraq would not pass the Congress, and the President has no intention of asking for it. This is unfortunate, because if the process were carried out in a constitutional fashion, the American people and the U.S. Congress would vote "No" on assuming responsibility for this war.

Constitution
Is Congress Relevant with Regards to War?
October 3, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 94:17
Not only is it sad that we have gone so far astray from our Constitution, but it’s also dangerous for world peace and threatens our liberties here at home.

Constitution
Fairness
8 October 2002    2002 Ron Paul 95:3
Prior to the writing of the rule, I did make some requests about getting some time because as a Republican, I have strong constitutional reservations about what we are doing, and I think they are worthwhile hearing. That was turned down. It was not written into the rule; and of course the amendment that I offered that may have offered an opportunity for me to make these constitutional points, that also was declined. But I have been informed today that I would be allowed 3 minutes to make the case for the Constitution.

Constitution
Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq
October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:13
I must oppose this resolution, which regardless of what many have tried to claim will lead us into war with Iraq. This resolution is not a declaration of war, however, and that is an important point: this resolution transfers the Constitutionally-mandated Congressional authority to declare wars to the executive branch. This resolution tells the president that he alone has the authority to determine when, where, why, and how war will be declared. It merely asks the president to pay us a courtesy call a couple of days after the bombing starts to let us know what is going on. This is exactly what our Founding Fathers cautioned against when crafting our form of government: most had just left behind a monarchy where the power to declare war rested in one individual. It is this they most wished to avoid.

Constitution
Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq
October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:14
As James Madison wrote in 1798, "The Constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has, accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the legislature."

Constitution
Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq
October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:15
Some- even some in this body- have claimed that this Constitutional requirement is an anachronism, and that those who insist on following the founding legal document of this country are just being frivolous. I could not disagree more.

Constitution
Child Abduction Prevention Act
16 October 2002    2002 Ron Paul 99:3
However, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that making the AMBER alert system a federal program is neither constitutionality sound nor effective law enforcement. All Americans should be impressed at the demonstrated effectiveness of the AMBER system in locating missing and kidnaped children. However, I would ask my colleagues to consider that one of the factors that makes the current AMBER system so effective is that the AMBER Alert system is not a federal program. Instead, states and local governments developed AMBER Alerts on their own, thus ensuring that each AMBER system meet the unique needs of individual jurisdictions. Once the AMBER Alert system becomes a one-size-fits all federal program (with standards determined by D.C.-based bureaucrats instead of community-based law enforcement officials) local officials will not be able to tailor the AMBER alert to fit their unique circumstances. Thus, nationalizing the AMBER system will cause this important program to lose some of its effectiveness.

Constitution
Child Abduction Prevention Act
16 October 2002    2002 Ron Paul 99:4
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5422 also exceeds Congress’ constitutional authority by criminalizing travel with the intent of committing a crime. As appalling as it is that some would travel abroad to engage in activities that are rightly illegal in the United States, legislation of this sort poses many problems and offers few solutions. First among these problems is the matter of national sovereignty. Those who travel abroad and break the law in their host country should be subject to prosecution in that country: it is the responsibility of the host country — not the U.S. Congress — to uphold its own laws. It is a highly unique proposal to suggest that committing a crime in a foreign country against a non-U.S. citizen is within the jurisdiction of the United States Government.

Constitution
Say NO to UNESCO
January 7, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 2:4
Mr. Speaker, even if UNESCO has been “reforming” its finances over the past two years, its programmatic activities are still enough to cause great concern among those of us who value American sovereignty and honor our Constitution. Consider the following as a partial list of UNESCO’s ongoing highly questionable activities:

Constitution
Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential
January 7, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 4:8
Other members of Congress will claim that the federal government needs the power to monitor Americans in order to allow the government to operate more efficiently. I would remind my colleagues that in a constitutional republic, the people are never asked to sacrifice their liberties to make the job of government officials easier. We are here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy invasion more efficient.

Constitution
Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential
January 7, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 4:14
The primary reason why any action short of the repeal of laws authorizing privacy violations is insufficient is because the federal government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”

Constitution
Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential
January 7, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 4:15
Mr. Speaker, those members who are not persuaded by the moral and constitutional reasons for embracing the Identity Theft Prevention Act should consider the opposition of the American people toward national identifiers. The overwhelming public opposition to the various “Know-Your-Customer” schemes, the attempt to turn driver’s licenses into National ID cards, as well as the numerous complaints over the ever-growing uses of the Social Security number, show that American people want Congress to stop invading their privacy. Furthermore, according to a survey by the Gallup company, 91 percent of the American people oppose forcing Americans to obtain a universal health ID. Several other recent polls show most Americans remain skeptical that a national ID card would enhance their security or preserve their liberty.

Constitution
Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential
January 7, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 4:16
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again call on my colleagues to join me in putting an end to the federal government’s unconstitutional use of national identifiers to monitor the actions of private citizens. National identifiers threaten all Americans by exposing them to the threat of identity theft by private criminals and abuse of their liberties by public criminals, while diverting valuable law enforcement resources away from addressing real threats to public safety. In addition, national identifiers are incompatible with a limited, constitutional government. I, therefore, hope my colleagues will join my efforts to protect the freedom of their constituents by supporting the Identity Theft Prevention Act.

Constitution
Restoring the Second Amendment
January 9, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 5:3
Thomas Jefferson said “The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; ...that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” Jefferson, and all of the Founders, would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans form exercising their right and duty to keep and bear arms. I hope my colleagues will join me in upholding the Founders’ vision for a free society by cosponsoring the Second Amendment Restoration Act.

Constitution
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, at the close of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Benjamin Franklin told an inquisitive citizen that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention gave the people a Republic, if you can keep it. We should now apologize to Mr. Franklin. It is obvious that the Republic is gone, and we are wallowing in a pure democracy against which the Founders had strongly warned.

Constitution
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:2
Madison, the Father of the Constitution, could not have been more explicit in his fear and concern for democracies. “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contentions, have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

Constitution
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:6
There seems to be complete aversion to defending the Republic and the Constitution that established it. The Founders clearly understood the dangers of a democracy. Edmond Randolph of Virginia described the effort to deal with the issue at the Constitutional Convention: “The general object was to produce a cure for evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origins, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.”

Constitution
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:7
These strongly held views regarding the evils of democracies and the benefit of a constitutional republic were shared by all the Founders. For them, a democracy meant centralized power, controlled by majority opinion, which was up for grabs and, therefore, completely arbitrary.

Constitution
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:8
In contrast, a republic was decentralized and representative in nature, with the government’s purpose strictly limited by the Constitution to the protection of liberty and private property ownership. They believe the majority should never be able to undermine its principle and that the government must be tightly held in check by constitutional restraints.

Constitution
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:10
A constitution in and by itself does not guarantee liberty in a republican form of government. Even a perfect constitution, with this goal in mind, is no better than the moral standards and desires of the people.

Constitution
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:11
Although the United States Constitution was by far the best ever written for the protection of liberty, with safeguards against the dangers of a democracy, it, too, was flawed from the beginning. Instead of guaranteeing liberty equally for all people, the authors themselves yielded to the democratic majority’s demands that they compromise on the issue of slavery. This mistake, plus others along the way, culminated in a civil war that surely could have been prevented with clearer understanding and a more principled approach to the establishment of a constitutional republic.

Constitution
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:12
Subsequently, the same urge to accommodate majority opinion while ignoring the principles of individual liberty led to some other serious errors. Even amending the Constitution in a proper fashion to impose alcohol prohibition turned out to be a disaster. Fortunately, this was rectified after a short time with its repeal.

Constitution
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:13
But today, the American people accept drug prohibition, a policy equally damaging to liberty as was alcohol prohibition. A majority vote in Congress has been enough to impose this very expensive and failed program on the American people even without bothering to amend the Constitution. It has been met with only minimal but, fortunately, growing dissent. For the first 150 years of our history, when we were much closer to being a true Republic, there were no Federal laws dealing with the serious medical problem of addiction.

Constitution
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:14
The ideas of democracy, not the principles of liberty, were responsible for the passage of the 16th amendment. It imposed the income tax on the American people and helped us usher in the modern age of the welfare warfare State. Unfortunately, the 16th amendment has not been repealed as was the 18th. As long as the 16th amendment is in place, the odds are slim that we can restore a constitutional republic dedicated to liberty. The personal income tax is more than symbolic of a democracy; it is a predictable consequence.

Constitution
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:16
Chronic concern about war and economic downturns events caused by an intrusive government’s failure to follow the binding restraints of the Constitution allowed majority demands to supercede the rights of the minority. By the end of the 20th century, majority opinion had become the determining factor in all that government does. The rule of law was cast aside, leaving the Constitution a shell of what it once was, a Constitution with rules that guaranteed a Republic with limit and regional government and protection of personal liberty.

Constitution
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:18
The majority is assumed to be in charge today and can do whatever it pleases. If the majority has not yet sanctioned some desired breach of action demanded by special interest, the propaganda machine goes into operation and the pollsters relay the information back to politicians who are seeking legitimacy in their endeavors. The rule of law and the Constitution have become irrelevant, and we live by constant polls.

Constitution
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:19
This trend toward authoritarian democracy was tolerated because, unlike a military dictatorship, it was done in the name of benevolence, fairness, and equity. The pretence of love and compassion by those who desire to remold society and undermine the Constitution convinced the recipients and even the victims of its necessity.

Constitution
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:21
The resolution to the problems we face as a result of this profound transition to pure democracy will be neither quick nor painless. This transition has occurred even though the word “democracy” does not appear in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The Founders explicitly denounced it.

Constitution
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:22
Over the last hundred years the goal of securing individual liberties within the framework of a constitutional republic has been replaced with incessant talk of democracy and fairness. Rallying support for our ill-advised participation in World War I, Wilson spoke glowingly of making the world safe for democracy and never mentioned national security. This theme has to this day persisted in all our foreign affairs. Neoconservatives now brag of their current victories in promoting what they call “hard Wilsonism.”

Constitution
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:30
Once it becomes acceptable to change the rules by majority vote, there are no longer any limits on the power of the government. When the Constitution can be subverted by mere legislative votes, executive orders or judicial degrees, constitutional restraints on the government are eliminated. This process was rare in the early years of our history, but now it is routine.

Constitution
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:35
Prohibitions placed in the Constitution against programs that serve special interests are the greatest threat to the current system of democracy under which we operate. In order for the benefits to continue, politicians must reject the rule of law and concern themselves only with the control of majority opinion. Sadly, that is the job of almost all politicians. It is clearly the motivation behind the millions spent on constant lobbying, as well as the billions spent on promoting the right candidate in each election.

Constitution
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:37
Democracy encourages the mother of all political corruption, the use of political money to buy influence. If the dollars spent in this effort represent the degree to which democracy has won out over the rule of law and the Constitution, it looks like the American Republic is left wanting. Billions are spent on the endeavor. Money and politics is the key to implementing policy and swaying democratic majorities. It is seen by most Americans, and rightly so, as a negative and danger. Yet the response, unfortunately, is only more of the same.

Constitution
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:38
More laws tinkering with freedom of expression are enacted in hopes that regulating sums of private money thrown into the political system will curtail the abuse; but failing to understand the cause of the problem, lack of respect for the Constitution and obsession with legislative relativity dictated by the majority serve only to further undermine the rule of law.

Constitution
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:54
Promoting democracy overseas merely becomes a slogan for doing things that the powerful and influential strive to do for their own benefit. To get authority for these overseas pursuits, all that is required of the government is that the majority be satisfied with the stated goals no matter how self-serving they may be. The rule of law, that is constitutional restraint, is ignored. But as successful as the policy may be on the short run, and as noble as it may be portrayed, it is a major contributing factor to the violence and chaos that eventually come from pure democracy.

Constitution
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:58
There is no credibility in our contention that we really want to impose democracy on other nations, yet promoting democracy is the public justification for our foreign intervention. It sounds so much nicer than saying we are going to risk the lives of young people and massively tax our citizens to secure the giant oil reserves of Iraq. After we take over Iraq, how long would one expect it to take until there are authentic nationwide elections in that country? The odds of that happening in even 100 years are remote. It is virtually impossible to imagine a time when democratic elections would ever occur for the election of leaders in a constitutional republic dedicated to the protection of liberty anyplace in the region.

Constitution
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:63
Polling on the matter is followed closely and, unfortunately, is far more important than the rule of law. Do we hear the pundits talk of constitutional restraints on Congress and the administration? No. All we ever hear are the reassurances that the majority support the President; therefore, it must be all right.

Constitution
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:66
Relying on authoritarian democracy and domestic and international meddling only moves us sharply away from a constitutional republic and the rule of law and toward the turbulence of a decaying democracy about which Madison and others had warned. Once the goal of liberty is replaced by a preconceived notion of the benefits and the moral justification of a democracy, a trend toward internationalism and world government follows. We certainly witnessed this throughout the 20th century. Since World War II, we have failed to follow the Constitution in taking this country to war, but instead have deferred to the collective democratic wisdom of the United Nations.

Constitution
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:85
The vast majority of the American people have come to accept democracy as a favorable system and are pleased with our efforts to pursue Wilson’s dream of making the world safe for democracy. But the goals of pure democracy and that of a constitutional republic are incompatible. A clear understanding of the difference is paramount, if we are to remain a free and prosperous Nation.

Constitution
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:86
There are certain wonderful benefits in recognizing the guidance that majority opinion offers. It takes a consensus or prevailing attitude to endorse the principles of liberty and a constitution to protect them. This is a requirement for the rule of law to succeed. Without a consensus, the rule of law fails. This does not mean that the majority or public opinion, measured by polls, court rulings or legislative bodies should be able to alter the constitutional restraints on the government’s abuse of life, liberty and property. But in a democracy that happens, and we know today that is happening in this country on a routine basis.

Constitution
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:91
This will not occur until we as a Nation once again understand how freedom serves the interests of everyone. Henry Grady Weaver, in his 1947 classic, “The Mainspring of Human Progress,” explains how it works. His thesis is simple. Liberty permits progress, while government intervention tends always to tyranny. Liberty releases creative energy; government intervention suppresses it. This release of energy was never greater than in the time following the American Revolution and the writing of the U.S. Constitution.

Constitution
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:92
Instead of individual activity being controlled by the government or superstitious beliefs about natural and mystical events, the activity is controlled by the individual. This understanding recognizes the immense value in voluntary cooperation and enlightened self-interests. Freedom requires selfcontrol and moral responsibility. No one owes anyone else anything and everyone is responsible for his or her own acts. The principle of never harming one’s neighbor, or never sending the government to do the dirty work, is key to making the system tend to peaceful pursuits and away from the tyranny and majority-induced violence. Nothing short of a reaffirmation of this principle can restore the freedoms once guaranteed under the Constitution. Without this, prosperity for the masses is impossible; and as a Nation we become more vulnerable to outside threats.

Constitution
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:93
In a Republic, the people are in charge. The Constitution provides strict restraints on the politicians, bureaucrats and the military. Everything the government is allowed to do is only done with explicit permission from the people or the Constitution.

Constitution
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:94
Today, it is the opposite. The American people must get permission from the government for their every move, whether it is the use of their own property or spending their own money. Even the most serious decisions, such as going to war, are done while ignoring the Constitution and without a vote of the people’s representatives in the Congress. Members of the global government have more to say about when American troops are put in harm’s way than the U.S. Congress. The Constitution no longer restrains the government. The government restrains the people in all they do. This destroys individual creative energy, and the “mainspring of human progress” is lost. The consequences are less progress, less prosperity, and less personal fulfillment.

Constitution
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:99
The question I am most often asked when talking about this subject is why do our elected leaders so easily relinquish liberty and have so little respect for the Constitution? The people of whom I speak are convinced that liberty is good and big government is dangerous. They also are quite certain that we have drifted a long way from the principles that made America great, and their bewilderment continuously elicits a big “why?”

Constitution
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:104
Most of the damage to liberty and the Constitution is done by men and women of goodwill who are convinced they know what is best for the economy, others, and foreign powers. They inevitably fail to recognize their own arrogance in assuming they know what is the best personal behavior for others. Their failure to recognize the likelihood of mistakes by central planners allows them to ignore the magnitude of a flawed central government directive compared to an individual or a smaller unit of government mistake.

Constitution
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:113
The Federal Government will not improve on its policies until the people coming to Washington are educated by a different breed of economists than those who dominate our governmentrun universities. Economic advisors and most officeholders merely reflect the economics taught to them. A major failure of our entire system will most likely occur before serious thought is given once again to the guidelines laid out in the Constitution.

Constitution
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:117
Understanding the connection between liberty, prosperity and security has been lost. The priorities are backwards. Prosperity and security come from liberty. Peace and the absence of war come from a consequence of liberty and free trade. The elimination of ignorance and restraints on do-goodism and authoritarianism in a civilized society can only be achieved through a contractual arrangement between the people and the government, in our case the U.S. Constitution. This document was the best ever devised for releasing the creative energy of a free people while strictly holding in check the destructive powers of government. Only the rule of law can constrain those who by human instinct look for a free ride while delivering power to those few, found in every society, whose only goal in life is a devilish desire to rule over others.

Constitution
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:119
But they have it backwards. Under democracy and fascism, the pseudocapitalists write the laws that undermine the Constitution and jeopardize the rights and property of all citizens. They fail to realize that the real law, the Constitution, itself guarantees the rights and equal justice and permits capitalism, thus guaranteeing progress.

Constitution
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:120
Arbitrary, ever-changing laws are the friends of dictators. Authoritarians argue constantly that the Constitution is a living document and that rigid obedience to ideological purity is the enemy that we should be most concerned about. They would have us believe that those who cherish strict obedience to the rule of law in the defense of liberty are wrong merely because they demand ideological purity. They fail to demand that their love of relative rights and pure democracy is driven by a rigid obedience to an ideology as well. The issue is never rigid beliefs versus reasonable friendly compromise. In politics it is always competition between two strongly held ideologies. The only challenge for men and women of goodwill is to decide the wisdom and truth of the ideologies offered.

Constitution
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:122
Eventually the solution will come with the passage of the liberty amendment. Once there is serious debate on this amendment, we will know that the American people are considering the restoration of the constitutional republic and a protection of individual liberty.

Constitution
End the Income Tax – Pass the Liberty Amendment
January 28, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 7:1
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Liberty Amendment, which repeals the 16th Amendment, thus paving the way for real change in the way government collects and spends the people’s hard-earned money. The Liberty Amendment also explicitly forbids the federal government from performing any action not explicitly authorized by the United States Constitution.

Constitution
End the Income Tax – Pass the Liberty Amendment
January 28, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 7:6
Mr. Speaker, America survived and prospered for 140 years without an income tax, and with a federal government that generally adhered to strictly constitutional functions, operating with modest excise revenues. The income tax opened the door to the era (and errors) of Big Government. I hope my colleagues will help close that door by cosponsoring the Liberty Amendment.

Constitution
Middle East Conflict
11 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 18:2
Though I am sure this resolution commending Israel for holding free elections was introduced with the best intentions, this legislation unfortunately goes further than a simple commendation. The legislation as written will only once again inject the United States into the decades-old and intractable conflict in the Middle East. By commending Israel while at the same time demanding that the Palestinians take specific actions, this legislation places the United States squarely in the middle of a conflict that has absolutely nothing to do with American interests. Also, the resolution states that the United States is committed to secure peace for Israel. We cannot afford nor are we constitutionally permitted to play referee in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and securing peace for any country but the United States is not the role of this body.

Constitution
Middle East Conflict
11 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 18:3
We must resist the temptation to meddle in the affairs of far-away nations no matter how good our intentions may be. If we are to keep our Constitutional republic we must uphold the wise counsel of those who crafted our founding set of laws.

Constitution
Middle East Conflict
11 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 18:4
Thomas Jefferson summed up the foreign policy position we must uphold in his 1801 inaugural address: “People, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.” How many champion Jefferson and the Constitution, but conveniently ignore both when it comes to American foreign policy? Washington similarly urged that the U.S. must “Act for ourselves and not for others,” by forming an “American character wholly free of foreign attachments.” Do so many on Capitol Hill now believe Washington was wrong?

Constitution
Middle East Conflict
11 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 18:5
Mr. Speaker, how many more times must we place ourselves and our country at risk by taking one side or other in battles, wars, and conflicts that have nothing to do with the United States, and where anger toward the United States will inevitably result? I urge my colleagues to uphold the Constitution and vote against this unfortunately-worded resolution.

Constitution
Do-Not-Call Implementation Act
12 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 20:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, as someone who has, my share of insolicited telemarketing calls, I sympahize fully with the concerns of the sponsors of the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act (HR 395). However, I would remind those who support federal intervention to “put a stop” to telemarketing on the basis of its annoyance, that the Constitution prohibits the federal government from interfering in the areas of advertising and communications.

Constitution
Do-Not-Call Implementation Act
12 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 20:2
In addition to exceeding Congress’ constitutional authority, legislation to regulate telemarketing would allow the government to intrude further into our personal lives. Our country’s founders recognized the genius of severely limiting the role of government and reserving to the people extensive liberties, including the freedom to handle problems like this on the local level and through private institutions. The fact that the privately-run Direct Marketing Association is operating its own “do-not-call” list is evidence that consumers need not rely upon the national government to address the problems associated with telemarketers. Furthermore, many state public utility commissions have imposed regulations on telemarketers. Further regulation at the federal level will only result in a greater loss of liberty. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to take the constitutional course and oppose the Do-No- Call Implementation Act.

Constitution
Oppose the Federal Welfare State
February 13, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 22:1
Mr. Speaker, no one can deny that welfare programs have undermined America’s moral fabric and constitutional system. Therefore, all those concerned with restoring liberty and protecting civil society from the maw of the omnipotent state should support efforts to eliminate the welfare state, or, at the very least, reduce federal control over the provision of social services. Unfortunately, the misnamed Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act (H.R. 4) actually increases the unconstitutional federal welfare state and thus undermines personal responsibility, the work ethic, and the family.

Constitution
Oppose the Federal Welfare State
February 13, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 22:2
H.R. 4 reauthorizes the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) block grant program, the main federal welfare program. Mr. Speaker, increasing federal funds always increases federal control, as the recipients of the funds must tailor their programs to meet federal mandates and regulations. More importantly, since federal funds represent resources taken out of the hands of private individuals, increasing federal funding leaves fewer resources available for the voluntary provision of social services, which, as I will explain in more detail later, is a more effective, moral, and constitutional means of meeting the needs of the poor.

Constitution
Oppose the Federal Welfare State
February 13, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 22:7
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, federal promotion of marriage opens the door for a level of social engineering that should worry all those concerned with preserving a free society. The federal government has no constitutional authority to promote any particular social arrangement; instead, the founders recognized that people are better off when they form their own social arrangements free from federal interference. The history of the failed experiments with welfarism and socialism shows that government can only destroy a culture; when a government tries to build a culture, it only further erodes the people’s liberty.

Constitution
Oppose the Federal Welfare State
February 13, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 22:11
Releasing the charitable impulses of the American people by freeing them from the excessive tax burden so they can devote more of their resources to charity, is a moral and constitutional means of helping the needy. By contrast, the federal welfare state is neither moral nor constitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to level excessive taxes on one group of citizens for the benefit of another group of citizens. Many of the founders would have been horrified to see modern politicians define compassion as giving away other people’s money stolen through confiscatory taxation. In the words of the famous essay by former Congressman Davy Crockett, this money is “Not Yours to Give.”

Constitution
Oppose the Federal Welfare State
February 13, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 22:13
In conclusion, H.R. 4 furthers federal control over welfare programs by imposing new mandates on the states, which furthers unconstitutional interference in matters best left to state and local governments, and individuals. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose it. Instead, I hope my colleagues will learn the lessons of the failure of the welfare state and embrace a constitutional and compassionate agenda of returning control over the welfare programs to the American people.

Constitution
Another United Nations War
25 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 24:8
The Constitution makes it clear that if we must counter a threat to our security, that authority must come from the U.S. Congress.

Constitution
Another United Nations War
25 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 24:11
With regard to foreign affairs, the best advice comes from our Founders and the Constitution. It is better to promote peace and commerce with all nations and exclude ourselves from the entangling alliances and complex, unworkable alliances that comes from our membership in the United Nations.

Constitution
Emancipation Proclamation
26 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 25:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H. Con. Res. 36. Friends of human liberty should celebrate the end of slavery in any country. The end of American slavery is particularly worthy of recognition since there are few more blatant violations of America’s founding principles, as expressed in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, than slavery. In order to give my colleagues, and all Americans, the opportunity to see what President Lincoln did and did not do, I am inserting the Emancipation Proclamation into the RECORD.

Constitution
Emancipation Proclamation
26 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 25:12
And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty God.

Constitution
Stem Cell research
27 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 26:4
Today we have before us a bill that attempts to protect innocent human life from legislators wishing to exploit it. Though well intentioned, Congress does not have authority under the Constitution to create a federal law banning cloning and the accompanying destruction of human life. The separation and enumeration of powers reserves to the states and local governments the power to write and enforce laws that protect life. If this bill instead were introduced as a constitutional amendment banning the destruction and discarding of human embryos, it would both accomplish its purpose and, equally important, hold to the letter of the law.

Constitution
Stem Cell research
27 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 26:17
Second, the President should issue no Executive Order because under the Constitution he does not have the authority either to promote or stop any particular research nor does the Congress. And third, there should be no sacrifice of life. Local law officials are responsible for protecting life or should not participate in its destruction. We should continue the ethical debate and hope that the medical leaders would voluntarily do the self-policing that is required in a moral society. Local laws, under the Constitution, could be written and the reasonable ones could then set the standard for the rest of the nation.

Constitution
The Financial Services Committee’s Terrible Blueprint for 2004
February 28, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 27:1
Supporters of limited, constitutional government and free markets will find little, if anything, to view favorably in the Financial Services Committee’s “Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2004.” Almost every policy endorsed in this document is unconstitutional and a threat to the liberty and prosperity of the American people.

Constitution
The Financial Services Committee’s Terrible Blueprint for 2004
February 28, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 27:2
For example, this document gives an unqualified endorsement to increased taxpayer support for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN). According to the committee, these increased funds are justified by FINCEN’s new authority under the PATRIOT Act. However, Mr. Chairman, FINCEN’s power to snoop into the private financial affairs of American citizens raises serious constitutional issues. Whether the expansion of FINCEN’s power threatens civil liberties is ignored in this document; instead, the committee is concerned that the federal financial police state does not have enough power and taxpayer money to invade the privacy of United States citizens!

Constitution
The Financial Services Committee’s Terrible Blueprint for 2004
February 28, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 27:3
The committee shows complete disregard for the American taxpayer and the United Sates Constitution by embracing increases in foreign aid. Congress has neither constitutional nor moral authority to take money from the American people and send it overseas. Furthermore, foreign aid rarely improves the standard of living of the citizens of the “beneficiary” countries. Instead, the aid all too often enriches corrupt politicians and helps stave off pressure for real reform. Furthermore, certain proposals embraced by the committee smack of economic imperialism, suggesting that if a country’s economic and other policies please American politicians and bureaucrats, they will be rewarded with money stolen from American taxpayers.

Constitution
The Financial Services Committee’s Terrible Blueprint for 2004
February 28, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 27:5
Finally, the committee’s views support expanding the domestic welfare state, particularly in the area of housing. This despite the fact that federal housing subsidies distort the housing market by taking capital that could be better used elsewhere, and applying it to housing at the direction of politicians and bureaucrats. Housing subsidies also violate the constitutional prohibitions against redistributionism. The federal government has no constitutional authority to abuse its taxing power to fund programs that reshape the housing market to the liking of politicians and bureaucrats.

Constitution
The Financial Services Committee’s Terrible Blueprint for 2004
February 28, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 27:6
Rather than embracing an agenda of expanded statism, I hope my colleagues will work to reduce government interference in the market that only benefits the politically powerful. For example, the committee could take a major step toward ending corporate welfare by holding hearings and a mark-up on my legislation to withdraw the United States from the Bretton Woods Agreement and end taxpayer support for the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The Financial Services Committee can also take a step toward restoring Congress’ constitutional role in monetary policy by passing legislation requiring congressional approval before the federal government buys or sells gold.

Constitution
The Myth of War Prosperity
March 4, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 28:10
War should always be fought as the very, very last resort. It should never be done casually, but only when absolutely necessary. And when it is, I believe it should be fought to be won. It should be declared. It should not be fought under U.N. resolutions or for U.N. resolutions, but for the sovereignty and the safety and the security of this country. It is explicit in our Constitution that necessary wars be declared by the Congress. And that is something that concerns me a great deal because we have not declared war outright since 1945, and if you look carefully, we have not won very many since then.

Constitution
American Servicemember And Civilian Protection Act Of 2003
6 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 30:6
The International Criminal Court was established contrary to the American Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. It puts United States citizens in jeopardy of unlawful and unconstitutional criminal prosecution.

Constitution
American Servicemember And Civilian Protection Act Of 2003
6 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 30:7
The International Criminal Court does not provide many of the Constitutional protections guaranteed every American citizen, including the right to trial by jury, the right to face your accuser, and the presumption of innocence, and the protection against double jeopardy.

Constitution
American Servicemember And Civilian Protection Act Of 2003
6 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 30:8
Members of the United States Armed Forces are particularly at risk for politically motivated arrests, prosecutions, fines, and imprisonment for acts engaged in for the protection of the United States. These are the same brave men and women who place their lives on the line to protect and defend our Constitution. Do they not deserve the full protections of that same Constitution?

Constitution
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 31:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce the American Sovereignty Restoration Act. I submitted this bill, which would end United States membership in the United Nations, in the 107th Congress and the 106th Congress and since then conditions have made its relevance and importance more evident now than ever. The United Nations assault on the sovereignty of the United States proceeds apace; it shows no signs of slowing. Mr. Speaker, since I last introduced this measure, the United Nations has convened its International Criminal Court, which claims jurisdiction even over citizens of countries that have not elected to join the court. This means that Americans — both civilians and members of our armed services — are subject to a court that even its supporters admit does not offer all the protections guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

Constitution
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 31:8
It is commonly assumed that the Charter of the United Nations is a treaty. It is not. Instead, the Charter of the United Nations is a constitution. As such, it is illegitimate, having created a supranational government, deriving its powers not from the consent of the governed (the people of the United States of America and peoples of other member nations) but from the consent of the peoples’ government officials who have no authority to bind either the American people nor any other nation’s people to any terms of the Charter of the United Nations.

Constitution
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 31:9
By definition, a treaty is a contract between or among independent and sovereign nations, obligatory on the signatories only when by competent governing authorities in accordance with the powers constitutionally conferred upon them. I Kent, Commentaries on American Law 163 (1826); Burdick, The Law of the American Constitution section 34 (1922) Even the United Nations Treaty Collection states that a treaty is (1) a binding instrument creating legal rights and duties (2) concluded by states or international organizations with treaty-making powers (3) governed by international law.

Constitution
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 31:10
By contrast, a charter is a constitution creating a civil government for a unified nation or nations and establishing the authority of that government. Although the United Nations Treaty Collection defines a ‘charter’ as a ‘constituent treaty,’ leading international political authorities state that ‘[t]he use of the word ‘Charter’ [in reference to the founding document of the United Nations] . . . emphasizes the constitutional nature of this instrument.’ Thus, the preamble to the Charter of the United Nations declares ‘that the Peoples of the United Nations have resolved to combine their efforts to accomplish certain aims by certain means.’ The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary 46 (B. Simma, ed.) (Oxford Univ. Press, NY: 1995) (Hereinafter U.N. Charter Commentary). Consistent with this view, leading international legal authorities declare that the law of the Charter of the United Nations which governs the authority of the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council is ‘similar . . . to national constitutional law,’ proclaiming that ‘because of its status as a constitution for the world community,’ the Charter of the United Nations must be construed broadly, making way for ‘implied powers’ to carry out the United Nations’ ‘comprehensive scope of duties, especially the maintenance of international peace and security and its orientation towards international public welfare.’ Id. at 27.

Constitution
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 31:11
The United Nations Treaty Collection confirms the appropriateness of this ‘constitutional interpretive’ approach to the Charter of the United Nations with its statement that the charter may be traced ‘back to the Magna Carta (the Great Charter) of 1215,’ a national constitutional document. As a constitutional document, the Magna Carta not only bound the original signatories,, the English barons and the king, but all subsequent English rulers, including Parliament, conferring upon all Englishmen certain rights that five hundred years later were claimed and exercised by the English people who had colonized America.

Constitution
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 31:14
In like manner, the Charter of the United Nations is considered to be a permanent ‘constitution for the universal society,’ and consequently, to be construed in accordance with its broad and unchanging ends but in such a way as to meet changing times and changing relations among the nations and peoples of the world. U.N. Charter Commentary at 28–44.

Constitution
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 31:15
According to the American political and legal tradition and the universal principles of constitution making, a perpetual civil covenant or constitution, obligatory on the people and their rulers throughout the generations, must, first, be proposed in the name of the people and, thereafter, ratified by the people’s representatives elected and assembled for the sole purpose of passing on the terms of a proposed covenant. See 4 The Founders’ Constitution 647–58 (P. Kurland and R. Lerner, eds.) (Univ. Chicago. Press: 1985). Thus, the preamble of the Constitution of the United States of America begins with ’We the People of the United States’ and Article VII provides for ratification by state conventions composed of representatives of the people elected solely for that purpose. Sources of Our Liberties 408, 416, 418–21 (R. Perry, ed.) (ABA Foundation, Chicago: 1978).

Constitution
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 31:16
Taking advantage of the universal appeal of the American constitutional tradition, the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations opens with ‘We the peoples of the United Nations.’ But, unlike the Constitution of the United States of America, the Charter of the United Nations does not call for ratification by conventions of the elected representatives of the people of the signatory nations. Rather, Article 110 of the Charter of the United Nations provides for ratification ‘by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.’ Such a ratification process would have been politically and legally appropriate if the charter were a mere treaty. But the Charter of the United Nations is not a treaty; it is a constitution.

Constitution
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 31:17
First of all, Charter of the United Nations, executed as an agreement in the name of the people, legally and politically displaced previously binding agreements upon the signatory nations. Article 103 provides that ‘[i]n the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.’ Because the 1787 Constitution of the United States of America would displace the previously adopted Articles of Confederation under which the United States was being governed, the drafters recognized that only if the elected representatives of the people at a constitutional convention ratified the proposed constitution, could it be lawfully adopted as a constitution. Otherwise, the Constitution of the United States of America would be, legally and politically, a treaty which could be altered by any state’s legislature as it saw fit. The Founders’ Constitution, supra, at 648–52.

Constitution
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 31:18
Second, an agreement made in the name of the people creates a perpetual union, subject to dissolution only upon proof of breach of covenant by the governing authorities whereupon the people are entitled to reconstitute a new government on such terms and for such duration as the people see fit. By contrast, an agreement made in the name of nations creates only a contractual obligation, subject to change when any signatory nation decides that the obligation is no longer advantageous or suitable. Thus, a treaty may be altered by valid statute enacted by a signatory nation, but a constitution may be altered only by a special amendatory process provided for in that document. Id. at 652.

Constitution
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 31:19
Article V of the Constitution of the United States of America spells out that amendment process, providing two methods for adopting constitutional changes, neither of which requires unanimous consent of the states of the Union. Had the Constitution of the United States of America been a treaty, such unanimous consent would have been required. Similarly, the Charter of the United Nations may be amended without the unanimous consent of its member states. According to Article 108 of the Charter of the United Nations, amendments may be proposed by a vote of two-thirds of the United Nations General Assembly and may become effective upon ratification by a vote of two– thirds of the members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. According to Article 109 of the Charter of the United Nations, a special conference of members of the United Nations may be called ‘for the purpose of reviewing the present Charter’ and any changes proposed by the conference may ‘take effect when ratified by two–thirds of the Members of the United Nations including all the permanent members of the Security Council.’ Once an amendment to the Charter of the United Nations is adopted then that amendment ‘shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations,’ even those nations who did not ratify the amendment, just as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is effective in all of the states, even though the legislature of a state or a convention of a state refused to ratify. Such an amendment process is totally foreign to a treaty. See Id., at 575–84.

Constitution
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 31:20
Third, the authority to enter into an agreement made in the name of the people cannot be politically or legally limited by any preexisting constitution, treaty, alliance, or instructions. An agreement made in the name of a nation, however, may not contradict the authority granted to the governing powers and, thus, is so limited. For example, the people ratified the Constitution of the United States of America notwithstanding the fact that the constitutional proposal had been made in disregard to specific instructions to amend the Articles of Confederation, not to displace them. See Sources of Our Liberties 399–403 (R. Perry ed.) (American Bar Foundation: 1972). As George Mason observed at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, ‘Legislatures have no power to ratify’ a plan changing the form of government, only ‘the people’ have such power. 4 The Founders’ Constitution, supra, at 651.

Constitution
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 31:21
As a direct consequence of this original power of the people to constitute a new government, the Congress under the new constitution was authorized to admit new states to join the original 13 states without submitting the admission of each state to the 13 original states. In like manner, the Charter of the United Nations, forged in the name of the ‘peoples’ of those nations, established a new international government with independent powers to admit to membership whichever nations the United Nations governing authorities chose without submitting such admissions to each individual member nation for ratification. See Charter of the United Nations, Article 4, Section 2. No treaty could legitimately confer upon the United Nations General Assembly such powers and remain within the legal and political definition of a treaty.

Constitution
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 31:22
By invoking the name of the ‘peoples of the United Nations,’ then, the Charter of the United Nations envisioned a new constitution creating a new civil order capable of not only imposing obligations upon the subscribing nations, but also imposing obligations directly upon the peoples of those nations. In his special contribution to the United Nations Human Development Report 2000, United Nations Secretary-General Annan made this claim crystal clear:

Constitution
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 31:24
While no previous United Nations’ secretary general has been so bold, Annan’s proclamation of universal jurisdiction over ‘human rights and fundamental freedoms’ simply reflects the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations which contemplated a future in which the United Nations operates in perpetuity ‘to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war . . . to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights . . . to establish conditions under which justice . . . can be maintained, and to promote social progress and between standards of life in larger freedom.’ Such lofty goals and objectives are comparable to those found in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America: ‘to . . . establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the Blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity . . .’

Constitution
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 31:25
There is, however, one difference that must not be overlooked. The Constitution of the United States of America is a legitimate constitution, having been submitted directly to the people for ratification by their representatives elected and assembled solely for the purpose of passing on the terms of that document. The Charter of the United Nations, on the other hand, is an illegitimate constitution, having only been submitted to the Untied States Senate for ratification as a treaty. Thus, the Charter of the United Nations, not being a treaty, cannot be made the supreme law of our land by compliance with Article II, Section 2 of Constitution of the United States of America. Therefore, the Charter of the United Nations is neither politically nor legally binding upon the United States of America or upon its people.

Constitution
Quality Health Care Coalition Act
12 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 32:5
Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to interfere with the private contracts of American citizens. Furthermore, the prohibitions on contracting contained in the Sherman antitrust laws are based on a flawed economic theory which holds that federal regulators can improve upon market outcomes by restricting the rights of certain market participants deemed too powerful by the government. In fact, anti-trust laws harm consumers by preventing the operation of the free-market, causing prices to rise, quality to suffer, and, as is certainly the case with the relationship between the HMOs and medical professionals, favoring certain industries over others.

Constitution
Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act (H.R. 1249)
13 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 34:2
However this bill raises several questions of constitutionality, as well as whether it treats those victimized by large corporations and medical devices fairly. In addition, it places de facto price controls on the amounts injured parties can receive in a lawsuit and rewrites every contingency fee contract in the country. Yet, among all the new assumptions of federal power, this bill does nothing to address the power of insurance companies over the medical profession. Thus, even if the reforms of H.R. 5 become law, there will be nothing to stop the insurance companies from continuing to charge exorbitant rates.

Constitution
Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act (H.R. 1249)
13 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 34:4
H.R. 5 does contain some positive elements. For example, the language limiting joint and several liabilities to the percentage of damage someone actually caused, is a reform I have long championed. However, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5 exceeds Congress’ constitutional authority by preempting state law. Congressional dissatisfaction with the malpractice laws in some states provides no justification for Congress to impose uniform standards on all 50 states. The 10th amendment does not authorize federal action in areas otherwise reserved to the states simply because some members of Congress are unhappy with the way the states have handled the problem. Ironically, H.R. 5 actually increases the risk of frivolous litigation in some states by lengthening the statue of limitations and changing the definition of comparative negligence!

Constitution
Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act (H.R. 1249)
13 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 34:8
I have introduced the Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act (H.R. 1249). H.R. 1249 provides tax incentives to individuals who agree to purchase malpractice insurance, which will automatically provide coverage for any injuries sustained in treatment. This will insure that those harmed by spiraling medical errors receive timely and full compensation. My plan spares both patients and doctors the costs of a lengthy, drawn-out trial and respects Congress’ constitutional limitations.

Constitution
Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act (H.R. 1249)
13 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 34:10
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I support the efforts of the sponsors of H.R. 5 to address the crisis in health care caused by excessive malpractice litigation and insurance premiums, I cannot support this bill. H.R. 5 exceeds Congress’ constitutional limitations and denies full compensation to those harmed by the unintentional effects of federal vaccine mandates. Instead of furthering unconstitutional authority, my colleagues should focus on addressing the root causes of the malpractice crisis by supporting efforts to restore the primacy of contract to the doctor-patient relationships.

Constitution
Amber Alert Concerns
19 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 36:3
However, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that making the AMBER Alert system a Federal program is neither constitutionally sound nor effective law enforcement. All Americans should be impressed at the demonstrated effectiveness of the AMBER system in locating missing and kidnapped children. However, I would ask my colleagues to consider that one of the factors that makes the current AMBER system so effective is that the AMBER Alert system is not a Federal program. Instead, states and local governments developed AMBER Alerts on their own, thus ensuring that each AMBER system meets the unique needs of individual jurisdictions. Once the AMBER Alert system becomes a one-size-fits all Federal program (with standards determined by DC-based bureaucrats instead of communitybased law enforcement officials) local officials will not be able to tailor the AMBER Alert to fit their unique circumstances. Thus, nationalizing the AMBER system will cause this important program to lose some of its effectiveness.

Constitution
Amber Alert Concerns
19 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 36:4
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1104 also exceeds Congress’ constitutional authority by criminalizing travel with the intent of committing a crime. As appalling as it is that some would travel abroad to engage in activities that are rightly illegal in the United States, legislation of this sort poses many problems and offers few solutions. First among these problems is the matter of national sovereignty. Those who travel abroad and break the law in their host country should be subject to prosecution in that country: it is the responsibility of the host country — not the U.S. Congress — to uphold its own laws. It is a highly unique proposal to suggest that committing a crime in a foreign country against a non-US citizen is within the jurisdiction of the United States Government.

Constitution
Reconsider The Direction Of Our Foreign Policy
20 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 37:2
The time for debate over the wisdom of going to war has passed. Although I was unsuccessful in arguing that such a war be undertaken only after the passage of a constitutionally- enacted Declaration of War, it is time now for us to line up behind our troops. As a Vietnam era veteran of the U.S. Air Force I understand how important it is to troop morale that each and every fighting person know all Americans stand behind them.

Constitution
American Citizenship Amendment
20 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 38:2
Mr. Speaker, this is unacceptable and is far from what our Founders intended when they drafted the Constitution. It undermines the very concept of citizenship as enshrined in the United States Constitution: to be constitutionally entitled to U.S. citizenship one must be “born . . . in the United States” and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” This second, and most important, part means that in order to gain U.S. citizenship one must owe and actively express allegiance to the United States in addition to the act of being born on United States soil.

Constitution
American Citizenship Amendment
20 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 38:4
This proposed Constitutional amendment restores the concept of American citizenship to that of our Founders. This legislation simply states that no child born in the United States whose mother and father do not possess citizenship or owe permanent allegiance to the United States shall be a citizen of the United States. It is essential to the future of our constitutional republic that citizenship be something of value, something to be cherished. It cannot be viewed as merely an express train into the welfare state.

Constitution
No Federal Funding for Abortion!
April 2, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 42:3
Finally, my Life-Protecting Judicial Limitation Act of 2003 provides that the inferior courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases. Congress must use the authority granted to it in Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution. The district courts of the United States, as well as the United States Court of Federal Claims, should not have the authority to hear these types of cases.

Constitution
No Federal Funding for Abortion!
April 2, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 42:4
Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that my colleagues will join me in support of these three bills. By following the Constitution and using the power granted to the Congress by this document, we can restore freedom of conscience and the sanctity of human life.

Constitution
The First Amendment Protects Religious Speech
April 2, 2003 Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation restoring First amendment protections of religion and religious speech. For fifty years, the personal religious freedom of this nation’s citizens has been infringed upon by courts that misread and distort the First amendment. The framers of the Constitution never in their worst nightmares imagined that the words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.......” would be used to ban children from praying in school, prohibit courthouses from displaying the Ten Commandments, or prevent citizens from praying before football games. The original meaning of the First amendment was clear on these two points: The federal government cannot enact laws establishing one religious denomination over another, and the federal government cannot forbid mention of religion, including the Ten Commandments and references to God.    2003 Ron Paul 43:2
The Court completely disregards the original meaning and intent of the First amendment. It has interpreted the establishment clause to preclude prayer and other religious speech in a public place, thereby violating the free exercise clause of the very same First amendment. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Congress to correct this error, and to perform its duty to support and defend the Constitution. My legislation would restore First amendment protections of religion and speech by removing all religious freedom-related cases from federal district court jurisdiction, as well as from federal claims court jurisdiction. The federal government has no constitutional authority to reach its hands in the religious affairs of its citizens or of the several states.

Constitution
War No Excuse For Frivolous Spending
3 April 2003    2003 Ron Paul 46:2
For example, this bill provides a hidden subsidy to vaccine manufacturers by transferring liability for injuries caused by the smallpox vaccine from the companies to the United States Taxpayer. It also provides $3.2 billion dollars for yet another government bailout of the airline industry, as well as a hidden subsidy to the airlines in the form of $235 million of taxpayer money to pay for costs associated with enhanced baggage screening. Mr. Speaker, there is no more constitutional reason for the taxpayer to protect what is, after all, the airlines’ private property, than there is for the taxpayer to subsidize security costs at shopping malls or factories. Furthermore, the airlines could do a more efficient and effective job at providing security if they were freed from government rules and regulations. I remind my colleagues that it was government bureaucrats who disarmed airline pilots, thus leaving the pilots of the planes used in the September 11 attacks defenseless against the terrorists. I would also remind my colleagues that anti-gun fanatics in the federal bureaucracy continue to prevent pilots from carrying firearms.

Constitution
Second Amendment Restoration Act
9 April 2003    2003 Ron Paul 47:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a firm believer in the second amendment to the United States Constitution and an opponent of all federal gun laws. In fact, I have introduced legislation, the Second Amendment Restoration Act (H.R. 153), which repeals the misguided federal gun control laws such as the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban. I believe that the second amendment is one of the foundations of our constitutional liberties. However, Mr. Speaker, another foundation of those liberties is the oath all of us took to respect the Constitutional limits on federal power. While I understand and sympathize with the goals of the proponents of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (H.R. 1036), this bill exceeds those constitutional limitations, and so I must oppose this bill.

Constitution
Second Amendment Restoration Act
9 April 2003    2003 Ron Paul 47:7
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would remind my fellow supporters of gun rights that using unconstitutional federal powers to restrict state gun lawsuits makes it more likely those same powers will be used to restrict our gun rights. Despite these lawsuits, the number one threat to gun ownership remains a federal government freed of its constitutional restraints. Expanding that government in any way, no matter how just the cause may seem, is not in the interests of gun owners or any lovers of liberty.

Constitution
Second Amendment Restoration Act
9 April 2003    2003 Ron Paul 47:8
In conclusion, while I share the concern over the lawsuits against gun manufacturers, which inspired H.R. 1036, this bill continues the disturbing trend toward federalization of tort law. Enhancing the power of the federal government is not in the long-term interests of defenders of the second amendment and other constitutional liberties. Therefore, I must oppose this bill.

Constitution
Repeal the So-Called “Medical Privacy Rule”
April 9, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 49:4
The so-called medical privacy regulations and uniform health identifier scheme not only reduce an individual’s ability to determine who has access to his personal medical information, but actually threaten medical privacy and constitutionally-protected liberties. For example, these regulations allow law enforcement and other government officials access to a citizen’s private medical records without having to obtain a search warrant.

Constitution
Repeal the So-Called “Medical Privacy Rule”
April 9, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 49:5
Allowing government officials to access a private person’s medical records without a warrant is a violation of the Fourth amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects American citizens from warrantless searches by government officials. The requirement that law enforcement officials obtain a warrant from a judge before searching private documents is one of the fundamental protections against abuse of the government’s power to seize an individual’s private documents. While the Fourth Amendment has been interpreted to allow warrantless searches in emergency situations, it is hard to conceive of a situation where law enforcement officials would be unable to obtain a warrant before electronic medical records would be destroyed.

Constitution
Repeal the So-Called “Medical Privacy Rule”
April 9, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 49:10
In a free society such as the one envisioned by those who drafted the Constitution, the federal government should never force a citizen to divulge personal information to advance “important social goals.” Rather, it should be up to individuals, not the government, to determine what social goals are important enough to warrant allowing others access to their personal property, including their personal information. To the extent these regulations sacrifice individual rights in the name of a bureaucratically determined common good, they are incompatible with a free society and a constitutional government.

Constitution
America National Sovereignty vs. UN “International Law” – Time for Congress to Vote
April 29, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 51:4
If we do not, rest assured that the UN will continue to interfere not only in our nation’s foreign policy matters, but in our domestic policies as well. UN globalists are not satisfied by meddling only in international disputes. They increasingly want to influence our domestic environmental, trade, labor, tax, and gun laws. UN global planners fully intend to expand the organization into a true world government, complete with taxes, courts, and possibly a standing army. This is not an alarmist statement; these goals are readily promoted on the UN’s own website. UN planners do not care about national sovereignty; in fact they are openly opposed to it. They correctly view it as an obstacle to their plans. They simply aren’t interested in our Constitution and republican form of government.

Constitution
America National Sovereignty vs. UN “International Law” – Time for Congress to Vote
April 29, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 51:5
The choice is very clear: we either follow the Constitution or submit to UN global governance. American national sovereignty cannot survive if we allow our domestic laws to be crafted or even influenced by an international body. This needs to be stated publicly more often. If we continue down the UN path, America as we know it will cease to exist.

Constitution
America National Sovereignty vs. UN “International Law” – Time for Congress to Vote
April 29, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 51:6
Noted constitutional scholar Herb Titus has thoroughly researched the United Nations and its purported “authority.” Titus explains that the UN Charter is not a treaty at all, but rather a blueprint for supranational government that directly violates the Constitution. As such, the Charter is neither politically nor legally binding upon the American people or government. The UN has no authority to make “laws” that bind American citizens, because it does not derive its powers from the consent of the American people. We need to stop speaking of UN resolutions and edicts as if they represented legitimate laws or treaties. They do not.

Constitution
Improving Educational Results For Children With Disabilities Act
30 April 2003    2003 Ron Paul 52:12
Mr. Chairman, it is time to stop sacrificing children on the altar of ideology. Every child is unique and special. Given the colossal failure of Washington’s existing interference, it is clear that all children will be better off when we get Washington out of their classroom and out of their parents’ pocketbooks. I therefore urge my colleagues to cast a vote for constitutionally limited government and genuine compassion by opposing H.R. 1350 and supporting the HOPE for Children Act.

Constitution
Against $15 Billion To Fight AIDS In Africa
1 May 2003    2003 Ron Paul 53:4
But the point I wanted to bring up is the authority for doing programs like this. We have a rule in the House that we have to cite the constitutional authority, for the legislation we’re dealing with. The committee report cites the authority from a very important section of the Constitution, article I, section 8, because literally we, the Congress, get our marching orders from article I, section 8, which is the section of the Constitution relating to making all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution.

Constitution
Against $15 Billion To Fight AIDS In Africa
1 May 2003    2003 Ron Paul 53:5
Well, that is where the shortcoming comes because if we read the Constitution, at the end of article I, section 8, it says, “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.” Therefore, the “necessary and proper” clause is explicitly designed to give the authority to write the laws for the foregoing powers. Believe me, we will not find any authority in article I, section 8 for dealing with medical care problems in Africa.

Constitution
Against $15 Billion To Fight AIDS In Africa
1 May 2003    2003 Ron Paul 53:6
I find it interesting here because quite often one side of the aisle when they do not like legislation will use my argument in this case, and other times it is the other side of the aisle. So everybody makes my argument one time or the other. My suggestion is if the Constitution means anything, and if article I, section 8 means anything, it ought to be applied across the board or we ought to change the Constitution and say this is a mandate from the American people that we should pursue missionary work in Africa.

Constitution
Against $15 Billion To Fight AIDS In Africa
1 May 2003    2003 Ron Paul 53:7
But most likely nobody is going to propose a change in the Constitution, the Constitution will not be changed, so the Congress chooses to ignore the Constitution when it feel like it; therefore, we have reduced the Constitution to something that has very little value anymore.

Constitution
Voter Protection Act
1 May 2003    2003 Ron Paul 55:2
I want to make 4 points about this bill. First, it is constitutional. Article I, section 4, explicitly authorizes the U.S. Congress to, “At any time by law make or alter such regulations regarding the manner of holding elections.” This is the authority that was used for the Voter Rights Act of 1965.

Constitution
Voter Protection Act
1 May 2003    2003 Ron Paul 55:6
The Voter Protection Act is a constitutional way to reform campaign laws to increase voter participation by making the election process fairer and open to new candidates and ideas. I hope all my colleagues will join me in supporting this true campaign reform bill.

Constitution
The Wisdom Of Tax Cuts
6 May 2003    2003 Ron Paul 56:6
Remember, the real issue is total spending by government. Yet this issue is ignored or politicized by both sides of the aisle here in Congress. The political discussion about whether to cut taxes has avoided the real issue and instead has degenerated into charges of class and party warfare, with both sides lusting for power. Of course, the great issue for the ages, namely, what is the proper role for government in a constitutional republic, is totally ignored. Yet another question remains: Are the American people determined they still wish to have a constitutional Republic?

Constitution
The Flag Burning Amendment
June 3, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 57:1
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, although unenthusiastically. I am not too excited about this process, and certainly I am not very excited about this proposal to amend the Constitution. As for my viewpoint, I see the amendment as very unnecessary and very dangerous. I want to make a few points along those lines.

Constitution
The Flag Burning Amendment
June 3, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 57:4
First off, I think what we are trying to achieve through an amendment to the Constitution is to impose values on people- that is, teach people patriotism with our definition of what patriotism is. But we cannot force values on people; we cannot say there will be a law that a person will do such and such because it is disrespectful if they do not, and therefore, we are going to make sure that people have these values that we want to teach. Values in a free society are accepted voluntarily, not through coercion, and certainly not by law, because the law implies that there are guns, and that means the federal government and others will have to enforce these laws.

Constitution
The Flag Burning Amendment
June 3, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 57:5
Here we are, amending the Constitution for a noncrisis. How many cases of flag burning have we seen? I have seen it on television a few times in the last year, but it was done on foreign soil, by foreigners, who had become angry at us over our policies, but I do not see that many Americans in the streets burning up flags. There were probably a lot more in previous decades, but in recent years it averages out to about eight, about eight cases a year, and they are not all that horrendous. It involves more vandalism, teenagers taking flags and desecrating the flag and maybe burning it, and there are local laws against that.

Constitution
The Flag Burning Amendment
June 3, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 57:7
As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court has helped to create this. I know a lot of people depend on the Supreme Court to protect us, but in many ways, I think the Supreme Court has hurt us. So I agree with those who are promoting this amendment that the Supreme Court overreacted, because I think the States should have many more prerogatives than they do. Many states have these laws, and I believe that we should have a Supreme Court that would allow more solutions to occur at the state level. They would be imperfect, no doubt, it would not be perfect protection of liberty by state laws. But let me tell my colleagues, when we come here as politicians and superpatriots and we pass amendments to the Constitution, that will be less than perfect, then it will be just like the Supreme Court- a poor national solution.

Constitution
The Flag Burning Amendment
June 3, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 57:14
He suggested that we have amended the Constitution before when the courts have ruled a certain way. And he is absolutely right, we can do that and we have done that. But to use the 16th amendment as a beautiful example of how the Congress solves problems, I would expect the same kind of dilemma coming out of this amendment as we have out of the 16th amendment which, by the way, has been questioned by some historians as not being correctly ratified.

Constitution
The Flag Burning Amendment
June 3, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 57:19
Mr. Speaker, let me summarize why I oppose this Constitutional amendment. I have myself served 5 years in the military, and I have great respect for the symbol of our freedom. I salute the flag, and I pledge to the flag. I also support overriding the Supreme Court case that overturned State laws prohibiting flag burning. Under the Constitutional principle of federalism, questions such as whether or not Texas should prohibit flag burning are strictly up to the people of Texas, not the United States Supreme Court. Thus, if this amendment simply restored the state’s authority to ban flag burning, I would enthusiastically support it.

Constitution
The Flag Burning Amendment
June 3, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 57:20
However, I cannot support an amendment to give Congress new power to prohibit flag burning. I served my country to protect our freedoms and to protect our Constitution. I believe very sincerely that today we are undermining to some degree that freedom that we have had all these many years.

Constitution
The Flag Burning Amendment
June 3, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 57:26
“Our Nation was not founded on devotion to symbolic idols, but on principles, beliefs and ideals expressed in the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. American veterans who have protected our banner in battle have not done so to protect a golden calf. Instead, they carried the banner forward with reverence for what it represents, our beliefs and freedom for all. Therein lies the beauty of our flag. A patriot cannot be created by legislation.”

Constitution
The Flag Burning Amendment
June 3, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 57:27
Secretary of State, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and two-time winner of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Colin Powell has also expressed opposition to amending the constitution in this manner:

Constitution
The Flag Burning Amendment
June 3, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 57:34
We must be interested in the spirit of our Constitution. We must be interested in the principles of liberty. I therefore urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Instead, my colleagues should work to restore the rights of the individual states to ban flag burning, free from unconstitutional interference by the Supreme Court.

Constitution
The Partial Birth Abortion Ban
June 4, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 58:2
Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or contempt determines the outcome of that civilization. Reaffirming the importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the continuation of a civilized society. There is already strong evidence that we are indeed on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and human experimentation. Although the real problem lies within the hearts and minds of the people, the legal problems of protecting life stem from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, a ruling that constitutionally should never have occurred.

Constitution
The Partial Birth Abortion Ban
June 4, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 58:4
Unfortunately, H.R. 760 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well. Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that the language used in this bill does not further the pro-life cause, but rather cements fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system.

Constitution
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.

Constitution
Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle.
June 4, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 59:2
I have become increasingly concerned over the years that the pro-life movement I so strongly support is getting further off track, both politically and morally. I sponsored the original pro-life amendment, which used a constitutional approach to solve the crisis of federalization of abortion law by the courts. The pro-life movement was with me and had my full support and admiration.

Constitution
Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle.
June 4, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 59:4
When we surrender constitutional principles, we do untold damage to the moral underpinnings on which our Constitution and entire system of government rest. Those underpinnings are the inalienable right to life, liberty, and property. Commenting upon the link between our most important rights, Thomas Jefferson said “The God which gave us life gave us at the same time liberty. The hands of force may destroy but can never divide these.”

Constitution
Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle.
June 4, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 59:5
M. Stanton Evans further explained the link between our form of government and the rights it protects when he wrote, “The genius of the Constitution is its division of powers-summed up in that clause reserving to the several states, or the people, all powers not expressly granted to the federal government.”

Constitution
Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle.
June 4, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 59:6
Pro-lifers should be fiercely loyal to this system of federalism, because the very same Constitution that created the federal system also asserts the inalienable right to life. In this way, our constitutional system closely links federalism to the fundamental moral rights to life, liberty, and property. For our Founders it was no exaggeration to say federalism is the means by which life, as well as liberty and property, are protected in this nation. This is why the recent direction of the pro-life cause is so disturbing.

Constitution
Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle.
June 4, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 59:7
Pro-life forces have worked for the passage of bills that disregard the federal system, such as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the federal cloning ban, and the Child Custody Protection Act. Each of these bills rested on specious constitutional grounds and undermined the federalism our Founders recognized and intended as the greatest protection of our most precious rights.

Constitution
Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle.
June 4, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 59:8
Each of these bills transfers to the federal government powers constitutionally retained by the states, thus upsetting the separation and balance of powers that federalism was designed to guarantee. To undermine federalism is to indirectly surrender the very principle upon which the protection of our inalienable right to life depends.

Constitution
Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle.
June 4, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 59:10
Even the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, which is an integral part of the current pro-life agenda, presents a dilemma. While I have always supported this Act and plan to do so in the future, I realize that it raises questions of federalism because authority over criminal law is constitutionally retained by the states. The only reason a federal law has any legitimacy in this area is that the Supreme Court took it upon itself to federalize abortion via Roe v. Wade. Accordingly, wrestling the abortion issue from the federal courts and putting it back in the hands of the elected legislature comports with the Founder’s view of the separation of powers that protects our rights to life, liberty, and property.

Constitution
Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle.
June 4, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 59:11
Given these dilemmas, what should those of us in the pro-life community do? First, we must return to constitutional principles and proclaim them proudly. We must take a principled approach that recognizes both moral and political principles, and accepts the close relationship between them. Legislatively, we should focus our efforts on building support to overturn Roe v. Wade. Ideally this would be done in a fashion that allows states to again ban or regulate abortion. State legislatures have always had proper jurisdiction over issues like abortion and cloning; the pro-life movement should recognize that jurisdiction and not encroach upon it. The alternative is an outright federal ban on abortion, done properly via a constitutional amendment that does no violence to our way of government.

Constitution
Let’s Keep All Representatives Elected
June 4, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 60:2
The report of this so-called “Commission” makes clear that while the Senate has, from time to time, voted to pass constitutional amendments allowing for the appointment of House members, this body has always jealously guarded its status as “the people’s House” by failing to pass such amendments. A brief history review may be in order at this point. First, our Nation has been under attack from foreign powers in the past, such as in its nascent years when the British were constantly “coming” In our own century, we faced an attack on Pearl Harbor as well as the very real threat of nuclear annihilation. Now, because we have learned that our Capitol was a potential target in a terror plot, there is an outcry from some corners regarding our vulnerability. Our government leaders are no more vulnerable today to mass extinction than they were 20 years ago. Our top-flight military makes us, in many ways, less vulnerable to attack and the assassination of our leaders than we were 200 years ago.

Constitution
Let’s Keep All Representatives Elected
June 4, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 60:3
Even if we were to sustain such a devastating attack, the nightmare scenario painted in the first report of the “commission” is not only far-fetched, but also admits of a plethora of potential solutions already existent in our current constitutional structure. Though the report endeavors to cast doubt on the legitimacy of those structures, it is unsuccessful. Moreover, what could be more offensive to our republican form of government and of more questionable legitimacy, than to have a slew of un-elected “representatives” outvote elected people on the floor of our U.S. House?

Constitution
Continuity Of Government — Part 1
5 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 62:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express a few concerns that I have regarding both the commission and the trend toward a constitutional amendment that might solve some of the problems that people anticipate.

Constitution
Continuity Of Government — Part 1
5 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 62:2
I certainly agree with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. BAIRD) that this is a very serious issue; and this is to me not just a casual appointment of a commission, but we are dealing with something that is, in a constitutional sense, rather profound because we are talking about amendments that are suggesting that our governors will appoint Members of Congress for the first time in our history. That should be done with a great deal of caution and clear understanding of what we are doing.

Constitution
Continuity Of Government — Part 1
5 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 62:4
Ordinarily, if we deal with constitutional amendments, quite frequently we will have a constitutional amendment proposed, and then we will hold hearings on that particular amendment. I think we could handle it that way.

Constitution
Continuity Of Government — Part 1
5 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 62:5
But I have another concern about the urgent need and the assumption that the world ends if we are not here for a few days. There are times when we are not here like in August and a few months we take off at Christmas. Of course, we can be recalled, but the world does not end because we’re not here. In a way this need for a constitutional amendment to appoint congressmen is assuming that life cannot go on without us writing laws.

Constitution
Continuity Of Government — Part 1
5 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 62:6
I would suggest that maybe the urgency is not quite as much as one thinks. I want to quote Michael Barone who was trying to justify a constitutional amendment that allows governors to appoint moc in a time of crisis. He said, “think of all the emergency legislation that Congress passed in the weeks and months after September 11 authorizing expanded police powers. None of this could have happened”. But now as we look back at those emergency conditions, a lot of questions are being asked about the PATRIOT Act and the attack on our fourth amendment and civil liberties. I suggest there could be a slower approach no harm will come of it. Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Constitution
Establishin Joint Committee To Review House And Senate Matters Assuring Continuing Representation And Congressional Operations For The American People
5 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 64:3
Therefore, any action that abridges the people’s constitutional authority to elect members of the House of Representatives abridges the people’s ability to control their government. Supporters of this plan claim that the appointment power will be necessary in the event of an emergency and that the appointed representatives will only be temporary. However, Mr. Speaker, the laws passed by these “temporary” representatives will be permanent.

Constitution
Establishin Joint Committee To Review House And Senate Matters Assuring Continuing Representation And Congressional Operations For The American People
5 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 64:5
I have no doubt that the people of the states are quite competent to hold elections in a timely fashion. After all, isn’t it in each state’s interest to ensure it has adequate elected representation in Washington as soon as possible? Mr. Speaker, there are those who say that the power of appointment is necessary in order to preserve checks and balances and thus prevent an abuse of executive power. Of course, I agree that it is very important to carefully guard our constitutional liberties in times of crisis, and that an over-centralization of power in the Executive Branch is one of the most serious dangers to that liberty. However, I would ask my colleagues who is more likely to guard the people’s liberties, representatives chosen by, and accountable to, the people, or representatives hand-picked by the executive of their state?

Constitution
Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act
10 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 66:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2143 limits the ability of individual citizens to use bank instruments, including credit cards or checks, to finance Internet gambling. This legislation should be rejected by Congress since the Federal Government has no constitutional authority to ban or even discourage any form of gambling.

Constitution
Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act
10 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 66:3
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2143 violates the constitutional limits on Federal power. Furthermore, laws such as H.R. 2143 are ineffective in eliminating the demand for vices such as Internet gambling; instead, they ensure that these enterprises will be controlled by organized crime. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 2143, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act.

Constitution
Results Of The Attack On Iraq: What Have We Discovered
19 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 67:20
(20) In Washington, a foreign policy of noninterventionism, as advanced by the Founders and supported by the Constitution, is not considered a reasonable option, though millions of Americans would welcome it.

Constitution
Does Tony Blair Deserve a Congressional Medal?
June 25, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 68:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation for a number of reasons. First, forcing the American people to pay tens of thousands of dollars to give a gold medal to a foreign leader is immoral and unconstitutional. I will continue in my uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution- a Constitution that each member of Congress swore to uphold.

Constitution
Does Tony Blair Deserve a Congressional Medal?
June 25, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 68:5
In May, a British television poll found that Prime Minister Blair is the most unpopular man in Great Britain. A brief look at his rule leaves little question why this is so. He has eroded Britain’s constitutional base- recently abolishing the ancient position of Lord Chancellor without any debate. He has overseen a huge expansion of government, with the creation of costly “assemblies” in Wales and Scotland. He also has overseen changes in Britain’s voting system that many believe open the door to widespread voting fraud. In short, he is no Margaret Thatcher and certainly no Winston Churchill. Yet today Congress is voting to give him its highest honor.

Constitution
Does Tony Blair Deserve a Congressional Medal?
June 25, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 68:6
Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to be generous with other people’s money. I believe the politicization of this medal, as we are seeing here today, really makes my own point on such matters: Congress should never spend tax money for appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution. When it does so, it charts a dangerous course away from the rule of law and away from liberty. I urge a “No” vote on this unfortunate bill.

Constitution
H. Con. Res. 45
25 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 69:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker: I will reluctantly vote in favor of this legislation, partly because it is simply a sense of Congress resolution. But I am concerned about this bill and the others like it we face with regularity on the floor of Congress. We all condemn violence against innocents, whether it is motivated by hatred, prejudice, greed, jealousy, or whatever else. But that is not what this legislation is really about. It is about the Congress of the United States presuming to know — and to legislate on — the affairs of European countries. First, this is the United States Congress. We have no Constitutional authority to pass legislation affecting foreign countries. Second, when we get involved in matters such as this we usually get it wrong. H. Con. Res. 45 is an example of us getting it wrong on both fronts.

Constitution
Keep Out Of Middle East Conflicts
25 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 70:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this measure. Of course we all deplore terrorism and violence that any innocents are forced to suffer. There is, sadly, plenty of this in the world today. But there is more to this resolution than just condemning the violence in the Middle East. I have a problem with most resolutions like this because they have the appearance of taking one side or the other in a conflict that has nothing to do with the United States. Our responsibility is to the American people and to the Constitution, not to adjudicate age-old conflicts half-way around the world.

Constitution
The “Continuity of Government” Proposal – A Dangerous and Unnecessary Threat to Representative Rule
June 30, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 72:1
The COGC Proposal The “Continuity of Government Commission” (COGC), spearheaded by the Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institute, recently issued proposals for the operation of Congress following a catastrophic terrorist attack. Specifically, COGC advocates a constitutional amendment calling for the appointment of individuals to the House of Representatives to fill the seats of dead or incapacitated members, a first in American history. An examination of the proposal reveals that it is both unnecessary and dangerous.

Constitution
The “Continuity of Government” Proposal – A Dangerous and Unnecessary Threat to Representative Rule
June 30, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 72:2
Note that COGC is “self-commissioned,” its members being neither elected nor appointed by any government body. The biographies of the commissioners demonstrate that COGC is made up mostly of professional lobbyists. Of course COGC is well-intentioned, but the nation should know exactly who is trying to substitute their wisdom for that of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and other framers of the Constitution. I think most Americans would prefer that proposals to amend the Constitution come from elected lawmakers or grassroots efforts, not from think tanks and lobbyists.

Constitution
The “Continuity of Government” Proposal – A Dangerous and Unnecessary Threat to Representative Rule
June 30, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 72:4
COGC is Unnecessary Every generation seems to labor under the delusion that it lives in the most dangerous and turbulent time in human history. COGC certainly proves this point. Its proposal provides doomsday scenarios designed to make us believe that the threat of modern terrorism poses a much greater risk to our government institutions than ever existed in the past. Yet is Congress really more vulnerable than it was at the height of the Cold War, when a single Soviet missile could have destroyed Washington? Surely Congress faced greater danger in 1814, when the British army actually invaded Washington, routed the city, and burned down the White House! Somehow the republic survived those much more perilous times without a constitutional amendment calling for the emergency appointment of Representatives.

Constitution
The “Continuity of Government” Proposal – A Dangerous and Unnecessary Threat to Representative Rule
June 30, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 72:5
The scenarios offered by the commission, while theoretically possible, are highly unlikely to disable Congress. Remember, a majority of members assemble together in one place only rarely; even during votes most members are not on the floor together at the same time Inauguration ceremonies and State of the Union addresses often bring together a majority of members in the same place, but simple precautions could be taken to keep a sufficient number away from such events. Even a direct terrorist attack on the Pentagon failed to disrupt the operation of the Department of Defense. The COGC proposal exaggerates the likelihood that a terrorist strike on Washington would incapacitate the House of Representatives, and exaggeration is a bad reason to amend the Constitution.

Constitution
The “Continuity of Government” Proposal – A Dangerous and Unnecessary Threat to Representative Rule
June 30, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 72:6
Existing Constitutional Provisions are Adequate It is important to understand that the Constitution already provides the framework for Congress to function after a catastrophic event. Article I section 2 grants the governors of the various states authority to hold special elections to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives. Article I section 4 gives Congress the authority to designate the time, manner, and place of such special elections if states should fail to act expeditiously following a national emergency. As Hamilton explains in Federalist 59, the “time, place, and manner” clause was specifically designed to address the kind of extraordinary circumstances imagined by COGC. Hamilton characterized authority over federal elections as shared between the states and Congress, with neither being able to control the process entirely.

Constitution
The “Continuity of Government” Proposal – A Dangerous and Unnecessary Threat to Representative Rule
June 30, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 72:7
COGC posits that states could not hold special elections quickly enough after a terrorist act to guarantee the functioning of Congress. But even COGC reports that the average length of House vacancies, following the death of a member until the swearing in of a successor after a special election, is only 126 days. Certainly this period could be shortened given the urgency created by a terrorist attack. We should not amend the Constitution simply to avoid having a reduced congressional body for a month or two.

Constitution
The “Continuity of Government” Proposal – A Dangerous and Unnecessary Threat to Representative Rule
June 30, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 72:9
Also, advances in technology can be used to reduce the risk of a disruption in congressional continuity following an emergency. Members already carry Blackberry devices to maintain communications even if cut off from their offices. Similar technology can be used to allow remote electronic voting by members. Congress should focus on contingency plans that utilize technology, not a constitutional amendment.

Constitution
The “Continuity of Government” Proposal – A Dangerous and Unnecessary Threat to Representative Rule
June 30, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 72:12
The problems with appointment of “representatives” are obvious. COGC calls for a general constitutional amendment that gives Congress wide power to make rules for filling vacancies “in the event that a substantial number of members are killed or incapacitated.” Such an amendment would be unavoidably vague, open to broad interpretation and abuse. In defining terms like “vacancy,” “substantial,” and “incapacitated,” Congress or the courts would be setting a dangerous precedent for a more elastic constitutional framework. Members of Congress simply cannot appoint their colleagues; the conflict of interest is glaring.

Constitution
The “Continuity of Government” Proposal – A Dangerous and Unnecessary Threat to Representative Rule
June 30, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 72:14
COGC focuses on government legitimacy, arguing that a House of Representatives with only a handful of surviving members would not be seen as legitimate by the public. In fact the opposite is true: appointed “representatives” will never be seen as legitimate and in fact would not be legitimate. Without exception, every member of the House of Representatives has been elected by voters in the member’s district. Madison states in Federalist 52 that “The definition of the right of suffrage is very justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican government.” The very legitimacy of the House of Representatives is based on its constitutional status as the most directly accountable federal body.

Constitution
The “Continuity of Government” Proposal – A Dangerous and Unnecessary Threat to Representative Rule
June 30, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 72:17
Conclusion To quote Professor Charles Rice, a distinguished Professor Emeritus at Notre Dame Law School: “When it is not necessary to amend the Constitution, it is necessary not to amend the Constitution.” We must not allow the understandable fears and passions engendered by the events of September 11 th to compel a rushed and grievous injury to our system of government. The Constitution is our best ally in times of relative crisis; it is precisely during such times we should hold to it most dearly. Rather than amending the Constitution, Congress should be meeting to discuss how to preserve our existing institutions- including an elected House- in the event of a terrorist attack. The Constitution already provides us with the framework, while technology gives states the ability organize elections quickly. The COGC proposal not only makes a mountain out of a molehill, but also acutely threatens the delicate balance of federal power established in the Constitution.

Constitution
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:8
Early in our history, the advocates of limited, constitutional government recognized two important principles: the rule of law was crucial, and a constitutional government must derive “just powers from the consent of the governed.” It was understood that an explicit transfer of power to government could only occur with power rightfully and naturally endowed to each individual as a God-given right. Therefore, the powers that could be transferred would be limited to the purpose of protecting liberty. Unfortunately, in the last 100 years, the defense of liberty has been fragmented and shared by various groups, with some protecting civil liberties, others economic freedom, and a small diverse group arguing for a foreign policy of nonintervention.

Constitution
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:10
Yes, there was always a remnant who longed for truly limited government and maintained a belief in the rule of law, combined with a deep conviction that free people and a government bound by a Constitution were the most advantageous form of government. They recognized it as the only practical way for prosperity to be spread to the maximum number of people while promoting peace and security.

Constitution
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:23
None of this happened by accident or coincidence. Precise philosophic ideas prompted certain individuals to gain influence to implement these plans. The neoconservatives—a name they gave themselves—diligently worked their way into positions of power and influence. They documented their goals, strategy and moral justification for all they hoped to accomplish. Above all else, they were not and are not conservatives dedicated to limited, constitutional government.

Constitution
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:42
15. They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)

Constitution
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:60
The conflict of the ages has been between the state and the individual: central power versus liberty. The more restrained the state and the more emphasis on individual liberty, the greater has been the advancement of civilization and general prosperity. Just as man’s condition was not locked in place by the times and wars of old and improved with liberty and free markets, there’s no reason to believe a new stage for man might not be achieved by believing and working for conditions of peace. The inevitability and so-called need for preemptive war should never be intellectually justified as being a benefit. Such an attitude guarantees the backsliding of civilization. Neocons, unfortunately, claim that war is in man’s nature and that we can’t do much about it, so let’s use it to our advantage by promoting our goodness around the world through force of arms. That view is anathema to the cause of liberty and the preservation of the Constitution. If it is not loudly refuted, our future will be dire indeed.

Constitution
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:70
I ’d like someone to glean anything from what the Founders said or placed in the Constitution that agrees with this now-professed doctrine of a “spectacular” state promoted by those who now have so much influence on our policies here at home and abroad. Ledeen argues that this religious element, this fear of God, is needed for discipline of those who may be hesitant to sacrifice their lives for the good of the “spectacular state.”

Constitution
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:76
Recognizing a “need” for a Pearl Harbor event, and referring to Pearl Harbor as being “lucky” are not identical to support and knowledge of such an event, but this sympathy for a galvanizing event, as 9-11 turned out to be, was used to promote an agenda that strict constitutionalists and devotees of the Founders of this nation find appalling is indeed disturbing. After 9-11, Rumsfeld and others argued for an immediate attack on Iraq, even though it was not implicated in the attacks.

Constitution
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:87
Michael Ledeen and other neoconservatives are already lobbying for war against Iran. Ledeen is pretty nasty to those who call for a calmer, reasoned approach by calling those who are not ready for war “cowards and appeasers of tyrants.” Because some urge a less militaristic approach to dealing with Iran, he claims they are betraying America’s best “traditions.” I wonder where he learned early American history! It’s obvious that Ledeen doesn’t consider the Founders and the Constitution part of our best traditions. We were hardly encouraged by the American revolutionaries to pursue an American empire. We were, however, urged to keep the Republic they so painstakingly designed.

Constitution
Amendment 6 To de-Fund The United Nations — Part 2
15 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 77:5
I believe in many ways that by joining the United Nations we have allowed our Constitution to be amended merely by U.N. vote. If the U.N. votes and says something and we go along with that, we do that by majority vote here in the Congress. Where if we look to the Constitution for the authorities that we are allowed to do and what we are not permitted to do, we look to article I, section 8; and what the U.N. is doing is not permissible under the article.

Constitution
The Monetary Freedom And Accountability Act
17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 79:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act. This simple bill takes a step toward restoring Congress’ constitutional authority over U.S. monetary policy by requiring congressional approval before the President or the Treasury secretary buys or sells gold. I also ask for unanimous consent to insert into the RECORD articles by Kelly Patricia O Meara of Insight magazine detailing the evidence supporting allegations that the United States Government has manipulated the price of gold over the past decade and the harm such manipulation caused American investors, taxpayers, consumers, and workers.

Constitution
The Monetary Freedom And Accountability Act
17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 79:7
Given the tremendous effects on the American economy from federal dealings in the gold market, it certainly is reasonable that the people’s representatives have a role in approving these transactions, especially since Congress has a neglected but vital constitutional role V in overseeing monetary policy. Therefore, I urge all my colleagues to stand up for sound economics, open government, and Congress’ constitutional role in monetary policy by cosponsoring the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act.

Constitution
The Foreign Aid Limitation Act
17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 80:5
Mr. Speaker, it long past time for Congress to begin reasserting its constitutional role in the appropriation of funds for foreign aid programs. For too long, the Exchange Stabilization Fund has allowed the executive branch to commit the American taxpayer to supporting foreign governments without even consulting with Congress. I hope all my colleagues will join my efforts to end this practice by cosponsoring my Foreign Aid Limitation Act.

Constitution
Bring Back Honest Money
17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 82:2
Absent legal tender laws, individuals acting through the markets, rather than government dictates, determine what is to be used as money. Historically, the free-market choice for money has been some combination of gold and silver, whenever they were available. As Dr. Edwin Vieira, the nation’s top expert on constitutional money, states: “A free market functions most efficiently and most fairly when the market determines the quality and the quantity of money that’s being used.”

Constitution
Bring Back Honest Money
17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 82:6
While harming ordinary citizens, legal tender laws help expand the scope of government beyond that authorized under the Constitution. However, the primary beneficiaries of legal tender laws are financial institutions, especially banks, which have been improperly granted the special privilege of creating fiat irredeemable electronic money out of thin air through a process commonly called fractional reserve lending. According to the Federal Reserve, since 1950 these private companies (banks) have created almost $8 trillion out of nothing. This has been enormously advantageous to them.

Constitution
Bring Back Honest Money
17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 82:8
The drafters of the Constitution were well aware of how a government armed with legal tender powers could ravage the people’s liberty and prosperity. That is why the Constitution does not grant legal tender power to the federal government, and the states are empowered to make legal tender only out of gold and silver (see Article 1, Section 10). Instead, Congress was given the power to regulate money against a standard, i.e., the dollar. When Alexander Hamilton wrote the Coinage Act of 1792, he simply made into law the market-definition of a dollar as equaling the silver content of the Spanish milled dollar (371.25 grains of silver), which is the dollar referred to in the Constitution. This historical definition of the dollar has never been changed, and cannot be changed any more than the term “inch,” as a measure of length, can be changed. It is a gross misrepresentation to equate our irredeemable paper-ticket or electronic money to “dollars.”

Constitution
Bring Back Honest Money
17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 82:11
Another prescient Justice was Stephen Field, the only Justice to dissent in every legal tender case to come before the Court. Justice Field accurately described the dangers to our constitutional republic posed by legal tender laws: “The arguments in favor of the constitutionality of legal tender paper currency tend directly to break down the barriers which separate a government of limited powers from a government resting in the unrestrained will of Congress. Those limitations must be preserved, or our government will inevitably drift from the system established by our Fathers into a vast, centralized, and consolidated government.” A government with unrestrained powers is properly characterized as tyrannical.

Constitution
Bring Back Honest Money
17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 82:12
Repeal of legal tender laws will help restore constitutional government and protect the people’s right to a medium of exchange chosen by the market, thereby protecting their current purchasing power as well as their pensions, savings, and other promises of future payment. Because honest money serves the needs of ordinary people, instead of fiat irredeemable paper-ticket electronic money that improperly transfers the wealth of society to a small specially privileged financial elite along with other special interests, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Honest Money Act.

Constitution
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 83:7
Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over monetary policy. The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not empower the federal government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary policy.

Constitution
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 83:8
In fact, Congress’ constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our nation’s founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold. Such a monetary system is the basis of a true free-market economy.

Constitution
Legislation To Withdraw The United States From The Bretton Woods Agreement
17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 84:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to withdraw the United States from the Bretton Woods Agreement and thus end taxpayer support for the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Rooted in a discredited economic philosophy and a complete disregard for fundamental constitutional principles, the IMF forces American taxpayers to subsidize large, multinational corporations and underwrite economic destruction around the globe. This is because the IMF often uses the $46.7 billion line of credit provided to it by the American taxpayers to bribe countries to follow destructive, statist policies.

Constitution
Legislation To Withdraw The United States From The Bretton Woods Agreement
17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 84:7
In addition, the IMF violates basic constitutional and moral principles. The Federal Government has no constitutional authority to fund international institutions such as the IMF. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, it is simply immoral to take money from hard-working Americans to support the economic schemes of politicallypowerful special interests and third-world dictators.

Constitution
Legislation To Withdraw The United States From The Bretton Woods Agreement
17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 84:9
Last year’s Argentine debacle is yet further proof that the IMF was a bad idea from the very beginning — economically, constitutionally, and morally. The IMF is a relic of an era when power-hungry bureaucrats and deluded economists believed they could micromanage the world’s economy. Withdrawal from the IMF would benefit American taxpayers, as well as workers and consumers around the globe. I hope my colleagues will join me in working to protect the American taxpayer from underwriting the destruction of countries like Argentina, by cosponsoring my legislation to end America’s support for the IMF.

Constitution
The Justifications for War
July 21, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 85:11
Only a few correctly look to the Constitution and to Congress to sort out the pros and cons of each conflict, and decide whether or not a declaration of war is warranted.

Constitution
The Justifications for War
July 21, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 85:14
Hopefully, we will soon seriously consider the foreign policy approach advocated by our Founding Fathers, a policy of nonintervention in the affairs of other nations. Avoiding entangling alliances and staying out of the internal affairs of other nations is the policy most conducive to peace and prosperity. Policing the world and nation building are not proper for our constitutional republic.

Constitution
UNESCO — Part 2
22 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 87:6
But they do other things as well. UNESCO, for instance, has been fully supportive of the United Nations Population Fund in its assistance to China’s brutal, coercive population control program. That is part of UNESCO. I do not believe the majority of the Members of Congress really believe that is a good expenditure. And you cannot control the money once it gets to UNESCO, believe me. We send the money, we send a larger amount of money than anybody else, we lose control of it and they do these things that I think are illegitimate as far as our Constitution is concerned.

Constitution
UNESCO — Part 2
22 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 87:8
UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention has taken treasured American public monuments to be designated world heritage sites. This is a movement away from the concept of national sovereignty. This means that there will not be control by the American people through their Representative. That makes every single one of us less significant, not only in the issue of war but now in the issue of schools and taxation. Yes, it moves slowly, it is not overwhelming; we still have a lot of control, but we are losing it gradually. And we do know that even those who objected to the war in Iraq would have been quite happy if only the United Nations would have passed a resolution that permitted us to go to war. I do not like that kind of a world. The only oath of office I take is the oath to the U.S. Constitution and UNESCO does not conform to that oath. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL). The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.

Constitution
PATRIOT Act
22 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 88:9
Yes, we talked about numbers of dozens of examples of times when our government has used this and abused it. But that is only the beginning. It is the principle. If they had only done it once, if they had not done it, this should still be taken care of, because as time goes on, and if we adapt to this process, it will be used more and more, and that is throwing away a big and important chunk of our Constitution, the fourth amendment.

Constitution
PATRIOT Act
22 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 88:13
I hope that the Congress and our colleagues here will support this amendment. It is very necessary, and it will be voting for the Constitution; and it will be voting for liberty if we support this amendment.

Constitution
Medicinal Marijuana
22 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 89:3
I would suggest that the previous speaker has forgotten some of the law; and to me, that would be the constitutional law of the ninth and tenth amendments. So changing the law is one thing, but remembering the Constitution is another.

Constitution
H.R. 2427, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act
24 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 91:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, but I also strongly support the bill itself, H.R. 2427. And I would like to advise other Members here that I approach all legislation the same way. I look at it through two prisms. One, I look to see if it promotes freedom, and the other I look to see if it conforms to the Constitution.

Constitution
H.R. 2427, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act
24 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 91:7
However, the fact that Medicare, that is already on shaky financial ground, will soon be subsidizing prescription drug costs makes it more important than ever that Congress address the issue of prescription drug costs. Of course, Congress’s actions should respect our constitutional limits and not further expand the role of government in the health care market.

Constitution
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:6
Our Founders thoroughly understood this issue, and warned us against the temptation to seek wealth and fortune without the work and savings that real prosperity requires. James Madison warned of “The pestilent effects of paper money,” as the Founders had vivid memories of the destructiveness of the Continental dollar. George Mason of Virginia said that he had a “Mortal hatred to paper money.” Constitutional Convention delegate Oliver Ellsworth from Connecticut thought the convention “A favorable moment to shut and bar the door against paper money.” This view of the evils of paper money was shared by almost all the delegates to the convention, and was the reason the Constitution limited congressional authority to deal with the issue and mandated that only gold and silver could be legal tender. Paper money was prohibited and no central bank was authorized. Over and above the economic reasons for honest money, however, Madison argued the moral case for such. Paper money, he explained, destroyed “The necessary confidence between man and man, on necessary confidence in public councils, on the industry and morals of people and on the character of republican government.”

Constitution
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:8
Even with this history and great concern expressed by the Founders, the barriers to paper money have been torn asunder. The Constitution has not been changed, but is no longer applied to the issue of money. It was once explained to me, during the debate over going to war in Iraq, that a declaration of war was not needed because to ask for such a declaration was “frivolous” and that the portion of the Constitution dealing with congressional war power was “anachronistic.” So too, it seems that the power over money given to Congress alone and limited to coinage and honest weights, is now also “anachronistic.”

Constitution
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:9
If indeed our generation can make the case for paper money, issued by an unauthorized central bank, it behooves us to at least have enough respect for the Constitution to amend it in a proper fashion. Ignoring the Constitution in order to perform a pernicious act is detrimental in two ways. First, debasing the currency as a deliberate policy is economically destructive beyond measure. Second, doing it without consideration for the rule of law undermines the entire fabric of our Constitutional republic.

Constitution
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:11
All the great religions teach honesty in money, and the economic shortcomings of paper money were well known when the Constitution was written, so we must try to understand why an entire generation of Americans have come to accept paper money without hesitation, without question. Most Americans are oblivious to the entire issue of the nature and importance of money. Many in authority, however, have either been misled by false notions or see that the power to create money is indeed a power they enjoy, as they promote their agenda of welfarism at home and empire abroad.

Constitution
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:15
A fiat monetary system allows power and influence to fall into the hands of those who control the creation of new money, and to those who get to use the money or credit early in its circulation. The insidious and eventual cost falls on unidentified victims who are usually oblivious to the cause of their plight. This system of legalized plunder (though not constitutional) allows one group to benefit at the expense of another. An actual transfer of wealth goes from the poor and the middle class to those in privileged financial positions.

Constitution
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:19
Printing money, which is literally inflation, is nothing more than a sinister and evil form of hidden taxation. It’s unfair and deceptive, and accordingly strongly opposed by the authors of the Constitution. That is why there is no authority for Congress, the Federal Reserve, or the executive branch to operate the current system of money we have today. Money As a Political Issue

Constitution
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:22
The monetary issue, along with the desire to have free trade among the states, prompted those at the Constitutional Convention to seek solutions to problems that plagued the post-revolutionary war economy. This post-war recession was greatly aggravated by the collapse of the unsound fiat Continental dollar. The people, through their representatives, spoke loudly and clearly for gold and silver over paper.

Constitution
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:35
There are also many conservatives who do not endorse central economic planning as those on the left do, but nevertheless concede this authority to the Federal Reserve to manipulate the economy through monetary policy. Only a small group of constitutionalists, libertarians, and Austrian free-market economists reject the notion that central planning, through interest-rate and money-supply manipulation, is a productive endeavor.

Constitution
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:82
Curbing the scope of government and limiting its size to that prescribed in the Constitution is the goal that we should seek. But political reality makes this option available to us only after a national bankruptcy has occurred. We need not face that catastrophe. What we need to do is to strictly limit the power of government to meddle in our economy and our personal affairs, and stay out of the internal affairs of other nations. Conclusion

Constitution
Statement Opposing the Continuity of Government Proposal
September 9, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 94:1
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing and for providing me the opportunity to present comments on the important issue of how to maintain continuity of government if a majority of members of the House of Representatives are incapacitated. This issue has recently attracted attention because of the proposal of the “Continuity of Government (COG) Commission,” that the Constitution be amended to allow appointed persons to fill vacancies in the House in the event of an emergency.

Constitution
Statement Opposing the Continuity of Government Proposal
September 9, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 94:4
Mr. Chairman, there are those who say that the power of appointment is necessary in order to preserve checks and balances and thus prevent an abuse of executive power. Of course, I agree that it is very important to carefully guard our constitutional liberties in times of crisis, and that an over-centralization of power in the executive branch is one of the most serious dangers to that liberty. However, Mr. Chairman, during a time of crisis it is all the more important to have representatives accountable to the people making the laws. Otherwise, the citizenry has no check on the inevitable tendency of government to infringe on the people’s liberties at such a time. I would remind my colleagues that the only reason we are re-examining provisions of the PATRIOT Act is because of public concerns that this Act gives up excessive liberty for a phantom security. Appointed officials would not be as responsive to public concerns.

Constitution
Statement Opposing the Continuity of Government Proposal
September 9, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 94:7
The Constitution already provides the framework for Congress to function after a catastrophic event. Article I section 2 grants the governors of the various states authority to hold special elections to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives. Article I section 4 gives Congress the authority to designate the time, manner, and place of such special elections if states should fail to act expeditiously following a national emergency. As Hamilton explains in Federalist 59, the “time, place, and manner” clause was specifically designed to address the kind of extraordinary circumstances imagined by COGC. Hamilton characterized authority over federal elections as shared between the states and Congress, with neither being able to control the process entirely.

Constitution
Statement Opposing the Continuity of Government Proposal
September 9, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 94:10
In conclusion, I once again thank the Chairman of this Committee for allowing me to express my views before the House. I also once again urge my colleagues to reject any proposal that takes away the people’s right to elect their representatives and instead support HR 2844, the Continuity of Congress Act, which ensures an elected Congress can continue to operate in the event of an emergency. This is what the drafters of the Constitution intended.

Constitution
We Cannot Afford Another $87 Billion in Iraq
September 16, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 98:14
Second, we have no constitutional authority to police the world or involve ourselves in nation building, in making the world safe for our style of democracy. Our founders advised against it and the early presidents followed that advice. If we believe strongly in our ideals, the best way to spread them is to set a good example so that others will voluntarily emulate us. Force will not work. Besides, we do not have the money. The $87 billion appropriations request should be rejected.

Constitution
Reject UN Gun Control!
September 18, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 101:2
Over the past decade, the UN has waged a campaign to undermine gun rights protected by the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has called on members of the Security Council to “tackle” the proliferation and “easy availability” of small arms and light weapons. Just this June, the UN tried to “tackle” gun rights by sponsoring a “Week of Action Against Small Arms.” Of course, by small arms, the UN really means all privately owned firearms.

Constitution
Reject UN Gun Control!
September 18, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 101:4
Contrary to the UN propaganda, the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right and, according to the drafters of the Constitution, the guardian of every other right . Scholar John Lott has shown that respecting the right to keep and bear arms is one of the best ways governments can reduce crime. Conversely, cities where the government imposes gun control have higher crime rates. Far from making people safer, gun control endangers innocent people by increasing the odds that they will be victimized!

Constitution
Are Vouchers the Solution for Our Failing Public Schools?
September 30, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 103:2
The basic reason supporters of parental control of education should view Federal voucher programs with a high degree of skepticism is that vouchers are a creation of the government, not the market. Vouchers are a taxpayer-funded program benefiting a particular group of children selected by politicians and bureaucrats. Therefore, the Federal voucher program supported by many conservatives is little more than another tax-funded welfare program establishing an entitlement to a private school education. Vouchers thus raise the same constitutional and moral questions as other transfer programs. Yet, voucher supporters wonder why middle-class taxpayers, who have to sacrifice to provide a private school education to their children, balk at being forced to pay more taxes to provide a free private education for another child.

Constitution
American Dream Downpayment Act
1 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 104:2
H.R. 1276 not only warps the true meaning of the American dream, but also exceeds Congress’ constitutional boundaries and interferes with and distorts the operation of the free market. Instead of expanding unconstitutional federal power, Congress should focus its energies on dismantling the federal housing bureaucracy so the American people can control housing resources and use the free market to meet their demands for affordable housing.

Constitution
American Dream Downpayment Act
1 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 104:5
Finally, while I know this argument is unlikely to have much effect on my colleagues, I must point out that Congress has no constitutional authority to take money from one American and redistribute it to another. Legislation such as H.R. 1276, which takes tax money from some Americans to give to others whom Congress has determined are worthy, is thus blatantly unconstitutional.

Constitution
American Dream Downpayment Act
1 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 104:7
H.R. 1276 distorts the economy and violates constitutional prohibitions on income redistribution. A better way of guaranteeing an efficient housing market where everyone could meet their own needs for housing would be for Congress to repeal taxes and programs that burden the housing industry and allow housing needs to be met by the free market. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and instead develop housing policies consistent with constitutional principles, the laws of economics, and respect for individual rights.

Constitution
Commending The National Endowment For Democracy For Contributions To democratic Development Around The World On The 20th Anniversary Of Its Establishment
7 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 105:4
“. . . the controversy surrounding NED questions the wisdom of giving a quasi-private organization the fiat to pursue what is effectively an independent foreign policy under the guise of “promoting democracy.” Proponents of NED maintain that a private organization is necessary to overcome the restraints that limit the activities of a government agency, yet they insist that the American taxpayer provide full funding for this initiative. NED’s detractors point to the inherent contradiction of a publicly funded organization that is charged with executing foreign policy (a power expressly given to the federal government in the Constitution) yet exempt from nearly all political and administrative controls . . .

Constitution
Commending The National Endowment For Democracy For Contributions To democratic Development Around The World On The 20th Anniversary Of Its Establishment
7 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 105:10
Skender Gjinushi, speaker of the Albanian parliament, thanks the IRI for its assistance in drafting the Albanian constitution in 1998. What the IRI does not say is that Gjinushi was a member of the brutal Stalinist Politburo of Enver Hoxha’s Communist Party until 1990 and one of the main organizers of the unrest that led to the fall of the Democratic Party government in 1997 and the death of over 2000 people.

Constitution
Defense Production Reauthorization Act
15 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 107:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, no one questions the need for the Federal Government to obtain the necessary resources to fill its constitutional role of providing for the common defense. However, the federal government must fulfill this duty in a manner that does not conflict in any way with the Constitution or endanger republican government. The Defense Production Reauthorization Act (DPA), which gives almost unchecked power to the executive to interfere in the economy in the name of “national security,” fails both of these standards. In fact, when I inquired at the sole hearing the House Financial Services Committee held on this issue as to which section of the Constitution authorized such sweeping grants of power to the Executive, I was greeted by silence from the “expert” witnesses!

Constitution
Defense Production Reauthorization Act
15 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 107:4
The wide grant of unchecked power to the Executive runs counter to the intent of the drafters of the Constitution. The Founders carefully limited the executive power because they recognized that an executive with unfettered power was a threat to liberty. In recent years we have seen administrations of both parties undermine the Constitutional separation of powers via enhanced reliance on executive orders and unilateral decision-making. The Defense Production Reauthorization Act provides Constitutional blessing to this usurpation of power, and not just in areas clearly related to national defense. For example, the DPA has been used to justify federal interference in the energy market. It is an open question what other exercise of federal power could be justified as related to defense. For example, federal education programs has been justified on the grounds that an educated population is vital to national defense, so perhaps a future president will use DPA to impose a national curriculum!

Constitution
Defense Production Reauthorization Act
15 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 107:5
I am also concerned that this bill violates the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause. In particular, DPA allows the government to seize private property by interfering with the performance of private contracts in order to give priority to military production. This action reduces the value of the affected parties’ proprietary interests, and thus is a taking, requiring the government to provide just compensation to the affected party. The Fifth Amendment intends to assure that the government does not unfairly burden one group of citizens in carrying out its constitutional functions. By not providing for just compensation, DPA allows the executive to unfairly burden one group of citizens for costs that the Constitution requires be shared among the entire population.

Constitution
Defense Production Reauthorization Act
15 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 107:6
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the Defense Production Act gives the executives unchecked power to meddle in the economy, flying in the face of the original constitutional structure and endangering the very liberty it claims to protect. Therefore, I must oppose this bill.

Constitution
Borrowing Billions to Fund a Failed Policy in Iraq
October 17, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 110:7
The real point is that the billions we are told we must spend to rebuild Iraq is indeed the natural outcome of our policy of pre-emptive military intervention. All those who voted for the resolution authorizing the president to attack Iraq have really already voted for this supplemental. There is no military intervention without a “Marshall Plan” afterward, regardless of our ability to pay. And the American people will be expected to pay for far more. This current request is only perhaps step four in what will likely be a 10 or more step program to remake Iraq and the rest of the Middle East in the image of Washington, D.C. social engineers and “global planners.” What will be steps five, six, seven, eight? Long-term occupation, micro-managing Iraq’s economy, organizing and managing elections, writing an Iraqi constitution. And so on. When will it end?

Constitution
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:2
I think so rarely we deal with policy and we deal only with technicality and accounting and an attempt made at oversight. So I would like to spend a little bit of time emphasizing a different type of foreign policy that we have become unaccustomed to. Because there was an American foreign policy once well known to us, to our country and especially to our founders, a policy of nonintervention. Today, and essentially for a hundred years, we have been following a policy of foreign intervention, that is, that we assume more than I believe we should overseas. And I object to that because I see it as not gaining a constitutional mandate as well as I see it as being a great danger to us both in the area of national defense, national security, as well as the economic dangers it presents.

Constitution
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:6
It may be that the lack of affordability may bring us to our senses before the logic of a foreign policy. That might make more sense than what we have been doing. Before the Iraqi war, the 18 months, actually there was a pretty strong debate here in the Congress. Several of us, quite a few of us, got to the floor and talked about the potentiality of war and why we thought it was a bad idea. My conclusion in October of 2002, 6 months or so before the invasion, was that we should not go in to Iraq. And it was a deeply held conviction, not only philosophically, because of a strong belief I have in nonintervention and the restraints that are placed on us by the Constitution, but also because I was convinced that our national security was not threatened by Saddam Hussein and that 9–11 had nothing to do with Iraq and Iraq had nothing to do with 9–11 nor Saddam Hussein. And I think the events since that time have proven that assumption to be correct.

Constitution
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:9
Basically, we have come to the acceptance, at least especially throughout the 20th century, of accepting the notion that we have some moral obligation to make the world safe for democracy. And we have heard so much about this that we are over there to spread democracy. Well, if you look to the Constitution, there is no grant of authority even to the Congress or to the President that that should be a goal. That does not mean that our values should not be looked upon and spread; but to be done through the military and by force, that is an entirely different story.

Constitution
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:13
Well, that is technically flaunting the Constitution and that the proper method for us going to war is for the Congress to declare war, and then, of course, go out and win the war. But the authority comes from the people to the Congress and the Congress cannot transfer this power and this decisionmaking to the President under a majority vote in the legislative body.

Constitution
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:15
But I believe that the Constitution is on my side and not on their side. And when we do what they want and what we have done and have been doing, it is dangerous. It is dangerous to our security. It is dangerous to our financial situation and our economy. And it is a tremendous drain on so many taxpayers here trying to struggle and make a living.

Constitution
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:20
So I am strongly suggesting that we here in the House someday get serious about talking about the big picture, the strategic picture, the philosophic picture and the Constitution, deciding what we really should be doing in our foreign policy. Some people say, well, it sounds to me like what you are advocating is isolationism, and nobody wants to be an isolationist. When they throw that term out, it is usually done there to try to discredit those individuals, like myself, who are arguing the case for nonintervention. Isolationism is quite a bit different. Isolationism is those who want to put barriers on trade and travel in exchange of ideas. That is true isolationism. That is mercantilism and protectionism. That is not what I am talking about, and that is not what nonintervention is.

Constitution
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:26
I express my concern about the way we went to war because it was a transfer of power from the Congress by mere vote, which circumvented the Constitution, rather than a declaration of war, and I base my concern on the fact that we have had a lot more trouble in the last 50 years when we quit declaring war and at least prior to that the wars we declared, they came to an end.

Constitution
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:31
James Madison early on in 1798 gave us some advice about the Presidential power and congressional power to go to war, but he was explaining why it was important to keep it in the hands of the legislative body. He says, The Constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrate, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war and the most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the legislature.

Constitution
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:32
That is what our Constitution did, but because now it has drifted from the legislature, we allow our Presidents to do more than they should be able to do, and then we allow them to incorporate this into United Nations’ mandates. It means that the people have lost their control.

Constitution
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:38
I guess early this week we also had another vote that emphasizes my concerns, because it again is going in the wrong direction, and that was the vote we had on Syria. A couple of us voted against this. Syria is a hard country to defend, and I am not going to defend Syria. I am defending the Constitution, and I am defending nonintervention, but the Syrian resolution was more or less the first major step in the direction of war against Syria.

Constitution
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:46
If we want Iraq and other countries to act more like we do, it can be done; and that should be a goal. But there is a difference. There are two different ways we can do it. One, we can force people to do things and the other way is we can try to talk them into doing it in a voluntary fashion. If we did an exceptionally good job and we had a truly prosperous economy, which I believe a free market would achieve, which we do not have, where the greatest number of people would have the greatest benefits, truly set an example, have democratic elections but obey a constitution that is designed to protect liberty and protect minorities, if we set an example, then I sincerely believe others then would be more inclined to emulate us and to see us as an example.

Constitution
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:50
I am a little bit encouraged, though, about the fact that the debate may be shifting. In the Congress, not yet. Not yet. There are not too many supporters, and I know that, for nonintervention, for a constitutional foreign policy, to looking to the Founders. It is considered old-fashioned, and that truths do not stay so static, and times are different, and we have this obligation, and all the reasons why we have this moral obligation to go about the world. But where I am encouraged is outside of this place, where the American people are getting concerned.

Constitution
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:52
I have a copy of their statement of principles. More than 100 individuals are involved, mostly professors and other academicians and think-tank people. I do not know if there are any politicians in there. Hopefully, no politicians will be involved. But this is important. This is important because they want to get together and try to change the tone and the nature of the debate. Now, are they liberals or are they conservatives? Are they libertarian or are they constitutionalists? All of them. It is a mixture. They do not want just the liberal flavor or just the right-wing conservative flavor. It is anybody who is willing to sit down and talk about the disadvantage, the practical disadvantage of this road to empire and why we come up on the short end and that this moral obligation of us policing the world really is not a wise idea.

Constitution
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:64
We should have greater faith and greater confidence in freedom. Freedom works. And that was the message of the Founders. That is the message of the Constitution. But we have lost our confidence. We have lost our way. We cannot even have one single problem exist throughout the country without coming here for another law.

Constitution
Expressing Gratitude To Members Of The U.S. Armed Forces Deployed In Operation Restore Hope In Somalia In 1993
28 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 114:4
This legislation expresses gratitude for our troops’ “provid[ing] humanitarian assistance to the people of Somalia in 1993.” I see nowhere in our Constitution a provision that allows the United States armed forces to be used for the purpose of “provid[ing] humanitarian assistance” to any foreign country or people. Our armed forces are to be used in defense of our homeland. Period. So I am deeply disturbed by legislation such as this. Yes, we must honor troops, but we cannot honor a foreign policy that sends them into harm’s way for “nation-building” or “humanitarian assistance” or any other reason not directly related to the defense of the United States. I hope the next time we see legislation congratulating the brave service of our armed forces it is more honest. Our servicemembers deserve at least this, do they not?

Constitution
Encouraging People’s Republic Of China To Fulfill Commitments Under International Trade Agreements, Support United States Manufacturing Sector, And Establish Monetary And Financial Market Reforms
29 october 2003    2003 Ron Paul 115:9
H. Res. 414’s underlying premise is that sovereign countries have a duty to fashion economic policies that benefit the United States and it is a proper concern of Congress if these countries fail to do so. H. Res. 414 attempts to justify Congressional interference in the internal economic affairs of China by claiming that China is not living up to its obligations as a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). I would remind my colleagues that the WTO has oftentimes ruled against the United States and Congress is right now changing United States tax laws to please the WTO. Ceding control over United States tax and trade policy to this international organization violates the United States Constitution and is contrary to the interests of American citizens. Therefore, it is not wise to endorse the WTO process by encouraging other countries to submit to WTO control.

Constitution
Don’t Meddle With Religion In Vietnam
19 November 2003    2003 Ron Paul 119:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this ill-conceived and ill-timed bill. I would like to remind my colleagues that according to our own Constitution, Congress is prohibited from making any law “respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof.” Yet are we not doing that today — albeit in a country some 10,000 miles away? Why on earth are we commending one particular church in Vietnam in the name of “religious freedom”? At the risk of being blunt, what business is the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam of the United States Congress? The answer, of course, is that this legislation is of a much more political than a religious nature: this bill tells the Vietnamese government how it should enforce its own constitution, commits the United States government to promoting religious freedom in Vietnam, and tells the U.S. embassy staff in Vietnam to “closely monitor” religious issues in Vietnam. It is an attempt to meddle in the affairs of Vietnam and force them to adopt the kinds of laws we think they should have. Mr. Speaker, as much as we value our own religious liberty, we must realize that setting the example of the benefits of a society that values such liberty is much more effective than demanding that other countries pass the kinds of laws we want them to pass. The unintended consequences of this otherwise well-meaning legislation is that relations with the Vietnamese government will likely suffer, making it less likely that Vietnam’s leaders look favorably upon our own history of religious liberty.

Constitution
Advancing Religious Freedom Worldwide Not Our Job
19 November 2003    2003 Ron Paul 120:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this legislation but want to make it clear that I am not doing so because I oppose religious freedom, as one might falsely conclude from the way this bill is crafted. My concerns with this bill are the same concerns I raise whenever Congress attempts to act in areas in which it has no constitutional authority: under the guise of promoting a laudable cause — religious freedom — this legislation seeks to impose our views of this topic on other sovereign nations. In short, it is yet another example of the U.S. meddling in the affairs of other countries.

Constitution
Say No To Involuntary Servitude
November 21, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 122:9
To get more troops, the draft will likely be reinstated. The implicit prohibition of “involuntary servitude” under the 13th Amendment to the Constitution has already been ignored many times so few will challenge the constitutionality of the coming draft.

Constitution
Congress Abandoned its Duty to Debate and Declare War
February 4, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 1:4
There was a precise reason why the most serious decision made by a country — the decision to go to war — was assigned in our Constitution to the body closest to the people. If we followed this charge I’m certain fewer wars would be fought, wide support would be achieved for just defensive wars, there would be less political finger-pointing if events went badly, and blame could not be placed on one individual or agency. This process would more likely achieve victory, which has eluded us in recent decades.

Constitution
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 2:1
A wise consistency is the foundation of a free society. Yet everyone knows, or thinks they know, that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. How many times has Ralph Waldo Emerson been quoted to belittle a consistent philosophy defending freedom? Even on this floor I have been rebuked by colleagues with this quote, for pointing out the shortcomings of Congress in not consistently and precisely following our oath to uphold the Constitution.

Constitution
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 2:6
Since it’s proven that centralized control over education and medicine has done nothing to improve them, and instead of reassessing these programs, more money is thrown into the same centralized planning, this is much closer to Emerson’s foolish consistency than defending liberty and private property in a consistent and forceful manner while strictly obeying the Constitution.

Constitution
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 2:12
Following the Constitution—Arbitrarily, Of Course : Following the Constitution is a convenience shared by both liberals and conservatives — at times. Everyone takes the same oath of office, and most Members of Congress invoke the Constitution, at one time or another, to make some legislative point. The fact that the Constitution is used periodically to embarrass one’s opponents, when convenient, requires that no one feel embarrassed by an inconsistent voting record. Believing that any consistency, not just a foolish one, is a philosophic hobgoblin gives many Members welcome reassurance. This allows limited-government conservatives to massively increase the size and scope of government, while ignoring the deficit. Liberals, who also preach their own form of limited government in the areas of civil liberties and militarism, have no problem with a flexible pragmatic approach to all government expenditures and intrusions. The net result is that the oath of office to abide by all the constitutional restraints on government power is rarely followed.

Constitution
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 2:14
Alcohol Prohibition—For Our Own Protection : Alcohol prohibition was a foolish consistency engaged in for over a decade, but we finally woke up to the harm done. In spite of prohibition, drinking continued. The alcohol being produced in the underground was much more deadly, and related crime ran rampant. The facts stared us in the face, and with time, we had the intelligence to repeal the whole experiment. No matter how logical this reversal of policy was, it did not prevent us from moving into the area of drug prohibition, now in the more radical stages, for the past 30 years. No matter the amount of harm and cost involved, very few in public life are willing to advise a new approach to drug addiction. Alcoholism is viewed as a medical problem, but illicit drug addiction is seen as a heinous crime. Our prisons overflow, with the cost of enforcement now into the hundreds of billions of dollars, yet drug use is not reduced. Nevertheless, the politicians are consistent. They are convinced that a tough stand against usage with very strict laws and mandatory sentences — sometimes life sentences for non-violent offenses — is a popular political stand. Facts don’t count, and we can’t bend on consistently throwing the book at any drug offenders. Our prisons are flooded with non-violent drug users — 84% of all federals prisoners — but no serious reassessment is considered. Sadly, the current war on drugs has done tremendous harm to many patients’ need for legitimate prescribed pain control. Doctors are very often compromised in their ability to care for the seriously and terminally ill by overzealous law enforcement. Throughout most of our history, drugs were legal and at times were abused. But during that time, there was no history of the social and legal chaos associated with drug use that we suffer today. A hundred years ago, a pharmacist openly advertised, “Heroin clears the complexion, gives buoyancy to the mind, regulates the stomach and the bowels and is, in fact, a perfect guardian of health.” Obviously this is overstated as a medical panacea, but it describes what it was like not to have hysterical busybodies undermine our Constitution and waste billions of dollars on a drug war serving no useful purpose. This country needs to wake up! We should have more confidence in citizens making their own decisions, and decide once again to repeal federal prohibition, while permitting regulation by the states alone.

Constitution
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 2:17
Foreign Policy of Interventionism—General : Our foreign policy of interventionism offers the best example of Emerson’s foolish inconsistency. No matter how unsuccessful our entanglements become, our leaders rarely question the wisdom of trying to police the world. Most of the time our failures prompt even greater intervention, rather than less. Never yielding to the hard cold facts of our failures, our drive to meddle and nation-build around the world continues. Complete denial of the recurrent blowback from our meddling — a term our CIA invented — prompts us to spend endlessly while jeopardizing the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Refusing even to consider the failure of our own policies is outrageous. Only in the context of commercial benefits to the special interests and the military- industrial complex, molded with patriotic jingoism, can one understand why we pursue such a foolish policy. Some of these ulterior motives are understandable, but the fact that average Americans rarely question our commitment to these dangerous and expensive military operations is disturbing. The whipped up war propaganda too often overrules the logic that should prevail. Certainly the wise consistency of following the Constitution has little appeal. One would think the painful consequences of our militarism over the last hundred years would have made us more reluctant to assume the role of world policeman in a world that hates us more each day.

Constitution
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 2:18
A strong case can be made that all the conflicts, starting with the Spanish-American War up to our current conflict in the Middle East, could have been avoided. For instance, the foolish entrance into World War I to satisfy Wilson’s ego led to a disastrous peace at Versailles, practically guaranteeing World War II. Likewise, our ill-advised role in the Persian Gulf War I placed us in an ongoing guerilla war in Iraq and Afghanistan, which may become a worldwide conflict before it ends. Our foolish antics over the years have prompted our support for many thugs throughout the 20th Century — Stalin, Samoza, Batista, the Shah of Iran, Noriega, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and many others — only to regret it once the unintended consequences became known. Many of those we supported turned on us, or our interference generated a much worse replacement — such as the Ayatollah in Iran. If we had consistently followed the wise advice of our early presidents, we could have avoided the foreign policy problems we face today. And if we had, we literally would have prevented hundreds of thousands of needless deaths over the last century. The odds are slim to none that our current failure in Afghanistan and Iraq will prompt our administration to change its policies of intervention. Ignoring the facts and rigidly sticking to a failed policy — a foolish consistency — as our leaders have repeatedly done over the past 100 years, unfortunately will prevail despite its failure and huge costs. This hostility toward principled consistency and common sense allows for gross errors in policy making. Most Americans believed, and still do, that we went to war against Saddam Hussein because he threatened us with weapons of mass destruction and his regime was connected to al Qaeda. The fact that Saddam Hussein not only did not have weapons of mass destruction, but essentially had no military force at all, seems to be of little concern to those who took us to war. It was argued, after our allies refused to join in our efforts, that a unilateral approach without the United Nations was proper under our notion of national sovereignty. Yet resolutions giving the President authority to go to war cited the United Nations 21 times, forgetting the U.S. Constitution allows only Congress to declare war. A correct declaration of war was rejected out of hand. Now with events going badly, the administration is practically begging the UN to take over the transition — except, of course, for the Iraqi Development Fund that controls the oil and all the seized financial assets. The contradictions and distortions surrounding the Iraqi conflict are too numerous to count. Those who wanted to institutionalize the doctrine of pre-emptive war were not concerned about the Constitution or consistency in our foreign policy. And for this, the American people and world peace will suffer.

Constitution
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 2:27
-The Constitution places restraints on Congress and the executive branch, so as not to wage war casually and without proper declaration. It provides no authority to spend money or lives to spread our political message around the world. A strict adherence to the rule of law and the Constitution would bring an immediate halt to our ill-advised experiment in assuming the role of world policeman. We have been told that our effort in Iraq has been worth the 500-plus lives lost and the thousands wounded. I disagree — with great sadness for the families who have lost so much, and with so little hope for a good peace — I can only say, I disagree and hope I’m wrong.

Constitution
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 2:34
Judicial Review : Respect for the original intent of the Constitution is low in Washington. It’s so low, it’s virtually non-existent. This causes many foolish inconsistencies in our federal courts. The Constitution, we have been told, is a living, evolving document and it’s no longer necessary to change it in the proper fashion. That method is too slow and cumbersome, it is claimed. While we amended it to institute alcohol prohibition, the federal drug prohibition is accomplished by majority vote of the U.S. Congress. Wars are not declared by Congress, but pursued by Executive Order to enforce UN Resolutions. The debate of the pros and cons of the war come afterward — usually following the war’s failure — in the political arena, rather than before with the proper debate on a declaration of war resolution. Laws are routinely written by un-elected bureaucrats, with themselves becoming the judicial and enforcement authority. Little desire is expressed in Congress to alter this monster that creates thousands of pages each year in the Federal Register. Even the nearly 100,000 bureaucrats who now carry guns stir little controversy. For decades, Executive Orders have been arrogantly used to write laws to circumvent a plodding or disagreeable Congress. This attitude was best described by a Clinton presidential aide who bragged: “…stroke of the pen, law of the land, kinda cool!” This is quite a testimonial to the rule of law and constitutional restraint on government power. The courts are no better than the executive or legislative branches in limiting the unconstitutional expansion of the federal monolith. Members of Congress, including committee chairmen, downplay my concern that proposed legislation is unconstitutional by insisting that the courts are the ones to make such weighty decisions, not mere Members of Congress. This was an informal argument made by House leadership on the floor during the debate on campaign finance reform. In essence, they said “We know it’s bad, but we’ll let the courts clean it up.” And look what happened! The courts did not save us from ourselves.

Constitution
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 2:35
Something must be done, however, if we expect to rein in our ever growing and intrusive government. Instead of depending on the courts to rule favorably, when Congress and the executive branch go astray, we must curtail the courts when they overstep their authority by writing laws, rubber stamping bad legislation, or overruling state laws. Hopefully in the future we will have a Congress more cognizant of its responsibility to legislate within the confines of the Constitution. There is something Congress, by majority vote, can do to empower the states to deal with their First Amendment issues. It’s clear that Congress has been instructed to write no laws regarding freedom of speech, religion, or assembly. This obviously means that federal courts have no authority to do so either. Therefore, the remaining option is for Congress to specifically remove jurisdiction of all First Amendment controversies from all federal courts, including the Supreme Court. Issues dealing with prayer, the Ten Commandments, religious symbols or clothing, and songs, even the issue of abortion, are properly left as a prerogative of the states. A giant step in this direction could be achieved with the passage my proposed legislation, the We the People Act.

Constitution
Federal War On Drugs Threatens The Effective Treatment Of Chronic Pain
11 February 2004    2004 Ron Paul 4:11
Mr. Speaker, Congress should take action to rein in overzealous prosecutors and law enforcement officials and stop the harassment of legitimate pain management physicians, who are acting in good faith in prescribing opioids for relief from chronic pain. Doctors should not be prosecuted for doing what, in their best medical judgment, is in their patients’ best interest. Doctors should also not be prosecuted for the misdeeds of their patients. Finally, I wish to express my hope that Mr. Limbaugh’s case will encourage his many fans and supporters to consider how their support for the federal War on Drugs is inconsistent with their support of individual liberty and Constitutional government.

Constitution
Rush Limbaugh and the Sick Federal War on Pain Relief
February 12, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 5:12
Finally, I wish to express my hope that Mr. Limbaugh’s case will encourage his many fans and listeners to consider how their support for the federal war on drugs is inconsistent with their support of individual liberty and constitutional government.

Constitution
The Financial Services Committees “Views and Estimates for 2005”
February 26, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 7:1
The Committee on Financial Services’ “Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2005” begins by expressing concerns about the long-term threat that record level of deficit spending poses to the American economy, and pledging to support efforts to reduce the deficit. Yet in the rest of the document the committee advocates increasing spending on both foreign and domestic welfare. The committee also advocates new regulations that will retard economic growth, as well as violate the Constitution and infringe on individual liberty.

Constitution
The Financial Services Committees “Views and Estimates for 2005”
February 26, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 7:11
The committee’s inconsistency regarding deficit reduction is shown by its support for increased spending for almost every foreign aid program under its jurisdiction. Of course, Congress has neither constitutional nor moral authority to take money from the American people and send it overseas. Furthermore, foreign aid rarely helps improve the standard of living for citizens of “beneficiary” countries. Instead, the aid all too often enriches corrupt politicians and helps stave off pressure for real reform. Furthermore, certain proposals the committee embraces smack of economic imperialism, suggesting that a country whose economic and other policies please American politicians and bureaucrats will be rewarded with money stolen from the American taxpayer.

Constitution
The Financial Services Committees “Views and Estimates for 2005”
February 26, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 7:14
Finally, the committee’s views support expanding the domestic welfare state in the area of housing, despite the fact that federal subsidies distort the housing market by taking capital that could be better used elsewhere and applying it to housing at the direction of politicians and bureaucrats. Housing subsidies also violate the constitutional prohibitions against redistributionism. The federal government has no constitutional authority to abuse its taxing power to fund programs that reshape the housing market to the liking of politicians and bureaucrats.

Constitution
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 February 2004    2004 Ron Paul 8:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, while it is the independent duty of each branch of the Federal Government to act constitutionally, Congress will likely continue to ignore not only its constitutional limits but earlier criticisms from Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well.

Constitution
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 February 2004    2004 Ron Paul 8:3
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, wants to be amongst those Members of Congress who are portrayed as soft on violent crimes initiated against the unborn?

Constitution
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 February 2004    2004 Ron Paul 8:4
Nevertheless, 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 10th 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.

Constitution
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 February 2004    2004 Ron Paul 8:7
Perhaps, equally 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, because the constitution was amended to allow it, 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 murder 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 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.

Constitution
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 February 2004    2004 Ron Paul 8:8
Occasionaly the argument is put forth 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 centralization of police power.

Constitution
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 February 2004    2004 Ron Paul 8:11
Protection of life — born or unborn — against initiations of violence is of vital importance. So vitally important, in fact, it must be left to the States’ criminal justice systems. We have seen what a legal, constitutional, and philosophical mess results from attempts to federalize such an issue. Numerous States have adequately protected the unborn against assault and murder and done so prior to the Federal Government’s unconstitutional sanctioning of violence in the Roe v. Wade decision. Unfortunately, H.R. 1997 ignores the danger of further federalizing that which is properly reserved to State governments and, in so doing, throws legal philosophy, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the insights of Chief Justice Rehnquist out with the baby and the bathwater.

Constitution
H. Res. 412 Honoring Men And Women Of The Drug Enforcement Administration — Part 1
3 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 10:6
The one thing that this country recognized was that the Congress had no authority to march around the country and tell people not to drink beer, and what did they do? They resorted to amending the Constitution, a proper procedure, and of course, it turned out to be a failed experiment. After 12 years, they woke up and the American people changed it.

Constitution
H. Res. 412 Honoring Men And Women Of The Drug Enforcement Administration — Part 1
3 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 10:8
Another thing that is rather astounding to me, is that not only have we lost the respect for the Constitution to say that the Federal Government can be involved in teaching habits, but we literally did this not even through congressional legislation.

Constitution
H. Res. 412 Honoring Men And Women Of The Drug Enforcement Administration — Part 2
3 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 11:7
One hundred years ago, you could buy cocaine in a drugstore. Most Americans would be tremendously surprised to realize that for most of our history drugs were not illegal. The first marijuana law was in 1938. And they got around that on the constitutional aspect by just putting a tax on it. So there is a lack of respect for how we solve our problems, a lack of wisdom on what we ought to do, and a lack of concern; and this is my deep concern as a physician, a lack of concern for seeing people dying and suffering.

Constitution
H. Res. 412 Honoring Men And Women Of The Drug Enforcement Administration — Part 2
3 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 11:9
We are constitutionally wrong, we are medically wrong, we are economically wrong, and we are not achieving anything. We have no faith and confidence in our constitutional system. We have no faith and confidence that we change moral and personal habits through persuasion, not through armed might.

Constitution
H. Res. 412 Honoring Men And Women Of The Drug Enforcement Administration — Part 2
3 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 11:11
It is still astounding to me to find out that the DEA was not even created by congressional legislation. It was created by an executive order. We have gone a long way, colleagues, from where the respect for the Constitution existed and that at least the Congress should legislate. Even in the 1920s, when we attacked alcohol, we had enough respect for the Constitution to amend the Constitution.

Constitution
We The People Act
4 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 13:2
The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Founders intended Congress to use this authority to correct abuses of power by the federal judiciary.

Constitution
We The People Act
4 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 13:3
Some may claim that an activist judiciary that strikes down state laws at will expands individual liberty. Proponents of this claim overlook the fact that the best guarantor of true liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to liberty is concentrated power. This is why the Constitution carefully limits the power of the federal government over the states.

Constitution
We The People Act
4 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 13:4
In recent years, we have seen numerous abuses of power by federal courts. Federal judges regularly strike down state and local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion. This government by federal judiciary causes a virtual nullification of the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on federal power. Furthermore, when federal judges impose their preferred policies on state and local governments, instead of respecting the policies adopted by those elected by, and thus accountable to, the people, republican government is threatened. Article IV, section 4 of the United States Constitution guarantees each state a republican form of government. Thus, Congress must act when the executive or judicial branch threatens the republican governments of the individual states. Therefore, Congress has a responsibility to stop federal judges from running roughshod over state and local laws. The Founders would certainly have supported congressional action to reign in federal judges who tell citizens where they can and can’t place manger scenes at Christmas.

Constitution
We The People Act
4 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 13:5
Mr. Speaker, even some supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, which overturned the abortion laws of all fifty states, is flawed. The Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause jurisdiction has also drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. Perhaps more importantly, attempts to resolve, by judicial fiat, important issues like abortion and the expression of religious belief in the public square increase social strife and conflict. The only way to resolve controversial social issues like abortion and school prayer is to restore respect for the right of state and local governments to adopt policies that reflect the beliefs of the citizens of those jurisdictions. I would remind my colleagues and the federal judiciary that, under our Constitutional system, there is no reason why the people of New York and the people of Texas should have the same policies regarding issues such as marriage and school prayer.

Constitution
An Indecent Attack on the First Amendment
March 10, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 14:7
Just one year ago we saw a coalition of both left and right push through the radical Campaign Finance Reform Act, which strictly curtails the rights all Americans to speak out against particular candidates at the time of elections. Amazingly, this usurpation by Congress was upheld by the Supreme Court, which showed no concern for the restrictions on political speech during political campaigns. Instead of admitting that money and corruption in government is not a consequence of too much freedom of expression, but rather a result of government acting outside the bounds of the Constitution, this new law addressed a symptom rather than the cause of special interest control of our legislative process.

Constitution
An Indecent Attack on the First Amendment
March 10, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 14:8
And now comes the right’s attack on the 1st Amendment, with its effort to stamp out “indecent” language on the airways. And it will be assumed that if one is not with them in this effort, then one must support the trash seen and heard in the movie theaters and on our televisions and radios. For social rather than constitutional reasons, some on the left express opposition to this proposal.

Constitution
Federalizing Tort Law
10 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 15:5
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would remind the food industry that using unconstitutional federal powers to restrict state lawsuits makes it more likely those same powers will be used to impose additional federal control over the food industry. Despite these lawsuits, the number one threat to business remains a federal government freed of its Constitutional restraints. After all, the federal government imposes numerous taxes and regulations on the food industry, often using the same phony “pro-consumer” justifications used by the trial lawyers. Furthermore, while small businesses, such as fast-food franchises, can move to another state to escape flawed state tax, regulatory, or legal policies, they cannot as easily escape destructive federal regulations. Unconstitutional expansions of federal power, no matter how just the cause may seem, are not in the interests of the food industry or of lovers of liberty.

Constitution
Federalizing Tort Law
10 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 15:6
In conclusion, while I share the concern over the lawsuits against the food industry that inspired H.R. 339, this bill continues the disturbing trend of federalizing tort law. Enhancing the power of the federal government is in no way in the long-term interests of defenders of the free market and Constitutional liberties. Therefore, I must oppose this bill.

Constitution
Undermining First Amendment
11 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 16:3
First, many years ago, it was an attack on commercial speech by dividing commercial and noncommercial speech, which the Constitution does not permit. Then there was a systematic attack from the left, writing rules against hate speech which introduced the notion of political correctness. Recently, there was a petition to the Department of Justice that has asked the Department to evaluate “The Passion of Christ” as an example of hate speech. Unintended consequences do occur.

Constitution
Undermining First Amendment
11 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 16:5
Now, once again, we are attacking indecency, which we all should, but how we do it is critical; because “indecency” is a subjective term, and it has yet to be defined by the courts. We should remember that the Congress very clearly by the Constitution is instructed to: “make no laws abridging the freedom of speech.” It cannot be any clearer. If we have problems with indecency they are to be solved in different manners. The excuse, because the government is responsible and owns the airwaves, that we can suspend the first amendment is incorrect. That is a good argument for privatizing the airwaves rather than an excuse for suspension of the first amendment.

Constitution
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3717, Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act Of 2004
11 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 17:2
The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech. . . .” It does not make an exception for broadcast television. Some argue that broadcast speech is different because broadcasters are using the “people’s airwaves.” Of course, the “people” don’t really control the airwaves anymore then the “people” control the government in the “People’s Republic” of China! Instead, the “people’s airwaves” is a euphemism for government control of the airwaves. Of course, government exceeded its Constitutional authority when it nationalized the broadcast industry.

Constitution
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3717, Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act Of 2004
11 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 17:8
The reason we are considering H.R. 3717 is not unrelated to questions regarding state censorship of political speech. Many of this bill’s most rabid supporters appear to be motivated by the attacks on a member of Congress, and other statements critical of the current administration and violating the standards of political correctness, by “shock jock” Howard Stern. I have heard descriptions of Stern’s radio program that suggest this is a despicable program. However, I find even more troubling the idea that the Federal Government should censor anyone because of his comments about a member of Congress. Such behavior is more suited for members of a Soviet politburo than members of a representative body in a constitutional republic.

Constitution
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3717, Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act Of 2004
11 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 17:15
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3717 is the latest in an increasing number of attacks on free speech. For years, those who wanted to regulate and restrict speech in the commercial marketplace relied on the commercial speech doctrine that provides a lower level of protection to speech designed to provide a profit to the speaker. However, this doctrine has no Constitutional authority because the plain language of the First Amendment does not make any exceptions for commercial speech!

Constitution
Oppose a Flawed Policy of Preemptive War
March 17, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 18:5
Reasserting U.N. Security Council resolutions as a justification for the war further emphasizes our sacrifice of sovereignty, and only underscores how Congress has reneged its constitutional responsibility over war.

Constitution
Opposing H.R. 557
17 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 19:3
Denying that we are interested in oil and that occupying an Islamic country is not an affront to the sensitivities of most Arabs and Muslims is foolhardy. Reasserting U.N. Security Council resolutions as the justification for war further emphasizes our sacrifice of sovereignty and Congress’s reneging on its Constitutional responsibility on war.

Constitution
Opposing H.R. 557
17 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 19:12
This resolution praises the new constitution for Iraq, written by U.S. experts and appointees. No one stops to consider the folly of the U.S. and the West believing they can write a constitution for a country with a completely different political and social history than ours. The constitution that the occupying forces have come up with is unworkable and absurd. It also will saddle the Iraqi people with an enormous and socialist-oriented government. In this, we are doing the Iraqi people no favor.

Constitution
Opposing H.R. 557
17 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 19:13
Article 14 of the new constitution grants the Iraqi people the “right” to “security, education, health care, and social security,” and affirms that “the Iraqi state . . . shall strive to provide prosperity and employment opportunities to the people.” This sounds more like the constitution of the old USSR than that of a free and market-oriented society. Further, this constitution declares that Iraqi citizens “shall not be permitted to possess, bear, buy, or sell arms” except by special license — denying the right of self defense to the Iraqi people just as their security situation continues to deteriorate. The Iraqi constitution also sets up a quota system for the Iraqi electoral system, stating that women should “constitute no less than one-quarter of the members of the National Assembly.” Is this kind of social engineering in Iraq on very left-liberal lines really appropriate? Are we doing the Iraqi people any favors with this approach?

Constitution
North American Development Bank
24 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 21:4
I would also like to remind my colleagues that there is no constitutional authorization for Congress to fund organizations like the NAD. If my colleagues are not convinced by the constitutional argument, I would hope they would consider the wisdom of expanding the scope of taxpayer support of programs like the NAD at a time when the government is facing massive deficits and Congress is scrambling to find the money to pay for national priorities.

Constitution
North American Development Bank
24 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 21:5
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up for sound economics and constitutional principles by rejecting H.R. 254, legislation expanding the North American Development Bank.

Constitution
The Television Consumer Freedom Act
24 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 22:3
It is, of course, within the constitutionally enumerated powers of Congress to “promote the progress of Science and Useful Arts by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the Exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” However, operating a clearing-house for the subsequent transfer of such property rights in the name of setting a just price or “instilling competition” via “central planning” seems to be neither economically prudent nor justifiable under this enumerated power. This process is one best reserved to the competitive marketplace.

Constitution
The Television Consumer Freedom Act
24 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 22:6
The Television Consumer Freedom Act also repeals federal regulations that mandate that all TVs sold in the United States contain “digital technology.” In complete disregard of all free market and constitutional principles, the FCC actually plans to forbid consumers from buying TVs, after 2006 that are not equipped to carry digital broadcasts. According to Stephen Moore of the CATO Institute, this could raise the price of a TV by as much as $250 dollars. While some television manufactures and broadcasters may believe they will benefit from this government-imposed price increase, they will actually lose business as consumers refrain from purchasing new TVs because of the government mandated price increase.

Constitution
Introducing The American Justice For American Citizens Act
1 April 2004    2004 Ron Paul 26:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the American Justice for American Citizens Act, which exercises Congress’s Constitutional authority to regulate the federal judiciary to ensure that federal judges base their decisions solely on American Constitutional, statutory, and traditional common law. Federal judges increasing practice of “transjudicialism” makes this act necessary. Transjudicialism is a new legal theory that encourages judges to disregard American law, including the United States Constitution, and base their decisions on foreign law. For example, Supreme Court justices recently used international law to justify upholding race-based college admissions and overturning all state sodomy laws.

Constitution
Introducing The American Justice For American Citizens Act
1 April 2004    2004 Ron Paul 26:2
In an October 28, 2003 speech before the Southern Center for International Studies in Atlanta, Georgia, Justice O’Connor stated: “[i]n ruling that consensual homosexual activity in one’s home is constitutionally protected, the Supreme Court relied in part on a series of decisions from the European Court of Human Rights. I suspect that with time, we will rely increasingly on international and foreign law in resolving what now appear to be domestic issues, as we both appreciate more fully the ways in which domestic issues have an international dimension, and recognize the rich resources available to us in the decisions of foreign courts.”

Constitution
Introducing The American Justice For American Citizens Act
1 April 2004    2004 Ron Paul 26:3
This statement should send chills down the back of every supporter of Constitutional government. After all, the legal systems of many of the foreign countries that provide Justice O’Connor with “rich resources” for her decisions do not respect the same concepts of due process, federalism, and even the presumption of innocence that are fundamental to the American legal system. Thus, harmonizing American law with foreign law could undermine individual rights and limited, decentralized government.

Constitution
Introducing The American Justice For American Citizens Act
1 April 2004    2004 Ron Paul 26:4
There has also been speculation that transjudicialism could be used to conform American law to treaties, such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the Senate has not ratified. Mr. Speaker, some of these treaties have not been ratified because of concerns regarding their effects on traditional American legal, political, and social institutions. Judges should not be allowed to implement what could be major changes in American society, short-circuit the democratic process, and usurp the Constitutional role of the Senate to approve treaties, by using unratifed treaties as the bases of their decisions.

Constitution
Introducing The American Justice For American Citizens Act
1 April 2004    2004 Ron Paul 26:5
All federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, take an oath to obey and uphold the Constitution. The Constitution was ordained and ratified by the people of the United States to provide a charter of governance in accord with fixed and enduring principles, not to empower federal judges to impose the transnational legal elites’ latest theories on the American people.

Constitution
Introducing The American Justice For American Citizens Act
1 April 2004    2004 Ron Paul 26:6
Mr. Speaker, the drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the power to regulate the jurisdiction of federal courts precisely so we could intervene when the federal judiciary betrays its responsibility to uphold the Constitution and American law. Congress has a duty to use this power to ensure that judges base their decisions solely on American law.

Constitution
Introducing The American Justice For American Citizens Act
1 April 2004    2004 Ron Paul 26:7
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do their Constitutional duty to ensure that American citizens have American justice by cosponsoring the American Justice for American Citizens Act.

Constitution
Continuity In Representation Act
22 April 2004    2004 Ron Paul 28:2
H.R. 2844 provides a practical and constitutional way to ensure that the House of Representatives can continue to operate in the event that more than 100 Members are killed. H.R. 2844 thus protects the people’s right to choose their Representative at a time when such a right may be most important, while ensuring continuity of the legislative branch.

Constitution
Continuity In Representation Act
22 April 2004    2004 Ron Paul 28:4
Mr. Chairman, there are those who say the power of appointment is necessary in order to preserve checks and balances and prevent an abuse of executive power during a time of crisis. Of course, I agree that is a very important point to carefully guard against and protect our constitutional liberties, and that an overcentralization of power in the executive branch is one of the most serious dangers to our liberties. However, during a time of crisis, it is all the more important to have Representatives accountable to the people.

Constitution
Continuity In Representation Act
22 April 2004    2004 Ron Paul 28:6
Supporters of amending the constitution claim that the appointment power will be necessary in the event of an emergency and that the appointed representatives will only be temporary. However, the laws passed by these “temporary” representatives will be permanent.

Constitution
Continuity In Representation Act
22 April 2004    2004 Ron Paul 28:7
The Framers gave Congress all the tools it needs to address problems of mass vacancies in the House without compromising this institution’s primary function as a representative body. In fact, as Hamilton explains in Federalist 59, the “time, place, and manner” clause was specifically designed to address the kind of extraordinary circumstances imagined by those who support amending the Constitution. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2844, the Continuity in Representation Act, which ensures an elected Congress can continue to operate in the event of an emergency.

Constitution
Continuity In Representation Act
22 April 2004    2004 Ron Paul 28:8
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support H.R. 2844, the Continuity in Representation Act, introduced by my distinguished colleague, House Judiciary Committee Chairman JAMES SENSENBRENNER. H.R. 2844 provides a practical and Constitutional way to ensure that the House of Representatives can continue to operate in the event that more than 100 members are killed, H.R. 2844 thus protects the people’s right to choose their representatives at the time when such a right may be most important, while ensuring continuity of the legislative branch.

Constitution
Continuity In Representation Act
22 April 2004    2004 Ron Paul 28:9
Article I Section 2 of the United States Constitution grants state governors the authority to hold special elections to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives. Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to designate the time, place, and manner of such special elections if states should fail to act expeditiously following a national emergency. Alexander Hamilton, who played a major role in the drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution, characterized authority over federal elections as shared between the states and Congress, with neither being able to control the process entirely. H.R. 2844 exercises Congress’s power to regulate the time, place, and manner of elections by requiring the holding of special elections within 45 days after the Speaker or acting Speaker declares 100 members of the House have been killed.

Constitution
Continuity In Representation Act
22 April 2004    2004 Ron Paul 28:11
I am disappointed that some of my colleagues reject the sensible approach of H.R. 2844 and instead support amending the Constitution to allow appointed members to serve in this body. Allowing appointed members to serve in “the people’s house” will fundamentally alter the nature of this institution and sever the people’s most direct connection with their government.

Constitution
Continuity In Representation Act
22 April 2004    2004 Ron Paul 28:13
Mr. Chairman, there are those who say that the power of appointment is necessary in order to preserve checks and balances and thus prevent an abuse of executive power during a time of crisis. Of course, I agree that it is very important to carefully guard our constitutional liberties in times of crisis, and that an over-centralization of power in the executive branch is one of the most serious dangers to that liberty. However, Mr. Chairman, during a time of crisis it is all the more important to have representatives accountable to the people. Otherwise, the citizenry has no check on the inevitable tendency of Government to infringe on the people’s liberties at such a time. I would remind my colleagues that the only reason we are considering reexamining provisions of the PATRIOT Act is because of public concerns that this act gives up excessive liberty for a phantom security. Appointed officials would not be as responsive to public concerns.

Constitution
Continuity In Representation Act
22 April 2004    2004 Ron Paul 28:14
Supporters of amending the constitution claim that the appointment power will be necessary in the event of an emergency and that the appointed representatives will only be temporary. However, the laws passed by these “temporary” representatives will be permanent.

Constitution
Continuity In Representation Act
22 April 2004    2004 Ron Paul 28:15
Mr. Chairman, this country has faced the possibility of threats to the continuity of this body several times in our history. Yet no one suggested removing the people’s right to vote for members of Congress. For example, the British in the War of 1812 attacked the city of Washington, yet nobody suggested the States could not address the lack of a quorum in the House of Representatives through elections. During the Civil War, the neighboring State of Virginia, where today many Capitol Hill staffers reside and many members stay while Congress is in session, was actively involved in hostilities against the United States Government. Yet, Abraham Lincoln never suggested that non-elected persons serve in the House. Adopting any of the proposals to deny the people the ability to choose their own representatives would let the terrorists know that they can succeed in altering our republican institutions. I hope all my colleagues who are considering rejecting H.R. 2844 in favor of a Constitutional amendment will question the wisdom of handing terrorists a preemptive victory over republican government.

Constitution
Continuity In Representation Act
22 April 2004    2004 Ron Paul 28:16
As noted above, the Framers gave Congress all the tools it needs to address problems of mass vacancies in the House without compromising this institution’s primary function as a representative body. In fact, as Hamilton explains in Federalist 59, the “time, place, and manner” clause was specifically designed to address the kind of extraordinary circumstances imagined by those who support amending the Constitution. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2844, the Continuity in Representation Act, which ensures an elected Congress can continue to operate in the event of an emergency. This is what the Drafters of the Constitution intended. Furthermore, passage of H.R. 2844 sends a strong message to terrorists that they cannot alter our republican government.

Constitution
Statement on the Abuse of Prisoners in Iraq
May 6, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 31:6
This resolution decries the fact that the administration had not informed Congress of these abuses and that the administration has not kept Congress in the information loop. Yet, Congress made it clear to the administration from the very beginning that Congress wanted no responsibility for the war in Iraq. If Congress wanted to be kept in the loop it should have vigorously exercised its responsibilities from the very beginning. This means, first and foremost, that Congress should have voted on a declaration of war as required in the Constitution. Congress, after abrogating this responsibility in October 2002, now is complaining that it is in the dark. Indeed, who is to say that the legal ambiguity created by the Congressional refusal to declare war may not have contributed to the notion that detainees need not be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention, that governs the treatment of prisoners during a time of war? Until Congress takes up its constitutional responsibilities, complaints that the administration is not sufficiently forthcoming with information ring hollow.

Constitution
Statement on the Abuse of Prisoners in Iraq
May 6, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 31:7
This resolution calls on the administration to keep Congress better informed. But Congress has the power – and the obligation – to keep itself better informed! If Congress is truly interested in being informed, it should hold hearings – exercising its subpoena power if necessary. Depending on the administration to fulfill what is our own constitutional responsibility is once again passing the buck. Isn’t this what has gotten us into this trouble in the first place?

Constitution
Brown v. Board Of Education
13 May 2004    2004 Ron Paul 33:2
The “whereas clauses” of this resolution venture far beyond the basis of Brown and praise various federal legislative acts such as the Fair Housing Act of 1968, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This final Act was particularly pernicious because it was not applied across the board, but targeted only at certain areas of the country. As such, it violates the spirit of the very equal protection it claims to promote. Moreover, we certainly should ask what constitutional authority lies behind the passage of such legislation.

Constitution
The House of Representatives Must be Elected!
June 2, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 36:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J.Res. 83, which amends the United States Constitution to allow appointed persons to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives in the event of an emergency. Since the Continuity of Government (COG) Commission first proposed altering our system of government by allowing appointed members to serve in this body. I, along with other members of Congress, journalists, academics, and policy experts, have expressed concerns that having appointed members serve in the House of Representatives is inconsistent with the House’s historic function as the branch of Congress most directly accountable to the people.

Constitution
The House of Representatives Must be Elected!
June 2, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 36:3
Mr. Speaker, there are those who say that the power of appointment is necessary in order to preserve checks and balances and thus prevent an abuse of executive power. Of course, I agree that it is very important to carefully guard our constitutional liberties in times of crisis, and that an over-centralization of power in the executive branch is one of the most serious dangers to that liberty. However, Mr. Speaker, during a time of crisis it is all the more important to have representatives accountable to the people making the laws. Otherwise, the citizenry has no check on the inevitable tendency of government to infringe on the people’s liberties at such a time. I would remind my colleagues that the only reason we are reexamining provisions of the PATRIOT Act is because of public concerns that this Act gives up too much liberty for a phantom security. Appointed officials would not be as responsive to public concerns.

Constitution
The House of Representatives Must be Elected!
June 2, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 36:7
The Constitution already provides the framework for Congress to function after a catastrophic event. Article I Section 2 grants the governors of the various states authority to hold special elections to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives. Article I Section 4 gives Congress the authority to designate the time, manner, and place of such special elections if states should fail to act expeditiously following a national emergency. As Hamilton explains in Federalist 59, the “time, place, and manner” clause was specifically designed to address the kind of extraordinary circumstances imagined by the supporters of H.J.Res. 83. Hamilton characterized authority over federal elections as shared between the states and Congress, with neither being able to control the process entirely.

Constitution
The House of Representatives Must be Elected!
June 2, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 36:8
Last month, this body fulfilled its constitutional duty by passing HR 2844, the Continuity of Representation Act. HR 2844 exercises Congress’s power to regulate the time, place, and manner of elections by requiring the holding of special elections within 45 days after the Speaker or acting Speaker declares 100 or more members of the House have been killed. This proposal protects the people’s right to choose their representatives at the time when such a right may be most important, while ensuring continuity of the legislative branch.

Constitution
The House of Representatives Must be Elected!
June 2, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 36:9
In conclusion, I call upon my colleges to reject H.J.Res. 83, since it alters the Constitution to deny the people their right to elect their representatives at a time when having elected representation may be most crucial.

Constitution
The Same Old Failed Policies in Iraq
June 3, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 37:15
It’s time we reconsider the advice of the founding fathers and the guidelines of the Constitution, which counsel a foreign policy of non-intervention and strategic independence. Setting a good example is a far better way to spread American ideals than through force of arms. Trading with nations, without interference by international government regulators, is far better than sanctions and tariffs that too often plant the seeds of war.

Constitution
Bill Would Not Bring Middle East Peace
23 June 2004    2004 Ron Paul 40:2
Mr. Speaker, this resolution in several places asserts that the United States is “strongly committed” to the security of Israel. I find no provision in the Constitution that allows the United States Government to confiscate money from its own citizens and send it overseas for the defense of a foreign country. Further, this legislation promises that the United States “remains committed to . . . Israel, including secure, recognized, and defensible borders.” So we are pledging to defend Israel’s borders while we are not even able to control our own borders. Shouldn’t we be concentrating on fulfilling our constitutional obligations in our own country first, before we go crusading around the world to protect foreign borders?

Constitution
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.

Constitution
Opposing H. Res. 676
23 June 2004    2004 Ron Paul 42:4
The Civil Rights act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judge’s cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judges defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Constitution
A Token Attempt to Reduce Government Spending
June 24, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 43:1
Mr. Speaker, I support HR 4663, the Spending Control Act of 2004, because I believe those of us concerned about the effects of excessive government spending on American liberty and prosperity should support any effort to rein in spending. However, I hold no great expectations that this bill will result in a new dawn of fiscal responsibility. In fact, since this bill is unlikely to pass the Senate, the main effect of today’s vote will be to allow members to brag to their constituents that they voted to keep a lid on spending. Many of these members will not tell their constituents that later this year they will likely vote for a budget busting, pork laden, omnibus spending bill that most members will not even have a chance to read before voting! In fact, last week, many members who I am sure will vote for HR 4663 voted against cutting funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). Last November, many of these same members voted for the greatest expansion of the welfare state since the Great Society. If Congress cannot even bring itself to cut the budget of the NEA or refuse to expand the welfare state, what are the odds that Congress will make the tough choices necessary to restore fiscal order, much less constitutional government?

Constitution
A Token Attempt to Reduce Government Spending
June 24, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 43:5
Every member of Congress has already promised to support limited government by swearing to uphold the United States Constitution. The Constitution limits the federal government to a few, well-defined functions. A good start toward restoring Constitutional government would be debating my Liberty Amendment (H.J.Res. 15). The Liberty Amendment repeals the Sixteenth Amendment, thus eliminating the income tax the source of much of the growth of government and loss of individual liberty. The Liberty Amendment also explicitly limits the federal government to those functions it is constitutionally authorized to perform.

Constitution
American Community Survey
7 July 2004    2004 Ron Paul 45:7
Article 1, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution mandates a national census every 10 years. I am in support of that, and I vote for funding for a national census every 10 years for the sole purpose of congressional redistricting. But, boy, this is out of hand now. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars and it is perpetual. The argument earlier was, we have to have to survey continuously because we save money by spending more money. Ask people a lot of questions, personal questions about bathrooms and incomes and who knows what.

Constitution
American Community Survey
7 July 2004    2004 Ron Paul 45:15
So my proposal is let us at least get rid of the American Community Survey, which is the ongoing nuisance that we put up with, and limit what we do here to what the Constitution has told us we can do and what we should do, and that is, count the people every 10 years for the purpose of redistricting. But big deal, who cares. For all we do around here, how often do we really pay attention to the details of the Constitution?

Constitution
UNESCO
7 July 2004    2004 Ron Paul 47:9
I mean, if those are not threatening terms about what they want to do, and yet here we are funding this program and the American taxpayers are forced to pay for it. Now, there are a few of us left in the Congress, I see a couple on the floor tonight, that might even object to the Federal Government telling our States what to do with education, and of course there is no constitutional authority for that. We have the Leave No Child Behind, but it looks like everyone is going to be left behind before we know it.

Constitution
Taiwan Relations Act — Part 1
14 July 2004    2004 Ron Paul 54:10
Also, looking for guidance in the Constitution. It is very clear that the Constitution does not give us this authority to assume responsibility for everybody, and to assume the entire responsibility for Taiwan is more than I can read into the Constitution.

Constitution
Millennium Challenge Account — Part 2
15 July 2004    2004 Ron Paul 59:5
So a program like this actually does the reverse. It has unintended consequences. It makes our problems worse. And, besides, we do not have the right to do it. We do not have the constitutional authority to do it, and we certainly do not have a moral authority to undermine the poor people of this country by making the conditions worse here.

Constitution
End the Two-Party Monopoly!
July 15, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 63:3
The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate the time, place, and manner of federal elections. Thus, ballot access is one of the few areas where Congress has explicit constitutional authority to establish national standards. In order to open up the political process, I have introduced the Voter Freedom Act (HR 1941). HR 1941 established uniform standards for ballot access so third party and independent candidates can at last compete on a level playing field.

Constitution
Protecting Marriage from Judicial Tyranny
July 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 64:1
Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act (HR 3313), I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill. HR 3313 ensures federal courts will not undermine any state laws regulating marriage by forcing a state to recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued in another state. The Marriage Protection Act thus ensures that the authority to regulate marriage remains with individual states and communities, as the drafters of the Constitution intended.

Constitution
Protecting Marriage from Judicial Tyranny
July 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 64:2
The practice of judicial activism- legislating from the bench- is now standard procedure for many federal judges. They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as outdated, instead treating the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case. For judges who see themselves as social activists, their vision of justice is more important than the letter of the law they are sworn to interpret and uphold. With the federal judiciary focused more on promoting a social agenda than on upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by judges they did not elect and cannot remove from office.

Constitution
Protecting Marriage from Judicial Tyranny
July 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 64:3
Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court last June. The Court determined that Texas has no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because these laws violated the court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Regardless of the advisability of such laws, the Constitution does not give the federal government authority to overturn these laws. Under the Tenth Amendment, the state of Texas has the authority to pass laws concerning social matters, using its own local standards, without federal interference. But rather than adhering to the Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a state matter, the Court decided to stretch the “right to privacy” to justify imposing the justices’ vision on the people of Texas.

Constitution
Protecting Marriage from Judicial Tyranny
July 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 64:4
Since the Lawrence decision, many Americans have expressed their concern that the Court may next “discover” that state laws defining marriage violate the Court’s wrongheaded interpretation of the Constitution. After all, some judges simply may view this result as taking the Lawrence decision to its logical conclusion.

Constitution
Protecting Marriage from Judicial Tyranny
July 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 64:6
In 1996 Congress exercised its authority under the full faith and credit clause of Article IV of the Constitution by passing the Defense of Marriage Act. This ensured each state could set its own policy regarding marriage and not be forced to adopt the marriage policies of another state. Since the full faith and credit clause grants Congress the clear authority to “prescribe the effects” that state documents such as marriage licenses have on other states, the Defense of Marriage Act is unquestionably constitutional. However, the lack of respect federal judges show for the plain language of the Constitution necessitates congressional action so that state officials are not forced to recognize another states’ same-sex marriage licenses because of a flawed judicial interpretation. The drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the power to limit federal jurisdiction to provide a check on out-of-control federal judges. It is long past time we begin using our legitimate authority to protect the states and the people from judicial tyranny.

Constitution
Protecting Marriage from Judicial Tyranny
July 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 64:7
Since the Marriage Protection Act requires only a majority vote in both houses of Congress (and the president’s signature) to become law, it is a more practical way to deal with this issue than the time-consuming process of passing a constitutional amendment. In fact, since the Defense of Marriage Act overwhelmingly passed both houses, and the president supports protecting state marriage laws from judicial tyranny, there is no reason why the Marriage Protection Act cannot become law this year.

Constitution
Protecting Marriage from Judicial Tyranny
July 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 64:8
Some may argue that allowing federal judges to rewrite the definition of marriage can result in a victory for individual liberty. This claim is flawed. The best guarantor of true liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to liberty is concentrated power. This is why the Constitution carefully limits the power of the federal government over the states. Allowing federal judges unfettered discretion to strike down state laws, or force a state to conform to the laws of another state, leads to centralization and loss of liberty.

Constitution
Protecting Marriage from Judicial Tyranny
July 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 64:10
Mr. Speaker, Congress has a constitutional responsibility to stop rogue federal judges from using a flawed interpretation of the Constitution to rewrite the laws and traditions governing marriage. I urge my colleagues to stand against destructive judicial activism and for marriage by voting for the Marriage Protection Act.

Constitution
Hands Off Sudan!
July 23, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 65:2
Mr. Speaker, this resolution was never marked-up in the House International Relations Committee, on which I serve. Therefore, Members of that committee had no opportunity to amend it or express their views before it was sent to the Floor for a vote. Like too many highly controversial bills, it was rushed onto the suspension calendar (by House rules reserved for “non-controversial” legislation) at the last minute. Perhaps there was a concern that if Members had more time to consider the bill they would cringe at the resolution’s call for US military action in Sudan - particularly at a time when our military is stretched to the breaking point. The men and women of the United States Armed Forces risk their lives to protect and defend the United States. Can anyone tell me how sending thousands of American soldiers into harm’s way in Sudan is by any stretch of the imagination in the US national interest or in keeping with the constitutional function of this country’s military forces? I urge my colleagues in the strongest terms to reject this dangerous resolution.

Constitution
Opposes Mandatory Mental Health Screenings In Public Schools — Part 1
9 September 2004    2004 Ron Paul 67:3
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment says that no funds in this bill will be permitted to be used to institute system of universal mental health screening. The New Freedoms Commission on Mental Health, a commission established in 2002, has recommended universal mental health screening for all our children in our public schools as well as adults who work in these schools. As a medical doctor, as a civil libertarian, and a strict constitutionist, I strongly reject this notion, this plan, as dangerous and nonproductive.

Constitution
The Constitution
23 September 2004    2004 Ron Paul 70:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Constitution is the most unique and best contract ever drawn up between a people and their government throughout history. Though flawed from the beginning, because all men are flawed, it nevertheless has served us well and set an example for the entire world.

Constitution
The Constitution
23 September 2004    2004 Ron Paul 70:2
Yet no matter how hard the authors tried, the inevitable corrupting influence of power was not thwarted by the Constitution. The notion of separate States and local governments championed by the followers of Jefferson was challenged by the Hamiltonians almost immediately following ratification of the Constitution.

Constitution
The Constitution
23 September 2004    2004 Ron Paul 70:4
Although the 19th century generally was kind to the intent of the constitution, namely limiting government power, a major setback occurred with the Civil War and the severe undermining of the principle of sovereign States.

Constitution
The Constitution
23 September 2004    2004 Ron Paul 70:6
Although the basic principle underlying the constitutional republic we were given was compromised in the post Civil War period, it was not until the 20th century that steady and significant erosion of the Constitution restraints placed on the central government occurred. This erosion adversely affected not only economic and civil liberties but foreign affairs as well.

Constitution
The Constitution
23 September 2004    2004 Ron Paul 70:7
We now have persistent abuse of the Constitution by the executive, legislative and the judicial branches. Our legislative leaders in Washington demonstrate little concern for the rule of law, liberty and our republican form of government.

Constitution
The Constitution
23 September 2004    2004 Ron Paul 70:9
The real purpose of the Constitution was the preservation of liberty, but our government ignores this while spending endlessly, taxing and regulating. The complacent electorate who are led to believe their interests and needs are best served by a huge bureaucratic welfare state convince themselves that enormous Federal deficits and destructive inflation can be dealt with on another day.

Constitution
The Constitution
23 September 2004    2004 Ron Paul 70:11
The response of honorable men and women who represent us should be simply to take their oaths of office seriously, vote accordingly and return our Nation to its proper republican origins. The result would be economic prosperity, greater personal liberty, honest money, abolition of the Internal Revenue Service and a world made more peaceful when we abandon the futile policy of building and policing an American empire. No longer would we yield our sovereignty to international organizations that act outside of the restraints placed on the government by the Constitution.

Constitution
The Constitution
23 September 2004    2004 Ron Paul 70:12
The Constitution and those who have sworn to uphold it are not perfect, and it is understandable that abuse occurs, but it should not be acceptable. Without meticulous adherence to the principle of the rule of law, minor infractions become commonplace, and the Constitution loses all meaning. Unfortunately, that is where we are today.

Constitution
The Constitution
23 September 2004    2004 Ron Paul 70:13
The nonsense that the Constitution is a living, flexible document taught as gospel in most public schools must be challenged. The Founders were astute enough to recognize the Constitution was not perfect and wisely permitted amendments to the document, but they correctly made the process tedious and difficult. Without a renewed love for liberty and confidence in its results, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to restore once again the rule of law under the Constitution.

Constitution
The Constitution
23 September 2004    2004 Ron Paul 70:14
I have heard throughout my life how each upcoming election is the most important election ever and how the very future of our country is at stake. Those fears have always been grossly overstated. The real question is not who will achieve the next partisan victory; the real question is whether or not we will once again accept the clear restraints placed in the power of the national government by the Constitution. Obviously, the jury is still out on this issue. However, what we choose to do about this constitutional crisis is the most important “election” of our times, and the results will determine the kind of society our children will inherit. I believe it is worthwhile for all of us to tirelessly pursue the preservation of the elegant constitution with which we have been so blessed.

Constitution
Federal Courts and the Pledge of Allegiance
September 23, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 71:1
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support, and cosponsor, the Pledge Protection Act (HR 2028), which restricts federal court jurisdiction over the question of whether the phrase “under God” should be included in the pledge of allegiance. Local schools should determine for themselves whether or not students should say “under God” in the pledge. The case finding it is a violation of the First Amendment to include the words “under God” in the pledge is yet another example of federal judges abusing their power by usurping state and local governments’ authority over matters such as education. Congress has the constitutional authority to rein in the federal courts’ jurisdiction and the duty to preserve the states’ republican forms of governments. Since government by the federal judiciary undermines the states’ republican governments, Congress has a duty to rein in rogue federal judges. I am pleased to see Congress exercise its authority to protect the states from an out-of-control judiciary.

Constitution
Federal Courts and the Pledge of Allegiance
September 23, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 71:2
Many of my colleagues base their votes on issues regarding federalism on whether or not they agree with the particular state policy at issue. However, under the federalist system as protected by the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, states have the authority to legislate in ways that most members of Congress, and even the majority of the citizens of other states, disapprove. Consistently upholding state autonomy does not mean approving of all actions taken by state governments; it simply means acknowledging that the constitutional limits on federal power require Congress to respect the wishes of the states even when the states act unwisely. I would remind my colleagues that an unwise state law, by definition, only affects the people of one state. Therefore, it does far less damage than a national law that affects all Americans.

Constitution
Federal Courts and the Pledge of Allegiance
September 23, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 71:3
While I will support this bill even if the language removing the United States Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over cases regarding the pledge is eliminated, I am troubled that some of my colleagues question whether Congress has the authority to limit Supreme Court jurisdiction in this case. Both the clear language of the United States Constitution and a long line of legal precedents make it clear that Congress has the authority to limit the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. The Framers intended Congress to use the power to limit jurisdiction as a check on all federal judges, including Supreme Court judges , who, after all, have lifetime tenure and are thus unaccountable to the people.

Constitution
Federal Courts and the Pledge of Allegiance
September 23, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 71:4
Ironically, the author of the pledge of allegiance might disagree with our commitment to preserving the prerogatives of state and local governments. Francis Bellamy, the author of the pledge, was a self-described socialist who wished to replace the Founders’ constitutional republic with a strong, centralized welfare state. Bellamy wrote the pledge as part of his efforts to ensue that children put their allegiance to the central government before their allegiance to their families, local communities, state governments, and even their creator! In fact, the atheist Bellamy did not include the words “under God” in his original version of the pledge. That phrase was added to the pledge in the 1950s.

Constitution
Cultural Conservatives Lose if Gay Marriage is Federalized
September 30, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 73:1
Mr. Speaker, while I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman, I do not believe a constitutional amendment is either a necessary or proper way to defend marriage.

Constitution
Cultural Conservatives Lose if Gay Marriage is Federalized
September 30, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 73:3
If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’s constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state. This Congress, I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts’ jurisdiction. If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state.

Constitution
Cultural Conservatives Lose if Gay Marriage is Federalized
September 30, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 73:4
Having studied this issue and consulted with leading legal scholars, including an attorney who helped defend the Boy Scouts against attempts to force the organization to allow gay men to serve as scoutmasters, I am convinced that both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act can survive legal challenges and ensure that no state is forced by a federal court’s or another state’s actions to recognize same sex marriage. Therefore, while I am sympathetic to those who feel only a constitutional amendment will sufficiently address this issue, I respectfully disagree. I also am concerned that the proposed amendment, by telling the individual states how their state constitutions are to be interpreted, is a major usurpation of the states’ power. The division of power between the federal government and the states is one of the virtues of the American political system. Altering that balance endangers self-government and individual liberty. However, if federal judges wrongly interfere and attempt to compel a state to recognize the marriage licenses of another state, that would be the proper time for me to consider new legislative or constitutional approaches.

Constitution
Cultural Conservatives Lose if Gay Marriage is Federalized
September 30, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 73:6
“The very fact that the FMA [Federal Marriage Amendment] was introduced said that conservatives believed it was okay to amend the Constitution to take power from the states and give it to Washington. That is hardly a basic principle of conservatism as we used to know it. It is entirely likely the left will boomerang that assertion into a future proposed amendment that would weaken gun rights or mandate income redistribution.”

Constitution
Cultural Conservatives Lose if Gay Marriage is Federalized
September 30, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 73:7
Passing a constitutional amendment is a long, drawn-out process. The fact that the marriage amendment already failed to gather the necessary two-thirds support in the Senate means that, even if two-thirds of House members support the amendment, it will not be sent to states for ratification this year. Even if the amendment gathers the necessary two-thirds support in both houses of Congress, it still must go through the time-consuming process of state ratification. This process requires three-quarters of the state legislatures to approve the amendment before it can become effective. Those who believe that immediate action to protect the traditional definition of marriage is necessary should consider that the Equal Rights Amendment easily passed both houses of Congress and was quickly ratified by a number of states. Yet, that amendment remains unratified today. Proponents of this marriage amendment should also consider that efforts to amend the Constitution to address flag burning and require the federal government to balance the budget have been ongoing for years, without any success.

Constitution
Cultural Conservatives Lose if Gay Marriage is Federalized
September 30, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 73:8
Ironically, liberal social engineers who wish to use federal government power to redefine marriage will be able to point to the constitutional marriage amendment as proof that the definition of marriage is indeed a federal matter! I am unwilling either to cede to federal courts the authority to redefine marriage, or to deny a state’s ability to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. Instead, I believe it is time for Congress and state legislatures to reassert their authority by refusing to enforce judicial usurpations of power.

Constitution
Cultural Conservatives Lose if Gay Marriage is Federalized
September 30, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 73:9
In contrast to a constitutional amendment, the Marriage Protection Act requires only a majority vote of both houses of Congress and the president’s signature to become law. The bill already has passed the House of Representatives; at least 51 senators would vote for it; and the president would sign this legislation given his commitment to protecting the traditional definition of marriage. Therefore, those who believe Congress needs to take immediate action to protect marriage this year should focus on passing the Marriage Protection Act.

Constitution
Cultural Conservatives Lose if Gay Marriage is Federalized
September 30, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 73:10
Because of the dangers to liberty and traditional values posed by the unexpected consequences of amending the Constitution to strip power from the states and the people and further empower Washington, I cannot in good conscience support the marriage amendment to the United States Constitution. Instead, I plan to continue working to enact the Marriage Protection Act and protect each state’s right not to be forced to recognize a same sex marriage.

Constitution
Reject a National Prescription Database
October 5, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 74:6
Once doctors know that there is a national database of controlled substances prescriptions that overzealous law enforcement will be scrutinizing to harass doctors, there may be no doctors left who are willing to treat chronic pain. Instead of creating a national database, we should be returning medical regulation to local control, where it historically and constitutionally belongs. Instead of drug warriors regulating medicine with an eye to maximizing prosecutions, we should return to state medical boards and state civil courts review that looks to science-based standards of medical care and patients’ best interests.

Constitution
The 9-11 Intelligence Bill: More Bureaucracy, More Intervention, Less Freedom
October 8, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 77:5
Furthermore, the federal government has no constitutional authority to require law-abiding Americans to present any form of identification before engaging in private transactions (e.g. getting a job, opening a bank account, or seeking medical assistance). Nothing in our Constitution can reasonably be construed to allow government officials to demand identification from individuals who are not suspected of any crime.

Constitution
The 9-11 Intelligence Bill: More Bureaucracy, More Intervention, Less Freedom
October 8, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 77:8
I am also disappointed the Financial Services Committee rejected my amendment to conform the regulations governing the filing of suspicious activities reports with the requirements of the US Constitution. This amendment not only would have ensured greater privacy protection, but it also would have enabled law enforcement to better focus on people who truly pose a threat to our safety.

Constitution
The 9-11 Intelligence Bill: More Bureaucracy, More Intervention, Less Freedom
October 8, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 77:14
Finally, I am skeptical about the reorganization of the intelligence community in this legislation. In creating an entire new bureaucracy, the National Intelligence Director, we are adding yet another layer of bureaucracy to our already bloated federal government. Yet, we are supposed to believe that even more of the same kind of government that failed us on September 11, 2001 will make us safer. At best, this is wishful thinking. The constitutional function of our intelligence community is to protect the United States from foreign attack. Ever since its creation by the National Security Act of 1947, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been meddling in affairs that have nothing to do with the security of the United States. Considering the CIA’s overthrow of Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadeq in the 1950s, and the CIA’s training of the Muhajadin jihadists in Afghanistan in the 1980s, it is entirely possible the actions of the CIA abroad have actually made us less safe and more vulnerable to foreign attack. It would be best to confine our intelligence community to the defense of our territory from foreign attack. This may well mean turning intelligence functions over to the Department of Defense, where they belong.

Constitution
Honoring Phil Crane
November 17, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 78:4
When I came to Congress in the seventies to fight to limit the size and scope of the federal government, I was pleased to find a kindred sprit in the gentleman from Illinois. I had the privilege of working with Phil on several efforts to cut taxes, reduce regulations, and return the government to its constitutional size. I also had the privilege of working with Phil when we where two of only four members to endorse Ronald Reagan’s 1976 primary challenge to President Gerald Ford.

Constitution
Raising the Debt Limit: A Disgrace
November 18, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 79:9
The only way to control federal spending is to take away the government’s credit card. Therefore, I call upon my colleagues to reject S. 2986 and, instead, to reduce government spending. It is time Congress forces the federal government to live within its constitutional means. Congress should end the immoral practice of excessive spending and passing the bill to the next generation.

Constitution
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:32
No serious thoughts are expressed in Washington about the constitutional principle of local government. The notion of a loose-knit republican form of government is no longer a consideration. The consensus is that the federal government has responsibility for solving all of our problems, and even amending the Constitution to gain proper authority is no longer thought necessary.

Constitution
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:33
President Eisenhower, not exactly a champion of a strict interpretation of the Constitution, made some interesting comments years ago when approached about more welfare benefits for the needy: “If all that Americans want is security, they can go to prison. They’ll have enough to eat, a bed and a roof over their heads. But if an American wants to preserve his dignity and his equality as a human being, he must not bow his neck to any dictatorial government.” Our country sure could use a little bit more of this sentiment, as Congress rushes to pass new laws relating to the fear of another terrorist attack.

Constitution
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:42
The 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling caused great harm in two distinct ways. First, it legalized abortion at any stage, establishing clearly that the Supreme Court and the government condoned the cheapening of human life. Second, it firmly placed this crucial issue in the hands of the federal courts and national government. The federalization of abortion was endorsed even by those who opposed abortion. Instead of looking for state-by-state solutions and limiting federal court jurisdiction, those anxious to protect life came to rely on federal laws, eroding the constitutional process. The authors of the Constitution intended for criminal matters and acts of violence (except for a few rare exceptions) to be dealt with at the state level. Now, however, conservatives as well as liberals find it acceptable to nationalize issues such as abortion, marriage, prayer, and personal sexual matters — with more federal legislation offered as the only solution. This trend of transferring power from the states to the federal government compounds our problems — for when we lose, it affects all 50 states, and overriding Congress or the Supreme Court becomes far more difficult than dealing with a single state.

Constitution
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:46
Being more attuned to our Constitution and having a different understanding of morality would go a long way toward preventing unnecessary and dangerous wars. I’d like to make a few points about this different understanding:

Constitution
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:68
1. The Constitution is on the side of peace. Under the Constitution — the law of the land — only Congress can declare war. The president is prohibited from taking us to war on his own.

Constitution
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:78
Conservatives who profess to uphold the principle of right-to-life should have little trouble supporting the position of the Founders and the Constitution: a foreign policy of “peace and commerce with those who choose and no entangling alliances.”

Constitution
Introducing The Identity Theft protection Act
4 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 2:11
Some Members of Congress will claim that the Federal Government needs the power to monitor Americans in order to allow the government to operate more efficiently. I would remind my colleagues that, in a constitutional republic, the people are never asked to sacrifice their liberties to make the jobs of government officials easier. We are here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy invasion more efficient.

Constitution
Introducing The Identity Theft protection Act
4 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 2:17
Any action short of repealing laws authorizing privacy violations is insufficient primarily because the Federal Government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any Federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the Federal Government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the Federal Government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”

Constitution
Introducing The Identity Theft protection Act
4 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 2:18
Mr. Speaker, those members who are not persuaded by the moral and constitutional reasons for embracing the Identity Theft Prevention Act should consider the American people’s opposition to national identifiers. The numerous complaints over the ever-growing uses of the Social Security number show that Americans want Congress to stop invading their privacy. Furthermore, according to a survey by the Gallup company, 91 percent of the American people oppose forcing Americans to obtain a universal health ID.

Constitution
Introducing The Identity Theft protection Act
4 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 2:19
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again call on my colleagues to join me in putting an end to the Federal Government’s unconstitutional use of national identifiers to monitor the actions of private citizens. National identifiers threaten all Americans by exposing them to the threat of identity theft by private criminals and abuse of their liberties by public criminals, while diverting valuable law enforcement resources away from addressing real threats to public safety. In addition, national identifiers are incompatible with a limited, constitutional government. I, therefore, hope my colleagues will join my efforts to protect the freedom of their constituents by supporting the Identity Theft Prevention Act.

Constitution
Government IDs and Identity Theft
January 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 5:11
Some members of Congress will claim that the federal government needs the power to monitor Americans in order to allow the government to operate more efficiently. I would remind my colleagues that, in a constitutional republic, the people are never asked to sacrifice their liberties to make the jobs of government officials easier. We are here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy invasion more efficient.

Constitution
Government IDs and Identity Theft
January 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 5:17
Any action short of repealing laws authorizing privacy violations is insufficient primarily because the federal government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”

Constitution
Government IDs and Identity Theft
January 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 5:18
Mr. Speaker, those members who are not persuaded by the moral and constitutional reasons for embracing the Identity Theft Prevention Act should consider the American people’s opposition to national identifiers. The numerous complaints over the ever-growing uses of the Social Security number show that Americans want Congress to stop invading their privacy. Furthermore, according to a survey by the Gallup company, 91 percent of the American people oppose forcing Americans to obtain a universal health ID.

Constitution
Government IDs and Identity Theft
January 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 5:19
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again call on my colleagues to join me in putting an end to the federal government’s unconstitutional use of national identifiers to monitor the actions of private citizens. National identifiers threaten all Americans by exposing them to the threat of identity theft by private criminals and abuse of their liberties by public criminals, while diverting valuable law enforcement resources away from addressing real threats to public safety. In addition, national identifiers are incompatible with a limited, constitutional government. I, therefore, hope my colleagues will join my efforts to protect the freedom of their constituents by supporting the Identity Theft Prevention Act.

Constitution
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 6:54
What if presuming the guilt of a suspected terrorist without a trial leads to the total undermining of constitutional protections for American citizens when arrested?

Constitution
Introduction Of The Liberty Amendment
26 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 10:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Liberty Amendment, which repeals the 16th Amendment, thus paving the way for real change in the way government collects and spends the people’s hard-earned money. The Liberty Amendment also explicitly forbids the federal government from performing any action not explicitly authorized by the United States Constitution.

Constitution
Introduction Of The Liberty Amendment
26 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 10:6
Mr. Speaker, America survived and prospered for 140 years without an income tax, and with a federal government that generally adhered to strictly constitutional functions, operating with modest excise revenues. The income tax opened the door to the era (and errors) of Big Government. I hope my colleagues will help close that door by cosponsoring the Liberty Amendment.

Constitution
Ayn Rand’s Birthday
2 February 2005    2005 Ron Paul 17:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today, on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the birth of Ayn Rand, these comments. Ayn Rand has long inspired advocates of personal liberty and economic freedom. These ideals of individual responsibility and limited constitutional government are urgently needed in our Nation today.

Constitution
Ayn Rand’s Birthday
2 February 2005    2005 Ron Paul 17:3
Ayn Rand was a champion of capitalism and of individual liberty. She had experienced the impact of communism in her native Russia and was an outspoken opponent of both communism and of socialism. She advocated personal responsibility and an objective code of moral behavior. Ayn Rand’s fictional and non-fictional works promoted the ideal of the self-reliant individual who values reason, production and self-esteem in their personal lives and rejects the enslavement of others to advance one’s own personal goals. A proud immigrant, who chose America, she perceptively grasped the nature of our Constitution: “The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals . . . it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of government . . . it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen’s protection against the government.”

Constitution
HR 418- A National ID Bill Masquerading as Immigration Reform
February 9, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 19:1
Mr. Speaker: I rise in strong opposition to HR 418, the REAL ID Act. This bill purports to make us safer from terrorists who may sneak into the United States, and from other illegal immigrants. While I agree that these issues are of vital importance, this bill will do very little to make us more secure. It will not address our real vulnerabilities. It will, however, make us much less free. In reality, this bill is a Trojan horse. It pretends to offer desperately needed border control in order to stampede Americans into sacrificing what is uniquely American: our constitutionally protected liberty.

Constitution
HR 418- A National ID Bill Masquerading as Immigration Reform
February 9, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 19:7
This bill could have a chilling effect on the exercise of our constitutionally guaranteed rights. It re-defines “terrorism” in broad new terms that could well include members of firearms rights and anti-abortion groups, or other such groups as determined by whoever is in power at the time. There are no prohibitions against including such information in the database as information about a person’s exercise of First Amendment rights or about a person’s appearance on a registry of firearms owners.

Constitution
Introducing The Sanity Of Life Act And The Taxpayer Freedom Of Conscience Act
10 February 2005    2005 Ron Paul 21:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce two bills relating to abortion. These bills stop the federal government from promoting abortion. My bills accomplish this goal by prohibiting federal funds from being used for population control or “family planning” through exercising Congress’s constitutional power to restrict federal court’s jurisdiction by restoring each state’s authority to protect unborn life.

Constitution
Introducing The Sanity Of Life Act And The Taxpayer Freedom Of Conscience Act
10 February 2005    2005 Ron Paul 21:3
One of the bills I am introducing today, the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, reverses some of the damage done by Roe v. Wade. The Sanctity of Life Act provides that the federal courts of the United States, up to and including the Supreme Court, do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases. Congress must use the authority granted to it in Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution to rein in rogue federal judges from interfering with a state’s ability to protect unborn life.

Constitution
Introducing The Sanity Of Life Act And The Taxpayer Freedom Of Conscience Act
10 February 2005    2005 Ron Paul 21:5
Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that my colleagues will join me in support of these two bills. By following the Constitution and using the power granted to the Congress by the Constitution, we can restore respect for freedom of conscience and the sanctity of human life.

Constitution
Regulating The Airwaves
16 February 2005    2005 Ron Paul 22:2
The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech. . . .” It does not make an expectation for broadcast television. Some argue that broadcast speech is different because broadcasters are using the “people’s airwaves.” Of course, the people do not really control the airwaves any more than the people control the government in the People’s Republic of China. Instead, the people’s airwaves is a euphemism for government control of the airwaves. Of course, government exceeded its Constitutional authority when it nationalized the broadcast industry.

Constitution
Regulating The Airwaves
16 February 2005    2005 Ron Paul 22:8
The reason we are considering H.R. 310 is not unrelated to questions regarding state censorship of political speech. Many of this bill’s supporters are motivated by the attacks on a Member of Congress, and other statements critical of the current administration and violating the standards of political correctness, by “shock jock” Howard Stern. I have heard descriptions of Stern’s radio program that suggest this is a despicable program. However, I find even more troubling the idea that the Federal Government should censor anyone because of his comments about a Member of Congress. Such behavior is more suited for members of a Soviet politburo than members of a representative body in a constitutional republic.

Constitution
Regulating The Airwaves
16 February 2005    2005 Ron Paul 22:15
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 310 is the latest in an increasing number of attacks on free speech. For years, those who wanted to regulate and restrict speech in the commercial marketplace relied on the commercial speech doctrine that provides a lower level of protection to speech designed to provide a profit to the speaker. However, this doctrine has no constitutional authority because the plain language of the first amendment does not make any exceptions for commercial speech.

Constitution
Continuity In Representation Act
3 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 26:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support H.R. 841, the Continuity in Representation Act, introduced by my distinguished colleague, House Judiciary Committee Chairman JAMES SENSENBRENNER. H.R. 841 provides a practical and constitutional way to ensure that the House of Representatives can continue to operate in the event that more than 100 Members are killed, H.R. 841 thus protects the people’s right to choose their Representatives at the time when such a right may be most important, while ensuring continuity of the legislative branch.

Constitution
Continuity In Representation Act
3 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 26:2
Article I section 2 of the United States Constitution grants State governors the authority to hold special elections to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives. Article I, section 4 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to designate the time, place and manner of such special elections if States should fail to act expeditiously following a national emergency. Alexander Hamilton, who played a major role in the drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution, characterized authority over Federal elections as shared between the States and Congress, with neither being able to control the process entirety. H.R. 841 exercises Congress’s power to regulate the time, place and manner of elections by requiring the holding of special elections within 45 days after the Speaker or Acting Speaker declares 100 Members of the House have been killed.

Constitution
Continuity In Representation Act
3 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 26:3
I have no doubt that the people of the States are quite competent to hold elections in a timely fashion. After all, it is in each State’s interest to ensure it has adequate elected representation in Washington. The version of H.R. 841 before Congress today was drafted with input from State elections commissioners to make sure it sets realistic goals and will not unduly burden State governments. I am disappointed that some of my colleagues reject the sensible approach of H.R. 841 and instead support amending the Constitution to allow appointed Members to serve in this body. Allowing appointed Members to serve in “the people’s house” will fundamentally alter the nature of this institution and sever the people’s most direct connection with their government.

Constitution
Continuity In Representation Act
3 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 26:6
Mr. Chairman, there are those who say that the power of appointment is necessary in order to preserve checks and balances and thus prevent an abuse of executive power during a time of crisis. Of course, I agree that it is very important to carefully guard our constitutional liberties in times of crisis and that an over-centralization of power in the executive branch is one of the most serious dangers to that liberty. However, Mr. Chairman, during a time of crisis it is all the more important to have Representatives accountable to the people. Otherwise, the citizenry has no check on the inevitable tendency of government to infringe on the people’s liberties at such a time. I would remind my colleagues that the only reason we are considering reexamining provisions of the PATRIOT Act is because of public concerns that this act gives up excessive liberty for a phantom security. Appointed officials would not be as responsive to public concerns.

Constitution
Continuity In Representation Act
3 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 26:7
Supporters of amending the Constitution claim that the appointment power will be necessary in the event of an emergency and that the appointed Representatives will only be temporary. However, the laws passed by these “temporary” Representatives will be permanent.

Constitution
Continuity In Representation Act
3 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 26:8
Mr. Chairman, this country has faced the possibility of threats to the continuity of this body several times in our history. Yet no one suggested removing the people’s right to vote for Members of Congress. For example, the British in the War of 1812 attacked the city of Washington, yet nobody suggested the States could not address the lack of a quorum in the House of Representatives through elections. During the Civil War, the neighboring State of Virginia, where today many Capitol Hill staffers reside and many Members stay while Congress is in session, was actively involved in hostilities against the United States Government. Yet, Abraham Lincoln never suggested that non-elected persons serve in the House. Adopting any of the proposals to deny the people the ability to choose their own Representatives would let the terrorists know that they can succeed in altering our republican institutions. I hope all my colleagues who are considering rejecting H.R. 841 in favor of a constitutional amendment will question the wisdom of handing terrorists a preemptive victory over republican government.

Constitution
Continuity In Representation Act
3 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 26:9
As noted above, the Framers gave Congress all the tools it needs to address problems of mass vacancies in the House without compromising this institution’s primary function as a representative body. In fact, as Hamilton explains in Federalist 59, the “time, place, and manner” clause was specifically designed to address the kind of extraordinary circumstances imagined by those who support amending the Constitution.

Constitution
Continuity In Representation Act
3 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 26:10
In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 841, the Continuity in Representation Act, which ensures an elected Congress can continue to operate in the event of an emergency. This is what the drafters of the Constitution intended. Furthermore, passage of H.R. 841 sends a strong message to terrorists that they cannot alter our republican government.

Constitution
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005
8 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 27:8
It is commonly assumed that the Charter of the United Nations is a treaty. It is not. Instead, the Charter of the United Nations is a constitution. As such, it is illegitimate, having created a supranational government, deriving its powers not from the consent of the governed (the people of the United States of America and peoples of other member nations) but from the consent of the peoples’ government officials who have no authority to bind either the American people nor any other nation’s people to any terms of the Charter of the United Nations.

Constitution
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005
8 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 27:9
By definition, a treaty is a contract between or among independent and sovereign nations, obligatory on the signatories only when made by competent governing authorities in accordance with the powers constitutionally conferred upon them. I Kent, Commentaries on American Law 163 (1826); Burdick, The Law of the American Constitution section 34 (1922). Even the United Nations Treaty Collection states that a treaty is (1) a binding instrument creating legal rights and duties; (2) concluded by states or international organizations with treaty-making power; (3) governed by international law.

Constitution
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005
8 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 27:10
By contrast, a charter is a constitution creating a civil government for a unified nation or nations and establishing the authority of that government. Although the United Nations Treaty Collection defines a “charter” as a “constituent treaty,” leading international political authorities state that — “[t]he use of the word ‘Charter’ [in reference to the founding document of the United Nations] . . . emphasizes the constitutional nature of this instrument.” Thus, the preamble to the Charter of the United Nations declares “that the Peoples of the United Nations have resolved to combine their efforts to accomplish certain aims by certain means.” The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary 46 (B. Simma, ed.) (Oxford Univ. Press, NY: 1995) (Hereinafter U.N. Charter Commentary). Consistent with this view, leading international legal authorities declare that the law of the Charter of the United Nations which governs the authority of the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council is “similar . . . to national constitutional law,” proclaiming that “because of its status as a constitution for the world community,” the Charter of the United Nations must be construed broadly, making way for “implied powers” to carry out the United Nations’ “comprehensive scope of duties, especially the maintenance of international peace and security and its orientation towards international public welfare.” Id. at 27

Constitution
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005
8 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 27:11
The United Nations Treaty Collection confirms the appropriateness of this “constitutional interpretive” approach to the Charter of the United Nations with its statement that the charter may be traced “back to the Magna Carta (the Great Charter) of 1215,” a national constitutional document. As a constitutional document, the Magna Carta not only bound the original signatories, the English barons and the king, but all subsequent English rulers, including Parliament, conferring upon all Englishmen certain rights that five hundred years later were claimed and exercised by the English people who had colonized America.

Constitution
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005
8 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 27:14
In like manner, the Charter of the United Nations is considered to be a permanent “constitution for the universal society,” and consequently, to be construed in accordance with its broad and unchanging ends but in such a way as to meet changing times and changing relations among the nations and peoples of the world. U.N. Charter Commentary at 28–44.

Constitution
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005
8 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 27:15
According to the American political and legal tradition and the universal principles of constitution making, a perpetual civil covenant or constitution, obligatory on the people “and their rulers throughout the generations, must, first, be proposed in the name of the people and, thereafter, ratified by the people’s representatives elected and assembled for the sole purpose of passing on the terms of a proposed covenant. See 4 The Founders’ Constitution 647–58 (P. Kurland and R. Lerner, eds.) (Univ. Chicago Press: 1985). Thus, the preamble of the Constitution of the United States of America begins with “We the People of the United States” and Article VII provides for ratification by state conventions composed of representatives of the people elected solely for that purpose. Sources of Our Liberties 408, 416, 418–21 (R. Perry, ed.) (ABA Foundation, Chicago: 1978).

Constitution
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005
8 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 27:16
Taking advantage of the universal appeal of the American constitutional tradition, the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations opens with “We the peoples of the United Nations.” But, unlike the Constitution of the United States of America, the Charter of the United Nations does not call for ratification by conventions of the elected representatives of the people of the signatory nations. Rather, Article 110 of the Charter of the United Nations provides for ratification “by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.” Such a ratification process would have been politically and legally appropriate if the charter were a mere treaty. But the Charter of the United Nations is not a treaty; it is a constitution.

Constitution
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005
8 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 27:17
First of all, Charter of the United Nations, executed as an agreement in the name of the people, legally and politically displaced previously binding agreements upon the signatory nations. Article 103 provides that “[i]n the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.” Because the 1787 Constitution of the United States of America would displace the previously adopted Articles of Confederation under which the United States was being governed, the drafters recognized that only if the elected representatives of the people at a constitutional convention ratified the proposed constitution, could it be lawfully adopted as a constitution. Otherwise, the Constitution of the United States of America would be, legally and politically, a treaty which could be altered by any state’s legislature as it saw fit. The Founders’ Constitution, supra, at 648–52.

Constitution
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005
8 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 27:18
Second, an agreement made in the name of the people creates a perpetual union, subject to dissolution only upon proof of breach of covenant by the governing authorities whereupon the people are entitled to reconstitute a new government on such terms and for such duration as the people see fit. By contrast, an agreement made in the name of nations creates only a contractual obligation, subject to change when any signatory nation decides that the obligation is no longer advantageous or suitable. Thus, a treaty may be altered by valid statute enacted by a signatory nation, but a constitution may be altered only by a special amendatory process provided for in that document. Id. at 652.

Constitution
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005
8 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 27:19
Article V of the Constitution of the United States of America spells out that amendment process, providing two methods for adopting constitutional changes, neither of which requires unanimous consent of the states of the Union. Had the Constitution of the United States of America been a treaty, such unanimous consent would have been required. Similarly, the Charter of the United Nations may be amended without the unanimous consent of its member states. According to Article 108 of the Charter of the United Nations, amendments may be proposed by a vote of two-thirds of the United Nations General Assembly and may become effective upon ratification by a vote of two- thirds of the members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. According to Article 109 of the Charter of the United Nations, a special conference of members of the United Nations may be called “for the purpose of reviewing the present Charter” and any changes proposed by the conference may “take effect when ratified by two-thirds of the Members of the United Nations including all the permanent members of the Security Council.” Once an amendment to the Charter of the United Nations is adopted then that amendment “shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations,” even those nations who did not ratify the amendment, just as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is effective in all of the states, even though the legislature of a state or a convention of a state refused to ratify. Such an amendment process is totally foreign to a treaty. See Id., at 575–84.

Constitution
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005
8 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 27:20
Third, the authority to enter into an agreement made in the name of the people cannot be politically or legally limited by any preexisting constitution, treaty, alliance, or instructions. An agreement made in the name of a nation, however, may not contradict the authority granted to the governing powers and, thus, is so limited. For example, the people ratified the Constitution of the United States of America notwithstanding the fact that the constitutional proposal had been made in disregard to specific instructions to amend the Articles of Confederation, not to displace them. See Sources of Our Liberties 399–403 (R. Perry ed.) (American Bar Foundation: 1972). As George Mason observed at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, “Legislatures have no power to ratify” a plan changing the form of government, only “the people” have such power. 4 The Founders’ Constitution, supra, at 651.

Constitution
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005
8 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 27:21
As a direct consequence of this original power of the people to constitute a new government, the Congress under the new constitution was authorized to admit new states to join the original 13 states without submitting the admission of each state to the 13 original states. In like manner, the Charter of the United Nations, forged in the name of the “peoples” of those nations, established a new international government with independent powers to admit to membership whichever nations the United Nations governing authorities chose without submitting such admissions to each individual member nation for ratification. See Charter of the United Nations, Article 4, Section 2. No treaty could legitimately confer upon the United Nations General Assembly such powers and remain within the legal and political definition of a treaty.

Constitution
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005
8 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 27:22
By invoking the name of the “peoples of the United Nations,” then, the Charter of the United Nations envisioned a new constitution creating a new civil order capable of not only imposing obligations upon the subscribing nations, but also imposing obligations directly upon the peoples of those nations. In his special contribution to the United Nations Human Development Report 2000, United Nations Secretary-General Annan made this claim crystal clear:

Constitution
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005
8 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 27:24
While no previous United Nations’ secretary general has been so bold, Annan’s proclamation of universal jurisdiction over “human rights and fundamental freedoms” simply reflects the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations which contemplated a future in which the United Nations operates in perpetuity “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of ware . . . to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights . . . to establish conditions under which justice . . . can be maintained, and to promote social progress and between standards of life in larger freedom.” Such lofty goals and objectives are comparable to those found in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America: “to . . . establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the Blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity . . .”

Constitution
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005
8 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 27:25
There is, however, one difference that must not be overlooked. The Constitution of the United States of America is a legitimate constitution, having been submitted directly to the people for ratification by their representatives elected and assembled solely for the purpose of passing on the terms of that document. The Charter of the United Nations, on the other hand, is an illegitimate constitution, having only been submitted to the Untied States Senate for ratification as a treaty. Thus, the Charter of the United Nations, not being a treaty, cannot be made the supreme law of our land by compliance with Article II, Section 2 of Constitution of the United States of America. Therefore, the Charter of the United Nations is neither politically nor legally binding upon the United States of America or upon its people.

Constitution
Reject the Latest Foreign Welfare Scheme
March 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 28:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. We have absolutely no constitutional authority to establish a commission to “assist” parliaments throughout the world. Despite all the high-sounding rhetoric surrounding this legislation, we should not fool ourselves. This is nothing more than yet another scheme to funnel United States tax dollars to foreign governments. It is an international welfare scheme and an open door to more U.S. meddling in the internal affairs of foreign countries.

Constitution
Consequences Of Foreign Policy — Part 2
16 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 31:14
That statement is so appropriate. It looks like we are just looking for problems; and since the results are so poor and we cannot afford it, once again, I want to state my position that I am suggesting not so much that I know or we know exactly what is best for other people. It is that precisely we do not know and we do not have the authority, the moral, the legal, the constitutional authority to do what we do. And besides, it is a threat to our national security.

Constitution
The Deficit
16 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 33:5
But I would like to suggest that in dealing with the budget itself, I see only one problem that we have. And that problem to me is the budget is too big, and I would like to shrink the budget. I have toyed with the idea over the years to introduce and offer a constitutional budget to the House floor. That would not be too difficult because the budget would be so much smaller. It would mean essentially that if one is a strict constitutionalist that they would cut the budget approximately 80 percent.

Constitution
The Deficit
16 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 33:6
What would that mean to the economy? It would be a boost because we would be injecting $2 trillion back into the economy, allowing the people to spend their own money. But being pretty realistic, I know that is not likely to happen or be offered or even be able to present that on the House floor. Besides, it could be rather embarrassing to bring something like that to the floor. Not so much embarrassing to me, because I am accustomed to voting in a small group of people on many occasions; but it could be embarrassing to others because, for the most part, most Members would not even conceive of the idea of having a strict interpretation of the Constitution and severely limiting the budget. So we would not want to put everybody on record for that.

Constitution
The Deficit
16 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 33:7
The other day I heard an interview with one of our Members, and he was asked about a particular program about where the authority came from in the Constitution for that program. And his answer was very straightforward; and he explained that in the Constitution there was no prohibition against that program, so therefore it was permitted. In his mind, as it is in the minds of many Members of Congress, if there is no strict prohibition, it is permitted.

Constitution
The Deficit
16 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 33:8
And that is just absolutely opposite of what was intended by the authors of the Constitution that we would only be able to do those things which are explicitly permitted in the Congress, and they are spelled out rather clearly in article I, section 8.

Constitution
The Deficit
16 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 33:9
And then we are given the permission to write the laws that are necessary and proper to implement those powers that are delegated to us. Those powers that are not delegated are reserved to the States and to the people. So it means that those things that are not prohibited are permitted, but I would say that the conventional wisdom today is that people accept the notion that we can do anything that we want as long as it is not prohibited by the Constitution.

Constitution
The Deficit
16 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 33:10
I think this improper understanding and following of the Constitution has brought us closer to a major crisis in this country, a crisis of our personal liberties, a crisis in our foreign policy, as well as a crisis in our budgeting.

Constitution
The Deficit
16 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 33:11
But it is not simply the ignoring of the Constitution that I think is our problem. I think our other problem is our country and our people and our Congresses and our Senators have accepted the notion of faith in government, faith in the State, that the State can provide these great services and do it efficiently.

Constitution
The Deficit
16 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 33:12
Really, there are only two areas that would have to be cut if we were to strive for a constitutional budget. There are only two things that we would have to cut, and it would be welfare and warfare. And then we would get back to some fundamentals. During World War I, a gentleman by the name of Randolph Bourne wrote a pamphlet called “War is the Health of the State,” and I truly believe that. When we are at war, we are more likely to sacrifice our liberties; and, of course, we spend more money that we really have. I would like to suggest a corollary, that peace is the foundation of liberty because that is what the goal of all government should be: the preservation of liberty.

Constitution
Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo
April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 34:9
There’s plenty of hypocrisy to go around on both sides of this lingering and prolonged debate. In this instance we heard some very sound arguments from the left defending states’ rights and family responsibility, while criticizing the federal government involvement. I’m anxious for the day when those who made these arguments join me in defending the Constitution and states’ rights, especially the 9 th and 10 th Amendments, on many other economic and social issues. I won’t hold my breath.

Constitution
Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo
April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 34:10
More importantly, where are those who rightfully condemn congressional meddling in the Schiavo case-- because of federalism and separation of powers-- on the issue of abortion? These same folks strongly defend Roe vs. Wade and the so-called constitutional right to abort healthy human fetuses at any stage. There’s no hesitation to demand support of this phony right from both Congress and the federal courts. Not only do they demand federal legal protection for abortion, they insist that abortion foes be forced to fund this act that many of them equate with murder.

Constitution
Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo
April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 34:11
It’s too bad that philosophic consistency and strict adherence to the Constitution are not a high priority for many Members. But perhaps this “flexibility” in administering the rule of law helps create problems such as we faced in the Schiavo ordeal.

Constitution
Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo
April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 34:12
Though the left produced some outstanding arguments for the federal government staying out of this controversy, they frequently used an analogy that could never persuade those of us who believe in a free society guided by the constraints of the Constitution. They argued that if conservatives who supported prolonging Terri’s life would only spend more money on welfare, they would demonstrate sincere concern for the right to life. This is false logic and does nothing to build the case for a local government solution to a feeding tube debate.

Constitution
Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo
April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 34:15
My suggestion to my colleagues, who did argue convincingly that Congress should not be involved in the Schiavo case, is please consider using these same arguments consistently and avoid the false accusation that if one opposes increases in welfare one is not pro-life. Being pro-liberty and pro-Constitution is indeed being pro-life, as well as pro-prosperity.

Constitution
Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo
April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 34:17
The biggest shortcoming of the Christian Right position is its adamancy for protecting life in the very early, late, and weakened stages, while enthusiastically supporting aggressive war that results in hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths. While the killing of the innocent unborn represents a morally decadent society, and all life deserves an advocate, including Terri Schiavo, promoting a policy of deadly sanctions and all-out war against a nation that committed no act of aggression against us cannot come close to being morally consistent or defendable under our Constitution.

Constitution
Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo
April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 34:23
Without a renewal in the moral fiber of the country and respect for the constitutional rule of law, we can expect a lot more and worse problems than we witnessed in the case of Terri Schiavo. When dying and medical care becomes solely a commercial event, we will long for the days of debating what was best for Terri.

Constitution
Who’s Better Off?
April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 35:25
One of the most significant consequences in times of war that we ought to be concerned about is the inevitable loss of personal liberty. Too often in the patriotic nationalism that accompanies armed conflict, regardless of the cause, there is a willingness to sacrifice personal freedoms in pursuit of victory. The real irony is that we are told we go hither and yon to fight for freedom and our Constitution, while carelessly sacrificing the very freedoms here at home we’re supposed to be fighting for. It makes no sense.

Constitution
Who’s Better Off?
April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 35:28
We have come to accept pre-emptive war as necessary, constitutional, and morally justifiable. Starting a war without a proper declaration is now of no concern to most Americans or the U.S. Congress. Let’s hope and pray the rumors of an attack on Iran in June by U.S. Armed Forces are wrong.

Constitution
Who’s Better Off?
April 6, 2005