U.S. Rep. Ron Paul | draft |
draft
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:112
National sovereignty designed to protect liberty in a republic is challenged as our foreign operations are controlled by U.N. resolutions, not Congress. Under these conditions, our cities are more likely to be targeted by terrorists for the hatred our policies fuel. Draft registration remains in place just in case more bodies are needed for our standing U.N. armies. The draft remains the ultimate attack on volunteerism and represents the most direct affront to individual liberty. This is made that much worse when one realizes that it is highly unlikely that we will ever see American troops in action under anything other than a U.N.-sponsored war or military operation.
draft
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.
draft
Conference Report on H.R. 1757, Foreign Affairs Reform And Restructuring Act Of 1998
26 March 1998 1998 Ron Paul 28:2
MEXICO CITY POLICY DETAILED The Mexico City Policy was drafted in the Reagan years as an attempt to put some limitations on US foreign aide being used for certain abortions overseas. While I believe that those who put this policy forward were well-motivated, I believe that time has shown this policy to have little real effect. I have continued to vote for this policy when it came up as a stand alone issue in this Congress because, by itself, its effect tends to be positive rather than negative, as I say, I consider it largely ineffective.
draft
Higher Education Amendments of 1998
6 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 49:6
As HR 6 was being drafted and marked-up, some Committee members did attempt to protect the interests of the taxpayers by refusing to support authorizing this program unless the spending was offset by cuts in other programs. Unfortunately, some members who might have otherwise opposed this program supported it at the Committee mark-up because of the offset.
draft
United Nations Money Came From Defense Department
20 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 53:6
That is the point here. The American people deserve better protection. They deserve better protection of their money. They deserve better protection of their youngsters who may get drafted and may get sent overseas. There is a great deal of danger in the Bosnia and Kosovo area, yet here we are talking about starting a new U.N. organization that unfortunately dwells on the term and brags about rapidly deployable. That is the last thing we need from the United Nations. I would like to slow it up, but now they want to take away our sovereignty to go and get involved more easily than ever and more quickly than ever.
draft
Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act
11 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 58:7
The drafters of the Bill of Rights knew quite well that it would be impossible for a central government to successfully manage crime prevention programs for as large and diverse a country as America. The founders also understood that centralized federal involvement in crime prevention and control was dangerous and would lead to a loss of precious liberty. The bill’s implication of federal monitoring of conversation on phone lines, the Internet, and U.S. mail is frightening and opens the door to unlimited government snooping.
draft
Individuals with Disabilities Act
16 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 60:2
The drafters of this bill claim that increasing federal spending on IDEA will allow local school districts to spend more money on other educational priorities. However, because an increase in federal funding will come from the same taxpayers who currently fund the IDEA mandate at the state and local level, increasing federal IDEA funding will not necessarily result in a net increase of education funds available for other programs. In fact, the only way to combine full federal funding of IDEA with an increase in expenditures on other programs by state and localities is through massive tax increases at the federal, state, and/or local level.
draft
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.
draft
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.
draft
Don’t Fast-Track Free Trade Deal
25 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 103:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today, the House is asked to vote to approve H.R. 2621, a fast-track procedure under which international agreements might be approved as far into the future as October 1, 2005. The “fast track” procedure requires the President to submit draft international agreements, implementing legislation, and a statement of administrative action for congressional approval. Amendments to the legislation in Congress are not permitted once the bill is introduced and committee and floor action votes may consist only of “yes” or “no” votes on any potential agreement as it is introduced.
draft
National Provider ID
8 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 115:2
My amendment was drafted to ensure that the administration cannot take any steps toward developing or implementing a medical ID. This approach is necessary because if the administration is allowed to work on developing a medical ID it is likely to attempt to implement the ID on at least a “trial” basis. I would remind my colleagues of our experience with national testing. In 1997 Congress forbade the Department of Education from implementing a national test, however it allowed work toward developing national tests. The administration has used this “development loophole” to defy congressional intent by taking steps toward implementation of a national test. It seems clear that only a complete ban forbidding any work on health identifiers will stop all work toward implementation.
draft
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.
draft
U.S. Military Action Taking Place in Serbia is Unconstitutional
24 March 1999 1999 Ron Paul 22:13
With new talk of reinstituting the military draft since many disillusioned military personnel are disgusted with the morale of our armed forces, all Americans should pay close attention as our leaders foolishly and carelessly rush our troops into a no-win war of which we should have no part.
draft
Crisis in Kosovo
14 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 25:10
There is talk now of calling up all our Reserves or many of our Reserves at the same time there are hints now that there may be the institution of the draft. So this is a major problem that this country is facing, the world is facing, and up until now we, the Congress, have not spoken.
draft
Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA)
4 May 1999 1999 Ron Paul 36:2
The drafters of this bill claim that increasing federal spending on IDEA will allow local school districts to spend more money on other educational priorities. However, because an increase in federal funding will come from the same taxpayers who currently fund the IDEA mandate at the state and local level, increasing federal IDEA funding will not necessarily result in a net increase of education funds available for other programs. In fact, the only way to combine full federal funding of IDEA with an increase in expenditures on other programs by state and localities is through massive tax increases at the federal, state, and/or local level!
draft
Africa Growth And Opportunity Act
16 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 77:2
So what exactly is “free trade” and how far removed from this principle have those in Washington and the world drafted? Free trade, in its purest form, means voluntary exchange between individuals absent intervention by the coercive acts of government. When those individuals are citizens of different political jurisdictions, international trade is he term typically applied in textbook economics. For centuries, economists and philosophers have debated the extent to which governments should get in the way of such transactions in the name of protecting the national interest (or more likely some domestic industry). Obviously, both parties to exchange (free of intervention) expect to be better off or they would not freely engage in the transaction. It is the parties excluded (i.e. government and those out-competed) from the exchange who might have benefitted by being a party to it who can be relied upon to engage in some coercive activity to prevent the transaction in the hopes that their trading position will become more favorable by “default.”
draft
Selective Service System
5 August 1999 1999 Ron Paul 89:5
I would like my colleagues to consider very seriously not to do that, because there is no need for the Selective Service System. There is only one purpose for the Selective Service System. That is to draft young 18-year-olds. That is unfair.
draft
Selective Service System
5 August 1999 1999 Ron Paul 89:6
There is no such thing as a fair draft system. It is always unfair to those who are less sophisticated, who either avoid the draft or are able to get into the National Guard, or as it was in the Civil War, pay to get their way out.
draft
Selective Service System
5 August 1999 1999 Ron Paul 89:7
The draft is a 20th century phenomenon, and I am delighted to see and very pleased that the Committee on Appropriations saw fit to delete this money because this, to me, is reestablishing one of the American traditions, that we do not believe in conscription. Conscription and drafting is a totalitarian idea.
draft
Selective Service System
5 August 1999 1999 Ron Paul 89:10
So when the time comes in September, please consider that there are ways that one can provide for an army without conscription. We have had the reinstitution of registration of the draft for 20 years. It has been wasted money. We can save the $25 million. We should do it. We should not put this money back in. We do not need the Selective Service System.
draft
The Appropriation For The Selective Service System Should Not Be Reinstated
8 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 90:3
I would like to remind my conservative colleagues that Ronald Reagan had a very strong position on the draft and selective service. He agreed that it was a totalitarian notion to conscript young people and strongly spoke out against the draft whenever he had the opportunity.
draft
Selective Service System
8 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 91:3
There is no place in a free society to have a program of conscription and drafting of young people to fight unconstitutional wars. It saves $24 million, and I urge my colleagues not to support the funding for the selective service.
draft
Selective Service System
8 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 91:4
Ronald Reagan was a strong opponent of the draft. He spoke out against it. We do not need it. It is wasted money. It is absolutely unnecessary. The Department of Defense has spoken out clearly that it is not necessary for national security reasons to have a selective service system, and yet we continually spend $24.5 million annually for this program. So I urge all Members, all my colleagues, to oppose putting this money back in for the Selective Service System.
draft
Selective Service System
8 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 92:3
This to me is a heroic step in the right direction. We have an agency of Government spending more than $24 million a year accomplishing nothing. We live in an age when we do not need a draft. We live in an age of technology that makes the draft obsolete. Not only is it unnecessarily militarily to have a draft, it is budgetarily not wise to spend this type of money.
draft
Selective Service System
8 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 92:4
More importantly, I rise in strong objection on moral principles that the draft is wrong. In most of our history we did not have a draft. The gentleman from California early on pointed out that essentially since World War I we have had a draft, and that is true. Since in this century we have seen a diminished respect for personal liberty with the growth of the state we have seen much more willingness to accept the idea that young men belong to the state.
draft
Selective Service System
8 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 92:6
The unfortunate part about a draft is that too often draftees are used in wars that are not legitimate. This is so often the case. If this country faced an attack, we should have volunteers. We should all volunteer. But, unfortunately, the generation of politicians who declare the wars too often never serve. Some of them have not even served in the past. But they are willing to start wars that are not legitimate, and yet they depend on the draft. They depend on the draft for the men to go out and fight and die.
draft
Selective Service System
8 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 92:7
The one really strong reason we should all reject the idea of the draft is it is so unfair.
draft
Selective Service System
8 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 92:8
Let us say an argument is made that it is necessary. I happen to believe it is never necessary to violate somebody’s liberty, but let us say there is a sincere belief that it is necessary to impose a draft.
draft
Selective Service System
8 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 92:9
There is no such thing as a fair draft. This is why the sixties were in such turmoil in this country, because the elite frequently evaded the draft. If they are smart enough to get a deferment, they got off. Who suffers from the draft? The poor and the less educated, the inner city teenagers. They end up getting the draft, and they do not get the deferments. They cannot avoid it.
draft
Selective Service System
8 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 92:13
We gradually lost our love for individual liberty throughout the 20th century as the people and the Congresses capitulated to the notion of the military draft. The vote on the Selective Service System funding will determine whether or not we are willing to take a very welcome, positive step in the direction of more liberty by rejecting the appropriations for the Selective Service System.
draft
Selective Service System
8 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 92:14
There is no other vote that a Member of Congress can cast that defines one’s belief and understanding regarding the principle of personal liberty than a vote supporting or rejecting the draft. This vote gives us a rare opportunity to reverse the trend toward bigger and more oppressive government.
draft
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!
draft
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!
draft
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:88
Throughout our early history and up to World War I, our wars were fought with volunteers. There was no military draft except for a failed attempt by Lincoln in the Civil War which ended with justified riots and rebellion against it. The attitudes toward the draft definitely changed over the past century. Draftees were said to be necessary to fight in World War I and World War II, Korea and Vietnam. This change in attitude has definitely satisfied those who believe that we have an obligation to police the world. The idiocy of Vietnam served as a catalyst for an antidraft attitude which is still alive today. Fortunately we have not had a draft for over 25 years, but Congress refuses to address this matter in a principled fashion by abolishing once and for all the useless selective service system. Too many authoritarians in Congress still believe that in times of need, an army of teenage draftees will be needed to defend our commercial interests throughout the world. A return to the spirit of the republic would mean that a draft would never be used and all able-bodied persons would be willing to volunteer in defense of their liberty. Without the willingness to do so, liberty cannot be saved. A conscripted army can never substitute for the willingness of freedom-loving Americans to defend their country out of their love for liberty.
draft
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.
draft
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.
draft
Literacy Involves Families Together Act
September 12, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 75:3
* In contrast to the drafters of the LIFT bill, I do not trust the Congress to develop an education program that can match the needs of every community in the United States. Instead, I trust the American people to provide the type of education system that best suits their needs, and the needs of their fellow citizens, provided Congress gives them back control over the education dollar.
draft
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.
draft
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.
draft
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.
draft
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.
draft
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.
draft
NATIONAL SCIENCE EDUCATION ACT
October 25, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 91:2
* H.R. 4271 not only singles out science for special emphasis, certain positions of the bill will lead to a national science curriculum. For instance, the bill calls for the Department of Education and the National Science Foundation to coordinate and disseminate information on ‘standard’ math and science curricula as well as licensing requirements for teachers of math, science, engineering or technology. While local school districts are not forced to adopt these standards, local schools will be pressured to adopt these standards because they are the ones favored by their DC-based overlords. I would also ask the drafters of this bill what purpose is served by spending taxpayer moneys to create and disseminate a model curriculum at the federal level if their intent is not to have local schools adopt the federally-approved model?
draft
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.
draft
IDENTITY THEFT — HON. RON PAUL
Tuesday, February 13, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 11:15
Lawyers for Megacorp refused to back off and responded with a torrent of verbal abuse, accusing Jean of committing other misdemeanors. The law firm used a similar tone in telephone calls to Jean’s mother. We responded by filing with the court a strongly worded show cause motion, as well as a motion seeking sanctions. Megacorp’s attorneys subsequently began to back-pedal and eventually withdrew the garnishment. The cost of this exercise was roughly $1,500 in legal fees, plus the time to draft documents and letters, and two visits to the Bronx Civil Court, a venue too near Yankee Stadium for comfort.
draft
Questions for Secretary of State Colin Powell before the House Committee on International Relations
March 8, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 17:9
8. In your earlier remarks before this committee you said that you regard the military as a vital component of U.S. foreign policy. I am wondering if you, as a former military officer, would comment on the antiquated idea of a military draft and selective service registration. I believe you have spoken against the draft in the past. Do you still hold that a draft is unwarranted? Would you support ending draft registration?
draft
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.
draft
Repeal of the Selective Service Act
April 26, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 28:2
* Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing legislation to repeal the Selective Service Act and related parts of the US Code. Also, I am placing the attached article from the Taipei Times in today’s CONGRESSIONAL RECORD . I fear that this source is not widely read among many in this body or our nation, so I am hopeful this action will serve to bring this letter to a much wider audience. The person who writes this letter is a law student in Taiwan. His arguments against conscription are similar to those offered by people in the United States who oppose the draft. The student argues that conscription is a violation of civil liberties, a costly and ineffective system that harms society and the economy as well as the rights of the individual conscripted, and a system that harms national defense rather than helping it. While we do not currently have conscription in the US we do have draft registration and each argument against the draft is equally applicable to our current selective service system and the registration requirement. I urge my colleagues to seriously consider the arguments against conscription raised in this article and cosponsor my legislation to repeal the Selective Service Act.
draft
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.
draft
Conscription Policies
13 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 42:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I highly recommend to my colleagues the attached article “Turning Eighteen in America: Thoughts on Conscription” by Michael Allen. This article was published in the Internet news magazine Laissez Faire Times. Mr. Allen forcefully makes the point that coercing all young men to register with the federal government so they may be conscripted into military service at the will of politicians is fundamentally inconsistent with the American philosophy of limited government and personal freedom. After all, the unstated premise of a draft is that individuals are owned by the state. Obviously this belief is more consistent with totalitarian systems, such as those found in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Red China or Castro’s Cuba, than with a system based on the idea that all individuals have inalienable rights. No wonder prominent Americans from across the political spectrum such as Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, Gary Hart, and Jesse Ventura oppose the draft.
draft
Conscription Policies
13 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 42:2
Selective Service is not even a good way of providing an effective military fighting force. As Mr. Allen points out (paraphrasing former Senator Mark Hatfield), the needs of the modem military require career professionals with longterm commitments to the service, not shortterm draftees eager to “serve their time” and return to civilian life. The military itself recognizes that Selective Service serves no useful military function. In 1993), the Department of Defense issued a report stating that registration could be stopped “with no effect on military mobilization, no measurable effect on the time it would take to mobilize, and no measurable effect on military recruitment.” Yet the American taxpayer has been forced to spend over $500 million dollars on a system “with no measurable effect on military mobilization!”
draft
Conscription Policies
13 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 42:4
TURNING EIGHTEEN IN AMERICA: THOUGHTS ON CONSCRIPTION (By Michael R. Allen) In March of 1967, Senator Mark Hatfield (R–Oregon) proposed legislation that would abolish the practice of military conscription, or the drafting of men who are between 18 and 35 years old. Despite its initial failure, it has been reintroduced in nearly every Congress that has met since then, and has been voted upon as an amendment at least once.
draft
Conscription Policies
13 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 42:5
This bill was an excellent proposal that should have never been needed. The dovish Hatfield’s arguments in promotion of the bill constituted what is actually the conservative position on the item. In its defense, Hatfield asserted that we need career military men who can adapt to system changes within the context of weaponry. Short-term draftees, maintained Hatfield, would not be particularly adept at utilizing modern technology. More recent efforts to overturn the Selective Service Act have similarly stressed efficiency.
draft
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.
draft
Conscription Policies
13 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 42:7
Recruiting students and vagrants is of no use to a competitive military, since both groups are uninterested in active duty. By contrast, a volunteer army — assuming the country needs any army at all — will yield those with an interest in serving their country and those who seek the military as a place to get that necessary step up into a better life. A primary partner to draft reform would be to offer an alternative for those who request not to serve militarily. Non-combatant positions, such as field doctors and radio operators, might be made civilian positions. Then, those who wish not to engage in battle will be able to serve the nation for as long as they need.
draft
Conscription Policies
13 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 42:9
Yet the most compelling reason for having volunteer military forces is the right of a person to own his or her body. The right to self-ownership must be supreme in a free nation, since without it there is no justification for government or laws at all. If one does not own his body, then why should murder be a crime? Why should there be money for the individual to spend? The self must own itself for there to be any liberty. And clearly one does have self-ownership. A man controls his own actions, and efforts to force him to do what he desires not to do are nugatory. The best the State can do is arrest him after he has disobeyed the law. It cannot prevent a willful person from committing illegal acts. The draft ignores the concept of self-ownership and proceeds to diminish the available benefits of a free society for young men.
draft
Conscription Policies
13 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 42:10
Issues of cost and unfairness can sway those not seeing a moral reason to oppose conscription. The government spends a lot of money that might be used in armory for war in order to draft a number of men that would be similar to the number who might otherwise volunteer. In this way, the draft is a redundant method that consumes entirely too much money.
draft
Conscription Policies
13 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 42:11
It is unfair because those who do not get called remain free while those called into duty must serve or face charges that will haunt them for the rest of their lives. This practice, while through chance, is unjust because it targets those Americans with low draft numbers. Through the archaic, unjust draft process America once more is embracing authoritarianism. If the government chose, National Guard forces could be utilized to alleviate the costs of draft, recruitment, and salary. The savings could then be used to properly compensate a volunteer army, which would attract more skillful persons if the pay scale were better.
draft
Conscription Policies
13 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 42:12
Draft proponents employ some arguments that would be acceptable if they had purchased every male aged 18 to 35. However, the United States of America has not bought — bought off, tricked and fooled, yes — any of her citizens at this time. Some of the stentorian arguments side-step the question of rights and look at other issues, such as mobility, emergency readiness, and social outcome.
draft
Conscription Policies
13 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 42:15
Proponents of the draft continue to ignore their weakest point: namely, that wars which had the support of the American public would not require conscription but instead would have a full supply of eager volunteers. People not only own their own bodies, but a free society also grants people final say over government policy. War is an area where the voice of the people is very important, as their security is at stake. And where else can the people exercise their voice than in the decision on registering to serve? Denying this decision is in effect creating a government that does not respect the people’s wishes, and instead dictates to them. AMERICORPS
draft
Conscription Policies
13 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 42:16
There was an effort in June 1997 by President Clinton to use the Selective Service System to recruit potential volunteers in his AmeriCorps program. Such a move is a twofold intrusion on civil liberties: it violates the right of those who were forced to register for the draft to avoid having their addresses and other private information released to another agency; and, of course, it is costly to the taxpayer to pay for a joint system that serves two unconstitutional agencies. Ultimately, though, the administration deferred its plans. This issue has not gone away, as national service plans have considerable support from those people who think that everyone has a duty to the government.
draft
Conscription Policies
13 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 42:17
Free people can resist the draft easily. They need not register at all, or they can flee the country when they are called to serve. After all, they still own their bodies regardless of what the law says. But the change of life necessary to avoid the government allows the government some control of ones life, even when one does not openly submit. One does not need to recognize the right of the government to conscript its citizens for any purpose in order to be disrupted by the institution. If one pays income taxes and expects to get that money back in the form of college aid, he must register for Selective Service. If one wishes to collect the money stolen through the payroll tax for so-called “Social Security,” he must register. Most people are not able to forgo paying taxes if they wish to work, so if they hope to see their tax dollars again they must register for the draft.
draft
Conscription Policies
13 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 42:18
As a young man of draft age, I could sleep easier if I knew that my life would never have to be disrupted by a government which has given itself the legal ground on which it may attempt to violate my right to own myself. Even as I refuse to recognize the government’s powers, the Selective Service System/ AmeriCorps/Department of Education bloc does not care. To them I am their property, regardless of my feelings. The military and charity draft is indeed one of the most evil institutions in the United States government.
draft
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
draft
Tribute To Tom Phillips And William Rusher
19 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 59:2
Also, at this event, Mr. William Rusher will receive a lifetime achievement award. Mr. Rusher was instrumental in the founding of YAF in 1960 around those set of principles enunciated in the Sharon Statement, a great document explicating the philosophy of freedom. In addition, Mr. Rusher was instrumental in many other important activities such as the Draft Goldwater Committee and the National Review Magazine.
draft
Foreign Interventionism
September 25, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 80:36
As we work through this difficult task, let us resist the temptation to invoke the most authoritarian of all notions that, not too many years ago, tore this nation apart; the military draft. The country is now unified against the enemy. The military draft does nothing to contribute to unity nor, as the Pentagon again has confirmed, does it promote an efficient military.
draft
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.
draft
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.
draft
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.
draft
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:77
For instance, the military draft is the ultimate insult to those who love personal liberty. The Pentagon, even with the ongoing crisis, has argued against the reinstatement of the draft. Yet the clamor for its reinstatement grows louder daily by those who wanted a return to the draft all along. I see the draft as the ultimate abuse of liberty. Morally it cannot be distinguished from slavery. All the arguments for drafting 18-year old men and women and sending them off to foreign wars are couched in terms of noble service to the country and benefits to the draftees. The need-for-discipline argument is the most common reason given, after the call for service in an effort to make the world safe for democracy. There can be no worse substitute for the lack of parental guidance of teenagers than the federal government’s domineering control, forcing them to fight an enemy they don’t even know in a country they can’t even identity.
draft
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:78
Now it’s argued that since the federal government has taken over the entire job of homeland security, all kinds of jobs can be found for the draftees to serve the state, even for those who are conscientious objectors.
draft
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:79
The proponents of the draft call it “mandatory service.” Slavery, too, was mandatory, but few believed it was a service. They claim that every 18-year old owes at least two years of his life to his country. Let’s hope the American people don’t fall for this “need to serve” argument. The Congress should refuse to even consider such a proposal. Better yet, what we need to do is abolish the Selective Service altogether.
draft
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:80
However, if we get to the point of returning to the draft, I have a proposal. Every news commentator, every Hollywood star, every newspaper editorialist, and every Member of Congress under the age of 65 who has never served in the military and who demands that the draft be reinstated, should be drafted first — the 18-year olds last. Since the Pentagon says they don’t need draftees, these new recruits can be the first to march to the orders of the general in charge of homeland security. For those less robust individuals, they can do the hospital and cooking chores for the rest of the newly formed domestic army. After all, someone middle aged owes a lot more to his country than an 18-year old.
draft
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:81
I’m certain that this provision would mute the loud demands for the return of the military draft.
draft
Statement on Terrorism Reinsurance Legislation
November 30, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 99:3
The drafters of HR 3210 claim that this creates a temporary government program. However, Mr. Speaker, what happens in three years if industry lobbyists come to Capitol Hill to explain that there is still a need for this program because of the continuing threat of terrorist attacks? Does anyone seriously believe that Congress will refuse to reauthorize this “temporary” insurance program or provide some other form of taxpayer help to the insurance industry? I would like to remind my colleagues that the federal budget is full of expenditures for long-lasting programs that were originally intended to be temporary.
draft
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.
draft
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.
draft
Statement Opposing Military Conscription
March 20, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 20:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation expressing the sense of Congress that the United States government should not revive military conscription. Supporters of conscription have taken advantage of the events of September 11 to renew efforts to reinstate the military draft. However, reviving the draft may actually weaken America’s military. Furthermore, a military draft violates the very principles of individual liberty this country was founded upon. It is no exaggeration to state that military conscription is better suited for a totalitarian government, such as the recently dethroned Taliban regime, than a free society.
draft
Statement Opposing Military Conscription
March 20, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 20:3
A draft weakens the military by introducing tensions and rivalries between those who volunteer for military service and those who have been conscripted. This undermines the cohesiveness of military units, which is a vital element of military effectiveness. Conscripts also are unlikely to choose the military as a career; thus, a draft will do little to address problems with retention. With today’s high-tech military, retention is the most important personnel issue and it seems counter-productive to adopt any policy that will not address this important issue.
draft
Statement Opposing Military Conscription
March 20, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 20:4
If conscription helps promote an effective military, then why did General Vladisova Putilin, Chief of the Russian General Staff, react to plans to end the military draft in Russia, by saying “This is the great dream of all servicemen, when our army will become completely professional...?”
draft
Statement Opposing Military Conscription
March 20, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 20:5
Instead of reinstating a military draft, Congress should make military service attractive by finally living up to its responsibility to provide good benefits and pay to members of the armed forces and our nation’s veterans. It is an outrage that American military personnel and veterans are given a lower priority in the federal budget than spending to benefit politically powerful special interests. Until this is changed, we will never have a military which reflects our nation’s highest ideals.
draft
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.
draft
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.”
draft
Statement Opposing Military Conscription
March 20, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 20:8
Another eloquent opponent of the draft was former President Ronald Reagan who in a 1979 column on conscription said: “...it rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state. If we buy that assumption then it is for the state — not for parents, the community, the religious institutions or teachers — to decide who shall have what values and who shall do what work, when, where and how in our society. That assumption isn’t a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea.”
draft
Statement Opposing Military Conscription
March 20, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 20:9
President Reagan and Daniel Webster are not the only prominent Americans to oppose conscription. In fact, throughout American history the draft has been opposed by Americans from across the political spectrum, from Henry David Thoreau to Barry Goldwater to Bill Bradley to Jesse Ventura. Organizations opposed to conscription range from the American Civil Liberties Union to the United Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society, and from the National Taxpayers Union to the Conservative Caucus. Other major figures opposing conscription include current Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman.
draft
Statement Opposing Military Conscription
March 20, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 20:10
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to stand up for the long-term military interests of the United States, individual liberty, and values of the Declaration of Independence by cosponsoring my sense of Congress resolution opposing reinstatement of the military draft.
draft
Predictions
24 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 25:17
The draft will be reinstated, causing domestic turmoil and resentment.
draft
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.
draft
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.
draft
Say No to Conscription
May 9, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 35:2
Despite the threat posed to the very existence of the young republic by the invading British Empire, Congress ultimately rejected the proposal to institute a draft. If the new nation of America could defeat what was then the most powerful military empire in the world without a draft, there is no reason why we cannot address our current military needs with a voluntary military.
draft
Say No to Conscription
May 9, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 35:3
Webster was among the first of a long line of prominent Americans, including former President Ronald Reagan and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, to recognize that a draft violates the fundamental principles of liberty this country was founded upon.
draft
Say No to Conscription
May 9, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 35:4
In order to reaffirm support for individual liberty and an effective military, I have introduced H. Con. Res. 368, which expresses the sense of Congress against reinstating a military draft. I urge my colleagues to read Daniel Webster’s explanation of why the draft is incompatible with liberty government and cosponsor H. Con. Res. 368.
draft
Say No to Conscription
May 9, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 35:15
Nor is it, Sir, for the defense of his own house and home, that he who is the subject of military draft is to perform the task allotted to him. You will put him upon a service equally foreign to his interests and abhorrent to his feelings. With his aid you are to push your purposes of conquest. The battles which he is to fight are the battles of invasion; battles which he detests perhaps and abhors, less from the danger and the death that gather over them, and the blood with which they drench the plain, than from the principles in which they have their origin. If, Sir, in this strife he fall — if, while ready to obey every rightful command of Government, he is forced from home against right, not to contend for the defense of his country, but to prosecute a miserable and detestable project of invasion, and in that strife he fall, ’tis murder. It may stalk above the cognizance of human law, but in the sight of Heaven it is murder; and though millions of years may roll away, while his ashes and yours lie mingled together in the earth, the day will yet come, when his spirit and the spirits of his children must be met at the bar of omnipotent justice. May God, in his compassion, shield me from any participation in the enormity of this guilt.
draft
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.
draft
H.R. 4954
27 June 2002 2002 Ron Paul 63:2
I am pleased that the drafters of H.R. 4954 incorporate regulatory relief legislation, which I have supported in the past, into the bill. This will help relieve some of the tremendous regulatory burden imposed on health care providers by the Federal Government. I am also pleased that H.R. 4954 contains several good provisions addressing the Congressionally-created crisis in rural health and attempting to ensure that physicians are fairly reimbursed by the Medicare system.
draft
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:29
All 18-year-old males must register to be ready for the next undeclared war. If they don’t, men with guns will appear and enforce this congressional mandate. "Involuntary servitude" was banned by the 13th Amendment, but courts don’t apply this prohibition to the servitude of draftees or those citizens required to follow the dictates of the IRS- especially the employers of the country, who serve as the federal government’s chief tax collectors and information gatherers. Fear is the tool used to intimidate most Americans to comply to the tax code by making examples of celebrities. Leona Helmsley and Willie Nelson know how this process works.
draft
Commemorate A Unique And Magnificent Group Of Aviators
25 July 2002 2002 Ron Paul 77:4
To qualify for Pilot Training, the enlisted men had to meet several stringent requirements. They had to be enlisted in the regular Army, not drafted, possess a high-school diploma, pass a rigid physical exam, and sign a contract with the Army avowing that upon completion of Flight Training, they would continue serving in the Army Air Corps as Staff Sergeant Pilots for three years, as Technical Sergeant Pilots for three years, as Master Sergeants for three years, and end the contract as Warrant Officer Pilots.
draft
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.
draft
The Price Of War
5 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 83:48
The Logan Act would be repealed, thus allowing maximum freedom of our citizens to volunteer to support their war of choice. This would help diminish the enthusiasm for wars the proponents have used to justify our world policies and diminish the perceived need for a military draft.
draft
Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq
October 8, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 96:12
So to declare that we have been attacked, I do not believe for a minute that this fulfills the requirement that we are retaliating against aggression by this country. There is a need for us to assume responsibility for the declaration of war, and also to prepare the American people for the taxes that will be raised and the possibility of a military draft which may well come.
draft
Unintended Consequences
November 14, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 102:18
Already we’re hearing demands for a military draft to be instituted for both men and women. I see that coming, and it will serve as another source of domestic friction as our economy deteriorates and unemployment rises. Under these conditions the standard of living for all Americans is destined to go down.
draft
Important Questions Concerning the Administration’s Smallpox Vaccine Proposals
December 19th, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 104:9
6. Does the administration support the provisions in the Model Emergency Health Powers Act, which were drafted with the assistance of the Center for Disease Control, which appear to grant individual governors the ability to implement a mandatory smallpox vaccine program?
draft
Abolish Selective Service
January 29, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 9:1
Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing legislation to repeal the Selective Service Act and related parts of the US Code. The Department of Defense, in response to recent calls to reinstate the draft, has confirmed that conscription serves no military need. This is only the most recent confirmation that the draft, and thus the Selective Service system, serves no military purpose. In 1999, then-Secretary of the Army Louis Caldera, in a speech before the National Press Club, admitted that “Today, with our smaller, post-Cold War armed forces, our stronger volunteer tradition and our need for longer terms of service to get a good return on the high, up-front training costs, it would be even harder to fashion a fair draft.”
draft
Abolish Selective Service
January 29, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 9:2
Obviously, if there is no military need for the draft, then there is no need for Selective Service registration. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, Selective Service registration is an outdated and outmoded system, which has been made obsolete by technological advances.
draft
Abolish Selective Service
January 29, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 9:4
Shutting down Selective Service will give taxpayers a break without adversely affecting military efforts. Shutting down Selective Service will also end a program that violates the very principals of individual liberty our nation was founded upon. The moral case against the draft was eloquently expressed by former President Ronald Regan in the publication Human Events in 1979: “...it [conscription] rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state. If we buy that assumption then it is for the state -- not for parents, the community, the religious institutions or teachers -- to decide who shall have what values and who shall do what work, when, where and how in our society. That assumption isn’t a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea .”
draft
The Myth of War Prosperity
March 4, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 28:2
The argument goes that when a country is at war, jobs are created and the economy grows. This is a myth. Many argue that World War II ended the Great Depression, which is another myth. Unemployment went down because many men were drafted, but national economic output went down during the war.
draft
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.
draft
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.
draft
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.
draft
Improving Educational Results For Children With Disabilities Act
30 April 2003 2003 Ron Paul 52:3
There are attempts in this bill to reduce the role of bureaucracy and paperwork, and some provisions will benefit children. In particular, I applaud the efforts of the drafters of those who drafted it to address the over-prescription of psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin by ensuring that no child shall be placed on these drugs without parental consent.
draft
Medicare Funds For Prescription Drugs
26 June 2003 2003 Ron Paul 71:2
I am pleased that the drafters of H.R. 1 incorporate regulatory relief legislation, which have supported in the past, into the bill. This will help relieve some of the tremendous regulatory burden imposed on health care providers by the Federal Government. I am also pleased that H.R. 1 contains several good provisions addressing the congressionally-created crisis in rural health and attempts to ensure that physicians are fairly reimbursed by the Medicare system.
draft
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.”
draft
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.
draft
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!
draft
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.
draft
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!
draft
Redrawing Coastal Barrier Resources Map
17 November 2003 2003 Ron Paul 117:2
This change will ensure property owners who had already begun developing this area are able to obtain insurance. Congress never intended to deny these landowners access to insurance. Matagorda Dunes was included in COBRA as a result of a drafting error when the COBRA maps were revised in the early eighties. Unless this mistake is fixed, the result could be catastrophic for these property owners who invested in developing Matagorda Dunes under the belief that the land was excluded from COBRA. A failure to fix this mistake could also be quite costly to the American taxpayers.
draft
Conference Report On H.R. 2417 Intelligence Authorization Act For Fiscal year 2004
20 November 2003 2003 Ron Paul 121:2
What most concerns me about this conference report, though, is something that should outrage every single American citizen. am referring to the stealth addition of language drastically expanding FBI powers to secretly and without court order snoop into the business and financial transactions of American citizens. These expanded internal police powers will enable the FBI to demand transaction records from businesses, including auto dealers, travel agents, pawnbrokers and more, without the approval or knowledge of a judge or grand jury. This was written into the bill at the 11th hour over the objections of members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which would normally have jurisdiction over the FBI. The Judiciary Committee was frozen out of the process. It appears we are witnessing a stealth enactment of the enormously unpopular “Patriot II” legislation that was first leaked several months ago. Perhaps the national outcry when a draft of the Patriot II act was leaked has led its supporters to enact it one piece at a time in secret. Whatever the case, this is outrageous and unacceptable. I urge each of my colleagues to join me in rejecting this bill and its incredibly dangerous expansion of Federal police powers.
draft
Say No To Involuntary Servitude
November 21, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 122:2
Woodrow Wilson orchestrated our entry into World War I by first promising during the election of 1916 to keep us out of the European conflict, then a few months later pressuring and maneuvering Congress into declaring war against Germany. Whether it was the Spanish American War before that or all the wars since, U.S. presidents have deceived the people to gain popular support for ill-conceived military ventures. Wilson wanted the war and immediately demanded conscription to fight it. He didn’t have the guts even to name the program a military draft; instead in a speech before Congress calling for war he advised the army should be “chosen upon the principle of universal liability to service.” Most Americans at the time of the declaration didn’t believe actual combat troops would be sent. What a dramatic change from this early perception, when the people endorsed the war, to the carnage that followed – and the later disillusionment with Wilson and his grand scheme for world government under the League of Nations. The American people rejected this gross new entanglement, a reflection of a somewhat healthier age than the one we find ourselves in today.
draft
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.
draft
Say No To Involuntary Servitude
November 21, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 122:10
Unpopular wars invite conscription. Volunteers disappear, as well they should. A truly defensive just war prompts popular support. A conscripted, unhappy soldier is better off on the long run than the slaves of old since the “enslavement” is only temporary. But in the short run the draft may well turn out to be more deadly and degrading, as one is forced to commit life and limb to a less than worthy cause – like teaching democracy to unwilling and angry Arabs. Slaves were safer in that their owners had an economic interest in protecting their lives. Endangering the lives of our soldiers is acceptable policy, and that’s why they are needed. Too often, though, our men and women who are exposed to the hostilities of war and welcomed initially are easily forgotten after the fighting ends. Soon afterward, the injured and the sick are ignored and forgotten.
draft
Say No To Involuntary Servitude
November 21, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 122:13
All drafts are unfair. All 18 and 19 year olds are never drafted. By its very nature a draft must be discriminatory. All drafts hit the most vulnerable young people, as the elites learn quickly how to avoid the risks of combat.
draft
Say No To Involuntary Servitude
November 21, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 122:16
Without conscription, unpopular wars are much more difficult to fight. Once the draft was undermined in the 1960s and early 1970s, the Vietnam War came to an end. But most importantly, liberty cannot be preserved by tyranny. A free society must always resort to volunteers. Tyrants thinks nothing of forcing men to fight and serve in wrongheaded wars; a true fight for survival and defense of America would elicit, I’m sure, the assistance of every able-bodied man and woman. This is not the case for wars of mischief far away from home in which we so often have found ourselves in the past century.
draft
Say No To Involuntary Servitude
November 21, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 122:17
One of the worst votes that an elected official could ever cast would be to institute a military draft to fight an illegal war, if that individual himself maneuvered to avoid military service. But avoiding the draft on principle qualifies oneself to work hard to avoid all unnecessary war and oppose the draft for all others.
draft
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.
draft
Continuity In Representation Act
22 April 2004 2004 Ron Paul 28:3
The version of H.R. 2844 before Congress today was drafted with input from the State election commissioners to make sure it sets realistic goals and will not unduly burden State governments.
draft
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.
draft
Continuity In Representation Act
22 April 2004 2004 Ron Paul 28:10
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. 2844 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.
draft
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.
draft
Mourning The Death Of Ronald Reagan
9 June 2004 2004 Ron Paul 38:10
While many associate Ronald Reagan with unbridled militarism, he was a lifelong opponent of the draft. It is hardly surprising that many of the most persuasive and powerful arguments against conscription came from President Reagan. One of my favorite Reagan quotes comes from a 1979 article he wrote for the conservative publication Human Events regarding the draft and related “national service” proposals:
draft
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.
draft
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.
draft
Reject Draft Slavery
October 5, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 75:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose HR 163 in the strongest possible terms. The draft, whether for military purposes or some form of “national service,” violates the basic moral principles of individual liberty upon which this country was founded. Furthermore, the military neither wants nor needs a draft.
draft
Reject Draft Slavery
October 5, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 75:2
The Department of Defense, in response to calls to reinstate the draft, has confirmed that conscription serves no military need. Defense officials from both parties have repudiated it. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has stated, “The disadvantages of using compulsion to bring into the armed forces the men and women needed are notable,” while President William Clinton’s Secretary of the Army Louis Caldera, in a speech before the National Press Club, admitted that, “Today, with our smaller, post-Cold War armed forces, our stronger volunteer tradition and our need for longer terms of service to get a good return on the high, up-front training costs, it would be even harder to fashion a fair draft.”
draft
Reject Draft Slavery
October 5, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 75:3
However, the most important reason to oppose HR 163 is that a draft violates the very principles of individual liberty upon which our nation was founded. Former President Ronald Regan eloquently expressed the moral case against the draft in the publication Human Events in 1979: “...[conscription] rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state. If we buy that assumption then it is for the state — not for parents, the community, the religious institutions or teachers — to decide who shall have what values and who shall do what work, when, where and how in our society. That assumption isn’t a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea .”
draft
Reject Draft Slavery
October 5, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 75:4
Some say the 18-year old draftee “owes it” to his (or her, since HR 163 makes woman eligible for the draft) country. Hogwash! It just as easily could be argued that a 50 year-old chicken-hawk, who promotes war and places innocent young people in danger, owes more to the country than the 18 year-old being denied his (or her) liberty.
draft
Reject Draft Slavery
October 5, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 75:5
All drafts are unfair. All 18 and 19 year olds are never drafted. By its very nature a draft must be discriminatory. All drafts hit the most vulnerable young people, as the elites learn quickly how to avoid the risks of combat.
draft
Reject Draft Slavery
October 5, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 75:7
But the real sacrifice comes with conscription — forcing a small number of young vulnerable citizens to fight the wars that older men and women, who seek glory in military victory without themselves being exposed to danger, promote. The draft encourages wars with neither purpose nor moral justification, wars that too often are not even declared by the Congress.
draft
Reject Draft Slavery
October 5, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 75:8
Without conscription, unpopular wars are difficult to fight. Once the draft was undermined in the 1960s and early 1970s, the Vietnam War came to an end. But most importantly, liberty cannot be preserved by tyranny. A free society must always resort to volunteers. Tyrants think nothing of forcing men to fight and serve in wrongheaded wars. A true fight for survival and defense of America would elicit, I am sure, the assistance of every able-bodied man and woman. This is not the case with wars of mischief far away from home, which we have experienced often in the past century.
draft
Reject Draft Slavery
October 5, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 75:9
A government that is willing to enslave some of its people can never be trusted to protect the liberties of its own citizens. I hope all my colleagues to join me in standing up for individual liberty by rejecting HR 163 and all tempts to bring back the draft.
draft
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 6:56
What if a military draft is the only way to mobilize enough troops?
draft
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 6:57
What if the stop-loss program is actually an egregious violation of trust and a breach of contract between the government and soldiers; what if this is actually a back-door draft, leading to unbridled cynicism and rebellion against a voluntary army and generating support for a draft of both men and women? Will lying to troops lead to rebellion and anger toward the political leaderships running this war?
draft
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.
draft
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.
draft
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.
draft
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.
draft
Who’s Better Off?
April 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 35:18
The families and the 40,000 troops who were forced to re-enlist against their will-- a de facto draft-- are not feeling better off. They believe they have been deceived by their enlistment agreements.
draft
Who’s Better Off?
April 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 35:23
The ongoing war’s lack of success has played a key role in diminishing morale in our military services. Recruitment is sharply down, and most branches face shortages of troops. Many young Americans rightly fear a coming draft-- which will be required if we do not reassess and change the unrealistic goals of our foreign policy.
draft
The American Justice For American Citizens Act
14 April 2005 2005 Ron Paul 41:6
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.
draft
Statement Introducing Repeal Of Selective Service
18 May 2005 2005 Ron Paul 49:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing legislation to repeal the Selective Service Act and related parts of the United States Code. The Department of Defense, in response to calls to reinstate the draft, has confirmed that conscription serves no military need.
draft
Statement Introducing Repeal Of Selective Service
18 May 2005 2005 Ron Paul 49:2
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is on record citing the “notable disadvantages” of a military draft, adding, “. . . there is not a draft. . . . There will not be a draft.”
draft
Statement Introducing Repeal Of Selective Service
18 May 2005 2005 Ron Paul 49:3
This is only the most recent confirmation that the draft, and thus the Selective Service system, serves no military purpose.
draft
Statement Introducing Repeal Of Selective Service
18 May 2005 2005 Ron Paul 49:4
Obviously, if there is no military need for the draft, then there is no need for Selective Service registration. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, Selective Service registration is an outdated and outmoded system, which has been made obsolete by technological advances.
draft
Statement Introducing Repeal Of Selective Service
18 May 2005 2005 Ron Paul 49:6
Shutting down Selective Service will give taxpayers a break without adversely affecting military efforts. Shutting down Selective Service will also end a program that violates the very principals of individual liberty our nation was founded upon. The moral case against the draft was eloquently expressed by former President Ronald Regan in the publication Human Events in 1979: “. . . it [conscription] rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state. If we buy that assumption then it is for the state — not for parents, the community, the religious institutions or teachers — to decide who shall have what values and who shall do what work, when, where and how in our society. That assumption isn’t a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea.”
draft
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 58:5
Truly defensive wars never need a draft to recruit troops to fight. Large numbers voluntarily join to face the foreign threat.
draft
Rebutting the Critics of the Iraq Withdrawal Resolution
June 21, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 69:6
But what we convey or do not convey to the Iraqi people is not the most crucial issue. The more important issues are: Do the American people deserve to know more about our goals, the length of time we can expect to be in Iraq, and how many more Americans are likely to be killed and wounded; will there be a military draft; what is the likelihood of lingering diseases that our veterans may suffer (remember Agent Orange and Persian Gulf War Syndrome?); and how many more tax dollars are required to fight this war indefinitely?
draft
Amend The PATRIOT Act — Part 2
21 July 2005 2005 Ron Paul 88:10
H.R. 3199 continues to violate the constitution by allowing searches and seizures of American citizens and their property without a warrant issued by an independent court upon a finding of probable cause. The drafters of the Bill of Rights considered this essential protection against an overreaching government. For example, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, popularly known as the libraries provision, allows Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts, whose standards hardly meet the constitutional requirements of the Fourth Amendment, to issue warrants for individual records, including medical and library records. H.R. 3199 does reform this provision by clarifying that it can be used to acquire the records of an American citizen only during terrorist investigations. However, this marginal change fails to bring the section up to the constitutional standard of probable cause.
draft
Don’t Reauthorize the Patriot Act
July 21, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 89:4
HR 3199 continues to violate the constitution by allowing searches and seizures of American citizens and their property without a warrant issued by an independent court upon a finding of probable cause. The drafters of the Bill of Rights considered this essential protection against an overreaching government. For example, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, popularly known as the library provision, allows Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts, whose standards hardly meet the constitutional requirements of the Fourth Amendment, to issue warrants for individual records, including medical and library records. HR 3199 does reform this provision by clarifying that it can be used to acquire the records of an American citizen only during terrorist investigations. However, this marginal change fails to bring the section up to the constitutional standard of probable cause.
draft
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 95:54
In this war, like all others, the propagandists and promoters themselves don’t fight, nor do their children. It’s always worth the effort to wage war when others must suffer and die. Many of those who today pump the nation up with war fever were nowhere to be found when their numbers were called in the 1960s-- when previous presidents and Congresses thought so little about sending young men off to war. Then it was in their best interests to find more important things to do-- despite the so-called equalizing draft.
draft
Terrorism Insurance Program
7 December 2005 2005 Ron Paul 125:2
The drafters of H.R. 3210 claim that this creates a “temporary” government program. However, Mr. Speaker, what happens in 3 years if industry lobbyists come to Capitol Hill to explain that there is still a need for this program because of the continuing threat of terrorist attacks. Does anyone seriously believe that Congress will refuse to reauthorize this “temporary” insurance program or provide some other form of taxpayer help to the insurance industry? I would like to remind my colleagues that the Federal budget is full of expenditures for long-lasting programs that were originally intended to be “temporary.”
draft
Terrorism Insurance Program
7 December 2005 2005 Ron Paul 125:8
The drafters of H.R. 3210 claim that this creates a “temporary” government program. However, Mr. Speaker, what happens in 3 years if industry lobbyists come to Capitol Hill to explain that there is still a need for this program because of the continuing threat of terrorist attacks. Does anyone seriously believe that Congress will refuse to reauthorize this “temporary” insurance program or provide some other form of taxpayer help to the insurance industry? I would like to remind my colleagues that the Federal budget is full of expenditures for long-lasting programs that were originally intended to be “temporary.”
draft
Iran, The Next Neocon Target
5 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 21:56
Careless military intervention is also bad for the civil disturbance that results. The chaos in the streets of America in the 1960s while the Vietnam War raged, aggravated by the draft, was an example of domestic strife caused by an ill-advised unconstitutional war that could not be won. The early signs of civil discord are now present. Hopefully, we can extricate ourselves from Iraq and avoid a conflict in Iran before our streets explode, as they did in the 1960s.
draft
Legislative Line Item Veto Act
22 June 2006 2006 Ron Paul 47:2
H.R. 4890 supporters claim that this bill does not violate the Constitution. I am skeptical of this claim since giving the president the power to pick and choose which parts of legislation to sign into law transforms the president into a legislator, thus upending the Constitution’s careful balance of powers between the Congress and the president. I doubt the drafters of the Constitution, who rightly saw that giving legislative power to the executive branch would undermine republican government and threaten individual liberty, would support H.R. 4890.
draft
H.R. 5068, the Export-Import Reauthorization Act
25 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 69:15
Finally, Mr. Speaker, 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.
draft
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 74:78
We have a troop shortage. Morale is low, and our military equipment is in bad shape, yet the neocons would not hesitate to spend, borrow, inflate and reinstate the draft to continue their grandiose schemes in remaking the entire Middle East. Obviously, a victory of this sort is not available no matter what effort is made or how much money is spent.
draft
Milton Friedman
6 December 2006 2006 Ron Paul 100:4
While he is mainly known for his contributions to economic theory and his advocacy of free markets, Milton Friedman considered his advocacy against the draft, cumulating in his work as a member of President Nixon’s Commission on an All-Volunteer Force, his major policy achievement. Milton Friedman’s opposition to the draft was in part based on economic principles, but was mainly motivated by his moral commitment to freedom. I ask unanimous consent to insert the attached article, “Milton Friedman: A Tribute,” by David R. Henderson, which details Milton Friedman’s efforts against the draft, into the record.
draft
Milton Friedman
6 December 2006 2006 Ron Paul 100:13
But here’s the bigger point: with his steady and passionate work to end the military draft, Milton Friedman was the Dutch uncle of every young man in the United States. Or even better, he was like a favorite uncle that they’d never even met. He cared more for them than any president, any general, or any defense secretary has ever cared. How so? Because he wanted every young man to be free to choose whether to join the military or not.
draft
Milton Friedman
6 December 2006 2006 Ron Paul 100:14
Milton Friedman’s work against the draft began in December 1966, when he gave a presentation at a four-day conference at the University of Chicago. Various prominent and less-prominent academics, politicians, and activists had been invited. Papers had been commissioned, and the authors gave summaries, after which the discussion was open to all. Fortunately, the discussion was transcribed. The papers and discussions appear in a book edited by sociologist Sol Tax and titled The Draft: A Handbook of Facts and Alternatives. The invitees included two young anti-draft congressmen, Robert Kastenmeier (D–Wisc.) and Donald Rumsfeld (R–Ill.), and one pro-draft senator, Edward Kennedy (D- Mass.). Also attending were pro-draft anthropologist Margaret Mead and anti-draft economists Milton Friedman and Walter Oi. Friedman gave the general economic and philosophical case for a voluntary military in his presentation, “Why Not a Voluntary Army?” Friedman pointed out that the draft is a tax on young men. He stated:
draft
Milton Friedman
6 December 2006 2006 Ron Paul 100:15
“When a young man is forced to serve at $45 a week, including the cost of his keep, of his uniforms, and his dependency allowances, and there are many civilian opportunities available to him at something like $100 a week, he is paying $55 a week in an implicit tax. . . . And if you were to add to those taxes in kind, the costs imposed on universities and colleges; of seating, housing, and entertaining young men who would otherwise be doing productive work; if you were to add to that the costs imposed on industry by the fact that they can only offer young men who are in danger of being drafted stopgap jobs, and cannot effectively invest money in training them; if you were to add to that the costs imposed on individuals of a financial kind by their marrying earlier or having children at an earlier stage, and so on; if you were to add all these up, there is no doubt at all in my mind that the cost of a volunteer force, correctly calculated, would be very much smaller than the amount we are now spending in manning our Armed Forces.”
draft
Milton Friedman
6 December 2006 2006 Ron Paul 100:16
Reading through the whole Sol Tax volume, with all the papers and transcripts of the discussion, I had the sense that there was a coalescing of views over the four days, as people from various parts of the ideological spectrum found that they had in common a strong antipathy to the draft and found also that the economists made a surprisingly strong economic case. Both Friedman’s speech and his various comments at the conference still make compelling reading. One of his best rhetorical flourishes was his criticism of the charge that those who advocate ending the draft are advocating a “mercenary” army. You’ll recognize the same kind of argument he used against Westmoreland in the lead quote of this article. Friedman said:
draft
Milton Friedman
6 December 2006 2006 Ron Paul 100:18
In the margin of my 35-year-old, dog-eared copy of the Sol Tax book containing this passage, I wrote one word: “Wow!” This is rhetoric at its best, a tight argument passionately stated. When I read this at about age 18, just a year before meeting Friedman in his office, I felt cared-for. Fortunately, being Canadian, I wasn’t vulnerable to the draft. But I had the thought that if I had grown up in United States, I would be so thankful that here was this man, himself well beyond draft age and who could probably figure out how to get his son out of the draft, and yet who cared enough to be out in front on this issue.
draft
Milton Friedman
6 December 2006 2006 Ron Paul 100:19
Two of Friedman’s comments about this conference are worth noting. Writing some 30 years later, Friedman noted that the 74 invited participants “included essentially everyone who had written or spoken at all extensively on either side of the controversy about the draft, as well as a number of students.” (Two Lucky People, p. 377.) Friedman’s other comment is also worth citing:
draft
Milton Friedman
6 December 2006 2006 Ron Paul 100:20
“I have attended many conferences. I have never attended any other that had so dramatic an effect on the participants. A straw poll taken at the outset of the conference recorded two-thirds of the participants in favor of the draft; a similar poll at the end, two- thirds opposed. I believe that this conference was the key event that started the ball rolling decisively toward ending the draft.” (p. 378.)
draft
Milton Friedman
6 December 2006 2006 Ron Paul 100:21
Friedman didn’t stop there. He wrote a number of articles in his tri-weekly column in Newsweek making the case against the draft. Friedman was one of 15 people chosen for Nixon’s Commission on the All-Volunteer Force. By his estimate, five started off being against the draft, five in favor, and five on the fence. By the end, the Commission was able to come out with a 14–0 consensus in favor of ending the draft. Black leader Roy Wilkins, in a Feb. 6, 1970 letter to Nixon, stated he had been unable to attend many of the meetings due to a major illness and, therefore, could not support its specific recommendations; Wilkins did state, however, that he endorsed the idea of moving toward an all-volunteer armed force. (The Report of the President’s Commission on an All-Volunteer Armed Force, New York: Collier Books, 1970; letter from Roy Wilkins.)
draft
Milton Friedman
6 December 2006 2006 Ron Paul 100:22
It was at one of these meetings that Friedman put Westmoreland on the spot with his comeback about slaves. Knowing that Friedman was persuasive and focused and also a warm human being, I credit him with having swung at least a few of the Commission members in his direction. And although Nixon took his sweet time acting on the recommendations, finally, at the start of his second term, he let the draft expire.
draft
Milton Friedman
6 December 2006 2006 Ron Paul 100:23
Friedman kibitzed in his Newsweek column, never letting up. He once wrote that the draft “is almost the only issue on which I have engaged in any extensive personal lobbying with members of the House and Senate.” (Milton Friedman, An Economist’s Protest, 2nd ed., Glen Ridge, N.J.: Thomas Horton and Daughters, 1975, p. 188.)
draft
Milton Friedman
6 December 2006 2006 Ron Paul 100:24
And Friedman stuck around as an opponent of the draft when the going got tough. In the late 1970s, high inflation caused a serious drop in real military pay and a consequent increase in difficulty meeting recruiting quotas. Of all the threats to bring back the draft in the last 32 years, the threat in 1979 to 1980 was the most serious. Sen. Sam Nunn (D–Ga.) held hearings with the goal of building support for the draft and, at least, registration for a future draft. Hoover economist Martin Anderson organized an important conference on the draft at the Hoover Institution in November 1979 and invited the top proponents and opponents of the draft. (For the papers and transcript of the discussion, see Martin Anderson, ed., Registration and the Draft: Proceedings of the Hoover-Rochester Conference on the All-Volunteer Force, Stanford, California: Hoover Institution Press, 1982.) Friedman was one of the attendees and, at the end, debated Congressman Pete McCloskey on the draft. It was actually the weakest performance I’ve ever seen by Friedman, but Friedman’s “weak” is still pretty good.
draft
Milton Friedman
6 December 2006 2006 Ron Paul 100:25
In 1980, in response to the threat from Sam Nunn, I wrote and circulated the following “Economists’ Statement in Opposition to the Draft”:
draft
Milton Friedman
6 December 2006 2006 Ron Paul 100:26
“We, the undersigned, oppose moves toward the reimposition of the draft. The draft would be a more costly way of maintaining the military than an all-volunteer force. Those who claim that a draft costs less than a volunteer military cite as a savings the lower wages that the government can get away with paying draftees. But they leave out the burden imposed on the draftees themselves. Since a draft would force many young people to delay or forego entirely other activities valuable to them and to the rest of society, the real cost of military manpower would be substantially more than the wages draftees would be paid. Saying that a draft would reduce the cost of the military is like saying that the pyramids were cheap because they were built with slave labor.”
draft
Milton Friedman
6 December 2006 2006 Ron Paul 100:30
As far as I know, though, Friedman did not oppose the second Gulf war publicly when it mattered most — that is, before the March 2003 invasion. But on the draft, Friedman never wavered. For that, many young American men owe him a lot.
draft
The War In Iraq
5 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 7:8
We at least must pretend that our bankrupt empire is intact, but then again, the Soviet empire appeared intact in 1988. Some Members of Congress intent on equitably distributing the suffering among all Americans want to bring back the draft. Administration officials vehemently deny making any concrete plans for a draft.
draft
The War In Iraq
5 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 7:9
But why should we believe this? Look what happened when so many believed the reasons given for our preemptive invasion of Iraq. Selective Service officials admit running a check of their list of available young men. If the draft is reinstated, we probably will include young women as well to serve the God of equality. Conscription is slavery, plain and simple, and it was made illegal under the 13th amendment, which prohibits involuntary servitude. One may well be killed as a military draftee, which makes conscription a very dangerous kind of enslavement.
draft
Introduction Of Legislation To Repeal The Selective Service Act And Related Parts Of The United States Code
11 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 13:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I am today introducing legislation to repeal the Selective Service Act and related parts of the United States Code. The Department of Defense, in response to calls to reinstate the draft, has confirmed that conscription serves no military need.
draft
Introduction Of Legislation To Repeal The Selective Service Act And Related Parts Of The United States Code
11 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 13:2
In his December confirmation hearings, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated his opposition to a military draft. Secretary Gates’ immediate predecessor, Donald Rumsfield, also publicly opposed reinstating the draft. The opposition of the two most recent Defense Secretaries is only the most recent confirmation that the draft serves no military purpose.
draft
Introduction Of Legislation To Repeal The Selective Service Act And Related Parts Of The United States Code
11 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 13:3
Obviously, if there is no military need for the draft, then there is no need for Selective Service registration. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, Selective Service registration is an outdated and outmoded system, which has been made obsolete by technological advances.
draft
Introduction Of Legislation To Repeal The Selective Service Act And Related Parts Of The United States Code
11 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 13:5
Shutting down Selective Service will give taxpayers a break without adversely affecting military efforts. Shutting down Selective Service will also end a program that violates the very principals of individual liberty our Nation was founded upon. The moral case against the draft was eloquently expressed by former President Ronald Regan in the publication Human Events in 1979: “. . . it [conscription] rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state. If we buy that assumption then it is for the state — not for parents, the community, the religious institutions or teachers — to decide who shall have what values and who shall do what work, when, where and how in our society. That assumption isn’t a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea.”
draft
Happy Birthday To Muhammad Ali
17 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 17:3
He is known, of course, for his athletic skills and his humanitarian concerns, and these are rightly mentioned in a resolution like this. But I do want to emphasize this because, to me, it was so important and had such impact, in reality, what Muhammad Ali did eventually led to getting rid of the draft, and yet we as a people and we as a Congress still do not have the conviction that Muhammad Ali had, because we still have the selective service; we say, let us not draft now, but when the conditions are right, we will bring back the draft and bring back those same problems that we had in the 1960s.
draft
In The Name Of Patriotism (Who Are The Patriots?)
22 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 55:18
Nonviolent protesters of the Tax Code are frequently imprisoned, whether they are protesting the code’s unconstitutionality or the war that the tax revenues are funding. Resisters to the military draft or even to Selective Service registration are threatened and imprisoned for challenging this threat to liberty.
draft
In The Name Of Patriotism (Who Are The Patriots?)
22 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 55:19
Statism depends on the idea that the government owns us and citizens must obey. Confiscating the fruits of our labor through the income tax is crucial to the health of the state. The draft, or even the mere existence of the Selective Service, emphasizes that we will march off to war at the state’s pleasure.
draft
In The Name Of Patriotism (Who Are The Patriots?)
22 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 55:20
A free society rejects all notions of involuntary servitude, whether by draft or the confiscation of the fruits of our labor through the personal income tax. A more sophisticated and less well-known technique for enhancing the state is the manipulation and transfer of wealth through the fiat monetary system operated by the secretive Federal Reserve.
draft
Introduction Of The American Citizenship Amendment
13 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 63:2
Madam Speaker, this is unacceptable and is far from what our Founders intended when they drafted our 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.
draft
Introduction Of The Honest Money Act
15 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 64:7
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. This is why the Constitution does not grant legal tender powers to the federal government. Instead, Congress was given powers to establish standards regarding the value of money. In other words, in monetary matters the Congress was to follow the lead of the market. When Alexander Hamilton wrote the coinage act of 1792, he simply adopted the market-definition of a dollar as equaling the value of the Spanish milled silver coin.
draft
Introduction Of The Congressional Responsibility And Accountability Act
2007 Ron Paul 82:2
According to some legal experts, at least three-quarters of all federal laws consist of regulations promulgated by federal agencies without the consent, or even the review of, Congress. Allowing unelected, and thus unaccountable, executive agencies to make law undermines democracy. Law-making by executive agencies also violates the intent of the drafters of the Constitution to separate legislative and executive powers. The drafters of the Constitution correctly viewed separation of powers as a cornerstone of republican government and a key to protecting individual liberty from excessive and arbitrary government power.
draft
Terrorism Insurance
19 september 2007 2007 Ron Paul 89:2
“The drafters of H.R. 3210 claim that this creates a ‘temporary’ government program. However, Mr. Speaker, what happens in three years if industry lobbyists come to Capitol Hill to explain that there is still a need for this program because of the continuing threat of terrorist attacks. Does anyone seriously believe that Congress will refuse to reauthorize this ‘temporary’ insurance program or provide some other form of taxpayer help to the insurance industry? I would like to remind my colleagues that the federal budget is full of expenditures for long-lasting programs that were originally intended to be ‘temporary.’ ”
draft
Terrorism Insurance
19 september 2007 2007 Ron Paul 89:8
The drafters of H.R. 3210 claim that this creates a “temporary” government program. However, Mr. Speaker, what happens in three years if industry lobbyists come to Capitol Hill to explain that there is still a need for this program because of the continuing threat of terrorist attacks. Does anyone seriously believe that Congress will refuse to reauthorize this “temporary” insurance program or provide some other form of taxpayer help to the insurance industry? I would like to remind my colleagues that the federal budget is full of expenditures for long-lasting programs that were originally intended to be “temporary.”
draft
NEWBORN SCREENING SAVES LIVES ACT OF 2007
8 April 2008 2008 Ron Paul 20:3
As the Federal Government assumes more control over health care, medical privacy has increasingly come under assault. Those of us in the medical profession should be particularly concerned about policies allowing Government officials and State-favored interests to access our medical records without our consent. After all, patient confidentiality is the basis of the trust that must underline a positive physician-patient relationship. Yet my review of S. 1858 indicates the drafters of the legislation made no effort to ensure these newborn screening programs do not violate the privacy rights of parents and children.
draft
Statement on Earmark Reform
April 9, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 23:5
Madame Speaker, the drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the powers of the purse because the drafters feared that allowing the branch of government charged with executing the laws to also write the federal budget would concentrate too much power in one branch of government. The founders correctly viewed the separation of law-making and law-enforcement powers as a vital safeguard of liberty. Whenever the president blatantly disregards orders from Congress as to how federal funds should be spent, he is undermining the constitutional separation of powers.
draft
VETERANS’ HEALTH CARE POLICY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2008
July 30, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 53:2
I am concerned, however, that this bill incorporates language from HR 6114, which rescinds a current law requirement that the VA obtain a signed consent form from a veteran before conducting an HIV test. We have seen veterans punished severely for attempting to avoid the required but controversial myriad of inoculations they are required to receive. Now we see that they will have less control over what medical tests to which they might be subjected. I am concerned over this loss of control over one’s healthcare decisions among those who voluntarily join the military, and I urge the adoption of a more flexible policy. I would also urge my colleagues and the American people to contemplate this deprivation of medical and privacy rights on a massive scale should we ever reinstate the draft. I believe taking care of veterans should include both providing promised benefits and protecting their privacy rights.
draft
WHAT IF?
February 12, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 15:16
What if a military draft is being planned for the wars that will spread if our foreign policy is not changed?
draft
Statement in Opposition to HR 1388 - National Service
March 18, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 33:2
I would make three points to those of my colleagues who try to justify this bill by saying that participation in the programs are voluntary. First, participation in the program is not voluntary for the taxpayers. Second, nothing in the bill prevents federal taxpayer dollars from being used to support state and local programs that force children to perform “community service” as a condition of graduating from high school. Because an increasing number of schools across the nation are forcing children to provide “service” as a condition of graduating, it is quite likely that the funds authorized by this bill will be used to support mandatory service. Third, and most importantly, by legitimizing the idea that it is an appropriate role for the government to promote “service,” legislation such as H.R. 1388 opens the door for mandatory national service. Today, influential voices in both major parties are calling for a national program of mandatory service as well as a resumption of the military draft. With the increased need for more troops for the administration’s expanded military adventurism in Afghanistan, as well as the continuing movement to conscript young people not eligible for military service to serve the government at home, can anyone doubt that this bill is only the down payment on a much larger program of mandatory national service?
draft
GENERATIONS INVIGORATING VOLUNTEERISM AND EDUCATION ACT
March 19, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 37:2
I would make three points to those of my colleagues who try to justify this bill by saying that participation in the programs are voluntary. First, participation in the program is not voluntary for the taxpayers. Second, nothing in the bill prevents federal taxpayer dollars from being used to support state and local programs that force children to perform “community service” as a condition of graduating from high school. Because an increasing number of schools across the nation are forcing children to provide “service” as a condition of graduating, it is quite likely that the funds authorized by this bill will be used to support mandatory service. Third, and most importantly, by legitimizing the idea that it is an appropriate role for the government to promote “service,” legislation such as H.R. 1388 opens the door for mandatory national service. Today, influential voices in both major parties are calling for a national program of mandatory service as well as a resumption of the military draft. With the increased need for more troops for the administration’s expanded military adventurism in Afghanistan, as well as the continuing movement to conscript young people not eligible for military service to serve the government at home, can anyone doubt that this bill is only the down payment on a much larger program of mandatory national service?
draft
INTRODUCTION OF THE CONGRESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
July 29, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 86:2
According to some legal experts, at least three-quarters of all federal laws consist of regulations promulgated by federal agencies without the consent, or even the review of, Congress. Allowing unelected, and thus unaccountable, executive agencies to make law undermines democracy and violates the intent of the drafters of the Constitution to separate legislative and executive powers. The drafters of the Constitution correctly viewed separation of powers as a cornerstone of republican government and a key to protecting individual liberty from excessive and arbitrary government power.
draft
- Paul's legislation focuses on individual liberty
25 August 1997 Texas Straight Talk 25 August 1997 verse 6 ... Cached
The first is HR 2029, the Selective Service Registration Privacy Act. Put succinctly, this legislation will prohibit Clinton's Americorps program from using any Selective Service Administration resources, including draft registration information. Current law requires 18-year-old males to register with Selective Service.
draft
- Paul's legislation focuses on individual liberty
25 August 1997 Texas Straight Talk 25 August 1997 verse 9 ... Cached
Letting Americorps get its foot in the door of the Selective Service system now is troubling by what it could portend for the future. I absolutely do not want my grandsons to be drafted into Americorps' "national volunteer service" and be sent to distribute needles in some drug-infested urban area, or be forced to pick-up trash in the national parks, but that is exactly where this could lead; and what the social liberals want. Already the president and his cronies have warped the meaning of the word "volunteer" by instigating this program, and we see school districts around the nation requiring volunteerism or public service as a condition of graduation It is not at all unlikely that this same social-planning crew will try to mandate that all kids 'volunteer' with Americorps.
draft
- Paul's legislation focuses on individual liberty
25 August 1997 Texas Straight Talk 25 August 1997 verse 17 ... Cached
The role of government is to protect life and liberty from initiations of force or fraud. By preventing government from drafting our children into a system of social engineering, and by reducing the unconstitutional barriers to financial freedom, these two pieces of legislation take a step in the direction our nation must head; the direction of individual liberty.
draft
- FDA bill no reform: proves Congress still the same
13 October 1997 Texas Straight Talk 13 October 1997 verse 7 ... Cached
When I decided to try to draw attention to the broad-sweeping nature of the bill - and the process by which it had come up for consideration - I was told by the bill's proponents that "there is no time available to speak about the bill." Instead, Congress and C-SPAN viewers were treated to a "love-fest" during which each of the bill's drafters and advocates commended one another for doing a fine job of bestowing on the American citizenry yet one more blow to liberty in favor of corporatism and internationalism.
draft
- By Any Other Name, A Tax Is Still A Tax
27 October 1997 Texas Straight Talk 27 October 1997 verse 12 ... Cached
While Congress was voting to increase taxes, I took it upon myself to draft and introduce legislation to repeal the Clinton tax increase on Social Security benefits. Back in 1993, President Clinton and his willing allies in Congress increased the taxes senior citizens pay on Social Security benefits. Republicans correctly balked and even made repealing this measure a popular part of their 1994 Contract with America. But the repeal never got off the ground.
draft
Abortion and National Sovereignty: No Compromises
26 January 1998 Texas Straight Talk 26 January 1998 verse 5 ... Cached
The Mexico City Policy was drafted in the Reagan years as an attempt to put some limitations on US foreign aide being used for abortions overseas. While I believe that those who put this policy forward were well-motivated, I believe that time has shown this policy to have little real effect. I have continued to vote for this policy when it came up as a stand alone issue in this Congress because it is a bare minimum requirement, although, as I say, I consider it ineffective in stopping tax money from funding abortions.
draft
Bombing Iraq lacks support, common sense and constitutional base
02 February 1998 Texas Straight Talk 02 February 1998 verse 8 ... Cached
Trying to appease the military industrial complex and appear tough for campaign ads, many congressmen will make strong public statements goading the president to battle, going so far as to draft meaningless resolutions supporting bombings and military action. But they refuse to claim their proper constitutional role and take responsibility for sending America's youth to die in the sands of a foreign desert.
draft
Integrity of Social Security Number must be maintained
20 July 1998 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1998 verse 13 ... Cached
The drafters of the Constitution would be horrified if they knew that the federal government would one day have the ability to create a national ID system and demand that every newborn baby be assigned a number by the federal government. One wonders if the Founders would have fought for liberty if they knew how that precious right would be eroded by their political descendants.
draft
Middle East peace: déjà vu all over again
02 November 1998 Texas Straight Talk 02 November 1998 verse 7 ... Cached
So these last weeks have been less than riveting as our president (one cynically might insert the phrase "diverting attention from his domestic problems") met in yet another round of tense negotiations with the Israeli prime minister and the Palestinian chairman. While all three were "cautiously optimistic" in their comments to the press, the people in the Middle East – on both sides – were disgusted. One Israeli Member of Parliament has drafted a measure for a "no confidence" vote in the Prime Minister, the kiss of political death in their system, while people violently demonstrated in the streets.
draft
Victory should be call to action
08 March 1999 Texas Straight Talk 08 March 1999 verse 12 ... Cached
I believe, however, we need to take these powers out of the hands of the regulators altogether. Government agencies should not have the power to draft an entire industry into their service, nor should they be allowed to unilaterally declare as criminal the behavior of every American citizen.
draft
Reducing the tax reduction
26 July 1999 Texas Straight Talk 26 July 1999 verse 12 ... Cached
Even under this "historic" tax-cut plan, Americans will still work more than half the year to pay the cost of government. Further, most of the tax cuts are only fully realized ten years from now. While some talk about benefits years down the fiscal road, Congress can only draft budgets for a single year; what is passed in one fiscal year can be erased in the next. And as one might imagine, the tax cuts for this fiscal year are puny.
draft
Draft not needed for protection of liberty
23 August 1999 Texas Straight Talk 23 August 1999 verse 2 ... Cached
Draft not needed for protection of liberty
draft
Draft not needed for protection of liberty
23 August 1999 Texas Straight Talk 23 August 1999 verse 5 ... Cached
In 1994 a Department of Defense document was released saying that the time had come to end the inefficient Selective Service draft registration system. In fact, the report stated draft registration could be stopped "with no effect on military mobilization requirements, little effect on the time it would take to mobilize, and no measurable effect on military recruitment."
draft
Draft not needed for protection of liberty
23 August 1999 Texas Straight Talk 23 August 1999 verse 7 ... Cached
In fact, any crisis that might warrant a draft most likely will not have a front, as was demonstrated in the recent action against Yugoslavia. Pilots flying high-tech planes dropped bombs on targets selected with the aid of orbiting satellites and directed by computer technicians thousands of miles distant.
draft
Draft not needed for protection of liberty
23 August 1999 Texas Straight Talk 23 August 1999 verse 8 ... Cached
While some romanticize the notion of a draft, it is simply inconsistent with the realities of today's military.
draft
Draft not needed for protection of liberty
23 August 1999 Texas Straight Talk 23 August 1999 verse 9 ... Cached
But a draft is also inconsistent with something far less temporal: the philosophy of liberty. Our founding fathers saw the notion of standing armies -- and indeed the potential for them -- as inconsistent with liberty. In fact, King George is criticized in the Declaration of Independence for maintaining such armies and programs.
draft
Draft not needed for protection of liberty
23 August 1999 Texas Straight Talk 23 August 1999 verse 10 ... Cached
The draft is foreign to the precepts of liberty. If there is ever a threat to our national survival, people will serve if they believe liberty is worth saving; droves of men rushed to volunteer for service after Japan attacked in 1941. The burden rests on those in elected office to ensure our free society remains one in which the people are willing to fight, even to death, for its continuation. In our Constitution, the founding fathers provided for this mechanism by ensuring all would be free to be armed so that they may rise up in defense of liberty.
draft
Draft not needed for protection of liberty
23 August 1999 Texas Straight Talk 23 August 1999 verse 11 ... Cached
The existence of the mechanisms for a draft reveals a great deal about our state of affairs. It reveals first the belief of many in our government that they are unwilling to maintain a system which the people desire to protect. They cynically suggest that people would not defend their own liberty in the face of a clear and present threat, and so the government-as-patriarch must decide what is best for them.
draft
Draft not needed for protection of liberty
23 August 1999 Texas Straight Talk 23 August 1999 verse 12 ... Cached
More importantly, it reveals the basic philosophy of our leadership: that all things belong first to the government. After all, taxes are withheld from workers before their paycheck is even cut. This means government gets the first fruits of our labor -- not our God or family. The existence of a draft registration makes it clear that government has first dibs on the life of every man.
draft
Draft not needed for protection of liberty
23 August 1999 Texas Straight Talk 23 August 1999 verse 13 ... Cached
Our nation does have a problem with recruitment and retention -- reasons often cited for keeping the draft registration. Countless surveys, though, have found these problems come not from a lack of patriotism, but because more and more Americans are frustrated with our foreign policy and the increasing number of "police actions" that put soldiers in harm's way without a national interest at stake.
draft
'Say no to high taxes and spending'
27 September 1999 Texas Straight Talk 27 September 1999 verse 14 ... Cached
They will continue to get away with it until Americans say they have had enough. While the process is illogical, the taxes we pay are a direct reflection of the spending priorities in Washington. The budget drafters determine what they want to spend, then tax you accordingly, suggesting that you are getting some benefit from their wisdom.
draft
This Year's Successes
22 November 1999 Texas Straight Talk 22 November 1999 verse 9 ... Cached
I also introduced HR 1812 this year, to end the needless and inefficient policy of draft registration. The Department of Defense issued a report pointing out why this program is a waste of money and simply makes no sense in light of current personnel requirements consistent with modern warfare. Moreover, my concern is with the threat to personal freedom evidenced by compulsory registration with the federal government.
draft
International Protectionism
13 December 1999 Texas Straight Talk 13 December 1999 verse 9 ... Cached
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 effect of this is 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.
draft
Cosponsored Bills
20 December 1999 Texas Straight Talk 20 December 1999 verse 5 ... Cached
Some of the bills I have cosponsored deal with topics on which I have already introduced legislation. These include measures dealing with second amendment rights protection, restriction of funding to the United Nations and "Sense of Congress resolutions" regarding executive orders and privacy issues. Often times, I cosponsor a bill that is not necessarily drafted in such a fashion that I believe will really get at the heart of the problem it is intended to address. Nonetheless, I decide to cosponsor such measures, as long as they take steps in the right direction. Additionally, if the issue is something that I see as significant to maintaining our liberty and restoring our Republic, I will also craft a bill that I think more directly addresses the central problem. In this way, I can lend support to other Members who are moving in the right direction while also advocating a more specific, and often times more significant, remedy to the problem.
draft
The Year Ahead
03 January 2000 Texas Straight Talk 03 January 2000 verse 8 ... Cached
This coming year I will also continue to focus considerable attention on issues of personal privacy. Right now, my staff is studying ways to draft a privacy amendment to our constitution. Generally, I am not a big fan of constitutional amendments, especially since the federal government now ignores so much of the existing constitution.
draft
Predictions for an Unwritten Future
29 April 2002 Texas Straight Talk 29 April 2002 verse 22 ... Cached
The draft will be reinstated, causing domestic turmoil and resentment.
draft
Securing the Homeland?
08 July 2002 Texas Straight Talk 08 July 2002 verse 2 ... Cached
Various congressional committees will spend the summer drafting the Homeland Security Act, legislation that will create the largest new federal bureaucracy in several decades. Only broad proposals exist at the moment, but the debate over details may reveal how special interests and power hungry bureaucrats stand in the way of common sense. We certainly don’t need another federal jobs program that does nothing to make us safe from terrorism, nor should we be eager to pour more money into the same agencies and policies that failed us on September 11th.
draft
Will We Bring bin Laden to Justice?
23 September 2002 Texas Straight Talk 23 September 2002 verse 5 ... Cached
Our troops in Afghanistan, and defense secretary Rumsfeld himself, are becoming increasingly frustrated over the lack of progress in locating bin Laden. Clearly we need to provide President Bush with innovative new tools to bring these criminals to justice. The drafters of the Constitution provided just such a tool to retaliate against attacks on America by groups not formally affiliated with a government: letters of marque and reprisal. Letters of marque and reprisal are especially suited to our modern campaign against terrorism, which is fought against individuals rather than governments. Essentially, marque and reprisal authorizes the President to use private parties to find international terrorists wherever they hide.
draft
Conscription is Collectivism
13 January 2003 Texas Straight Talk 13 January 2003 verse 2 ... Cached
Two Democratic Congressman introduced legislation last week to revive the military draft, taking a race-baiting shot at the President and his war plans. Their idea is not new, however, as similar proposals were introduced by Republicans in the months following September 11th. Although the administration is not calling for a draft at this time, last week’s controversy shows while conscription has been buried for 30 years, the idea is not necessarily dead.
draft
Conscription is Collectivism
13 January 2003 Texas Straight Talk 13 January 2003 verse 3 ... Cached
Neither the Pentagon nor our military leaders want a draft. In fact, a Department of Defense report stated that draft registration could be eliminated "with no effect on military mobilization and no measurable effect on military recruitment." Today’s military is more high tech and specialized than ever before, and an educated volunteer force is required to operate our modern Army, Navy, and Air Force. Most military experts believe a draft would actually impair military readiness, despite the increase in raw manpower, because of training and morale problems.
draft
Conscription is Collectivism
13 January 2003 Texas Straight Talk 13 January 2003 verse 4 ... Cached
So why is the idea of a draft even considered? One answer is that our military forces are spread far too thin, engaged in conflicts around the globe that are none of our business. With hundreds of thousands of troops already stationed in literally hundreds of foreign nations, we simply don’t have enough soldiers to invade and occupy every country we label a threat to the new American empire. Military leaders conservatively estimate that 250,000 troops will be needed to invade Iraq, while tens of thousands already occupy Afghanistan. Add another conflict to the mix- in North Korea, the Balkans, or any number of hot spots- and our military capabilities would quickly be exhausted. Some in Washington would rather draft more young bodies than rethink our role as world policeman and bring some of our troops home.
draft
Conscription is Collectivism
13 January 2003 Texas Straight Talk 13 January 2003 verse 5 ... Cached
Military needs aside, however, some politicians simply love the thought of mandatory service to the state. To them, the American government is America. Patriotism means working for the benefit of the state. On a crude level, the draft appeals to patriotic fervor. This is why the idea of compulsory national service, whether in the form of military conscription or make-work programs like AmeriCorps, still sells on Capitol Hill. Conscription is wrongly associated with patriotism, when it really represents collectivism and involuntary servitude.
draft
Conscription is Collectivism
13 January 2003 Texas Straight Talk 13 January 2003 verse 7 ... Cached
Ronald Reagan said it best: "The most fundamental objection to draft registration is moral." He understood that conscription assumes our nation’s young people belong to the state. Yet America was founded on the opposite principle, that the state exists to serve the individual. The notion of involuntary servitude, in whatever form, is simply incompatible with a free society.
draft
The Myth of War Prosperity
10 March 2003 Texas Straight Talk 10 March 2003 verse 3 ... Cached
There is a commonly-held myth that war creates prosperity. Many believe that World War II ended the Great Depression. Unemployment went down because hundreds of thousands of men were drafted, and factories at home busied themselves with war production. This provided the illusion of a bustling wartime economy. But in truth the economy shrank and GDP plummeted. The hidden costs were enormous, because so much human energy and human capital was expended fighting the war rather than doing productive, specialized work back home.
draft
Christmas in Secular America
29 December 2003 Texas Straight Talk 29 December 2003 verse 5 ... Cached
The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.
draft
Torture, War, and Presidential Powers
14 June 2004 Texas Straight Talk 14 June 2004 verse 2 ... Cached
A Wall Street Journal article last week detailed a Department of Defense memo that discusses the legality of interrogation and torture methods in the wake of events at Abu Gharib. The document reportedly advises that the president has authority to order almost any action, including physical or psychological torture, despite federal laws to the contrary. The Pentagon lawyers who drafted the memo were not shy about blatantly asserting that the Commander-In-Chief can break the law when necessary, as evidenced by this quote from the memo: “Sometimes the greater good for society will be accomplished by violating the literal language of the criminal law.”
draft
Resisting Judicial Tyranny
26 July 2004 Texas Straight Talk 26 July 2004 verse 2 ... Cached
The US House passed the Marriage Protection Act last week, a bill designed to ensure that the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution is not used to impose gay marriage on Texas or any other state. You may remember Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, which explicitly authorizes states to refuse recognition of gay marriages performed in other states. However, the lack of respect federal judges show for the plain language of the Constitution necessitated further congressional action. The Act underscores an important legal point: Marbury vs. Madison did not alter the congressional power to regulate and limit federal court jurisdiction, which is plainly stated in Article III. The drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the power to limit federal jurisdiction to provide a check on out-of-control federal judges. In other words, the federalist concept of checks and balances applies to the judiciary just as it does to the legislative and executive branches. The Marriage Protection Act represents a long-overdue exercise of the congressional power to limit and define federal court jurisdiction.
draft
CAFTA: More Bureaucracy, Less Free Trade
06 June 2005 Texas Straight Talk 06 June 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
It is absurd to believe that CAFTA and other trade agreements do not diminish American sovereignty. When we grant quasi-governmental international bodies the power to make decisions about American trade rules, we lose sovereignty plain and simple. I can assure you first hand that Congress has changed American tax laws for the sole reason that the World Trade Organization decided our rules unfairly impacted the European Union. Hundreds of tax bills languish in the House Ways and Means committee, while the one bill drafted strictly to satisfy the WTO was brought to the floor and passed with great urgency last year.
draft
Our Political Federal Courts
10 October 2005 Texas Straight Talk 10 October 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
It seems that schoolchildren once knew far more about the Constitution than many adults do today. Yet we cannot hold intelligent opinions about Supreme Court nominees unless we understand this basic constitutional framework. It is therefore incumbent upon every American to read the text of the Constitution, study the history of its drafting and ratification, and consider whether federal judicial nominees will properly abide by their originally intended roles.
draft
Rethinking the Draft
27 November 2006 Texas Straight Talk 27 November 2006 verse 1 ... Cached
Rethinking the Draft
draft
Rethinking the Draft
27 November 2006 Texas Straight Talk 27 November 2006 verse 3 ... Cached
Once again the possibility of reinstating a military draft is being discussed in Washington, and while the idea seems remote it is not unthinkable.
draft
Rethinking the Draft
27 November 2006 Texas Straight Talk 27 November 2006 verse 5 ... Cached
Yet the Department of Defense remains steadfastly opposed to a draft. A Pentagon report stated that draft registration could be eliminated "with no effect on military mobilization and no measurable effect on military recruitment." Most military experts believe a draft would actually impair military readiness, despite the increase in raw manpower, because of training and morale problems.
draft
Rethinking the Draft
27 November 2006 Texas Straight Talk 27 November 2006 verse 6 ... Cached
So why is the idea of a draft even considered? One answer is that our military forces are spread far too thin, engaged in conflicts around the globe that are none of our business. With hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in literally hundreds of foreign nations, we simply don't have enough soldiers to invade and occupy every country labeled a threat or deemed ripe for regime change. Given the choice, many in Congress would rather draft more young bodies than rethink our role as world policeman and bring some of our troops home.
draft
Rethinking the Draft
27 November 2006 Texas Straight Talk 27 November 2006 verse 8 ... Cached
To many politicians, the American government is America. This is why, on a crude level, the draft appeals to patriotic fervor. Compulsory national service, whether in the form of military conscription or make-work programs like AmeriCorps, still sells on Capitol Hill. Conscription is wrongly associated with patriotism, when really it represents collectivism and involuntary servitude.
draft
Rethinking the Draft
27 November 2006 Texas Straight Talk 27 November 2006 verse 10 ... Cached
Ronald Reagan said it best: "The most fundamental objection to draft registration is moral." The notion of involuntary servitude, in whatever form, is simply incompatible with a free society.
Texas Straight Talk from 20 December 1996 to 23 June 2008 (573 editions) are included in this Concordance. Texas Straight Talk after 23 June 2008 is in blog form on Rep. Paul’s Congressional website and is not included in this Concordance.
Remember, not everything in the concordance is Ron Paul’s words. Some things he quoted, and he added some newspaper and magazine articles to the Congressional Record. Check the original speech to see.