U.S. Rep. Ron Paul | rights |
rights
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:84
Devolution is said to be a return to States rights since it is inferred that management of the program will be decentralized. This is a new 1990s definition of the original concept of States rights and will prove not to be an adequate substitute.
rights
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:85
At the same time these token efforts were made in welfare, education and human resources reform, Congress gave the Federal Government massive new influence over adoption and juvenile crime, education and medicine. Block grants to States for specific purposes after collecting the revenues at the Federal level is foreign to the concept that once was understood as States rights. This process, even if temporarily beneficial, will do nothing to challenge the underlying principle and shortcomings of the welfare State.
rights
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:86
Real battles. The real battles in the Congress are more often over power and personalities than philosophy. Both sides of most debates represent only a variation of some interventionist program. Moral and constitutional challenges are made when convenient and never follow a consistent pattern. These, along with the States rights arguments, are not infrequently just excuses used to justify opposing or approving a program supported for some entirely different reason. The person who makes any effort at consistency is said to be extreme or unyielding.
rights
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:117
Some still believe that “hate crimes” in America are limited to identifying the racial and religious motivation behind a violent crime. But it’s scary when one realizes that already we have moved quickly down the path of totalitarianism. In 1995, 57% of all hate crimes reported were verbal in nature. These crimes now being prosecuted by an all powerful federal police force, at one time were considered nothing more than comments made by rude people. The federal police operation is headed up by the Office of Civil Rights of the Department of Education and can reach every nook and cranny of our entire education system as it imposes its will and curriculum on teachers and students.
rights
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:126
In order to direct our efforts toward preservation of liberty, in lieu of planning the economy and regulating people, we must have a clear understanding of rights. But could British Prime Minister Tony Blair be telling us being about Western Civilization and government’s responsibility to the people? Blair was quoted in a recent visit with the President as saying, “I tell you, a decent society is not based on rights, it is based on duty. Our duty to one another. To all should be given opportunity, from all responsibility demanded.”
rights
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:127
This sounds just a tad authoritarian and closer to the Communist Manifesto than to the Magna Carta or to the Bill of Rights.
rights
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:128
A free society is just the opposite. I argue that a free society is the only “decent” society and the only one that I care to live in. A free society depends entirely on personal rights for which all individuals are naturally entitled. This was the bedrock of the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution and the principle upon which our republic rests.
rights
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:129
Yet today most of the West, now engulfed by Keynesian welfarism, sadly accepts the Blair philosophy. Duty and responsibility, as Blair sees it, is not the voluntary responsibility found in a free society but rather duty and responsibility to the State. He is right about one thing. If duty to the State is accepted as an uncontested fact, rights are meaningless. And everyday our rights are indeed becoming more threatened.
rights
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:130
We have come to accept it as immoral and selfish to demand individual rights. Today, rights are too frequently accepted as being collective, such as minority, gay, women, handicapped, poor, or student rights. But rights are only individual. Everyone has a right to life, liberty and property, and it comes naturally or is a God-given gift.
rights
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:131
The purpose of the State is to protect equally everyone’s rights. The whole purpose of political action should be to protect liberty. Free individuals then with a sense of responsibility and compassion must then strive for moral excellence and economic betterment. When government loses sight of the importance of rights and assumes the responsibility reserved to free individuals and sets about to make the economy equally fair to everyone and improve personal nonviolent behavior, the effort can only be made at the expense of liberty with the efforts ending in failure.
rights
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:133
The original challenge to the champions of freedom centuries ago was always to limit the powers of the king. Today the challenge, every bit as great but harder to define, is to limit the power of democratic parliaments and congresses. Democratic elections of leaders is one thing, but obsession with determining all rights by majority vote has now become liberty’s greatest enemy.
rights
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:134
Throughout this century, and as the movement grows for one world government, the linchpin is always democracy, not liberty or a constitutionally restrained republic as our Founders preferred. As long as the democratic vote can modify rights, the politicians will be on the receiving end of bribes and money and will be the greatest influence on legislation.
rights
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:136
Detailed rules on political donations and lobbyist activity can easily be circumvented by the avaricious. Only a better understanding of rights and the proper role of government will alter the course upon which we have embarked.
rights
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:137
Political leaders no longer see their responsibility to protect life and liberty as a sacred trust and a concept of individual rights has been significantly undermined throughout the 20th century. The record verifies this. Authoritarian governments, in this the bloodiest of all centuries, have annihilated over 100 million people, their own. Wars have killed an additional 34 million, and only a small number of these were truly in the defense of liberty.
rights
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:144
William J. Bennett strongly condemns critics of big government saying, “. . . some of today’s antigovernment rhetoric is contemptuous of history and not intellectually serious. If you listen to it, you come away with the impression that government has never done anything well. In fact, government has done some very difficult things quite well. Like . . . reduced the number of elderly in poverty . . . passed civil rights legislation . . . insure bank deposits and insure the air and water remains clean.”
rights
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:146
Any effort to limit the size of government while never challenging the moral principle upon which all government force depends, while blindly defending majoritarian rule for making government work, will not restore the American republic. Instead, this approach gives credibility to the authoritarians and undermines the limited government movement by ignoring the basic principles of liberty. Only a restoration of a full understanding of individual rights and the purpose of a constitutional republic can reverse this trend. Our republic is indeed threatened.
rights
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 7:114
We here in the Congress should be talking about defending this country, providing national security, providing for a strong currency, not deliberately distorting the currency. We should be protecting private property rights and making sure that there is no incentive for the special interests of this country to come and buy their influence up here.
rights
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 7:118
Foreign policy is very important because it is under the conditions of war; it is under the condition of foreign confrontation that people are so willing to give up their liberties at home because of the fear. We should avoid unnecessary confrontations overseas and we should concentrate on bettering the people here in this country, and it can best be done by guaranteeing property rights, free markets, sound money, and a sensible approach to our foreign policy.
rights
Voter Eligibility Verification Act
12 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 10:6
In order to protect the privacy rights of America’s citizens, I plan to soon introduce the Privacy Protection Act, which will forbid the use of the Social Security number for any purpose other than for the administration of the Social Security system. I would urge my colleagues to support this bill when introduced and vote against the Voter Eligibility Act. It is time for Congress to protect the Constitutional rights of all Americans and stop using the Social Security number as a de facto national identification card.
rights
Birth Defects Prevention Act
10 March 1998 1998 Ron Paul 24:5
Chiefly to resolve ambiguities about the national powers, the tenth amendment, proposed as part of the Bill of Rights by the Federalist-controlled first Congress, was added, declaring that the “powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” According to constitutional scholar Bernard Siegan, University of San Diego College of Law, the Constitution might never have been ratified had the Federalists’ representations in this regard not been accepted by a portion of the public. Siegan also reminds us that the Framers rejected the notion of empowering the national government to grant charters of incorporation; establish seminaries for the promotion of agriculture, commerce, trades, and manufactures; regulate stages on post roads; establish universities; encourage by premiums and provisions, the advancement of useful knowledge; and opening and establishing canals. Each notion was introduced during the convention and voted down or died in committee.
rights
Conference Report on H.R. 1757, Foreign Affairs Reform And Restructuring Act Of 1998
26 March 1998 1998 Ron Paul 28:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, last year’s attempts by some in Congress to tie the Mexico City Policy to the issues of funding for the United Nations (UN) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) this week come back to haunt those of us who believe in the sanctity of human life, the inviolability of US Sovereignty, and the rights of the U.S. taxpayers to keep the fruits of their own labor. This week, we see, the “grand deal” struck which will see liberals back down from their opposition to Mexico City Language in exchange for conservative members voting to support funding of the United Nations, affirmative action, peacekeeping activities, and the National Endowment for Democracy.
rights
Conference Report on H.R. 1757, Foreign Affairs Reform And Restructuring Act Of 1998
26 March 1998 1998 Ron Paul 28:3
I believe that the only real answer to the concerns of sovereignty, property rights, constitutionality and pro-life philosophy is for the United States to totally de-fund any foreign aid for international “family planning” purposes. I introduced a resolution to that effect in 1997 and we received 154 votes in support of cutting off this unconstitutional funding program.
rights
Federal War On Drugs Bad Idea
5 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 45:10
The first “whereas” of this resolution, I strongly agree with. It says, “Whereas recently revealed statistics demonstrate America is not winning the battle to keep young Americans drug-free.” This is my point. This is conceded by everyone. We are not winning this fight, so why pursue the same policies over and over again, and especially since there are some shortcomings with the policy. Not only have they not been effective, there are some serious shortcomings, shortcomings on civil liberty and property rights and other things.
rights
Federal War On Drugs Bad Idea
5 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 45:28
I think when we talk about not only looking at this outer perspective of other problems that we have in the country, but also the serious consequences of the drug laws which we all should be concerned about because it involves property rights and civil liberty rights, maybe we can get around to the point of saying maybe could there be a new approach.
rights
Support The National Right To Work Act
6 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 48:3
Compulsory unionism violates employers’ and employees’ constitutional rights of freedom of contract and association. Congress has no constitutional authority to force employees to pay union dues to a labor union as a condition of getting or keeping a job.
rights
Higher Education Amendments of 1998
6 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 49:12
Another offensive provision of the campus crime reporting section of the bill that has raised concerns in the higher education community is the mandate that any campus disciplinary proceeding alleging criminal misconduct shall be open. This provision may discourage victims, particularly women who have been sexually assaulted, from seeking redress through a campus disciplinary procedures for fear they will be put “on display.” For example, in a recent case, a student in Miami University in Ohio explained that she chose to seek redress over a claim of sexual assault “* * * through the university, rather than the county prosecutor’s office, so that she could avoid the publicity and personal discomfort of a prosecution * * *” Assaulting the privacy rights of victimized students by taking away the option of a campus disciplinary proceeding is not only an unconstitutional mandate but immoral.
rights
National Police State
12 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 50:2
Our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, Section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the federal government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the state governments their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently. Of course, there will be those who will hang their constitutional “hats” on the interstate commerce general welfare clauses, both of which have been popular “headgear” since the FDR’s headfirst plunge into New Deal Socialism.
rights
The Indonesia Crisis
19 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 52:14
The U.S. has just sent a military delegation to study and obviously advise the Indonesian government regarding the law and order crisis now in process. Our officials say that we’re there to watch that the Indonesian military do not abuse the rights of Indonesian citizens. Even if true, and well motivated, where did this authority come from for us to run to the scene of the crime — on the other side of the world and pretend we have all the answers. Proper authority or not put aside, the Indonesian people perceive even a few U.S. military advisors as a further threat to them. The U.S. is seen as an extension of the IMF and is expected to more likely side with the Indonesian military than with the demonstrators. No government likes to see any dissolution of government power even the questionable ones. It might encourage others unhappy with their own government. And it is not like the U.S. government is innocent and benign, considering our recent history at Kent State, Waco, and Ruby Ridge and the hundreds of no-knock entries made in error, causing loss of life, multiple injuries and destruction of property. Let us make sure our own government acts responsibly in all matters of law and order here at home before we pretend we can save the world — a responsibility not achievable even if motivated with the best of intentions.
rights
The Indonesia Crisis
22 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 54:14
The United States has just sent a military delegation to study and obviously advise the Indonesian government regarding the law and order crisis now in process. Our officials say that we’re there to watch that the Indonesian military does not abuse the rights of Indonesian citizens. Even if true, and well motivated, where did this authority come from for us to run to the scene of the crime — on the other side of the world — and pretend we have all the answers? Putting aside the question of whether there is proper authority or not, the Indonesian people perceive even a few U.S. military advisors as a further threat to them. The IMF is seen as an extension of the United States and is expected to more likely side with the Indonesian military that with the demonstrators. No government, even the questionable ones, likes to see any dissolution of governmental power. It might encourage others unhappy with their own government. And it is not as if the U.S. Government is innocent and benign, considering our recent history at Kent State, Waco, and Ruby Ridge and the hundreds of no-knock entries made in error, causing loss of life, multiple injuries and destruction of property. Let us make sure our own government acts responsibly in all matters of law and order here at home before we pretend we can save the world — a responsibility not achievable even if motivated with the best of intentions.
rights
Can’t Vote For Amendment
4 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 55:6
The basic problem is that our courts are filled with judges that have no understanding or concern for the constitutional principles of original intent, the doctrine of enumerated powers, or property rights. As long as that exists, any new amendment to the Constitution will be likewise abused.
rights
Can’t Vote For Amendment
4 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 55:8
This amendment further enables the Federal Government to do more mischief. The only solution is to shrink the government and raise a new generation of judges and Congressmen who understand the constitutional principles of original intent, the doctrine of enumerated powers, and property rights. If we do this, the First Amendment, freedom of religious expression, will be protected.
rights
Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act
11 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 58:6
Any federal usurpation of criminal law, no matter how flexible, violates the 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The 10th amendment limits the Federal Government to those functions explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. Other than in these few areas, the States are sovereign. Therefore the Federal Government has no authority to federalize crimes whether committed against children, women, or some specific race. Additionally, ours is an individual Bill of Rights rather than a system of rights dependent upon to which group (gender, race, or age) one happens to belong.
rights
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.
rights
Campaign Finance Reform
16 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 59:6
Under the conditions that we have today the only way we can avoid the influence is not ourselves, we, the Members of Congress, being a good investment. We should be independent, courageous and do the things that are right rather than being influenced by the money. But the rules and the regulations will not do very much to help solve this problem. Attacking basic fundamental rights would certainly be the wrong thing to do, and that is what so much of this legislation is doing. It is attacking the fundamental right to speak out to petition the government to spend one’s money the way he sees fit, and this will only make the problems much worse.
rights
Campaign Finance Reform
16 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 59:7
Mr. Speaker, government is too big, our freedoms are being infringed upon, and then we come along and say those individuals who might want to change even for the better, they will have their rights infringed upon.
rights
Campaign Finance Reform
16 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 59:8
There are many groups who come to Washington who do not come to buy influence, but they come to try to influence their government, which is a very legitimate thing. Think of the groups that come here who want to defend the Second Amendment. Think of the groups that want to defend right to life. Think of the groups that want to defend the principles of the American Civil Liberties Union and the First Amendment. And then there are groups who would defend property rights, and there will be groups who will come who will be lobbyist types and influential groups, and they want to influence elections, and they may be adamantly opposed to the United Nations and interference in foreign policies overseas. They have a legitimate right to come here.
rights
Parent And Student Saving Account Act
18 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 62:7
In order to offset the so-called “cost to government” (revenue loss) H.R. 2646 alters the rules by which businesses are taxed on employee vacation benefits. While I support efforts to ensure that tax cuts do not increase the budget deficit, the offset should come from cuts in wasteful, unconstitutional government programs, such as foreign aid and corporate welfare. Congress should give serious consideration to cutting unconstitutional programs such as “Goals 2000” which runs roughshod over the rights of parents to control their children’s education, as a means of offsetting the revenue loss to the treasury from this bill. A less than 3% cut in the National Endowment for the Arts budget would provide more funding than needed for the education IRA section of this legislation.
rights
Parent And Student Saving Account Act
18 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 62:15
The issue is not whether local schools should use evidence of possessing a weapon as evidence in a discipline procedure. Before this Congress can even consider the merits of a policy, we must consider first whether or not the matter falls within our constitutional authority. The plain fact is as the tenth amendment to the Bill of Rights makes clear, Congress is forbidden from dictating policy to local schools.
rights
Drug-Free Workplace Act
23 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 63:6
Private employers should already be free to require drug testing as a condition or term of employment. This legislation, however, unnecessarily brings the Federal Government into this process. The threat of liability law suits will dictate that drug testing will be prevalent in jobs where abstinence from drug use is most critical. However, setting up taxpayer-funded federal programs here are not only unnecessary but ill-advised. The newspapers are replete with examples of various lawsuits filed as a consequence of false positives resulting from both scientific and human errors. This legislation involves the Federal Government so far as to require drug testing be completed by only a few government-favored drug testers. This bill also requires those small businesses who participate to mandatorily test employees for drug and alcohol abuse. This proposition treads dangerously on grounds violative of the fourth amendment. While the bill of rights is a limitation upon actions by the Federal Government, it does not restrict the voluntary actions of private employers and their employees. The case becomes far less clear when the Federal Government involves itself in what should simply be a matter of private contract. In fact, government involvement may actually constitute a hindrance upon employers ability to adequately test those employees for whom they feel testing may be a necessary job component.
rights
Campaign Finance Reform
23 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 64:11
Take, for instance, some of the groups that have tried in the past to get on and become known but are frustrated by all these rules. There are Independents, Socialists, Greens, Taxpayers Party, Populists, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Reform Party, Natural Party, American Party, Liberal Party, Conservative Party, Right to Life, Citizens Party, New Alliance Party, Prohibition Party, States Rights Party. All these people have been totally frustrated because they have so many obstacles put in their way by the requirement of huge numbers of signatures on ballots.
rights
Internet Tax Freedom Act
23 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 66:3
However laudable the stated goal of tax freedom this bill still encroaches on state’s right to raise revenue and reserves instead (establishes) an exclusive right for national and international governments to instead impose the “proper” form of taxation and distribute it to local governments as these larger governmental bodies ultimately see fit. At the same time, this particular bill rewards those states which were quick to tax their citizens by “grandfathering” their taxes while excluding other States’ rights to do so certainly making this a bill that lacks uniformity.
rights
Issue Ads
14 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 67:3
Certainly, if nothing else, we ought to protect the rights of individuals and groups to distribute voter guides. There is an argument here whether or not it is actually doing this. But, obviously, the Member from California feels strongly that this is necessary in order to protect this right.
rights
Issue Ads
14 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 67:4
There has been a lot of talk here about soft money. I just often wonder about soft money. I know something about hard money. But this business of soft money and soft money automatically being bad is something we should think seriously about. Because so often when we are talking about soft money, we are talking about the people’s money, their money, their property. Sure, it is a first amendment right. But there is also a property rights issue here. When people have money, they have a right to spend it; and if they want to spend it on a voters guide, they certainly ought to be able to do this.
rights
Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
15 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 75:3
If this scheme is not stopped, no American will be able to get a job, open a bank account, apply for Social Security or Medicare, exercise their second amendment rights, or even take an airplane flight until they can produce a State driver’s license that is the equivalent of conforming to Federal specifications. Under the 1996 Kennedy–Kassebaum health care reform law, Americans may be forced to present a federally approved driver’s license before consulting their doctors for medical treatment.
rights
The Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
15 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 76:2
If this scheme is not stopped, no American will be able to get a job; open a bank account; apply for Social Security or Medicare; exercise their Second Amendment rights; or even take an airplane flight unless they can produce a state drivers’ license, or its equivalent, that conforms to federal specifications. Under the 1996 Kennedy-Kassebaum health care reform law, Americans may even be forced to present a federally-approved drivers’ license before consulting their physicians for medical treatment!
rights
The Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
15 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 76:8
National ID cards are a trademark of totalitarianism and are thus incompatible with a free society. In order to preserve some semblance of American liberty and republican government I am proud to introduce the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act. I thank Congressman BARR for joining me in cosponsoring this legislation. I urge my colleagues to stand up for the rights of American people by cosponsoring the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act.
rights
Child Custody Protection Act
15 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 77:9
Our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, Section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the federal government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the state governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.
rights
Child Custody Protection Act
15 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 77:10
Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress today will likely pass H.R. 3682. H.R. 3682 amends title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Should parents be involved in decisions regarding the health of their children? Absolutely. Should the law respect parents rights to not have their children taken across state lines for contemptible purposes? Absolutely. Can a state pass an enforceable statute to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions? Absolutely. But when asked if there exists constitutional authority for the federal criminalizing of just such an action the answer is absolutely not.
rights
Child Custody Protection Act
15 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 77:11
This federalizing may have the effect of nationalizing a law with criminal penalties which may be less than those desired by some states. To the extent the federal and state laws could co-exist, the necessity for a federal law is undermined and an important bill of rights protection is virtually obliterated. Concurrent jurisdiction crimes erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the federal government and a state government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.
rights
Child Custody Protection Act
15 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 77:13
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions. An inadequate federal law, or a “adequate” federal improperly interpreted by the Supreme Court, preempts states’ rights to adequately address public health concerns. Roe v. Wade should serve as a sad reminder of the danger of making matters worse in all states by federalizing an issue.
rights
National Right To Work Act
15 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 78:2
Since the problem of compulsory unionism was created by Congress, only Congress can solve it. While state Right to Work laws provide some modicum of worker freedom, they do not cover millions of workers on federal enclaves, in the transportation industries, or on Indian Reservations. Contrary to the claims of Right to Work opponents, this bill in no way infringes on state autonomy. I would remind my colleagues that, prior to the passage of the National Labor Relations Act, no state had a law requiring workers to join a union or pay union dues. Compulsory unionism was forced on the people and the states when Congress nationalized labor policy in 1935. It strains logic to suggest that repeal of any federal law is somehow a violation of states’ rights.
rights
National Right To Work Act
15 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 78:3
I would also like to take this opportunity to emphasize that this bill does not in any way infringe on the rights of workers to voluntary join or support a labor union or any other labor organization. Nothing in HR 59 interferes with the ability of a worker to organize, strike, or support union political activity if those actions stem from a worker’s choice. Furthermore, nothing in HR 59 interferes with the internal affairs of unions. All the National Right to Work Bill does is stop the federal government from forcing a worker to support a labor union against that worker’s will. In a free society, the decision of whether or not to join a union should be made by the worker, not by the government.
rights
Women’s, Infant, and Children’s Program
20 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 81:3
Mr. Speaker, I know that you, and many of my colleagues, understand that private charities are also much better able to target assistance to the truly needy than government programs, which are burdened with bureaucratic rules of eligibility, as well as procedures designed to protect the “due process” rights of recipients, which cannot be adequately changed to meet unique individual circumstances. Thus, many people who are genuinely needy do not receive needed help. In fact, more than 40 percent of all families living below the poverty level receive no government assistance. Private charities can also be more effective because they do not have to fulfill administrative requirements, such as the WIC program’s rebate system, which actually divert resources from the needy.
rights
The Patient Privacy Act
21 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 82:7
The second, and most important reason, legislation “protecting” the unique health identifier is insufficient is that the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal health identifier, regardless of any attached “privacy protections.” Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty for it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate arbitrator of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress and the American people to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”
rights
The Patient Privacy Act
21 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 82:8
For those who claim that the Patient Privacy Act would interfere with the plans to “simplify” and “streamline” the health care system, under the Constitution, the rights of people should never take a backseat to the convenience of the government or politically powerful industries like HMOs.
rights
The Patient Privacy Act
21 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 82:9
Mr. Speaker, the federal government has no authority to endanger the privacy of personal medical information by forcing all citizens to adopt a uniform health identifier for use in a national data base. A uniform health ID endangers the constitutional liberties, threatens the doctor-patient relationships, and could allow federal officials access to deeply personal medical information. There can be no justification for risking the rights of private citizens. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Patient Privacy Act.
rights
Ballot Access — Part 1
30 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 86:8
Mr. Chairman, I want to make 4 points about the amendment. First, it is constitutional to do this. Article I, section 4, explicitly authorizes the U.S. Congress to, “At any time by law make or alter such regulations regarding the manner of holding elections.” This is the authority that was used for the Voters Rights Act of 1965.
rights
The Failed War On Drugs
15 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 100:3
But the way we are going about this is wrong. I am rather surprised in our side of the aisle that champions limited government and States’ rights, that they use the FDA’s ability to regulate nicotine as an excuse and the legal loophole for the Federal Government to be involved in marijuana. I might remind them that 80 years ago when this country decided that we should not have alcohol, they did not come to the Congress and ask for a law. They asked for a constitutional amendment realizing the Congress had no authority to regulate alcohol. Today we have forgotten about that. Many of my colleagues might not know or remember that the first attack on the medicinal use of marijuana occurred under the hero of the left, F.D.R., in 1937. Prior to 1937, marijuana was used medicinally, and it was used with only local control.
rights
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.
rights
Don’t Fast-Track Free Trade Deal
25 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 103:11
Lastly, critics of the bill convincingly argue that language within H.R. 2621 regarding “Foreign Investment” would establish new rights for foreign investors and corporations and new obligations for the United States. H.R. 2621 attempts to eliminate artificial or trade-distorting barriers to trade-related foreign investment by reducing or eliminating exceptions to the principle of national treatment; free the transfer of funds relating to investments; reduce or eliminate performance requirements and other unreasonable barriers to the establishment and operation of investments; seeks to establish standards for expropriation and compensation for expropriation, consistent with United States legal principles and practice; and provide meaningful procedures for resolving investment disputes. It is argued that H.R. 2621 will congressionally activate the nearly completed Multilateral Agreement on Investment which covers 29 countries and forbids countries from regulating investment or capital flows and would establish new rights for foreign investors and corporations and new obligations for the United States. The MAI requires governments to pay investors for any action that directly or indirectly has an equivalent effect of expropriation. The MAI would be enforceable through international tribunals similar to those of the World Trade Organization without the due process protections of the United States.
rights
National Provider ID
8 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 115:11
Even the process by which the National Identifier is being developed shows disdain for the rights of the American people. The National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics, which is developing the national identifier, attempted to keep important documents hidden from the public in violation of federal law. In fact, one of the members of the NCVHS panel working on the medical ID chastised his colleagues for developing the medical ID “in an aura of secrecy.”
rights
National Provider ID
8 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 115:13
The most important reason, legislation “protecting” the unique health identifier is insufficient is that the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal health identifier, regardless of any attached “privacy protections.” Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty for it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate arbitrator of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress and the American people to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”
rights
National Provider ID
8 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 115:14
For those who claim that this amendment would interfere with the plans to “simplify” and “streamline” the health care system, under the Constitution, the rights of people should never take a backseat to the convenience of the government or politically powerful industries like HMOs.
rights
National Provider ID
8 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 115:15
Mr. Chairman, all I ask is that Congress by given the change to correct the mistake made in 1996 when they authorized the National Health ID as part of the Kennedy-Kasebaum bill. The federal government has no authority to endanger the privacy of personal medical information by forcing all citizens to adopt a uniform health identifier for use in a national data base. A uniform health ID endangers the constitutional liberties, threatens the doctor-patient relationships, and could allow federal officials access to deeply personal medical information. There can be no justification for risking the rights of private citizens. I therefore urge the Rules Committee to take the first step toward protecting Americans from a medical ID by ruling my amendment to the Labor-HHS–Education Appropriations bill in order.
rights
Rights Of The Individual
14 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 119:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I commend to my colleagues in Congress as well as citizens everywhere an article authored by Michael Kelly, National Journal editor. Mr. Kelly aptly describes how the notion of hate crimes undermines a pillar of a free and just society; that is, equal treatment under the law irrespective of which particular group or groups with whom an individual associates. Ours is a republic based upon the rights of the individual.
rights
Rights Of The Individual
14 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 119:7
At least he is consistent. No president has ever been more willing to assault liberty in the pursuit of political happiness than has this one. Clinton is always willing to embrace any new erosion of rights, as long as there is a group of voters or political contributors out there who wish it so. This is one area in which Clinton has been thoroughly bipartisan. In his five years in office, he has joined Republicans in Congress on quite a spree of liberty-bashing. He has signed laws that have stripped habeas corpus to its bones, vastly increased the number of crimes deemed federal offenses, established mindless mandatory sentencing and targeted certain classes of defendants — terrorists, drug pushers — for the special evisceration of rights.
rights
Education Debate
16 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 121:13
Congress has used block grants to avoid addressing philosophical and constitutional questions of the role of the Federal and State governments by means of adjustments in management in the name of devolution. Devolution is said to return to State’s rights by decentralizing the management of Federal programs. This is a new 1990’s definition of the original concept of federalism and is a poor substitute for the original, constitutional definition of federalism.
rights
Hate Crimes And Individual Rights
16 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 122:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I commend to my colleagues in Congress as well as citizens everywhere an article authored by Richard Sincere, Jr., President of Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty. Mr. Sincere aptly describes how the very essence of hate crimes undermines a pillar of a free and just society; that is, equal treatment under the law irrespective of which particular group or groups with whom an individual associates. Ours is a republic based upon the rights of the individual.
rights
Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
6 January 1999 1999 Ron Paul 1:11
Mr. Speaker, while I do not question the sincerity of those members who suggest that Congress can ensure citizens’ rights are protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, the fact is the only solution is to forbid the federal government from using national identifiers. Legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for several reasons. First, federal laws have not stopped unscrupulous government officials from accessing personal information. Did laws stop the permanent violation of privacy by the IRS, or the FBI abuses by the Clinton and Nixon administrations?
rights
Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
6 January 1999 1999 Ron Paul 1:13
The primary reason why any action short of the repeal of laws authorizing privacy violation is insufficient is because the federal government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”
rights
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:4
The Founders of this great Nation abhorred tyranny and loved liberty. The power of the king to wage war, tax and abuse the personal rights of the American colonists drove them to rebel, win a revolution and codify their convictions in a new Constitution. It was serious business, and every issue was thoroughly debated and explained most prominently in the Federalist Papers. Debate about trade among the States and with other countries, sound money and the constraints on presidential power occupied a major portion of their time.
rights
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:32
On another issue, privacy, privacy is the essence of liberty. Without it, individual rights cannot exist. Privacy and property are interlocked and if both are protected, little would need to be said about other civil liberties. If one’s home, church or business is one’s castle, and the privacy of one’s person, papers and effects are rigidly protected, all rights desired in a free society will be guaranteed. Diligently protecting the right to privacy and property guarantees religious, journalistic and political experience, as well as a free market economy and sound money. Once a careless attitude emerges with respect to privacy, all other rights are jeopardized.
rights
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:42
A political system designed as ours was to protect life and liberty and property would vigorously protect all citizens’ rights to privacy, and this cannot occur unless the property and the fruits of one’s labor, of every citizen, is protected from confiscation by thugs in the street as well as in our legislative bodies.
rights
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:48
Most of the Federal programs are unconstitutional to begin with, so eliminating waste and fraud and promoting efficiency for a program that requires a violation of someone else’s rights should not be a high priority of the Congress. But the temptation is too great, even for those who question the wisdom of the government programs, and compromise of the Fourth Amendment becomes acceptable.
rights
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:49
I have never heard of a proposal to promote the national I.D. card or anything short of this for any reasons other than a good purpose. Essentially all those who vote to allow the continual erosion of our privacy and other constitutional rights never do it because they consciously support a tyrannical government; it is always done with good intentions.
rights
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:65
The privacy issue invites a serious discussion between those who seriously believe welfare redistribution helps the poor and does not violate anyone’s rights, and others who promote policies that undermine privacy in an effort to reduce fraud and waste to make the programs work efficiently, even if they disagree with the programs themselves. This opportunity will actually increase as it becomes more evident that our country is poorer than most believe and sustaining the welfare state at current levels will prove impossible. An ever-increasing invasion of our privacy will force everyone eventually to reconsider the efficiency of the welfare state, if the welfare of the people is getting worse and their privacy invaded.
rights
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:94
Materialistic concerns and complacency toward the principles of liberty will undo much of what has been built in America over the past 200 years, unless there is a renewed belief that our God-given rights to life and liberty are worth working for. False economic security is no substitute for productive effort in a free society, where the citizens are self-reliant, generous, and nonviolent. Insisting on a limited government designed to protect life and property, as is found in a republic, must be our legislative goal.
rights
Federal Communications Commission
25 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 9:2
Our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, Section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every issue, the federal government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the state governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently. Of course, there will be those who will hand their constitutional “hats” on the interstate commerce or general welfare clauses, both of which have been popular “headgear” since the plunge into New Deal Socialism.
rights
Consumer Protection Legislation
11 March 1999 1999 Ron Paul 19:8
In an attempt to protect the rights of network program creators and affiliate local stations, a federal court in Florida properly granted an injunction to prevent the satellite service industry from making certain programming available to its customers. This is programming for which the satellite service providers had not secured from the program creator-owners the right to rebroadcast. At the root of this problem, of course, is that we have a so-called marketplace fraught with interventionism at every level. Cable companies have historically been granted franchises of monopoly privilege at the local level. Government has previously intervened to invalidate “exclusive dealings” contracts between private parties, namely cable service providers and program creators, and have most recently assumed the role of price setter. The Library of Congress, if you can imagine, has been delegated the power to determine prices at which program suppliers must make their programs available to cable and satellite programming service providers.
rights
Consumer Protection Legislation
11 March 1999 1999 Ron Paul 19:9
It is, of course, within the constitutionally enumerated powers of Congress to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” However, operating a clearing-house for the subsequent transfer of such property rights in the name of setting a just price or “instilling competition” via “central planning” seems not to be an economically prudent nor justifiable action under this enumerated power. This process is one best reserved to the competitive marketplace.
rights
Consumer Protection Legislation
11 March 1999 1999 Ron Paul 19:10
Government’s attempt to set the just price for satellite programming outside the market mechanism is inherently impossible. This has resulted in competition among service providers for government privilege rather than consumer-benefits inherent to the genuine free market. Currently, while federal regulation does leave satellite programming service providers free to bypass the governmental royalty distribution scheme and negotiate directly with owners of programming for program rights, there is a federal prohibition on satellite service providers making local network affiliate’s programs available to nearby satellite subscribers. This bill repeals that federal prohibition and allows satellite service providers to more freely negotiate with program owners for programming desired by satellite service subscribers. Technology is now available by which viewers will be able to view network programs via satellite as presented by their nearest network affiliate. This market-generated technology will remove a major stumbling block to negotiations that should currently be taking place between network program owners and satellite service providers.
rights
War Powers Resolution
17 March 1999 1999 Ron Paul 20:15
Power has been gravitating into the hands of our presidents throughout this century, both in domestic and foreign affairs. Congress has created a maze of federal agencies, placed under the President, that have been granted legislative, police, and judicial powers, thus creating an entire administrative judicial system outside our legal court system where constitutional rights are ignored. Congress is responsible for this trend and it’s Congress’ responsibility to restore Constitutional government.
rights
Closer To Empire
25 March 1999 1999 Ron Paul 24:11
And where now are we willing to commit troops and under what conditions? If we are to stop all violations of human rights, what will we do of Cuba, which recently announced new crackdowns?
rights
Closer To Empire
25 March 1999 1999 Ron Paul 24:12
And what of communist China? Not only do they steal our secrets, but they violate their own citizens. Who should be more upset, for example, about forced abortion? Is it those who proclaim the inviolable right to life or those who argue for so-called reproductive rights? Even these polar opposites recognize the crimes of the Chinese government in forced abortion. Should we then stop this oppression of millions? Are we committed to lob missiles at this massive nation until it ceases this program?
rights
Opposing Congressional Medal of Honor for Rosa Parks
20 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 28:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 573. At the same time, I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies. However, I oppose the Congressional Gold Medal for Rosa Parks Act because authorizing $30,000 of taxpayer money is neither constitutional nor, in the spirit of Rosa Parks who is widely recognized and admired for standing up against an overbearing government infringing on individual rights.
rights
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 29:11
Instead, we give massive foreign aid to the likes of China and Russia, countries that have trampled on the rights of ethnic minorities.
rights
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 29:54
Politicians love interventionism and pragmatism, the prevailing philosophy of our age, a philosophy based on relative ethics. No rigid adherence to law or morality is required. Even the Constitution can be used in this delicate debate of just when and for whom we go to war. The trick is to grab the political moral high ground while rejecting the entire moral foundation upon which the law rests, natural rights, rejection of force and the requirement politicians be strictly bound by a contract for which all of us take an oath to uphold.
rights
Environmental Regulatory Issues
22 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 31:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the insight added to the policy debate on critical environmental regulatory issues by John McClaughry in an article he authored in yesterday’s Washington Times. Mr. McClaughry succinctly highlights the danger which occurs when, as happened in the United States in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, property rights are ignored in the name of “progress.”
rights
Environmental Regulatory Issues
22 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 31:17
Fortunately, a common-sense, fair play, rights-respecting alternative environmental movement has begun to appear. On Earth Day 1999, its member groups — as many as a hundred state and national organizations — are celebrating “Resourceful Earth Day.” Their alternative is based on a remark made by Henry David Thoreau, who said, “I know of no more encouraging fact than the unquestionable ability of man to elevate his life by conscious endeavor.”
rights
On Regulating Satellite TV
27 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 32:3
This bill’s title includes the word “competition” but ignores the market processes’ inherent and fundamental cornerstones of property rights (to include intellectual property rights) and voluntary exchange unfettered by government technocrats. Instead, we have a so-called marketplace fraught with interventionism at every level. Cable companies are granted franchises of monopoly privilege at the local level. Congresses have previously intervened to invalidate exclusive dealings contracts between private parties (cable service providers and program creators), and have most recently assumed the role of price setter — determining prices at which program suppliers must make their programs available to satellite programing service providers under the “compulsory license.”
rights
On Regulating Satellite TV
27 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 32:5
While it is within the Constitutionally enumerated powers of Congress to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries,” operating a clearinghouse for the subsequent transfer of such property rights in the name of setting a just price or instilling competition seems not to be an economically prudent nor justifiable action under this enumerated power. This can only be achieved within the market process itself.
rights
Opposing National Teacher Certification Or National Teacher Testing
5 May 1999 1999 Ron Paul 41:12
The undersigned representatives of the Coalition of Independent Education Associations strongly urge our members of the Congress and the Senate to vigorously defend the rights of states to control their educational destiny.
rights
The Mailbox Privacy Protection Act
25 May 1999 1999 Ron Paul 52:8
I have introduced this joint resolution in hopes that it will be considered under the expedited procedures established in the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996. This procedure allows Congress to overturn onerous regulations such as the subject of this bill. Mr. Speaker, the entire point of this procedure to provide Congress with a means to stop federal actions which pose an immediate threat to the rights of Americans. Thanks to these agency review provisions, Congress cannot hide and blame these actions on the bureaucracy. I challenge my colleagues to take full advantage of this process and use it to stop this outrageous rule.
rights
A Positive Spin On An Ugly War
7 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 54:13
To the bewilderment of their own leaders NATO has forcefully supported the notion of autonomy and independence for ethnic states. Instead of huge governments demanding ethnic diversity, the goal of establishing Kosovo’s independence provides the moral foundation for an independent Kashmir Kurdistan, Palestine, Tibet, East Timor, Quebec, and North Ireland and anyone else that believes their rights as citizens would be better protected by small local government. This is in contrast to huge nation states and international governments that care only about controlling wealth, while forgetting about the needs and desires of average citizens.
rights
Flag Day 1999
14 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 59:6
Yes, Mr. Speaker, our flag is a symbol of our nation. It is a symbol but certainly not the sum. America means so much more to us than symbol devoid of substance. It means those rights, inalienable and indivisible, which are life, liberty and property. Property not just as an object of ownership but as an idea. Private property is indeed the bedrock of all privacy. And private enjoyment of property is not simply exemplified by the right to hold, but to use and dispose of as the owner sees fit. This is at the very essence of property, and it is in fact the meaning of the pursuit of happiness.
rights
Flag Day 1999
14 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 59:7
And those stars and stripes represent an idea about how it is that we should hope to actually realize the protection of all these rights that we as Americans hold so dear. Namely, we the people vest in those very states that formed this union, the power to legislate for the benefit of the residents thereof.
rights
Flag Day 1999
14 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 59:8
This is the idea of federalism and of local self-government. This idea is sacrosanct because it is the necessary precursor to all of those things which we hold dear, most specifically those rights I have enunciated above. Our nation is based on federalism, and state governments, indeed the nation is created by the states which originally ratified our constitution.
rights
Only A Moral Society Will Make Our Citizens And Their Guns Less Violent
15 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 60:3
My question is this: Why can we not consistently defend both? Instead, we see plans being laid to appease everyone and satisfy no one. This will be done in the name of curbing violence by undermining first amendment rights and picking away at second amendment rights.
rights
What We Would Be Doing By Amending The Constitution To Make It Illegal To Desecrate The American Flag
22 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 63:4
Now another interesting thing about the Chinese and their flag is that we monitor human rights in China. As a matter of fact, the State Department is required to come before the House and the Senate and report to us about the violations of human rights in China. The purpose is to find out whether or not they qualify for full trade with us, and the argument comes up every year. Some say, well, they violate civil rights and human rights all the time; therefore, we should not be trading with Red China, which is an argument that can be presented.
rights
What We Would Be Doing By Amending The Constitution To Make It Illegal To Desecrate The American Flag
22 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 63:5
But in this report that came out in April to summarize last year, our government lists as a violation of human rights that we are holding them accountable for that we want to use against them so that we do not trade with them is the fact that two individuals last year were arrested because they desecrated the Communist Chinese flag.
rights
What We Would Be Doing By Amending The Constitution To Make It Illegal To Desecrate The American Flag
22 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 63:6
I think that is pretty important. We should think about that. First, the Chinese Government makes it illegal to desecrate a flag in Hong Kong, and then they arrest somebody and they convict them, and they want to hold it against them and say we do not want to give them Most Favored Nation status because they are violating somebody’s human rights.
rights
Opposing Flag Burning Amendment
23 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 65:3
But it does not stop there. On an annual basis we, the Congress, require the State Department to report to us any human rights violations around the world. The human rights violations in Red China are used specifically to decide whether or not they will get Most Favored Nation status. Last year, in 1998, the report came to the Congress in April of this year, and it reported that indeed there were violations of human rights. What were the human rights violations that we are condemning by this report and we are going to use against the Red Chinese? Two individuals burned the Hong Kong or the Red Chinese flag.
rights
Opposing Flag Burning Amendment
23 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 65:4
I think it is just a little bit hypocritical if we want to claim the Red Chinese are violating human rights because somebody there burned the flag at the same time we intend to pass that law here.
rights
Opposing Flag Burning Amendment
23 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 66:7
Our Nation was not founded on devotion to symbolic idols, but on principles, beliefs and ideals expressed in the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. American veterans who have protected our banner in battle have not done so to protect a golden calf. Instead, they carried the banner forward with reverence for what it represents, our beliefs and freedom for all. Therein lies the beauty of our flag. A patriot cannot be created by legislation.
rights
Opposing Flag Burning Amendment
23 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 66:9
I want to emphasize once again that one of the very first laws that Red China passed on Hong Kong was to make flag burning illegal. The very first law by Red China on Hong Kong was to make sure they had a law on the books like this. Since that time they have prosecuted some individuals. Our State Department tallies this, keeps records of this as a human rights violation, that if they burn the flag, they are violating human rights. Our State Department reports it to our Congress as they did in April of this year and those violations are used against Red China in the argument that they should not gain most-favored-nation status. There is just a bit of hypocrisy here, if they think that this law will do so much good and yet we are so critical of it when Red China does it.
rights
Privacy Project Act
24 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 68:2
If this scheme is not stopped, no American will be able to get a job; open a bank account; apply for Social Security or Medicare; exercise their Second Amendments rights; or even take an airplane flight unless they can produce a state drivers’ license, or its equivalent, that conforms to federal specifications. Under the 1996 Kennedy-Kassebaum health care reform law, Americans may even be forced to present a federally-approved drivers’ license before consulting their physicians for medical treatment!
rights
Privacy Project Act
24 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 68:6
National ID cards are a trademark of totalitarianism and are thus incompatible with a free society. In order to preserve some semblance of American liberty and republican government I am proud to introduce the Privacy Protection Act. I urge my colleagues to stand up for the rights of American people by cosponsoring the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act.
rights
Child Custody Protection Act
30 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 69:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, in the name of a truly laudable cause (preventing abortions and protecting parental rights), today the Congress could potentially move our nation one step closer to a national police state by further expanding the list of federal crimes and usurping power from the states to adequately address the issue of parental rights and family law. Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of criminally federalizing all human malfeasance in the name of saving the world from some evil than to uphold a Constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure by which the nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil, totalitarianism carried out by a centralized government. Who, after all, wants to be amongst those members of Congress who are portrayed as trampling parental rights or supporting the transportation of minor females across state lines for ignoble purposes.
rights
Child Custody Protection Act
30 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 69:2
As an obstetrician of more than thirty years, I have personally delivered more than 4,000 children. During such time, I have not performed a single abortion. On the contrary, I have spoken and written extensively and publicly condemning this “medical” procedure. At the same time, I have remained committed to upholding the Constitutional procedural protections which leave the police power decentralized and in control of the states. In the name of protecting states’ rights, this bill usurps states’ rights by creating yet another federal crime.
rights
Child Custody Protection Act
30 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 69:3
Our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, Section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the federal government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the state governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.
rights
Child Custody Protection Act
30 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 69:4
Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress today will likely pass H.R. 1218. H.R. 1218 amends title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Should parents be involved in decisions regarding the health of their children?? Absolutely. Should the law respect parents rights to not have their children taken across state lines for contemptible purposes?? Absolutely. Can a state pass an enforceable statute to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions?? Absolutely. But when asked if there exists constitutional authority for the federal criminalizing of just such an action the answer is absolutely not.
rights
Child Custody Protection Act
30 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 69:5
This federalizing may have the effect of nationalizing a law with criminal penalties which may be less than those desired by some states. To the extent the federal and state laws could co-exist, the necessity for a federal law is undermined and an important bill of rights protection is virtually obliterated. Concurrent jurisdiction crimes erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the federal government and a state government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of the unconstitutionally expanding the federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.
rights
Child Custody Protection Act
30 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 69:8
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions. An inadequate federal law, or an “adequate” federal law improperly interpreted by the Supreme Court, preempts states’ rights to adequately address public health concerns. Roe v. Wade should serve as a sad reminder of the danger of making matters worse in all states by federalizing an issue.
rights
H.R. 1691 And Religious Freedom
15 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 74:5
Admittedly, instances of State government infringement of religious exercise can be found in various forms and in various States, most of which, however, occur in government-operated schools, prisons and so-called government enterprises and as a consequence of Federal Government programs. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to believe that religious liberty will be somehow better protected by enacting national terms of infringement, a national infringement standard which is ill-defined by a Federal legislature and further defined by Federal courts, both of which are remote from those whose rights are likely to be infringed.
rights
Export-Import Bank, Overseas Private Investment Corp. and Trade And Development Agency
2 August 1999 1999 Ron Paul 86:5
Last week we had a very important vote on trade. It was hotly debated over human rights issues. I voted to trade with China because I believe it is proper to trade with people. We are less likely to fight with them. And in this institution, too often we use our terms carelessly and we talk about free trade as being something which is managed trade. Free trade here generally means that we will have the NAFTA people managing trade, the World Trade Organization managing trade, and we will subsidize our businesses.
rights
Export-Import Bank, Overseas Private Investment Corp. and Trade And Development Agency
2 August 1999 1999 Ron Paul 86:7
I say that we should have free trade. We should trade with our friends and with anybody who would trade that we are not at war with. We should really, really be careful about issuing sanctions. But here we are, last week we had the great debate and a lot of people could not stand the idea of trading with Red China because of their human rights record and I understand that, although I did not accept that position. But this is the time to do something about it.
rights
Humanitarian Aid
28 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 100:3
For instance, the gentleman talks about the thugs that are in Indonesia, those who are violating the rights of the East Timorese. We have to realize that they have been our allies and we helped set up the situation. So our interventions do not always do what we want.
rights
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
30 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 102:12
Although this legislation is motivated by the best of intentions of those who strongly defend the inalienable rights of the unborn, it is seriously flawed, and will not achieve its intended purpose. For that reason I shall vote against the bill and for the sanctity of life and the rights of the states, and against the selected protection of abortionists.
rights
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
30 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 102:16
Nevertheless, our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the federal government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the state governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.
rights
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
30 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 102:17
However, Congress does more damage than just expanding the class to whom federal murder and assault statutes apply — it further entrenches and seemingly concurs with the Roe versus Wade decision (the Court’s intrusion into rights of states and their previous attempts to protect by criminal statute the unborn’s right not to be aggressed against). By specifically exempting from prosecution both abortionists and the mothers of the unborn (as is the case with this legislation), Congress appears to say that protection of the unborn child is not a federal matter but conditioned upon motive. In fact, the Judiciary Committee in marking up the bill, took an odd legal turn by making the assault on the unborn a strict liability offense insofar as the bill does not even require knowledge on the part of the aggressor that the unborn child exists. Murder statutes and common law murder require intent to kill (which implies knowledge) on the part of the aggressor. Here, however, we have the odd legal philosophy that an abortionist with full knowledge of his terminal act is not subject to prosecution while an aggressor acting without knowledge of the child’s existence is subject to nearly the full penalty of the law. (The bill exempts the murderer from the death sentence — yet another diminution of the unborn’s personhood status.) It is becoming more and more difficult for Congress and the courts to pass the smell test as government simultaneously treats the unborn as a person in some instances and as a non-person in others.
rights
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
30 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 102:23
Protection of life (born or unborn) against initiations of violence is of vital importance. So vitally important, in fact, it must be left to the states’ criminal justice systems. We have seen what a legal, constitutional, and philosophical mess results from attempts to federalize such an issue. Numerous states have adequately protected the unborn against assault and murder and done so prior to the federal government’s unconstitutional sanctioning of violence in the Roe v. Wade decision. Unfortunately, H.R. 2436 ignores the danger of further federalizing that which is properly reserved to state governments and, in so doing, throws legal philosophy, the Constitution, the bill of rights, and the insights of Chief Justice Rehnquist out with the baby and the bathwater. For these reasons, I must oppose H.R. 2436, The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 1999.
rights
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:4
In today’s system, it appears on the surface that the interest of the patient is in conflict with the rights of the insurance companies and the Health Maintenance Organizations. In a free market, this cannot happen. Everyone’s rights are equal and agreements on delivering services of any kind are entered into voluntarily, thus satisfying both sides.
rights
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:7
We all should become suspicious when it is declared we need a new Bill of Rights, such as a taxpayers’ bill of rights, or now a patients’ bill of rights. Why do more Members not ask why the original Bill of Rights is not adequate in protecting all rights and enabling the market to provide all services? If over the last 50 years we had had a lot more respect for property rights, voluntary contracts, State jurisdiction, and respect for free markets, we would not have the mess we are facing today in providing medical care.
rights
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:9
Partial government involvement is not possible. It inevitably leads to total government control. Plans for all the so-called patients’ bill of rights are 100 percent endorsement of a principle of government management and will greatly expand government involvement even if the intention is to limit government management of the health care system to the extent necessary to curtail the abuses of the HMO.
rights
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:10
The patients’ bill of rights concept is based on the same principles that have given us the mess we have today. Doctors are unhappy. HMOs are being attacked for the wrong reasons. And the patients have become a political football over which all sides demagogue.
rights
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:17
The contest now, unfortunately, is not between free market health care and nationalized health care but rather between those who believe they speak for the patient and those believing they must protect the rights of corporations to manage their affairs as prudently as possible. Since the system is artificial there is no right side of this argument and only political forces between the special interests are at work. This is the fundamental reason why a resolution that is fair to both sides has been so difficult. Only the free market protects the rights of all persons involved and it is only this system that can provide the best care for the greatest number. Equality in medical care services can be achieved only by lowering standards for everyone. Veterans hospital and Medicaid patients have notoriously suffered from poor care compared to private patients, yet, rather than debating introducing consumer control and competition into those programs, we’re debating how fast to move toward a system where the quality of medicine for everyone will be achieved at the lowest standards. Since the problem with our medical system has not been correctly identified in Washington the odds of any benefits coming from the current debates are remote. It looks like we will make things worse by politicians believing they can manage care better than the HMO’s when both sides are incapable of such a feat.
rights
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:21
Mixing the concept of rights with the delivery of services is dangerous. The whole notion that patient’s “rights” can be enhanced by more edicts by the federal government is preposterous. Providing free medication to one segment of the population for political gain without mentioning the cost is passed on to another segment is dishonest. Besides, it only compounds the problem, further separating medical services from any market force and yielding to the force of the tax man and the bureaucrat. No place in history have we seen medical care standards improve with nationalizing its delivery system. Yet, the only debate here in Washington is how fast should we proceed with the government takeover. People have no more right to medical care than they have a right to steal your car because they are in need of it. If there was no evidence that freedom did not enhance everyone’s well being I could understand the desire to help others through coercive means. But delivering medical care through government coercion means not only diminishing the quality of care, it undermines the principles of liberty. Fortunately, a system that strives to provide maximum freedom for its citizens, also supports the highest achievable standard of living for the greatest number, and that includes the best medical care.
rights
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:25
There is nothing wrong with charity hospitals and possibly the churches once again providing care for the needy rather than through government paid programs which only maximizes costs. States can continue to introduce competition by allowing various trained individuals to provide the services that once were only provided by licensed MDs. We don’t have to continue down the path of socialized medical care, especially in America where free markets have provided so much for so many. We should have more faith in freedom and more fear of the politician and bureaucrat who think all can be made well by simply passing a Patient’s Bill of Rights.
rights
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:2
Contrary to the claims of many advocates of increased government regulation of health care, the problems with the health care system do not represent market failure, rather they represent the failure of government policies which have destroyed the health care market. In today’s system, it appears on the surface that the interest of the patient is in conflict with rights of the insurance companies and the Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). In a free market this cannot happen. Everyone’s rights are equal and agreements on delivering services of any kind are entered into voluntarily, thus satisfying both sides. Only true competition assures that the consumer gets the best deal at the best price possible, by putting pressure on the providers. Once one side is given a legislative advantage, in an artificial system, as it is in managed care, trying to balance government dictated advantages between patient and HMOs is impossible. The differences cannot be reconciled by more government mandates which will only makes the problem worse. Because we are trying to patch up an unworkable system, the impasse in Congress should not be a surprise.
rights
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:4
We all should become suspicious when it is declared we need a new “Bill of Rights” such as a Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, or now a Patient’s Bill of Rights. Why don’t more Members ask why the original Bill of Rights is not adequate in protecting all rights and enabling the market to provide all services. If over the last fifty years we had a lot more respect for property rights, voluntary contracts, state jurisdiction and respect for free markets, we would not have the mess we’re facing today in providing medical care.
rights
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:6
Partial government involvement is not possible. It inevitably leads to total government control. Plans for all the so-called Patient’s Bill of Rights are a 100% endorsement of the principle of government management and will greatly expand government involvement, even if the intention is to limit government management of the health care system to the extent “necessary” to curtail the abuses of the HMOs. The Patients’ Bill of Rights concept is based on the same principles that have given us the mess we have today. Doctors are unhappy, HMOs are being attacked for the wrong reasons, and the patients have become a political football over which all sides demagogue.
rights
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:12
The contest now, unfortunately, is not between free market health care and nationalized health care but rather between those who believe they speak for the patient and those believing they must protect the rights of corporations to manage their affairs as prudently as possible. Since the system is artificial there is no right side of this argument and only political forces between the special interests are at work. This is the fundamental reason why a resolution that is fair to both sides has been so difficult. Only the free market protects the rights of all persons involved and it is only this system that can provide the best care for the greatest number. Equality in medical care services can be achieved only by lowering standards for everyone. Veterans hospital and Medicaid patients have notoriously suffered from poor care compared to private patients, yet, rather than debating introducing consumer control and competition into those programs, we’re debating how fast to move toward a system where the quality of medicine for everyone will be achieved at the lowest standards.
rights
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:17
Mixing the concept of rights with the delivery of services is dangerous. The whole notion that patient’s “rights” can be enhanced by more edicts by the federal government is preposterous. Providing free medication to one segment of the population for political gain without mentioning the cost is passed on to another segment is dishonest. Besides, it only compounds the problem, further separating medical services from any market force and yielding to the force of the tax man and the bureaucrat. No place in history have we seen medical care standards improve with nationalizing its delivery system. Yet, the only debate here in Washington is how fast should we proceed with the government takeover. People have no more right to medical care than they have a right to steal your car because they are in need of it. If there was no evidence that freedom did not enhance everyone’s well being I could understand the desire to help others through coercive means. But delivering medical care through government coercion means not only diminishing the quality of care, it undermines the principles of liberty. Fortunately, a system that strives to provide maximum freedom for its citizens, also supports the highest achievable standard of living for the greatest number, and that includes the best medical care.
rights
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:21
There is nothing wrong with charity hospitals and possibly the churches once again providing care for the needy rather than through government paid programs which only maximizes costs. States can continue to introduce competition by allowing various trained individuals to provide the services that once were only provided by licensed MDs. We don’t have to continue down the path of socialized medical care, especially in America where free markets have provided so much for so many. We should have more faith in freedom and more fear of the politician and bureaucrat who think all can be made well by simply passing a Patient’s Bill of Rights.
rights
Paul-Doolittle Amendment To H.R. 3037
14 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 105:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I am placing in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD an amendment I, along with my colleague, Mr. DOOLITTLE of California, are offering to H.R. 3037, the Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations bill, to reduce funding for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) by $30,000,000, increase funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by $25,000,000 and apply $5,000,000 toward debt reduction. Our amendment provides an increase in financial support to help local schools cope with the federal IDEA mandates by reducing funding for an out-of-control bureaucracy that is running roughshod over the rights of workers, and even defying the Supreme Court!
rights
Academic Achievement for All Students Freedom and Accountability Act (STRAIGHT “A’s”)
21 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 109:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, those who wish to diminish federal control over education should cast an unenthusiastic yes vote for the Academic Achievement for All Students Freedom and Accountability Act (STRAIGHT “A’s”). While this bill does increase the ability of state and local governments to educate children free from federal mandates and regulations, and is thus a marginal improvement over existing federal law, STRAIGHT “A’s” fails to challenge the federal government’s unconstitutional control of education. In fact, under STRAIGHT “A’s” states and local school districts will still be treated as administrative subdivisions of the federal education bureaucracy. Furthermore, this bill does not remove the myriad requirements imposed on states and local school districts by federal bureaucrats in the name of promoting “civil rights.” Thus, a school district participating in STRAIGHT “A’s” will still have to place children in failed bilingual education programs or face the wrath of the Department of Education’s misnamed Office of Civil Rights.
rights
Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999.
27 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 112:11
Our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed enact legislation. For every other issue, the federal government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the state governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.
rights
Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999.
27 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 112:13
However, Congress does significantly more damage than simply threatening physicians with penalties for improper prescription of certain drugs — it establishes (albeit illegitimately) the authority to dictate the terms of medical practice and, hence, the legality of assisted suicide nationwide. Even though the motivation of this legislation is clearly to pre-empt the Oregon Statute and may be protective of life in this instance, we mustn’t forget that the saw (or scalpel) cuts both ways. The Roe versus Wade decision — the Court’s intrusion into rights of states and their previous attempts to protect by criminal statute the unborn’s right not to be aggressed against — was quite clearly less protective of life than the Texas statute it obliterated. By assuming the authority to decide for the whole nation issues relating to medical practice, palliative care, and assisted suicide, the foundation is established for a national assisted suicide standard which may not be protective of life when the political winds shift and the Medicare system is on the verge of fiscal collapse. Then, of course, it will be the federal government’s role to make the tough choices of medical procedure rationing and for whom the cost of medical care doesn’t justify life extension. Current law already prohibits private physicians from seeing privately funded patients if they’ve treated a Medicaid patient within two years.
rights
Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999.
27 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 112:16
Like the unborn, protection of the lives of palliative care patients is of vital importance. So vitally important, in fact, it must be left to the states’ criminal justice systems and state medical licensing boards. We have seen what a mess results from attempts to federalize such an issue. Numerous states have adequately protected both the unborn and palliative care patients against assault and murder and done so prior to the federal government’s unconstitutional sanctioning of violence in the Roe versus Wade decision. Unfortunately, H.R. 2260 ignores the danger of further federalizing that which is properly reserved to state governments and, in so doing, ignores the Constitution, the bill of rights, and the insights of Chief Justice Rehnquist. For these reasons, I must oppose H.R. 2260, The Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999.
rights
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:4
The term “republic” had a significant meaning for both of them and all early Americans. It meant a lot more than just representative government and was a form of government in stark contrast to pure democracy where the majority dictated laws and rights. And getting rid of the English monarchy was what the revolution was all about, so a monarchy was out of the question.
rights
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:5
The American Republic required strict limitation of government power. Those powers permitted would be precisely defined and delegated by the people with all public officials being bound by their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. The democratic process would be limited to the election of our leaders and not used for granting special privileges to any group or individual nor for defining rights.
rights
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:6
Federalism, the binding together loosely of the several States, would serve to prevent the concentration of power in a central government and was a crucial element in the new republic. The authors of the Constitution wrote strict limits on the national government and strove to protect the rights and powers of the State and the people.
rights
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:12
No doubts were cast as to where rights came from. They came from the Creator. And if government could not grant rights to individuals, it certainly should not be able to take them away. If government could provide rights or privileges, it was reasoned, it could only occur at the expense of someone else or with the loss of personal liberty in general.
rights
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:13
Our constitutional Republic, according to our founders, should above all else protect the rights of the minority against the abuses of an authoritarian majority. They feared democracy as much as monarchy and demanded a weak executive, a restrained court, and a handicapped legislature.
rights
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:71
After hundreds of billions of dollars, we have yet to see a shred of evidence that the drift toward central control over education has helped. By all measurements, the quality of education is down. There are more drugs and violence in the public schools than ever before. Discipline is impossible out of fear of lawsuits or charges of civil rights violations. Controlled curricula have downplayed the importance of our constitutional heritage while indoctrinating our children, even in kindergarten, with environmental mythology, internationalism and sexual liberation. Neighborhood schools in the early part of the 20th century did not experience this kind of propaganda.
rights
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:119
The promoters of the bureaucratic legislation claim to have good intentions, but they fail to acknowledge the cost, inefficiency or the undermining of individual rights. Worker safety, environmental concerns, drug usage, gun control, welfarism, banking regulations, government insurance, health insurance, insurance against economic and natural disaster, and the regulation of fish and wildlife. Are just a few of the issues that prompts the unlimited use of Federal regulatory and legislative power to deal with perceived problems.
rights
The Hillory J. Farias Date Rape Prevention Drug Act of 1999
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 3:2
Our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, Section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the federal government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the state governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
rights
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:30
Second, Roe v. Wade must be replaced by limiting jurisdiction, which can be done through legislation, a constitutional option. If we as a Nation do not once again show respect and protect the life of the unborn, we can expect the factions that have emerged on each side of this issue to become more vocal and violent. A Nation that can casually toss away its smallest and most vulnerable members and call it a “right” cannot continue to protect the lives or rights of its other citizens.
rights
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:59
America has not only changed technologically in the last 100 years but our social attitudes and personal philosophies have changed as well. We have less respect for life and less love for liberty. We are obsessed with material things, along with rowdy and raucous entertainment. Needs and wants have become rights for both poor and rich. The idea of instant gratification too often guides our actions, and when satisfaction is not forthcoming anger and violence breaks out. Road rage and airline passenger rage are seen more frequently. Regardless of fault, a bad outcome in almost anything, even if beyond human control, will prompt a lawsuit. Too many believe they deserve to win the lottery and a lawsuit helps the odds.
rights
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:67
We now hear of individuals being sent to psychiatrists when personal and social views are crude or out of the ordinary. It was commonplace in the Soviet system to incarcerate political dissenters in so-called mental institutions. Those who received a Soviet government designation of socially undesirable elements were stripped of their rights. Will this be the way we treat political dissent in the future?
rights
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:95
But this is opposite to what the Constitution was supposed to do. It was meant to protect the rights of the minority from the dictates of the majority. The majority vote of the powerful and influential was never meant to rule the people.
rights
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:105
But it must be remembered that no matter how it is portrayed, when big government systematically and steadily undermines individual rights and economic liberty, it is still a powerful but negative idea and it will not fade away easily.
rights
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:107
The large majority of Americans are sick and tired of being overtaxed, and despise the income tax and the inheritance tax. The majority of Americans know government programs fail to achieve their goals and waste huge sums of money. A smoldering resentment against the unfairness of government and efforts to force equality on us can inspire violence, but instead, it should be used to encourage an honest system of equal justice based on individual, not collective, rights.
rights
MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE ACT
March 9, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 15:4
* Furthermore, interfering in the voluntary transactions of employers and employees in the name of making things better for low wage earners violates citizens’ rights of association and freedom of contract as if to say to citizens ‘you are incapable of making employment decisions for yourself in the marketplace.’
rights
CONGRATULATING THE PEOPLE OF TAIWAN FOR SUCCESSFUL CONCLUSION OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND REAFFIRMING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD TAIWAN AND PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
March 28, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 18:1
* Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today with H. Con. Res. 292 Congress bestows well-deserved congratulations upon the people of Taiwan for the successful conclusion of presidential elections on March 18, 2000, and for their continuing efforts to develop and sustain a free republic that respects individual rights and embraces free markets. President Lee Teng-hui of Taiwan should also be praised for his significant contributions to freedom in Taiwan.
rights
CONGRATULATING THE PEOPLE OF TAIWAN FOR SUCCESSFUL CONCLUSION OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND REAFFIRMING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD TAIWAN AND PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
March 28, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 18:6
* Again, my congratulations to the Taiwanese on their continuing efforts to develop and sustain a free republic that respects individual rights and embraces free markets and to President Lee Teng-hui for his contributions to that end.
rights
AMERICAN HOMEOWNERSHIP AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 2000
April 6, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 27:14
It has been done in the past, and it is planned to be done in the future. I think this is a very important amendment to make sure that these funds are not used in this way. I think the point is that private property is very important, that owners do have rights; and quite frequently when this is invoked, it occurs in the poorer areas where there is less legal protection and legal help.
rights
Statement of Ron Paul on the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (HR 220)
May 18, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 38:18
The main reason Congress should take action to stop the use of standard identifiers is because the federal government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”
rights
Statement of Ron Paul on the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (HR 220)
May 18, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 38:19
I once again extend my sincere appreciation to Chairman Horn and the other members of the Subcommittee for holding this hearing and express my hope that this hearing begins the process of protecting the rights of all citizens to conduct their lives free from government intrusion.
rights
Permanent Normal Trade Relations
May 24, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 40:3
* Of course, many of the critics of NTR status for China do not address the free trade and the necessarily negative economic consequences of their position. No one should question that individual rights are vital to liberty and that the communist government of China has an abysmal record in that department. At the same time, basic human rights must necessarily include the right to enter into voluntary exchanges with others. To burden the U.S. citizens who enter into voluntary exchanges with exorbitant taxes (tariffs) in the name of ‘protecting’ the human rights of citizens of other countries would be internally inconsistent. Trade barriers when lowered, after all, benefit consumers who can purchase goods more cheaply than previously available. Those individuals choosing not to trade with citizens of particular foreign jurisdictions are not threatened by lowering barriers for those who do. Oftentimes, these critics focus instead on human rights deprivation by government leaders in China and see trade barriers as a means to ‘reform’ these sometimes tyrannical leaders. However, according to Father Robert Sirco, a Paulist priest who discussed this topic in the Wall Street Journal, American missionaries in China favor NTR status and see this as the policy most likely to bring about positive change in China.
rights
Permanent Normal Trade Relations
May 24, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 40:6
* No Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, don’t be fooled into thinking this bill is anything about free trade. In fact, those supporting it should be disgraced to learn that, among other misgivings, this bill, further undermines U.S. sovereignty by empowering the World Trade Organization on the backs of American taxpayers, sends federal employees to Beijing to become lobbyists to members of their communist government to become more WTO-friendly, funds the imposition of the questionable Universal Declaration of Human Rights upon foreign governments, and authorizes the spending of nearly $100 million to expand the reach of Radio Free Asia.
rights
Hostettler Amendment to Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary Appropriations Act
June 26, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 59:6
It seems now that the administration sees fit, acting on no authority given it by the Constitution, to dictate to a company who they can sell their products to and in what manner their product can be sold. This forces law-abiding citizens to jump through Government-ordained hoops before they exercise their rights to purchase as many firearms as they choose and to purchase them whenever they choose.
rights
Quality Health-Care Coalition Act of 2000
June 29, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 61:1
* Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to take this opportunity to lend my support to H.R. 1304, the Quality Health Care Coalition Act, which takes a first step towards restoring a true free-market in health care by restoring the rights of freedom of contract and association to health care professionals. Over the past few years, we have had much debate in Congress about the difficulties medical professionals and patients are having with Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). HMOs are devices used by insurance industries to ration health care. While it is politically popular for members of Congress to bash the HMOs and the insurance industry, the growth of the HMOs are rooted in past government interventions in the health care market though the tax code, the Employment Retirement Security Act (ERSIA), and the federal anti-trust laws. These interventions took control of the health care dollar away from individual patients and providers, thus making it inevitable that something like the HMOs would emerge as a means to control costs.
rights
Quality Health-Care Coalition Act of 2000
June 29, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 61:5
* Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to interfere with the private contracts of American citizens. Furthermore, the prohibitions on contracting contained in the Sherman antitrust laws are based on a flawed economic theory: that federal regulators can improve upon market outcomes by restricting the rights of certain market participants deemed too powerful by the government. In fact, anti-trust laws harm consumers by preventing the operation of the free-market, causing prices to rise, quality to suffer, and, as is certainly the case with the relationship between the HMOs and medical professionals, favoring certain industries over others. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that my colleagues would see the folly of antitrust laws and support my Market Process Restoration Act (H.R. 1789), which repeals all federal antitrust laws.
rights
Quality Health-Care Coalition Act of 2000
June 29, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 61:6
* By restoring the freedom of medical professionals to voluntarily come together to negotiate as a group with HMOs and insurance companies, this bill removes a government-imposed barrier to a true free market in health care. I am quite pleased that this bill does not infringe on the rights of health care professionals by forcing them to join a bargaining organization against their will. Contrary to the claims of some of its opponents, H.R. 1304 in no way extends the scourge of federally-mandated compulsory unionism to the health care professions. While Congress should protect the right of all Americans to join organizations for the purpose of bargaining collectively, Congress also has a moral responsibility to ensure that no worker is forced by law to join or financially support such an organization.
rights
Sense Of Congress Regarding Importance And Value Of Education In United States History
July 10, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 63:3
* In particular, the resolution refers to American ‘democracy’ and the ‘democratic’ principles upon which this country was founded. However, this country was founded not as a democracy but as a constitutional republic. Madam Speaker, the distinction between a democracy and a republic is more than just a matter of semantics. The fundamental principle in a democracy is majority rule. Democracies, unlike republics, do not recognize fundamental rights of citizens (outside the right to vote) nor do they limit the power of the government. Indeed, such limitations are often scored as ‘intrusions on the will of the majority.’ Thus in a democracy, the majority, or their elected representatives, can limit an individual’s right to free speech, defend oneself, form contracts, or even raise ones’ children. Democracies recognize only one fundamental right: the right to participate in the choosing of their rulers at a pre-determined time.
rights
Sense Of Congress Regarding Importance And Value Of Education In United States History
July 10, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 63:4
* In contrast, in a republic, the role of government is strictly limited to a few well-defined functions and the fundamental rights of individuals are respected. A constitution limiting the authority of central government and a Bill of Rights expressly forbidding the federal government from abridging the fundamental rights of a people are features of a republican form of government. Even a cursory reading of the Federalist Papers and other works of the founders shows they understood that obtaining the consent of 51 percent of the people does not in any way legitimize government actions abridging individual liberty.
rights
Sense Of Congress Regarding Importance And Value Of Education In United States History
July 10, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 63:5
* Madam Speaker, the confusion over whether America is a democracy, where citizens’ rights may be violated if the consent of 51 percent of the people may be obtained, or a republic, where the federal government is forbidden to take any actions violating a people’s fundamental rights, is behind many of the flawed debates in this Congress. A constitutionally literate Congress that understands the proper function of a legislature in a constitutional republic would never even debate whether or not to abridge the right of self-defense, instruct parents how to raise and educate their children, send troops to intervene in distant foreign quarrels that do not involve the security of the country, or even deny entire classes of citizens the fundamental right to life.
rights
Sense Of Congress Regarding Importance And Value Of Education In United States History
July 10, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 63:7
* In conclusion, by mistaking this country’s founding as being based on mass democracy rather than on republican principles, and by ignoring the constitutionally limited role of the federal government, this resolution promotes misunderstanding about the type of government necessary to protect liberty. Such constitutional illiteracy may be more dangerous than historical ignorance, since the belief that America was founded to be a democracy legitimizes the idea that Congress may violate people’s fundamental rights at will. I, therefore, encourage my colleagues to embrace America’s true heritage: a constitutional republic with strict limitations on the power of the central government.
rights
INTERNET GAMBLING PROHIBITION ACT OF 2000
July 19, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 66:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 2000 for several reasons. The bill threatens Internet privacy, invites Federal Government regulation of the Internet and tramples States’ rights.
rights
INTERNET GAMBLING PROHIBITION ACT OF 2000
July 19, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 66:2
H.R. 3125 establishes a precedent for Federal content regulation of the Internet. By opening this Pandora’s box, supporters of the bill ignore the unintended consequences. The principle will be clearly established that the Federal Government should intervene in Internet expression. This principle could be argued in favor of restrictions on freedom of expression and association. Disapprove of gambling? Let the government step in and ban it on the Internet! Minority rights are obviously threatened by majority whims.
rights
INTERNET GAMBLING PROHIBITION ACT OF 2000
July 19, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 66:4
Several States have already addressed the issue, and Congress should recognize States’ rights. The definition of ‘gambling’ in the bill appears narrow but could be ‘reinterpreted’ to include online auctions or even day trading (a different sort of gambling). Those individuals who seek out such thrills will likely soon find a good substitute which will justify the next round of federal Internet regulation.
rights
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
September 7, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 70:1
* Mr. Chairman, I rise today in hesitant opposition to H.R. 4115, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum Authorization Act. We as vigilant Americans must never forget the horrific lessons of the past and those attendant consequences of corporatism, fascism, and tyrannical government; that is, governmental deprivation of individual rights. A government which operates beyond its proper limits of preserving liberty never bodes well for individual rights to life, liberty and property. Particularly, Adolph Hitler’s tyrannical regime is most indicative of the necessary consequences of a government dominated by so-called ‘government-business’ partnerships, gun-confiscation schemes, protectionism, and abandonment of speech and religious freedom in the name of ‘compelling government interests.’
rights
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
September 7, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 70:2
* Ironically, this measure’s language permanently authorizes the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary for the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum; a purpose which propels our very own federal government beyond its constitutionally enumerated limits. This nation’s founders were careful to limit the scope of our federal government to those enumerated powers within Article One, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. These limits were further instilled within the bill of rights’ tenth amendment which reserves to States and private parties those powers not specifically given to the federal government.
rights
Child Support Distribution Act Of 2000
September 7, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 71:11
* Furthermore, providing taxpayers dollars to secular institutions violates the rights of taxpayers not to be forced to subsidize beliefs that may offend them. As Thomas Jefferson said ‘To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.’
rights
Scouting For All Act
September 12, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 74:2
* On June 28, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts of America was within its rights when the private organization expelled an adult scout leader because he was gay. In its five-to-four opinion, the court found that requiring the Boy Scouts to admit homosexuals violated the group’s free association rights.
rights
Scouting For All Act
September 12, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 74:3
* Nevertheless, this Congress has decided to bring to the floor a bill attempting to penalize this private group of citizens for exercising their first amendment ‘freedom of association’ rights. This is very close to denying the very right itself. To the extent the Boy Scouts should be penalized for their exercise of free association (or exclusion in this case), that penalty should only manifest itself through other private citizens exercising their freedom not to associate with individuals or groups whose associations (or lack therof) they find offensive.
rights
Scouting For All Act
September 12, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 74:5
* While I hesitate to further propagate this system of federal charters by which the federal government manipulates private groups, I despise more so this congressional attempt to penalize the Boy Scouts for merely exercising their constitutional rights — or as syndicated columnist Charley Reese recently put it in the Orlando Sentinel:
rights
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 77:3
At first, it appeared that Congress would take control of America’s participation in the United Nations. But in the enactment of the United Nations’ participation act on December 20, 1945, Congress laid down several rules by which America’s participation would be governed. Among those rules was the requirement that before the President of the United States could deploy United States Armed Forces in service of the United Nations, he was required to submit to Congress for its specific approval the numbers and types of Armed Forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance including rights of passage to be made available to the United Nations Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.
rights
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 77:5
This transfer of power from Congress to the United Nations has not, however, been limited to the power to make war. Increasingly, Presidents are using the U.N. not only to implement foreign policy in pursuit of international peace, but also domestic policy in pursuit of international, environmental, economic, education, social welfare and human rights policy, both in derogation of the legislative prerogatives of Congress and of the 50 State legislatures, and further in derogation of the rights of the American people to constitute their own civil order.
rights
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 77:7
The release in July 2000 of the U.N. Human Development Report provides unmistakable evidence of the universality of the United Nations’ jurisdictional claims. Boldly proclaiming that global integration is eroding national borders, the report calls for the implementation and, if necessary, the imposition of global standards of economic and social justice by international agencies and tribunals. In a special contribution endorsing this call for the globalization of domestic policymaking, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan wrote, ‘Above all, we have committed ourselves to the idea that no individual shall have his or her human rights abused or ignored. The idea is enshrined in the charter of the United Nations. The United Nations’ achievements in the area of human rights over the last 50 years are rooted in the universal acceptance of those rights enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Rights. Emerging slowly, but I believe, surely, is an international norm,’ and this is Annan’s words, ‘that must and will take precedence over concerns of State sovereignty.’
rights
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 77:14
By definition, a treaty is a contract between or among independent and sovereign nations, obligatory on the signatories only when made by competent governing authorities in accordance with the powers constitutionally conferred upon them. I Kent, Commentaries on American Law 163 (1826); Burdick, The Law of the American Constitution section 34 (1922) Even the United Nations Treaty Collection states that a treaty is (1) a binding instrument creating legal rights and duties (2) concluded by states or international organizations with treaty-making power (3) governed by international law.
rights
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 77:16
The United Nations Treaty Collection confirms the appropriateness of this ‘constitutional interpretive’ approach to the Charter of the United Nations with its statement that the charter may be traced ‘back to the Magna Carta (the Great Charter) of 1215,’ a national constitutional document. As a constitutional document, the Magna Carta not only bound the original signatories, the English barons and the king, but all subsequent English rulers, including Parliament, conferring upon all Englishmen certain rights that five hundred years later were claimed and exercised by the English people who had colonized America.
rights
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 77:28
Even though we are an organization of Member States, the rights and ideals the United Nations exists to protect are those of the peoples. No government has the right to hide behind national sovereignty in order to violate the human rights or fundamental freedoms of its peoples. Human Development Report 2000 31 (July 2000) [Emphasis added.]
rights
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 77:29
While no previous United Nations’ secretary general has been so bold, Annan’s proclamation of universal jurisdiction over ‘human rights and fundamental freedoms’ simply reflects the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations which contemplated a future in which the United Nations operates in perpetuity ‘to save succeeding generations from the scourge of ware . . . to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights . . . to establish conditions under which justice . . . can be maintained, and to promote social progress and between standards of life in larger freedom.’ Such lofty goals and objectives are comparable to those found in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America: ‘to . . . establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the Blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity . . .’
rights
THREATS TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM
October 19, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 88:13
I’m not a defender of wealth per se. I wish I had wealth to defend, but I am a defender of freedom. There can be no freedom, personal or otherwise, without wealth, without the right to own and use one’s own property as one see fit. Remove property rights and you have no means to sustain life for yourself or your family. But now the acquisition and accumulation of productive wealth has become officially suspect in America.
rights
ECONOMIC PROBLEMS AHEAD
November 13, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 93:5
* The pretended goal of the economic planners has been economic fairness through redistribution of wealth, politically correct social consciousness, and an all-intrusive government which becomes a responsibility for personal safety, health and education while personal responsibility is diminished. The goal of liberty has long been forgotten. The concentrated effort has been to gain power through the control of wealth with a scheme that pretends to treat everybody fairly. An impasse was destined to come, and already signs are present in our system of welfarism. This election in many ways politically demonstrates this economic reality. The political stalemate reflects the stalemate that is developing in the economy. Both will eventually cause deep division and hardship. The real problem-preserving of the free market and private property rights- if ignored, will only make things worse, because the only solution that will be offered in Washington will be more government intervention, increased spending, increase in monetary inflation, more debt, greater military activity throughout the world, and priming the economic pump with more expenditures for weapons we do not need.
rights
OUR FOOLISH WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST
November 15, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 95:14
* Our many failures in the last fifty years should prompt us to reassess our entire foreign policy of interventionism. The notion that since we are the only superpower left we have an obligation to tell everybody else how to live should come an end. Our failure in Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, and the Middle East, and our failure yet come to in Bosnia and Kosovo should alert all Americans to this great danger. But no, we instead continue to expand our intervention by further involving ourselves in yet another sovereign nation. This time it’s Columbia. By sending more weapons into the region we continue to stir up this 30-year civil conflict. And just recently this conflict has spilled over into Venezuela, a major force in South America due to its oil reserves. The Foreign Minister of Venezuela, angered by U.S. actions, recently warned that “any ship or boat which enters the Gulf of Venezuela, of whatever nationality it may be, will be expelled.” Our intervention in many of these regions, and especially in South America, has been done in the name of the drug war. But the truth is it’s serving the interests of the companies who own the oil rights in this region, as well as those who produce the weapons that get sent into these regions.
rights
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT — HON. RON PAUL
Wednesday, January 3, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 1:10
* Mr. Speaker, while I do not question the sincerity of those members who suggest that Congress can ensure citizens’ rights are protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, the only effective privacy protection is to forbid the federal government from mandating national identifiers. Legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for several reasons. First, it is simply common sense that repealing those federal laws that promote identity theft is more effective in protecting the public than expanding the power of the federal police force. Federal punishment of identity thieves provides cold comfort to those who have suffered financial losses and the destruction of their good reputation as a result of identity theft.
rights
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT — HON. RON PAUL
Wednesday, January 3, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 1:14
* The primary reason why any action short of the repeal of laws authorizing privacy violations is insufficient is because the federal government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with chains of the Constitution.”
rights
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:109
The political system of interventionism always leads to social discord. Interventionism is based on relative rights, majoritarianism, and disrespect for the Constitution. Degenerating moral standards of the people encourages and feeds on this system of special-interest favoritism, all of which contribute to the friction.
rights
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:119
The ill-conceived drug war of the past 30 years has caused great harm to our society. It has undermined privacy and challenged the constitutional rights of all our citizens. The accelerated attack on drug usage since the early 1970s has not resulted in any material benefit. Over $300 billion has been spent on this war, and we are all less free and poorer because of it. Civil liberties are sacrificed in all wars, both domestic and foreign. It’s clear that, even if it were a legitimate function for government to curtail drug usage, eliminating bad habits through government regulation is not achievable. Like so much else that government tries to do, the harm done is not always evenly distributed. Some groups suffer more than others, further compounding the problem by causing dissention and distrust.
rights
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:147
Our economic, military, and political power, second to none, has perpetuated a system of government no longer dependent on the principles that brought our Republic to greatness. Private-property rights, sound money, and self-reliance have been eroded, and they have been replaced with welfarism, paper money, and collective management of property. The new system condones special-interest cronyism and rejects individualism, profits, and voluntary contracts.
rights
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:40
The political system of interventionism always leads to social discord. Interventionism is based on relative rights, majoritarianism, and disrespect for the Constitution. Degenerating moral standards of the people encourages and feeds on this system of special interest favoritism, all of which contributes to the friction.
rights
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:54
The ill-conceived drug war of the past 30 years has caused great harm to our society. It has undermined privacy and challenged the constitutional rights of all our citizens. The accelerated attack on drug usage seen since the early 1970s has not resulted in any material benefit. Over $300 billion has been spent on this war, and we are less free and poorer because of it. Civil liberties are sacrificed in all wars, both domestic and foreign.
rights
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:93
Our economic, military, and political power, second to none, has perpetuated a system of government no longer dependent on the principles that brought our Republic to greatness. Private-property rights, sound money and self-reliance have been eroded; and they have been replaced with welfarism, paper money, and collective management of property. The new system condones special-interest cronyism and rejects individualism, profits and voluntary contracts.
rights
The WAGE Act
February 14, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 14:1
* Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Workers Access to Accountable Governance in Employment (WAGE) Act. This bill takes a first step toward restoring the rights of freedom of association and equal protection under the law to millions of American workers who are currently denied these rights by federal law.
rights
The WAGE Act
February 14, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 14:2
* The WAGE Act simply gives workers the same rights to hold decertification elections as they have to hold certification elections. Currently, while workers in this country are given the right to organize and have union certification elections each year, provided that 30 percent or more of the workforce wish to have them, workers are not given an equal right to have a decertification election, even if the same requirements are met.
rights
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:4
* Mr. Speaker, in reading this article, I am sure many of my colleagues will think it ironic that many of the supporters of Nixon’s plan to foist HMOs on the American public are today promoting the so-called “patients’ rights” legislation which attempts to deal with the problem of the HMOs by imposing new federal mandates on the private sector. However, this is not really surprising because both the legislation creating HMOs and the Patients’ Bill of Rights reflect the belief that individuals are incapable of providing for their own health care needs in the free market, and therefore government must control health care. The only real difference between our system of medicine and the Canadian “single payer” system is that in America, Congress contracted out the job of rationing health care resources to the HMOs.
rights
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:5
* As Ms. Brase, points out, so-called “patients’ rights” legislation will only further empower federal bureaucrats to make health care decisions for individuals and entrench the current government-HMO complex. Furthermore, because the Patient’s Bill of Rights will increase health care costs, thus increasing the number of Americans without health insurance, it will result in pleas for yet another government intervention in the health care market!
rights
The Beginning of the End of Fiat Money
March 13, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 18:4
The effort in recent decades to unify government surveillance over all world trade and international financial transactions through the UN, IMF, World Bank, WTO, ICC, the OECD, and the Bank of International Settlements can never substitute for a peaceful world based on true free trade, freedom of movement, a single but sound market currency, and voluntary contracts with private property rights.
rights
The Medical Privacy Protection Resolution
March 15, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 19:7
* Forcing individuals to divulge medical information without their consent also runs afoul of the fifth amendment’s prohibition on taking private property for public use without just compensation. After all, people do have a legitimate property interest in their private information. Therefore, restrictions on an individual’s ability to control the dissemination of their private information represents a massive regulatory taking. The takings clause is designed to prevent this type of sacrifice of individual property rights for the “greater good.”
rights
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.
rights
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.
rights
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 April 2001 2001 Ron Paul 29:4
Nevertheless, our Federal Government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the Federal Government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the State governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our Nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.
rights
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 April 2001 2001 Ron Paul 29:5
However, Congress does more damage than just expanding the class to whom Federal murder and assault statutes apply — it further entrenches and seemingly concurs with the Roe v. Wade decision (the Court’s intrusion into rights of States and their previous attempts to protect by criminal statute the unborn’s right not to be aggressed against). By specifically exempting from prosecution both abortionists and the mothers of the unborn (as is the case with this legislation), Congress appears to say that protection of the unborn child is not only a Federal matter but conditioned upon motive. In fact, the Judiciary Committee in marking up the bill, took an odd legal turn by making the assault on the unborn a strict liability offense insofar as the bill does not even require knowledge on the part of the aggressor that the unborn child exists. Murder statutes and common law murder require intent to kill (which implies knowledge) on the part of the aggressor. Here, however, we have the odd legal philosophy that an abortionist with full knowledge of his terminal act is not subject to prosecution while an aggressor acting without knowledge of the child’s existence is subject to nearly the full penalty of the law. (With respect to only the fetus, the bill exempts the murderer from the death sentence — yet another diminution of the unborn’s personhood status and clearly a violation of the equal protection clause.) It is becoming more and more difficult for congress and the courts to pass the smell test as government simultaneously treats the unborn as a person in some instances and as a non-person in others.
rights
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 April 2001 2001 Ron Paul 29:11
Protection of life (born or unborn) against initiations of violence is of vital importance. So vitally important, in fact, it must be left to the States’ criminal justice systems. We have seen what a legal, constitutional, and philosophical mess results from attempts to federalize such an issue. Numerous States have adequately protected the unborn against assault and murder and done so prior to the Federal Government’s unconstitutional sanctioning of violence in the Roe v. Wade decision. Unfortunately, H.R. 503 ignores the danger of further federalizing that which is properly reserved to State governments and, in so doing, throws legal philosophy, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the insights of Chief Justice Rehnquist out with the baby and the bathwater.
rights
AMERICA NOT GETTING FAIR SHAKE FROM UNITED NATIONS —
May 10, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 31:4
Just recently, in the last week, the United States was kicked off the Human Rights Commission, as well as the International Narcotics Control Board. This is an affront to our dignity and ought to point out to us that, although we pay the largest amount of money for peacekeeping missions and the largest amount of dues, here it is that, because there is disagreement, we are humiliated by being kicked off these commissions.
rights
International Criminal Court
10 May 2001 2001 Ron Paul 33:6
The people of the United States are selfgoverning, and they have a constitutional right to be tried in accordance with the laws that their elected representatives enact and to be judged by their peers and no others. The treaty would subject United States individuals who appear before the International Criminal Court to trial and punishment without the rights and protections that the United States Constitution guarantees, including trial by a jury of one’s peers, protection from double jeopardy, the right to know the evidence brought against one, the right to confront one’s accusers, and the right to a speedy trial.
rights
International Criminal Court
10 May 2001 2001 Ron Paul 33:9
Mr. Chairman, the International Criminal Court undermines United States sovereignty and security, conflicts with the United States Constitution, contradicts customs of international law, and violates the inalienable rights of self-government, individual liberty, and popular sovereignty. Therefore, the President should declare to all nations that the United States does not intend to assent to or ratify the treaty and the signature of former President Clinton to the treaty should not be construed otherwise.
rights
16 May 2001 2001 Ron Paul 35:3
But let me tell my colleagues, this gag rule argument is a red herring if I have ever seen one. This has nothing to do with the first amendment. This would be like arguing that if we had a prohibition in this bill against passing out guns to civilians in some foreign nation, we would say, we cannot have a prohibition on that because of the second amendment, defending the right to own guns. It would be nonsense. So this has nothing to do with the first amendment; but it does have something to do with the rights of U.S. citizens, Mr. Chairman, in forcibly taking funds through taxes from people who believe strongly against abortion their rights are violated.
rights
Protecting Privacy and Preventing Misuse of Social Security Numbers
May 22, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 37:8
Mr. Chairman, while I do not question the sincerity of those members who suggest that Congress can ensure citizens’ rights are protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, the only effective privacy protection is to forbid the federal government from mandating national identifiers. Legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for several reasons. First, it is simply common sense that repealing those federal laws that promote identity theft is a more effective in protecting the public than expanding the power of the federal police force. Federal punishment of identity thieves provides old comfort to those who have suffered financial losses and the destruction of their good reputation as a result of identity theft.
rights
Protecting Privacy and Preventing Misuse of Social Security Numbers
May 22, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 37:10
The primary reason why any action short of the repeal of laws authorizing privacy violation is insufficient is because the federal government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”
rights
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.
rights
Sudan Peace Act
13 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 40:11
One can only assume this is the same United Nations which booted the United States off its Human Rights Commission in favor of, as Canadian Sen. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein, called them recently, “those exemplars of human rights nations . . . Algeria, China, Saudi Arabia, Uganda, Armenia, Pakistan, Syria and Vietnam.”
rights
Sudan Peace Act
13 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 40:12
The bill does not stop there, however, in intervening in the civil war in Sudan. It appears that this Congress has found a new mission for the Securities and Exchange Commission who are now tasked with investigating “the nature and extent of . . . commercial activity in Sudan” as it relates to “any violations of religious freedom and human rights in Sudan.” It seems we have finally found a way to spend those excessive fees the SEC has been collecting from mutual fund investors despite the fact we cannot seem to bring to the floor a bill to actually reduce those fees which have been collected in multiples above what is necessary to fund this agencies’ previous (and again unconstitutional) mission.
rights
Sudan Peace Act
13 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 40:15
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this bill for each of the above-mentioned reasons and leave to the ingenuity, generosity, and conscience of each individual in this country to make their own private decision as to how best render help to citizens of Sudan and all countries where human rights violations run rampant.
rights
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.
rights
Conscription Policies
13 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 42:3
I have introduced legislation, H.R. 1597, which repeals the Selective Service Act, thus ending a system which violates the rights of millions of young Americans and wastes taxpayer dollars for no legitimate military reason. I urge my colleagues to read Mr. Allen’s article then cosponsor HR 1597 and join me in ending a system which is an affront to the principles of liberty our nation was founded upon.
rights
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.
rights
Faith Based Initiatives
June 13, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 43:13
When we examine these great documents, we see that the founders referenced our most fundamental rights to our Creator and then defined the role of government to secure these rights. Our great and blessed country, has been a story of unprecedented success because of the crucial premise that man is and must be free to exercise his God-given rights.
rights
INTRODUCTION OF FOODS ARE NOT DRUGS ACT — HON. RON PAUL
June 21, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 46:5
* The FDA is so fanatical about censoring truthful information regarding dietary supplements it even defies federal courts! For example, in the case of Pearson v. Shalala, 154 F.3d 650 (DC Cir. 1999), rehg denied en banc, 172 F.3d 72 (DC Cir. 1999), the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Court ruled that the FDA violated consumers’ first amendment rights by denying certain health claims. However, the FDA has dragged its feet for over two years in complying with the Pearson decision while wasting taxpayer money on frivolous appeals. It is clear that even after Pearson the FDA will continue to deny legitimate health claims and force dietary supplement manufacturers to waste money on litigation unless Congress acts to rein in this rogue agency.
rights
“Postal Service Has Its Eye On You”
27 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 47:2
As postal officials admitted to Mr. Berlau, the Post Office is training its employees to assume those purchasing large money orders are criminals. In fact, the training manual for this program explicitly states that “it is better to report many legitimate transactions that seem suspicious than let one illegal one slip through.” This policy turns the presumption of innocence, which has been recognized as one of the bulwarks of liberty since medieval times, on its head. Allowing any federal employee to assume the possibility of a crime based on nothing more than a subjective judgment of “suspicious behavior” represents a serious erosion of our constitutional rights to liberty, privacy, and due process.
rights
“Postal Service Has Its Eye On You”
27 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 47:10
It is statements such as these that raise the ire of leading privacy advocates on both the left and right, most of whom didn’t know about the program until asked by Insight to comment. For example, Rep. RON PAUL, RTexas, who led the charge on Capitol Hill against the “Know Your Customer” rules, expressed both surprise and concern about “Under the Eagle’s Eye.” He says the video’s instructions to report transactions as suspicious are “the reverse of what the theory used to be: We were supposed to let guilty people go by if we were doing harm to innocent people” when the methods of trying to apprehend criminals violated the rights of ordinary citizens. PAUL says he may introduce legislation to stop “Under the Eagle’s Eye.”
rights
“Postal Service Has Its Eye On You”
27 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 47:27
There’s also the question of what happens with the information once it’s collected. Gillum says that innocent customers should feel secure because the information reported about “suspicious” customers is not automatically sent to the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) to be shared with law enforcement agencies worldwide. Although he says FinCEN wants the postal service to send all reports along to it, the postal authorities only will send the clerks’ reports if they fit “known parameters” for suspicious activity. “We are very sensitive to the private citizenry and their rights,” Gillum insists. “For what it’s worth, we have every comfort level that, if we make a report, there are all kinds of reasons to believe that there is something going on there beyond just a legitimate purchase of money orders.”
rights
Brown V. Board Of Education 50th Anniversary Commission
27 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 48:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in encouraging Americans to commemorate the 40th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education and the end of legal segregation in America. However, I cannot support the legislation before us because it attempts to authorize an unconstitutional expenditure of federal funds for the purpose of establishing a commission to provide federal guidance of celebrations of the anniversary of the Brown decision. This expenditure is neither constitutional nor in the sprit of the brave men and woman of the civil rights moment who are deservedly celebrated for standing up to an overbearing government infringing on individual rights.
rights
Brown V. Board Of Education 50th Anniversary Commission
27 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 48:2
Mr. Speaker, any authorization of an unconstitutional expenditure of taxpayer funds is an abuse of our authority and undermines the principles of a limited government which respects individual rights. Because I must oppose appropriations not authorized by the enumerated powers of the Constitution, I therefore reject this bill. I continue to believe that the best way to honor the legacy of those who fought to ensure that all Americans can enjoy the blessings of liberty and a government that treats citizens of all races equally is by consistently defending the idea of a limited government whose powers do not exceed those explicitly granted it by the Constitution.
rights
A BAD OMEN
July 17, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 52:11
The U.N. War Tribunal in the Hague should insult the intelligence of all Americans. This court currently can only achieve arrest and prosecution of leaders of poor, small, or defeated nations. There will be no war criminals brought to the Hague from China, Russia, Britain, or the United States no matter what the charges. But some day this approach to world governing will backfire. The U.S. already has suffered the humiliation of being kicked off the U.N. Human Rights Commission and the Narcotics Control Commission. Our arrogant policy and attitude of superiority will continue to elicit a smoldering hatred toward us and out of sheer frustration will motivate even more terrorist attacks against us.
rights
Flag Burning Amendment
17 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 53:5
I also agree with the former speaker who talked about responsibility. I agree it is about responsibility. But it also has something to do with rights. You cannot reject rights and say it is all responsibility and therefore we have to write another law. Responsibility implies a voluntary approach. You cannot achieve patriotism by authoritarianism, and that is what we are talking about here.
rights
Flag Burning Amendment
17 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 53:7
“Our Nation was not founded on devotion to symbolic idols, but on principles, beliefs, and ideals expressed in the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. American veterans who have protected our banner in battle have not done so to protect a ‘golden calf.’ A patriot cannot be created by legislation.”
rights
Flag Burning Amendment
17 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 53:9
Another Member earlier mentioned that this could possibly be a property rights issue. I think it has something to do with the first amendment and freedom of expression. That certainly is important, but I think property rights are very important here. If you have your own flag and what you do with it, there should be some recognition of that. But the retort to that is, oh, no, the flag belongs to the country. The flag belongs to everybody. Not really. If you say that, you are a collectivist. That means you believe everybody owns everything. Who would manufacture the flags? Who would buy the flags? Who would take care of them? So there is an ownership. If the Federal Government owns a flag and you are on Federal property, even, without this amendment, you do not have the right to go and burn that flag. If you are causing civil disturbances, that is handled another way. But this whole idea that there could be a collective ownership of the flag, I think, is erroneous.
rights
Flag Burning Amendment
17 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 53:18
This system has served us well for more than two centuries. After all, our founding fathers correctly recognized that the federal government should be severely limited, and especially in matters of expression. They revolted against a government that prevented them from voicing their politically unpopular views regarding taxation, liberty and property rights. As a result, the founders wanted to ensure that a future monolithic federal government would not exist, and that no federal government of the United States would ever be able to restrict what government officials might find obnoxious, unpopular or unpatriotic. After all, the great patriots of our nation — George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and Benjamin Franklin — were all considered disloyal pests by the British government.
rights
Flag Burning Amendment
17 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 53:19
Too often in this debate, the issue of patriotism is misplaced. This is well addressed by Keith Kruel, an Army veteran and a past national commander of the American Legion. He has said that, “Our nation was not founded on devotion to symbolic idols, but on principles, beliefs and ideals expressed in the constitution and its Bill of Rights. American veterans who have protected our banner in battle have not done so to protect a ‘golden calf.’ . . . A patriot cannot be created by legislation.”
rights
Statement Paul Amendment to Defund the UN
July 18, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 56:5
I think this is an appropriate time to discuss the reasonableness for our support for the United Nations. The government of the United States has continued to grow as our state sovereignty has gotten much smaller, but now we are losing a lot of sovereignty to an international government which is the United Nations. Just recently, the United States was humiliated by being voted off by secret ballot from the U.N. Human Rights Commission and Sudan was appointed in our place. How could anything be more humiliating. So democracy ruled, our vote counted as one, the same value as the vote of Red China or Sudan. But the whole notion that we would be put off the Human Rights Commission and Sudan, where there is a practice of slavery, is put on the Human Rights Commission should be an insult to all of us.
rights
Statement Paul Amendment to Defund the UN
July 18, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 56:13
But this presumption on our part that we can control the United Nations and arrest only those individuals that we do not like and allow the other ones to go free and that this will never apply to us, I think we are missing the point and it is a dangerous trend. Because you say, well, yes, we are powerful, we have the money and we have the weapons and we can dictate to the United Nations. They will not arrest us or play havoc with us. Yet at the same time we have already recognized that the U.N. Human Rights Commission which was voted on by a democratic vote kicked us in the face and kicked us off.
rights
Quasquicentennial Of The Texas State Constitution Of 1876
18 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 58:7
Whereas, Sections aimed at monied corporate domination together with protection of the rights of the individual and others mandating strong restrictions upon the mission of state government in general and upon the role of specific state officials grew out of the Jacksonian agrarianism and frontier philosophy that first infused the thinking of many Texans during the mid-1800’s; and
rights
THE PATIENT PRIVACY ACT -- HON. RON PAUL
July 24, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 65:9
* The second, and most important reason, legislation “protecting” the unique health identifier is insufficient is that the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal health identifier, or force citizens to divulge their personal health information to the government, regardless of any attached “privacy protections.” Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty as it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate arbitrator of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for congress and the American people to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the constitution.”
rights
THE PATIENT PRIVACY ACT -- HON. RON PAUL
July 24, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 65:10
* Those who claim that the Patient Privacy act would interfere with the plans to “simplify” and “streamline” the health care system, should remember that under the constitution, the rights of people should never take a backseat to the convenience of the government or politically powerful industries like HMOs.
rights
THE PATIENT PRIVACY ACT -- HON. RON PAUL
July 24, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 65:11
* Mr. Speaker, the federal government has no authority to endanger the privacy of personal medical information by forcing all citizens to adopt a uniform health identifier for use in a national data base. A uniform health ID endangers constitutional liberties, threatens the doctor-patient relationships, and could allow federal officials access to deeply personal medical information. There can be no justification for risking the rights of private citizens. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Patient Privacy Act.
rights
Crazy For Kazakhstan
1 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 69:10
In the center of this conflict and instability Kasakhstan has begun to prosper by working to build a modern economy, developing its vast natural resources and providing a base of stability in a very uncertain part of the world. With the discovery of the massive Kashagan oil field in the Kazak portion of the Caspian Sea, Kazakhstan is poised to become a major supplier of petroleum to the Western World and a competitor to Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). It is critical that we continue to facilitate western companies’ investment in Kazakhstan and the establishment of secure, east-west pipeline routes for Kazak oil. This is the only way for Kazakhstan to loosen its dependence on Russia for transit rights for its oil and gas and secure additional, much needed, oil for the world market.
rights
TRUTH IN EMPLOYMENT ACT -- HON. RON PAUL
Thursday, August 2, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 71:4
* Passing the Truth in Employment Act is a good first step toward restoring the constitution rights of property and contract to employers and employees. I therefore urge my colleagues to stand up for those workers who do not wish to be forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment by cosponsoring the Truth in Employment Act.
rights
Patient’s Bill of Rights Undermines Individual Rights
August 2, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 73:5
I think we went astray about 30-some years ago in the direction of medical care when the government, the Federal Government, got involved. The first thing is we changed our attitude and our definition of what “rights” are. We call this a Patients’ Bill of Rights. It has very little to do with rights, because most of what we do in medicine, we undermine individual rights.
rights
Patient’s Bill of Rights Undermines Individual Rights
August 2, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 73:6
We have a right in society, in a free society, to our life and our liberty, and we have a right to use that liberty to pursue our happiness and provide for our own well-being. We do not have a right to medical care. One has no more right to a service than one has a right to go into someone else’s garage and steal an automobile. So the definition of “rights” has been abused for 30 years, but the current understanding is that people have a right to services. So I think that is a serious flaw and it has contributed to our problem today.
rights
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 74:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to explain why I oppose all versions of the Patients’ Bill of Rights. Once again Congress is staging a phony debate over which form of statism to embrace, instead of asking the fundamental question over whether Congress should be interfering in this area at all, much less examine how previous interferences in the health care market created the problems which these proposals claim to address.
rights
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 74:6
I am sure many of my colleagues will think it ironic that many of the supporters of Nixon’s plan to foist HMOs on the American public are today among the biggest supporters of the “patients’ rights” legislation. However, this is not really surprising because both the legislation creating HMOs and the Patients’ Bill of Rights reflect the belief that individuals are incapable of providing for their own health care needs and therefore government must control health care. The only real difference between our system of medicine and the Canadian “single payer” system is that in America, Congress contracted out the job of rationing health care resources to the HMOs.
rights
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 74:8
We all should become suspicious when it is declared we need a new Bill of Rights, such as a Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights, or now a Patients’ Bill of Rights. Why do more Members not ask why the original Bill of Rights is not adequate in protecting all rights and enabling the market to provide all services? In fact, if Congress respected the Constitution we would not even be debating this bill, and we would have never passed any of the special-interest legislation that created and empowered the HMOs in the first place!
rights
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 74:9
Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us is flawed not only in its effect but in the very premise that individuals have a federally-enforceable “right” to health care. Mixing the concept of rights with the delivery of services is dangerous. The whole notion that patient’s “rights” can be enhanced by more edicts by the federal government is preposterous.
rights
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 74:11
Many members of Congress have convinced themselves that they can support a “watered-down” Patients’ Bill of Rights which will allow them to appease the supporters of nationalized medicine without creating the negative consequences of the unmodified Patients’ Bill of Rights, while even some supporters of the most extreme versions of this legislation say they will oppose any further steps to increase the power of government over health care. These well-intentioned members ignore the economic fact that partial government involvement is not possible. It inevitably leads to total government control. A vote for any version of a Patients’ Bill of Rights is a 100 percent endorsement of the principle of government management of the health care system.
rights
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 74:12
Those who doubt they are endorsing government control of medicine by voting for a modified Patients’ Bill of Rights should consider that even after this legislation is “watered- down” it will still give the federal government the power to control the procedures for resolving disputes for every health plan in the country, as well as mandating a laundry list of services that health plans must offer to their patients. The new and improved Patients’ Bill of Rights will still drive up the costs of health care, causing many to lose their insurance and lead to yet more cries for government control of health care to address the unintended consequences of this legislation.
rights
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 74:18
While none of the proposed “Patients’ Bill of Rights” addresses the root cause of the problems in our nation’s health care system, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky does expend individual control over health care by making Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) available to everyone. This is the most important thing Congress can do to get market forces operating immediately and improve health care. When MSAs make patient motivation to save and shop a major force to reduce cost, physicians would once again negotiate fees downward with patients — unlike today where the reimbursement is never too high and hospital and MD bills are always at the maximum levels allowed. MSAs would help satisfy the American’s people’s desire to control their own health care and provide incentives for consumers to take more responsibility for their care.
rights
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 74:20
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject the phony Patients’ Bill of Rights which will only increase the power of the federal government, cause more Americans to lose their health care or receive substandard care, and thus set the groundwork for the next round of federal intervention. Instead. I ask my colleagues to embrace an agenda of returning control over health care to the American people by putting control over the health care dollar back into the hands of the individual and repealing those laws and regulations which distort the health care market. We should have more faith in freedom and more fear of the politicians and bureaucrats who think all can be made well by simply passing a Patients’ Bill of Rights.
rights
Foreign Interventionism
September 25, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 80:35
We must not sacrifice the civil liberties that generations of Americans have enjoyed and fought for over the past 225 years. Unwise decisions in response to the terror inflicted on us may well fail to destroy our enemy, while undermining our liberties here at home. That will not be a victory worth celebrating. The wise use of marque and reprisal would negate the need to undermine the privacy and rights of our citizens.
rights
Counter-Terrorism and Homeland Security
October 9, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 82:11
But here at home it is surely a prime responsibility of all members of Congress to remain vigilant and not, out of fear and panic, sacrifice the rights of Americans in our effort to maximize security.
rights
Safe Act
9 October 2001 2001 Ron Paul 83:3
Hard as it may be to believe, there are actually existing directives in the law enforcement and intelligence communities which grant suspects “extra-legal” rights. These “special” rights could, and should, be clarified without changing existing law. This is why the SAFE Act adopts several of the administration’s proposals to change the procedures regarding prosecutions of terrorism, such as eliminating the statute of limitations for terrorist offenses.
rights
Ron Paul statement on HR 3004 before the House Financial Services committee
October 11, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 86:5
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this package of unconstitutional expansions of the financial police state, most of which will prove ultimately ineffective in the war against terrorism. Instead, I hope this Committee will work to fashion a measure aimed at giving the government a greater ability to locate and seize the assets of terrorists while respecting the constitutional rights of American citizens.
rights
Statement on Counter-Terrorism Proposals and Civil Liberties
October 12, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 87:4
However, other provisions of this bill represent a major infringement of the American people’s constitutional rights. I am afraid that if these provisions are signed into law, the American people will lose large parts of their liberty--maybe not today but over time, as agencies grow more comfortable exercising their new powers. My concerns are exacerbated by the fact that HR 3108 lacks many of the protections of civil liberties which the House Judiciary Committee worked to put into the version of the bill they considered. In fact, the process under which we are asked to consider this bill makes it nearly impossible to fulfill our constitutional responsibility to carefully consider measures which dramatically increase government’s power.
rights
Statement on Counter-Terrorism Proposals and Civil Liberties
October 12, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 87:5
Many of the most constitutionally offensive measures in this bill are not limited to terrorist offenses, but apply to any criminal activity. In fact, some of the new police powers granted the government could be applied even to those engaging in peaceful protest against government policies. The bill as written defines terrorism as acts intended “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.” Under this broad definition, should a scuffle occur at an otherwise peaceful pro-life demonstration the sponsoring organization may become the target of a federal investigation for terrorism. We have seen abuses of law enforcement authority in the past to harass individuals or organizations with unpopular political views. I hope my colleagues consider that they may be handing a future administration tools to investigate pro-life or gun rights organizations on the grounds that fringe members of their movements advocate violence. It is an unfortunate reality that almost every political movement today, from gun rights to environmentalism, has a violent fringe.
rights
Statement on Counter-Terrorism Proposals and Civil Liberties
October 12, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 87:6
I am very disturbed by the provisions centralizing the power to issue writs of habeas corpus to federal courts located in the District of Columbia. Habeas corpus is one of the most powerful checks on government and anything which burdens the ability to exercise this right expands the potential for government abuses of liberty. I ask my colleagues to remember that in the centuries of experience with habeas corpus there is no evidence that it interferes with legitimate interests of law enforcement. HR 3108 also codifies one of the most common abuses of civil liberties in recent years by expanding the government’s ability to seize property from citizens who have not yet been convicted of a crime under the circumvention of the Bill of Rights known as “asset forfeiture.”
rights
Statement on Counter-Terrorism Proposals and Civil Liberties
October 12, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 87:11
Some defenders of individuals rights may point to the provisions establishing new penalties for violations of individual rights and the provisions “sunsetting” some of the government’s new powers as justifying support for this bill. Those who feel that simply increasing the penalties for “unauthorized” disclosure of information collected under this act should consider that existing laws did not stop the ineffectiveness of such laws in preventing the abuse of personal information collected by the IRS or FBI by administrations of both parties. As for “sunsetting,” I would ask if these provisions are critical tools in the fight against terrorism, why remove the government’s ability to use them after five years? Conversely, if these provisions violate American’s constitutional rights why is it acceptable to suspend the Constitution at all?
rights
Statement on HR 3004
October 17, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 88:4
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this package of unconstitutional expansions of the financial police state, most of which will prove ultimately ineffective in the war against terrorism. Instead, I hope Congress will work to fashion a measure aimed at giving the government a greater ability to locate and seize the assets of terrorists while respecting the constitutional rights of American citizens.
rights
A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS --
October 25, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 90:10
We are not even considering restoring the rights of pilots to carry weapons for self-defense as one of the solutions. Even though pilots once carried guns to protect the mail and armored truck drivers can still carry guns to protect money, protecting passengers with guns is prohibited on commercial flights. The U.S. Air Force can shoot down a wayward aircraft, but a pilot cannot shoot down an armed terrorist.
rights
Expansion of NATO is a Bad Idea
November 7, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 95:15
With this victory, however, NATO’s raison d’etre was destroyed. The alliance was created to defend against a Soviet system that as of 1991 had entirely ceased to exist. Rather than disbanding, though, NATO bureaucrats and the governments behind them reinvented the alliance and protected its existence by creating new dragons to slay. No longer was NATO to be an entirely defensive alliance. Rather, this “new” NATO began to occupy itself with a myriad of non-defense related issues like economic development and human rights. This was all codified at the Washington Summit of 1999, where the organization declared that it would concern itself with “economic, social and political difficulties ..... ethnic and religious rivalries, territorial disputes, inadequate or failed efforts at reform, the abuse of human rights, and the dissolution of states.” The new name of the NATO game was “interventionism”; defense was now passé.
rights
Statement on Preventing Identity Theft by Terrorists and Criminals
November 8, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 96:4
Madam Chairwoman, while I do not question the sincerity of those members who suggest that Congress can ensure citizens’ rights are protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for several reasons. First, it is simply common sense that repealing those federal laws that promote identity theft is more effective in protecting the public than expanding the power of the federal police force. Federal punishment of identity thieves provides cold comfort to those who have suffered financial losses and the destruction of their good reputation as a result of identity theft.
rights
Statement on Preventing Identity Theft by Terrorists and Criminals
November 8, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 96:6
My colleagues should remember that the federal government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”
rights
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:76
The threats to liberty seem endless. It seems we have forgotten to target the enemy. Instead we have inadvertently targeted the rights of American citizens. The crisis has offered a good opportunity for those who have argued all along for bigger government.
rights
Too Many Federal Cops
6 December 2001 2001 Ron Paul 104:8
The fact that George Bush has no intention of misusing such institutions is irrelevant. You don’t have to be a bad guy to abuse police power. Robert Kennedy, a darling of liberals, brushed aside civil liberties concerns when he went after organized crime and trampled on the rights of Jimmy Hoffa in his failed attempt to convict the Teamsters boss of something. He bugged and trailed Martin Luther King Jr., even collecting information on the civil rights leader’s private love life, until Lyndon Johnson put a stop to it.
rights
Too Many Federal Cops
6 December 2001 2001 Ron Paul 104:9
Bureaucratic momentum alone can cross over the line. After President John F. Kennedy privately berated the Army for being unprepared to quell the riots when James Meredith enrolled at the University of Mississippi, we (I was Army general counsel at the time) responded by collecting intelligence information on individuals such as civil rights leaders, as well as local government officials in places where we thought there might be future trouble. We were motivated not by any mischievous desire to violate privacy or liberties of Americans but by the bureaucratic reflex not to be caught short again.
rights
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 1:40
This was a rather blunt acknowledgment of our intentions. It is apparent that our policy has not changed with this administration. Our new Special Envoy to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, was at one time a lobbyist for the Taliban and worked for Unocal, the American oil company seeking rights to build oil and gas pipelines through northern Afghanistan. During his stint as a lobbyist, he urged approval of the Taliban and defended them in the U.S. press. He now, of course, sings a different tune with respect to the Taliban, but I am sure his views on the pipeline by U.S. companies has not changed.
rights
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 5:3
A similar conflict also exists once government attempts to legislate an end to a recession. In the 1970s, wage and price controls were used to suppress price inflation and to help the economy, without realizing the futility of such a policy. Not only did it not work, the economy was greatly harmed. Legislation, per se, is not necessarily harmful, but if it reflects bad policy, it is. The policy of wage and price controls makes things worse and represents a serious violation of people’s rights.
rights
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:23
The original Constitution did not contain the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment. Writing in Federalist No. 84, Alexander Hamilton defended this omission, claiming that a bill of rights was not needed in a republic with a written constitution expressly enumerating the powers of government. Indeed, Hamilton observed a bill of rights attached to such a constitution might well prove dangerous because placing express limits upon the exercise of a power might give rise to the assumption that such a power had been previously granted.
rights
Health Information Independence Act of 2002
February 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 11:7
In the more than two years since the Pearson decision, members of Congress have had to continually intervene with the FDA to ensure it followed the court order. The FDA continues to deny consumers access to truthful health information. Clearly, the FDA is determined to continue to (as the Pearson court pointed out) act as though liberalizing regulations regarding health claims is the equivalent of “asking consumers to buy something while hypnotized and therefore they are bound to be misled.” Therefore, if Congress is serious about respecting the First Amendment rights of the people, we must remove FDA authority to censor non-misleading health claims, and those claims which can be rendered non-misleading by the simple device of adopting a disclaimer, by passing my Health Information Independence Act.
rights
Health Information Independence Act of 2002
February 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 11:8
In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to help establish an objective process that respects consumers’ First Amendment rights to non-misleading information regarding the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements by cosponsoring the Health Information Independence Act.
rights
Statement on the International Criminal Court
February 28, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 13:8
Supporters of the International Criminal Court, like the World Federalist Association, claim that ICC procedures are in full accordance with the Bill of Rights. They aren’t. One pro-ICC website sponsored by the World Federalist Association, attempting to dispel “myths” about the Court, perhaps unintentionally provided some real insight. In response to the “myth” that the ICC is unconstitutional, the website argues that “The Rome Treaty establishing the International Criminal Court provides almost all the same due process protections as the U.S. Constitution. Every due process protection provided for in the Constitution is guaranteed by the Rome Treaty, with the exception of a trial by jury.” Since when is “almost all” equal to “all”? Either the Rome Treaty provides all the protections or it does not provide all the protections, and here we have by its own admission that the ICC is indeed at odds with American due process protections. So what else are they not telling the truth about? Another claim on the World Federalist Association website is that the ICC is that the rights of the accused to a presumption of innocence is guaranteed. Interestingly, on the very same website the accused Slobodan Milosevic is referred to as a “criminal.” Not very reassuring.
rights
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.
rights
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.”
rights
H.R. 476
17 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 23:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, in the name of a truly laudable cause (preventing abortion and protecting parental rights), today the Congress could potentially move our nation one step closer to a national police state by further expanding the list of federal crimes and usurping power from the states to adequately address the issue of parental rights and family law. Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of criminally federalizing all human malfeasance in the name of saving the world from some evil than to uphold a Constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure by which the nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil, totalitarianism carried out by a centralized government. Who, after all, wants to be amongst those members of Congress who are portrayed as trampling parental rights or supporting the transportation of minor females across state lines for ignoble purposes.
rights
H.R. 476
17 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 23:2
As an obstetrician of more than thirty years, I have personally delivered more than 4,000 children. During such time, I have not performed a single abortion. On the contrary, I have spoken and written extensively and publicly condemning this “medical” procedure. At the same time, I have remained committed to upholding the constitutional procedural protections which leave the police power decentralized and in control of the states. In the name of protecting states’ rights, this bill usurps states’ rights by creating yet another federal crime.
rights
H.R. 476
17 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 23:3
Our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers, Article one, Section eight, enumerates the legislative area for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issues, the federal government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the state governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.
rights
H.R. 476
17 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 23:4
Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress today will likely pass H.R. 476. H.R. 476 amends title 18, Untied States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State line to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Should parents be involved in decisions regarding the health of their children? Absolutely. Should the law respect parents rights to not have their children taken across state lines for contemptible purposes? Absolutely. Can a state pass an enforceable statute to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions? Absolutely. But when asked if there exists constitutional authority for the federal criminalizing of just such an action the answer is absolutely not.
rights
H.R. 476
17 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 23:5
This federalizing may have the effect of nationalizing a law with criminal penalties which may be less than those desired by some states. To the extent the federal and state laws could co-exist, the necessity for a federal law is undermined and an important bill of rights protection is virtually obliterated. Concurrent jurisdiction crimes erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the federal government and a state government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of the unconstitutionally expanding the federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.
rights
H.R. 476
17 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 23:8
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions. An inadequate federal law, or an “adequate” federal law improperly interpreted by the Supreme Court, preempts states’ rights to adequately address public health concerns. Roe v. Wade should serve as a sad reminder of the danger of making matters worse in all states by federalizing an issue.
rights
Honoring Calhoun High School
29 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 26:2
The “We the People” program was begun in 1987, with the goal of enhancing students’ understanding of the institutions of American constitutional democracy, while guiding them to discover modern day applications of the Constitution and the Bill if Rights. It is a time consuming study requiring many hours of preparation, both in and out of the classroom. Each participant takes a multiple-choice test, and prepares for a simulated Congressional hearing in which students “testify” before a panel of judges.
rights
Honoring San Marcos High School
29 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 27:2
The “We the People” program was begun in 1987, with the goal of enhancing students’ understanding of the institutions of American constitutional democracy, while guiding them to discover modern day applications of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is a time consuming study requiring many hours of preparation, both in and out of the classroom. Each participant takes a multiple-choice test, and prepared for a simulated Congressional hearing in which students “testify” before a panel of judges.
rights
Say No to Conscription
May 9, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 35:8
The question is nothing less, than whether the most essential rights of personal liberty shall be surrendered, and despotism embraced in its worst form. When the present generation of men shall be swept away, and that this Government ever existed shall be a matter of history only, I desire that it may then be known, that you have not proceeded in your course unadmonished and unforewarned. Let it then be known, that there were those, who would have stopped you, in the career of your measures, and held you back, as by the skirts of your garments, from the precipice, over which you are plunging, and drawing after you the Government of your Country.
rights
Say No to Conscription
May 9, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 35:10
Is this, Sir, consistent with the character of a free Government? Is this civil liberty? Is this the real character of our Constitution? No, Sir, indeed it is not. The Constitution is libeled, foully libeled. The people of this country have not established for themselves such a fabric of despotism. They have not purchased at a vast expense of their own treasure and their own blood a Magna Carta to be slaves. Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty? Sir, I almost disdain to go to quotations and references to prove that such an abominable doctrine has no foundation in the Constitution of the country. It is enough to know that that instrument was intended as the basis of a free Government, and that the power contended for is incompatible with any notion of personal liberty. An attempt to maintain this doctrine upon the provisions of the Constitution is an exercise of perverse ingenuity to extract slavery from the substance of a free Government. It is an attempt to show, by proof and argument, that we ourselves are subjects of despotism, and that we have a right to chains and bondage, firmly secured to us and our children, by the provisions of our Government.
rights
Amendment 9
9 May 2002 2002 Ron Paul 37:9
But there is no time to rest on this victory. As Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated this week, upon our renunciation of the ICC: “Unfortunately, the ICC will not respect the U.S. decision to stay out of the treaty. To the contrary, the ICC provisions claim the authority to detain and try American citizens — U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, as well as current and future officials — even though the United States has not given its consent to be bound by the treaty.” Secretary Rumsfeld added, “When the ICC treaty enters into force this summer, U.S. citizens will be exposed to the risk of prosecution by a court that is unaccountable to the American people, and that has no obligation to respect the Constitutional rights of our citizens.”
rights
Statement on the introduction of H. Res. 416, Expressing the Sense of the Congress regarding the International Criminal Court
May 9, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 39:5
But this is only a first step. As Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated this week, upon our renunciation of the ICC: "Unfortunately, the ICC will not respect the U.S. decision to stay out of the treaty. To the contrary, the ICC provisions claim the authority to detain and try American citizens-U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, as well as current and future officials-even though the United States has not given its consent to be bound by the treaty." Secretary Rumsfeld added, "When the ICC treaty enters into force this summer, U.S. citizens will be exposed to the risk of prosecution by a court that is unaccountable to the American people, and that has no obligation to respect the Constitutional rights of our citizens."
rights
Stop Perpetuating the Welfare State
May 16, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 42:25
Secretary Thompson, with the blessing of the president, seems to be taking us down a road that violates the tenets of states’ rights.
rights
BAD TAX POLICY SENDS COMPANIES OVERSEAS
June 11, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 55:5
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again urge my colleagues to read Mr. Mitchell’s article, which forcefully makes the case that taxing offshore income is economically destructive. Such taxation also is inconsistent with the respect for individual liberty and private property rights which forms the foundation of America’s constitutional republic, as well as a threat to the sovereign right of nations to determine the tax treatment of income earned inside national borders. I hope my colleagues will reject efforts to subject companies that reincorporate overseas to burdensome new taxes and regulations. Expanding federal power in order to prevent companies from reincorporating will only kill American jobs and further weaken America’s economy.
rights
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:15
Most police states, surprisingly, come about through the democratic process with majority support. During a crisis, the rights of individuals and the minority are more easily trampled, which is more likely to condition a nation to become a police state than a military coup. Promised benefits initially seem to exceed the cost in dollars or lost freedom. When people face terrorism or great fear – from whatever source – the tendency to demand economic and physical security over liberty and self-reliance proves irresistible. The masses are easily led to believe that security and liberty are mutually exclusive, and demand for security far exceeds that for liberty.
rights
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:36
One of the most onerous controls placed on American citizens is the control of speech through politically correct legislation. Derogatory remarks or off-color jokes are justification for firings, demotions, and the destruction of political careers. The movement toward designating penalties based on the category to which victims belong, rather the nature of the crime itself, has the thought police patrolling the airways and byways. Establishing relative rights and special penalties for subjective motivation is a dangerous trend.
rights
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:65
What if the al Qaeda is telling the truth and we ignore it? If we believe only the official line from the administration and proceed to change our whole system and undermine our constitutional rights, we may one day wake up to find that the attacks have increased, the numbers of those willing to commit suicide for their cause have grown, our freedoms are diminished, and all this has contributed to making our economic problems worse. The dollar cost of this “war” could turn out to be exorbitant, and the efficiency of our markets can be undermined by the compromises placed on our liberties.
rights
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:101
-Military tribunals set up by executive order-undermining the rights of those accused- rights established as far back in history as 1215.
rights
H.R. 2896
10 July 2002 2002 Ron Paul 67:5
That principle should be applied to the airlines. It should be applied because guns can prevent crime, and we should allow them to be placed in the hands of the owners. I have a tie that is a favorite tie of mine, and it has a picture of the Bill of Rights, but it has a stamp over it which says, “void where prohibited by law.” I think we do too much of that around here.
rights
H.R. 2896
10 July 2002 2002 Ron Paul 67:6
A lot of times I get support from the other side of the aisle when they see the prohibitions that our legislation places on the First Amendment. Likewise, I get a lot of support when I would like to reduce the prohibitions on the Fourth Amendment in the area of privacy. Unfortunately, since 9–11, we have moved in the wrong direction. We are making more prohibitions by law on our Bill of Rights.
rights
H.R. 2896
10 July 2002 2002 Ron Paul 67:7
In this case we are moving in the right direction because we are trying to remove some prohibitions that are limiting our Second Amendment rights. Our job here in the Congress should be to protect the Second Amendment, never to get in the way of the Second Amendment. This is why, although this amendment improves the bill and the bill is moving in that direction, I can support it, but we ought to do a lot more.
rights
H.R. 2896
10 July 2002 2002 Ron Paul 67:8
Another example of how private property could work was the recent example at LAX Airport. Private owners of an airline assumed responsibility for security at the gate. Many lives were probably saved with El Al guards, private guards with private weapons, that tragically are denied to American airlines. Because of an agreement between one foreign airline and the U.S. Department of Transportation, it has been given permission to protect their people better than we are allowed to protect ourselves. That to me just seems downright foolish, and I think we in the Congress should demand our rights of the Second Amendment and insist on the responsibility of property owners to protect their property and to protect our lives.
rights
H.R. 2896
10 July 2002 2002 Ron Paul 67:11
We need to, once again, believe in America, believe in freedom, believe in the Bill of Rights, and let the people take care of so many of these problems instead of getting in the way. This bill, fortunately, is helping to get the government out of the way. That is why I support it.
rights
Hard Questions for Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan
July 17, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 71:4
"Now I would like to bring us back to sound money. And I would like to quote an eminent economist by the name of Alan Greenspan who gives me some credibility on what I am interested in. A time ago you said, “In the absence of the gold standard there is no way to protect savings from the confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value without gold. This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists’ tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the hidden confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process that stands as a protector of property rights.’"
rights
Department of Homeland Security
26 July 2002 2002 Ron Paul 80:9
The airlines are bailed out and given guaranteed insurance against all threats. We have made the airline industry a public utility that get to keep its profits and pass on its losses to the taxpayers, like Amtrak and the post office. Instead of more ownership responsibility, we get more government controls. I am reluctant, to say the least, to give any new powers to bureaucrats who refuse to recognize the vital role free citizens exercising their second amendment rights play in homeland security.
rights
The Price Of War
5 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 83:32
Acting in our own interest is to be applauded, but what we are getting is not a good alternative to one-world government. We do not get our sovereignty back, yet we continue to subject ourselves to great potential financial burden and loss of liberty as we shift from a national government with constitutional protection of rights to an international government where our citizens’ rights are threatened by treaties we have not even ratified, like the Kyoto and the international criminal court treaties.
rights
The Price Of War
5 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 83:39
Protecting our national sovereignty and guaranteeing constitutional protection of our citizens’ rights are crucial. Respecting the sovereignty of other nations, even when we are in disagreement with some of their policies, is also necessary. Changing others then becomes a job of persuasion and example, not force and intimidation, just as it is in trying to improve the personal behavior of our fellow citizens here at home.
rights
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
10 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 86:20
“An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions. They seem to sense — perhaps more clearly and subtly than many consistent defenders of laissez-faire — that gold and economic freedom are inseparable, that the gold standard is an instrument of laissez-faire and that each implies and requires the other. . . . This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists’ tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights.”
rights
Rent-To-Own Contracts
18 september 2002 2002 Ron Paul 88:4
Some may claim that H.R. 1701 respects states’ rights, because it does not preempt those state regulations acceptable to federal regulators. However, Mr. Chairman, this turns the constitutional meaning of federalism on its head. After all, the 10th amendment does not limit its protections to state laws approved of by the federal bureaucracy.
rights
Introduction of the Television Consumer Freedom Act
October 1, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 93:3
It is, of course, within the constitutionally enumerated powers of Congress to "promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." However, operating a clearing-house for the subsequent transfer of such property rights in the name of setting a just price or "instilling competition" via "central planning" seems not to be an economically prudent nor justifiable action under this enumerated power. This process is one best reserved to the competitive marketplace.
rights
Introduction of the Television Consumer Freedom Act
October 1, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 93:4
Government’s attempt to set the just price for satellite programming outside the market mechanism is inherently impossible. This has resulted in competition among service providers for government privilege rather than the consumer benefits inherent to the genuine free market. Currently, while federal regulation does leave satellite programming service providers free to bypass the governmental royalty distribution scheme and negotiate directly with owners of programming for program rights, there is a federal prohibition on satellite service providers making local network affiliates’ programs available to nearby satellite subscribers. This bill repeals that federal prohibition and allows satellite service providers to more freely negotiate with program owners for programming desired by satellite service subscribers. Technology is now available by which viewers will be able to view network programs via satellite as presented by their nearest network affiliate. This market-generated technology will remove a major stumbling block to negotiations that should currently be taking place between network program owners and satellite service providers.
rights
Is Congress Relevant with Regards to War?
October 3, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 94:8
However, the modern way we go to war is even more complex and deceptive. We must also write language that satisfies the UN and all our allies. Congress gladly transfers the legislative prerogatives to declare war to the President, and the legislative and the executive branch both acquiesce in transferring our sovereign rights to the UN, an un-elected international government. No wonder the language of the resolution grows in length and incorporates justification for starting this war by citing UN Resolutions.
rights
Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq
October 8, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 96:25
Three years ago, during Iraq’s six-month occupation of Kuwait, there had been an outcry when a teen-age Kuwaiti girl testified eloquently and effectively before Congress about Iraqi atrocities involving newborn infants. The girl turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to Washington, Sheikh Saud Nasir al-Sabah, and her account of Iraqi soldiers flinging babies out of incubators was challenged as exaggerated both by journalists and by human-rights groups. ( Sheikh Saud was subsequently named Minister of Information in Kuwait, and he was the government official in charge of briefing the international press on the alleged assassination attempt against George Bush .) In a second incident, in August of 1991, Kuwait provoked a special session of the United Nations Security Council by claiming that twelve Iraqi vessels, including a speedboat, had been involved in an attempt to assault Bubiyan Island, long-disputed territory that was then under Kuwaiti control. The Security Council eventually concluded that, while the Iraqis had been provocative, there had been no Iraqi military raid, and that the Kuwaiti government knew there hadn’t. What did take place was nothing more than a smuggler-versus-smuggler dispute over war booty in a nearby demilitarized zone that had emerged, after the Gulf War, as an illegal marketplace for alcohol, ammunition, and livestock.
rights
Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq
October 8, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 96:31
In September 1988, however – a month after the war (between Iran and Iraq) had ended – the State Department abruptly, and in what many viewed as a sensational manner, condemned Iraq for allegedly using chemicals against its Kurdish population. The incident cannot be understood without some background of Iraq’s relations with the Kurds…throughout the war Iraq effectively faced two enemies – Iran and elements of its own Kurdish minority. Significant numbers of the Kurds had launched a revolt against Baghdad and in the process teamed up with Tehran. As soon as the war with Iran ended, Iraq announced its determination to crush the Kurdish insurrection. It sent Republican Guards to the Kurdish area, and in the course of the operation – according to the U.S. State Department – gas was used, with the result that numerous Kurdish civilians were killed. The Iraqi government denied that any such gassing had occurred. Nonetheless, Secretary of State Schultz stood by U.S. accusations, and the U.S. Congress, acting on its own, sought to impose economic sanctions on Baghdad as a violator of the Kurds’ human rights.
rights
Treatment Of Mr. Martin Mawyer By U.N. Officers Must Be Investigated
16 October 2002 2002 Ron Paul 100:19
“What is most outrageous about this incident is that the U.N. has consistently criticized the United States, our law enforcement and criminal justice systems, and has even asked to inspect our prisons and jails to make sure we are treating prisoners fairly,” said Mawyer. “Yet they brutally assaulted me on the steps of their headquarters, then I was tossed in jail, my First Amendment rights were violated — all the while they sit on U.S. soil, enjoying the blessings of our nation and the fruits of our industry. They won’t even accept the valid petitions from the very citizens whose own tax dollars support them.”
rights
Oppose The New Homeland Security Bureaucracy!
November 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 101:5
HR 5710 also expands the federal police state by allowing the attorney general to authorize federal agency inspectors general and their agents to carry firearms and make warrantless arrests. One of the most disturbing trends in recent years is the increase in the number of federal officials authorized to carry guns. This is especially disturbing when combined with the increasing trend toward restricting the ability of average Americans to exercise their second amendment rights. Arming the government while disarming the public encourages abuses of power.
rights
“You Are A Suspect”
14 November 2002 2002 Ron Paul 103:10
When George W. Bush was running for president, he stood foursquare in defense of each person’s medical, financial and communications privacy. But Poindexter, whose contempt for the restraints of oversight drew the Reagan administration into its most serious blunder, is still operating on the presumption that on such a sweeping theft of privacy rights, the buck ends with him and not with the president.
rights
Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential
January 7, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 4:7
Mr. Speaker, of all the invasions of privacy proposed in the past decade, perhaps the most onerous is the attempt to assign every American a “unique health identifier” — an identifier which could be used to create a national database containing the medical history of all Americans. As an OB/GYN with more than 30 years in private practice, I know the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. What will happen to that trust when patients know that any and all information given to their doctor will be placed in a government accessible database? Some members of Congress may claim that the federal monitoring of all Americans will enhance security. However, the fact is that creating a surveillance state will divert valuable resources away from investigating legitimate security threats into spying on innocent Americans, thus reducing security. The American people would be better served if the government focused attention on ensuring our borders are closed to potential terrorists instead of coming up with new ways to violate the rights of American citizens.
rights
Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential
January 7, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 4:9
Mr. Speaker, while I do not question the sincerity of those members who suggest that Congress can ensure that citizens’ rights are protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, the only effective privacy protection is to forbid the federal government from mandating national identifiers. Legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for several reasons:
rights
Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential
January 7, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 4:14
The primary reason why any action short of the repeal of laws authorizing privacy violations is insufficient is because the federal government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”
rights
Restoring the Second Amendment
January 9, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 5:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to restore the right the founding fathers saw as the guarantee of every other right by introducing the Second Amendment Protection Act. This legislation reverses the steady erosion of the right to keep and bear arms by repealing unconstitutional laws that allow power-hungry federal bureaucrats to restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners.
rights
Restoring the Second Amendment
January 9, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 5:2
Specifically, my legislation repeals the five-day waiting period and the “instant” background check, which enables the federal government to compile a database of every gun owner in America. My legislation also repeals the misnamed ban on “semi-automatic” weapons, which bans entire class of firearms for no conceivable reason beside the desire of demagogic politicians to appear tough on crime. Finally, my bill amends the Gun Control Act of 1968 by deleting the “sporting purposes” test, which allows the Treasury Secretary to infringe on second amendment rights by classifying a firearm (handgun, rifle, shotgun) as a “destructive device” simply because the Secretary believes the gun to be “non-sporting.”
rights
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:2
Madison, the Father of the Constitution, could not have been more explicit in his fear and concern for democracies. “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contentions, have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
rights
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:16
Chronic concern about war and economic downturns events caused by an intrusive government’s failure to follow the binding restraints of the Constitution allowed majority demands to supercede the rights of the minority. By the end of the 20th century, majority opinion had become the determining factor in all that government does. The rule of law was cast aside, leaving the Constitution a shell of what it once was, a Constitution with rules that guaranteed a Republic with limit and regional government and protection of personal liberty.
rights
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:17
The marketplace, driven by voluntary cooperation, private property ownership, and sound money was severely undermined with the acceptance of the principles of true democracy. Unfortunately, too many people confused the democratic elections of leaders in a Republic for democracy by accepting the rule of majority opinion in all affairs. For majorities to pick leaders is one thing. It is something quite different for majorities to decide what rights are, to redistribute property, to tell people how to manage their personal lives, and to promote undeclared, unconstitutional wars.
rights
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:24
Today, the concepts of rights and property ownership are completely arbitrary. Congress, the courts, Presidents and bureaucrats arbitrarily legislate on a daily basis, seeking only the endorsement of the majority. Although the Republic was designed to protect the minority against the dictates of the majority, today we find the reverse. The Republic is no longer recognizable.
rights
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:118
The rule of law in a republic protects free-market activity and private property ownership and provides for equal justice under the law. It is this respect for law and rights over government power that protects the mainspring of human progress from the enemies of liberty. Communists and other Socialists have routinely argued that the law is merely a tool of the powerful capitalists.
rights
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:119
But they have it backwards. Under democracy and fascism, the pseudocapitalists write the laws that undermine the Constitution and jeopardize the rights and property of all citizens. They fail to realize that the real law, the Constitution, itself guarantees the rights and equal justice and permits capitalism, thus guaranteeing progress.
rights
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:120
Arbitrary, ever-changing laws are the friends of dictators. Authoritarians argue constantly that the Constitution is a living document and that rigid obedience to ideological purity is the enemy that we should be most concerned about. They would have us believe that those who cherish strict obedience to the rule of law in the defense of liberty are wrong merely because they demand ideological purity. They fail to demand that their love of relative rights and pure democracy is driven by a rigid obedience to an ideology as well. The issue is never rigid beliefs versus reasonable friendly compromise. In politics it is always competition between two strongly held ideologies. The only challenge for men and women of goodwill is to decide the wisdom and truth of the ideologies offered.
rights
Condemning The Selection Of Libya To Chair The United Nations Commission On Human Rights
11 February 2003 2003 Ron Paul 19:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I must reluctantly vote against this measure. We can all agree that Libya is a ridiculous choice to head a human rights commission in any civilized organization. The State Department has long listed Libya on its list of states sponsoring terrorism. Libya has shown over the years that it has no respect whatsoever for human rights, when it comes to its dealings with the rest of the world or even its own citizens. Additionally, this election just underscores what I have been saying for years about the United Nations: it is an organization that undermines American sovereignty and consistently works against U.S. interests.
rights
Condemning The Selection Of Libya To Chair The United Nations Commission On Human Rights
11 February 2003 2003 Ron Paul 19:2
The problem with this legislation, however, is that it pretends to be something it is not. It pretends to be simply a condemnation of the elevation of Libya to head the UN Commission on Human Rights. Were that the case I would have voted in favor of the measure.
rights
Condemning The Selection Of Libya To Chair The United Nations Commission On Human Rights
11 February 2003 2003 Ron Paul 19:5
Mr. Speaker, I join my fellow members in condemning Libya’s election to chair the UN Human Rights Committee. I do not support sanctions, be they against Libya or any other country.
rights
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 31:2
The United States continues to pay the lion’s share of the U.N. budget, yet it is routinely kicked off committees like the Human Rights Committee by some of the most egregious of human rights abusing countries. This is absurd and we shouldn’t have to pay for it.
rights
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 31:9
By definition, a treaty is a contract between or among independent and sovereign nations, obligatory on the signatories only when by competent governing authorities in accordance with the powers constitutionally conferred upon them. I Kent, Commentaries on American Law 163 (1826); Burdick, The Law of the American Constitution section 34 (1922) Even the United Nations Treaty Collection states that a treaty is (1) a binding instrument creating legal rights and duties (2) concluded by states or international organizations with treaty-making powers (3) governed by international law.
rights
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 31:11
The United Nations Treaty Collection confirms the appropriateness of this ‘constitutional interpretive’ approach to the Charter of the United Nations with its statement that the charter may be traced ‘back to the Magna Carta (the Great Charter) of 1215,’ a national constitutional document. As a constitutional document, the Magna Carta not only bound the original signatories,, the English barons and the king, but all subsequent English rulers, including Parliament, conferring upon all Englishmen certain rights that five hundred years later were claimed and exercised by the English people who had colonized America.
rights
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 31:23
Even though we are an organization of Member States, the rights and ideals the United Nations exists to protect are those of the peoples. No government has the right to hide behind national sovereignty in order to violate the human rights or fundamental freedoms of its peoples. Human Development Report 2000 31 (July 2000) [Emphasis added.]
rights
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 31:24
While no previous United Nations’ secretary general has been so bold, Annan’s proclamation of universal jurisdiction over ‘human rights and fundamental freedoms’ simply reflects the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations which contemplated a future in which the United Nations operates in perpetuity ‘to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war . . . to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights . . . to establish conditions under which justice . . . can be maintained, and to promote social progress and between standards of life in larger freedom.’ Such lofty goals and objectives are comparable to those found in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America: ‘to . . . establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the Blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity . . .’
rights
Quality Health Care Coalition Act
12 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 32:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Quality Health Care Coalition Act, which takes a first step towards restoring a true free market in health care by restoring the rights of freedom of contract and association to health care professionals. Over the past few years, we have had much debate in Congress about the difficulties medical professionals and patients are having with Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). HMOs are devices used by insurance industries to ration health care. While it is politically popular for members of Congress to bash the HMOs and the insurance industry, the growth of the HMOs are rooted in past government interventions in the health care market though the tax code, the Employment Retirement Security Act (ERSIA), and the federal anti-trust laws. These interventions took control of the health care dollar away from individual patients and providers, thus making it inevitable that something like the HMOs would emerge as a means to control costs.
rights
Quality Health Care Coalition Act
12 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 32:5
Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to interfere with the private contracts of American citizens. Furthermore, the prohibitions on contracting contained in the Sherman antitrust laws are based on a flawed economic theory which holds that federal regulators can improve upon market outcomes by restricting the rights of certain market participants deemed too powerful by the government. In fact, anti-trust laws harm consumers by preventing the operation of the free-market, causing prices to rise, quality to suffer, and, as is certainly the case with the relationship between the HMOs and medical professionals, favoring certain industries over others.
rights
Quality Health Care Coalition Act
12 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 32:6
By restoring the freedom of medical professionals to voluntarily come together to negotiate as a group with HMOs and insurance companies, this bill removes a government-imposed barrier to a true free market in health care. Of course, this bill does not infringe on the rights of health care professionals by forcing them to join a bargaining organization against their will. While Congress should protect the rights of all Americans to join organizations for the purpose of bargaining collectively, Congress also has a moral responsibility to ensure that no worker is forced by law to join or financially support such an organization.
rights
Second Amendment Restoration Act
9 April 2003 2003 Ron Paul 47:7
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would remind my fellow supporters of gun rights that using unconstitutional federal powers to restrict state gun lawsuits makes it more likely those same powers will be used to restrict our gun rights. Despite these lawsuits, the number one threat to gun ownership remains a federal government freed of its constitutional restraints. Expanding that government in any way, no matter how just the cause may seem, is not in the interests of gun owners or any lovers of liberty.
rights
Repeal the So-Called “Medical Privacy Rule”
April 9, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 49:9
Forcing individuals to divulge medical information without their consent also runs afoul of the Fifth amendment’s prohibition on taking private property for public use without just compensation. After all, people do have a legitimate property interest in their private information. Therefore, restrictions on an individual’s ability to control the dissemination of their private information represents a massive regulatory taking. The takings clause is designed to prevent this type of sacrifice of individual property rights for the “greater good.”
rights
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.
rights
Voter Protection Act
1 May 2003 2003 Ron Paul 55:2
I want to make 4 points about this bill. First, it is constitutional. Article I, section 4, explicitly authorizes the U.S. Congress to, “At any time by law make or alter such regulations regarding the manner of holding elections.” This is the authority that was used for the Voter Rights Act of 1965.
rights
The Flag Burning Amendment
June 3, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 57:26
“Our Nation was not founded on devotion to symbolic idols, but on principles, beliefs and ideals expressed in the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. American veterans who have protected our banner in battle have not done so to protect a golden calf. Instead, they carried the banner forward with reverence for what it represents, our beliefs and freedom for all. Therein lies the beauty of our flag. A patriot cannot be created by legislation.”
rights
The Flag Burning Amendment
June 3, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 57:30
One of the very first laws that Red China passed upon assuming control of Hong Kong was to make flag burning illegal. Since that time, they have prosecuted some individuals for flag burning. Our State Department keeps records of how often the Red Chinese persecute people for burning the Chinese flag, as it considers those prosecutions an example of how the Red Chinese violate human rights. Those violations are used against Red China in the argument that they should not have most-favored-nation status. There is just a bit of hypocrisy among those members who claim this amendment does not interfere with fundamental liberties, yet are critical of Red China for punishing those who burn the Chinese flag.
rights
The Flag Burning Amendment
June 3, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 57:31
Mr. Speaker, this is ultimately an attack on private property. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression depend on property. We do not have freedom of expression of our religion in other people’s churches; it is honored and respected because we respect the ownership of the property. The property conveys the right of free expression, as a newspaper would or a radio station. Once Congress limits property rights, for any cause, no matter how noble, it limits freedom.
rights
The Flag Burning Amendment
June 3, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 57:32
Some claim that this is not an issue of private property rights because the flag belongs to the country. The flag belongs to everybody. But if you say that, you are a collectivist. That means you believe everybody owns everything. So why do American citizens have to spend money to obtain, and maintain, a flag if the flag is community owned? If your neighbor, or the Federal Government, owns a flag, even without this amendment you do not have the right to go and burn that flag. If you are causing civil disturbances, you are liable for your conduct under state and local laws. But this whole idea that there could be a collective ownership of the flag is erroneous.
rights
The Flag Burning Amendment
June 3, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 57:34
We must be interested in the spirit of our Constitution. We must be interested in the principles of liberty. I therefore urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Instead, my colleagues should work to restore the rights of the individual states to ban flag burning, free from unconstitutional interference by the Supreme Court.
rights
Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle.
June 4, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 59:1
As an obstetrician who has delivered over 4000 children, I have long been concerned with the rights of unborn people. I believe this is the greatest moral issue of our time. The very best of the western intellectual tradition has understood the critical link between moral and political action. Each of these disciplines should strongly inform and support the other.
rights
Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle.
June 4, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 59:4
When we surrender constitutional principles, we do untold damage to the moral underpinnings on which our Constitution and entire system of government rest. Those underpinnings are the inalienable right to life, liberty, and property. Commenting upon the link between our most important rights, Thomas Jefferson said “The God which gave us life gave us at the same time liberty. The hands of force may destroy but can never divide these.”
rights
Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle.
June 4, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 59:5
M. Stanton Evans further explained the link between our form of government and the rights it protects when he wrote, “The genius of the Constitution is its division of powers-summed up in that clause reserving to the several states, or the people, all powers not expressly granted to the federal government.”
rights
Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle.
June 4, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 59:6
Pro-lifers should be fiercely loyal to this system of federalism, because the very same Constitution that created the federal system also asserts the inalienable right to life. In this way, our constitutional system closely links federalism to the fundamental moral rights to life, liberty, and property. For our Founders it was no exaggeration to say federalism is the means by which life, as well as liberty and property, are protected in this nation. This is why the recent direction of the pro-life cause is so disturbing.
rights
Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle.
June 4, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 59:7
Pro-life forces have worked for the passage of bills that disregard the federal system, such as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the federal cloning ban, and the Child Custody Protection Act. Each of these bills rested on specious constitutional grounds and undermined the federalism our Founders recognized and intended as the greatest protection of our most precious rights.
rights
Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle.
June 4, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 59:10
Even the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, which is an integral part of the current pro-life agenda, presents a dilemma. While I have always supported this Act and plan to do so in the future, I realize that it raises questions of federalism because authority over criminal law is constitutionally retained by the states. The only reason a federal law has any legitimacy in this area is that the Supreme Court took it upon itself to federalize abortion via Roe v. Wade. Accordingly, wrestling the abortion issue from the federal courts and putting it back in the hands of the elected legislature comports with the Founder’s view of the separation of powers that protects our rights to life, liberty, and property.
rights
Amendment 6 To de-Fund The United Nations — Part 1
15 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 75:7
It gets to be almost a joke around the world about some of the things the U.N. does. When you think about the Commission of Human Rights and who is appointed as the chairman of the Commission of Human Rights, nobody else other than Libya. And before the war it was actually Iraq who was supposed to chair the Disarmament Commission.
rights
The Senior Citizens Freedom Of Choice Act
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 81:6
Forcing seniors into any government program as a precondition of receiving their promised Social Security benefits both violates the promise of Social Security and infringes on the freedom of seniors who do not wish to participate in Medicare. As the author of the submitted letter says, “. . . I should be able to choose the medical arrangements I prefer without suffering the penalty that is being imposed.” I urge my colleagues to protect the rights of seniors to make the medical arrangements that best suit their own needs by cosponsoring the Senior Citizens Freedom of Choice Act.
rights
Medicinal Marijuana
22 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 89:6
That is how far the ninth and tenth amendments have been undermined, that there has been so much usurpation of States’ rights and States’ abilities to manage these affair, and that is why the Founders set the system up this way in order that if there is a mistake it not be monolithic; and believe me, the Federal Government has made a mistake not only here with marijuana, with all the drug laws, let me tell my colleagues.
rights
Reject UN Gun Control!
September 18, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 101:2
Over the past decade, the UN has waged a campaign to undermine gun rights protected by the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has called on members of the Security Council to “tackle” the proliferation and “easy availability” of small arms and light weapons. Just this June, the UN tried to “tackle” gun rights by sponsoring a “Week of Action Against Small Arms.” Of course, by small arms, the UN really means all privately owned firearms.
rights
American Dream Downpayment Act
1 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 104:7
H.R. 1276 distorts the economy and violates constitutional prohibitions on income redistribution. A better way of guaranteeing an efficient housing market where everyone could meet their own needs for housing would be for Congress to repeal taxes and programs that burden the housing industry and allow housing needs to be met by the free market. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and instead develop housing policies consistent with constitutional principles, the laws of economics, and respect for individual rights.
rights
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 105:8
Perhaps that is one reason much of what NED has done in the former Communist Bloc has ended up benefiting former communists in those countries. As British Helsinki Human Rights Group Director Christine Stone has written:
rights
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 111:55
“There are ominous signs that the strategy of empire has already begun to erode our fundamental rights and liberties. More and more power is being claimed by the executive branch. And on the economic front,” which is important in my argument, “on the economic front, an imperial strategy threatens to weaken us as a Nation, overextending and bleeding the economy and straining our military and Federal budgets.”
rights
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 February 2004 2004 Ron Paul 8:4
Nevertheless, our Federal Government is constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the Federal Government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the State governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The 10th amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our Nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.
rights
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 February 2004 2004 Ron Paul 8:5
However, Congress does more damage than just expanding the class to whom Federal murder and assault statutes apply — it further entrenches and seemingly concurs with the Roe v. Wade decision — the Court’s intrusion into rights of States and their previous attempts to protect by criminal statute the unborn’s right not to be aggressed against. By specifically exempting from prosecution both abortionists and the mothers of the unborn — as is the case with this legislation — Congress appears to say that protection of the unborn child is not only a Federal matter but conditioned upon motive. In fact, the Judiciary Committee in marking up the bill, took an odd legal turn by making the assault on the unborn a strict liability offense insofar as the bill does not even require knowledge on the part of the aggressor that the unborn child exists. Murder statutes and common law murder require intent to kill — which implies knowledge — on the part of the aggressor. Here, however, we have the odd legal philosophy that an abortionist with full knowledge of his terminal act is not subject to prosecution while an aggressor acting without knowledge of the child’s existence is subject to nearly the full penalty of the law. With respect to only the fetus, the bill exempts the murderer from the death sentence — yet another diminution of the unborn’s personhood status and clearly a violation of the equal protection clause. It is becoming more and more difficult for Congress and the courts to pass the smell test as government simultaneously treats the unborn as a person in some instances and as a nonperson in others.
rights
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 February 2004 2004 Ron Paul 8:11
Protection of life — born or unborn — against initiations of violence is of vital importance. So vitally important, in fact, it must be left to the States’ criminal justice systems. We have seen what a legal, constitutional, and philosophical mess results from attempts to federalize such an issue. Numerous States have adequately protected the unborn against assault and murder and done so prior to the Federal Government’s unconstitutional sanctioning of violence in the Roe v. Wade decision. Unfortunately, H.R. 1997 ignores the danger of further federalizing that which is properly reserved to State governments and, in so doing, throws legal philosophy, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the insights of Chief Justice Rehnquist out with the baby and the bathwater.
rights
An Indecent Attack on the First Amendment
March 10, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 14:7
Just one year ago we saw a coalition of both left and right push through the radical Campaign Finance Reform Act, which strictly curtails the rights all Americans to speak out against particular candidates at the time of elections. Amazingly, this usurpation by Congress was upheld by the Supreme Court, which showed no concern for the restrictions on political speech during political campaigns. Instead of admitting that money and corruption in government is not a consequence of too much freedom of expression, but rather a result of government acting outside the bounds of the Constitution, this new law addressed a symptom rather than the cause of special interest control of our legislative process.
rights
Opposing H.R. 557
17 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 19:9
Presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld and Tariq Aziz meet for two and one-half hours and agree that “the U.S. and Iraq shared many common interests,” including peace in the Persian Gulf, the desire to diminish the influence of Iran and Syria, and support for reintegrating Egypt, isolated since its unilateral peace with Israel, into the Arab world. Rumsfeld comments on Iraq’s oil exports, suggests alternative pipeline facilities, and discusses opposition to international terrorism and support for a fair Arab-Israeli peace. He and Aziz discuss the Iran-Iraq war “in detail.” Rumsfeld says that the administration wants an end to the war, and offers “our willingness to do more.” He mentions chemical weapons, possible escalation of fighting in the Gulf, and human rights as impediments to the U.S. government’s desire to do more to help Iraq, then shifts the conversation to U.S. opposition to Syria’s role in Lebanon.
rights
Don’t Let the FDA Block Access to Needed Health Care Information
March 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 20:8
The FDA’s “grocery store censorship” not only violates consumers’ First Amendment rights- by preventing consumers from learning about the benefits of foods and dietary supplements, the FDA’s policies are preventing consumers from taking easy steps to improve their own health!
rights
Don’t Let the FDA Block Access to Needed Health Care Information
March 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 20:9
If Congress is serious about respecting First Amendment rights, and the people’s right to improve their own health, we must remove the FDA’s authority to censor non-misleading health claims, and claims that can be rendered non-misleading by the simple device of adopting a disclaimer.
rights
Don’t Let the FDA Block Access to Needed Health Care Information
March 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 20:10
In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to help establish an objective process that respects consumers’ First Amendment rights to non-misleading information regarding the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements by cosponsoring the Health Information Independence Act.
rights
The Television Consumer Freedom Act
24 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 22:3
It is, of course, within the constitutionally enumerated powers of Congress to “promote the progress of Science and Useful Arts by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the Exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” However, operating a clearing-house for the subsequent transfer of such property rights in the name of setting a just price or “instilling competition” via “central planning” seems to be neither economically prudent nor justifiable under this enumerated power. This process is one best reserved to the competitive marketplace.
rights
The Television Consumer Freedom Act
24 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 22:4
It is impossible for the government to set the just price for satellite programming. Over regulation of the cable industry has resulted in competition among service providers for government privilege rather than free market competition among providers to offer a better product at a lower price. While federal regulation does leave satellite programming service providers free to bypass the governmental royalty distribution scheme and negotiate directly with owners of programming for program rights, there is a federal prohibition on satellite service providers making local network affiliates’ programs available to nearby satellite subscribers. This bill repeals that federal prohibition so satellite service providers may freely negotiate with program owners for programming desired by satellite service subscribers. Technology is now available by which viewers could view network programs via satellite as presented by their nearest network affiliate. This market-generated technology will remove a major stumbling block to negotiations that should currently be taking place between network program owners and satellite service providers.
rights
Don’t Expand NATO!
March 30, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 25:2
More than 50 years ago the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed to defend Western Europe and the United States against attack from the communist nations of Eastern Europe. It was an alliance of sovereign nations bound together in common purpose - for mutual defense. The deterrence value of NATO helped kept the peace throughout the Cold War. In short, NATO achieved its stated mission. With the fall of the Soviet system and the accompanying disappearance of the threat of attack, in 1989-1991, NATO’s reason to exist ceased. Unfortunately, as with most bureaucracies, the end of NATO’s mission did not mean the end of NATO. Instead, heads of NATO member states gathered in 1999 desperately attempting to devise new missions for the outdated and adrift alliance. This is where NATO moved from being a defensive alliance respecting the sovereignty of its members to an offensive and interventionist organization, concerned now with “economic, social and political difficulties...ethnic and religious rivalries, territorial disputes, inadequate or failed efforts at reform, the abuse of human rights, and the dissolution of states,” in the words of the Washington 1999 Summit.
rights
Introducing The American Justice For American Citizens Act
1 April 2004 2004 Ron Paul 26:2
In an October 28, 2003 speech before the Southern Center for International Studies in Atlanta, Georgia, Justice O’Connor stated: “[i]n ruling that consensual homosexual activity in one’s home is constitutionally protected, the Supreme Court relied in part on a series of decisions from the European Court of Human Rights. I suspect that with time, we will rely increasingly on international and foreign law in resolving what now appear to be domestic issues, as we both appreciate more fully the ways in which domestic issues have an international dimension, and recognize the rich resources available to us in the decisions of foreign courts.”
rights
Introducing The American Justice For American Citizens Act
1 April 2004 2004 Ron Paul 26:3
This statement should send chills down the back of every supporter of Constitutional government. After all, the legal systems of many of the foreign countries that provide Justice O’Connor with “rich resources” for her decisions do not respect the same concepts of due process, federalism, and even the presumption of innocence that are fundamental to the American legal system. Thus, harmonizing American law with foreign law could undermine individual rights and limited, decentralized government.
rights
Introducing The American Justice For American Citizens Act
1 April 2004 2004 Ron Paul 26:4
There has also been speculation that transjudicialism could be used to conform American law to treaties, such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the Senate has not ratified. Mr. Speaker, some of these treaties have not been ratified because of concerns regarding their effects on traditional American legal, political, and social institutions. Judges should not be allowed to implement what could be major changes in American society, short-circuit the democratic process, and usurp the Constitutional role of the Senate to approve treaties, by using unratifed treaties as the bases of their decisions.
rights
The Lessons of 9/11
April 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 27:24
The first point is to understand who assumes most of the responsibility for the security of our homes and businesses in a free society. It’s not the police. There are too few of them, and it’s not their job to stand guard outside our houses or places of business. More crime occurs in the inner city, where there are not only more police, but more restrictions on property owners’ rights to bear and use weapons if invaded by hoodlums. In safer rural areas, where every home has a gun and someone in it who is willing to use it is, there is no false dependency on the police protecting them, but full reliance on the owner’s responsibility to deal with any property violators. This understanding works rather well—at least better than in the inner cities where the understanding is totally different.
rights
In Support Of The Gutierrez-Paul Bill
28 April 2004 2004 Ron Paul 30:2
Expanding the jurisdiction of OCC necessarily infringes on the ability of State lawmakers to determine their own consumer protection standards. One-size-fits-all policies crafted in Washington cannot serve the 50 diverse States well. Different States and markets have different needs that are better understood by State and local legislators. Congressional conservatives, in particular, should not endorse an expansion of the Federal regulatory power at the expense of States’ rights. The Tenth Amendment is clear: regulatory powers not specifically granted to Congress remain with the States. Congress should stop usurping State authority and leave consumer protection laws to those with far more experience and expertise.
rights
Brown v. Board Of Education
13 May 2004 2004 Ron Paul 33:2
The “whereas clauses” of this resolution venture far beyond the basis of Brown and praise various federal legislative acts such as the Fair Housing Act of 1968, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This final Act was particularly pernicious because it was not applied across the board, but targeted only at certain areas of the country. As such, it violates the spirit of the very equal protection it claims to promote. Moreover, we certainly should ask what constitutional authority lies behind the passage of such legislation.
rights
Opposing H. Res. 676
23 June 2004 2004 Ron Paul 42:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H. Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H. Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.
rights
Opposing H. Res. 676
23 June 2004 2004 Ron Paul 42:2
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.
rights
Opposing H. Res. 676
23 June 2004 2004 Ron Paul 42:4
The Civil Rights act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judge’s cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judges defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.
rights
Opposing H. Res. 676
23 June 2004 2004 Ron Paul 42:5
Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
rights
Opposing H. Res. 676
23 June 2004 2004 Ron Paul 42:6
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join in sponsors of H. Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting race-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H. Res. 676.
rights
Marinol And Terrorism
7 July 2004 2004 Ron Paul 48:4
The States’ rights issue is almost a dead issue in the Congress, but we ought to continue to talk about it, and I am delighted somebody has brought this up.
rights
Taiwan Relations Act — Part 1
14 July 2004 2004 Ron Paul 54:5
But, Mr. Speaker, my answer to that is somewhat like the notion that we no longer have to pay attention to the Ten Commandments or the Bill of Rights. If principles were correct 200 years ago or 250 years ago, they should be correct today. So if a policy of friendship and trade with other nations and nonintervention were good 250 years ago, it should be good today.
rights
End the Two-Party Monopoly!
July 15, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 63:4
The blatant attempt by a major party to keep Ralph Nader off state ballots demonstrates how restrictive ballot access laws are used to preserve a political monopoly, limit voter choices, and deny the rights of millions of Americans who support third parties and independent candidates an opportunity to effectively participate in the political process. I call upon my colleagues to remedy this situation by supporting my Voter Freedom Act.
rights
Federal Courts and the Pledge of Allegiance
September 23, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 71:5
Today, most Americans who support the pledge reject Bellamy’s vision and view the pledge as a reaffirmation of their loyalty to the Framers’ vision of a limited, federal republic that recognizes that rights come from the creator, not from the state. In order to help preserve the Framers’ system of a limited federal government and checks and balances, I am pleased to support HR 2028, the Pledge Protection Act. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
rights
District Of Columbia Personal Protection Act
29 September 2004 2004 Ron Paul 72:6
Enacting H.R. 3193 would be a good first step in adopting legislation to restore the Federal Government’s respect for the right to bear arms throughout the United States. The Federal Government has trampled on gun rights nationwide — not just in Washington, DC. I have introduced several pieces of legislation this Congress that would help restore respect for the right to bear arms, including the Second Amendment Protection Act, H.R. 153, that would repeal the now-sunset semi-auto ban, repeal the 5-day waiting period and “instant” background check imposed on gun purchases, and delete the “sporting purposes” test that allows the Treasury Secretary to classify a firearm as a destructive device simply because the Secretary deems the gun to be “non-sporting.” Additionally, Congress should consider my Right to Keep and Bear Arms Act, H.R. 3125, that prohibits U.S. taxpayers’ dollars from being used to support or promote any United Nations actions that could infringe on the second amendment.
rights
District Of Columbia Personal Protection Act
29 September 2004 2004 Ron Paul 72:7
In 1976, I spoke on the floor of the House against the adoption of restrictions on the right to bear arms in Washington, DC, that H.R. 3193 seeks to repeal. Unfortunately, my argument then was ruled out of order, and the restrictions went into effect. While it has been too long in coming, I am glad that the House is finally considering this important issue. The District of Columbia Personal Protection Act would restore some much needed respect for the fundamental rights of people in Washington, DC.
rights
Cultural Conservatives Lose if Gay Marriage is Federalized
September 30, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 73:6
“The very fact that the FMA [Federal Marriage Amendment] was introduced said that conservatives believed it was okay to amend the Constitution to take power from the states and give it to Washington. That is hardly a basic principle of conservatism as we used to know it. It is entirely likely the left will boomerang that assertion into a future proposed amendment that would weaken gun rights or mandate income redistribution.”
rights
Cultural Conservatives Lose if Gay Marriage is Federalized
September 30, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 73:7
Passing a constitutional amendment is a long, drawn-out process. The fact that the marriage amendment already failed to gather the necessary two-thirds support in the Senate means that, even if two-thirds of House members support the amendment, it will not be sent to states for ratification this year. Even if the amendment gathers the necessary two-thirds support in both houses of Congress, it still must go through the time-consuming process of state ratification. This process requires three-quarters of the state legislatures to approve the amendment before it can become effective. Those who believe that immediate action to protect the traditional definition of marriage is necessary should consider that the Equal Rights Amendment easily passed both houses of Congress and was quickly ratified by a number of states. Yet, that amendment remains unratified today. Proponents of this marriage amendment should also consider that efforts to amend the Constitution to address flag burning and require the federal government to balance the budget have been ongoing for years, without any success.
rights
Introducing The Identity Theft protection Act
4 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 2:12
Mr. Speaker, while I do not question the sincerity of those Members who suggest that Congress can ensure that citizens’ rights are protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, the only effective privacy protection is to forbid the Federal Government from mandating national identifiers. Legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for a couple of reasons.
rights
Introducing The Identity Theft protection Act
4 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 2:17
Any action short of repealing laws authorizing privacy violations is insufficient primarily because the Federal Government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any Federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the Federal Government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the Federal Government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”
rights
Government IDs and Identity Theft
January 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 5:12
Mr. Speaker, while I do not question the sincerity of those members who suggest that Congress can ensure that citizens’ rights are protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, the only effective privacy protection is to forbid the federal government from mandating national identifiers. Legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for a couple of reasons.
rights
Government IDs and Identity Theft
January 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 5:17
Any action short of repealing laws authorizing privacy violations is insufficient primarily because the federal government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”
rights
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 6:42
What if democracy is deeply flawed and, instead, we should be talking about liberty, property rights, free markets, the rule of law, localized government, weak centralized government, and self-determination promoted through persuasion, not force?
rights
Ayn Rand’s Birthday
2 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 17:4
Today, February 2, 2005, we celebrate the birth of this influential philosopher and writer who inspired and continues to inspire so many individuals to live rationally, and respect the rights of others. So much of what has made American a great society is found in her writings.
rights
HR 418- A National ID Bill Masquerading as Immigration Reform
February 9, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 19:7
This bill could have a chilling effect on the exercise of our constitutionally guaranteed rights. It re-defines “terrorism” in broad new terms that could well include members of firearms rights and anti-abortion groups, or other such groups as determined by whoever is in power at the time. There are no prohibitions against including such information in the database as information about a person’s exercise of First Amendment rights or about a person’s appearance on a registry of firearms owners.
rights
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005
8 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 27:9
By definition, a treaty is a contract between or among independent and sovereign nations, obligatory on the signatories only when made by competent governing authorities in accordance with the powers constitutionally conferred upon them. I Kent, Commentaries on American Law 163 (1826); Burdick, The Law of the American Constitution section 34 (1922). Even the United Nations Treaty Collection states that a treaty is (1) a binding instrument creating legal rights and duties; (2) concluded by states or international organizations with treaty-making power; (3) governed by international law.
rights
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005
8 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 27:11
The United Nations Treaty Collection confirms the appropriateness of this “constitutional interpretive” approach to the Charter of the United Nations with its statement that the charter may be traced “back to the Magna Carta (the Great Charter) of 1215,” a national constitutional document. As a constitutional document, the Magna Carta not only bound the original signatories, the English barons and the king, but all subsequent English rulers, including Parliament, conferring upon all Englishmen certain rights that five hundred years later were claimed and exercised by the English people who had colonized America.
rights
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005
8 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 27:23
Even though we are an organization of Member States, the rights and ideals the United Nations exists to protect are those of the peoples. No government has the right to hide behind national sovereignty in order to violate the human rights or fundamental freedoms of its peoples. Human Development Report 2000 31 (July 2000) [Emphasis added.]
rights
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005
8 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 27:24
While no previous United Nations’ secretary general has been so bold, Annan’s proclamation of universal jurisdiction over “human rights and fundamental freedoms” simply reflects the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations which contemplated a future in which the United Nations operates in perpetuity “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of ware . . . to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights . . . to establish conditions under which justice . . . can be maintained, and to promote social progress and between standards of life in larger freedom.” Such lofty goals and objectives are comparable to those found in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America: “to . . . establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the Blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity . . .”
rights
Consequences Of Foreign Policy — Part 2
16 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 31:6
In other words, this resolution takes the position that we should go in Lebanon and repeal the Lebanese Second Amendment rights so that nobody has any guns. I just see that as an interference that is going to lead to trouble.
rights
Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo
April 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 34:9
There’s plenty of hypocrisy to go around on both sides of this lingering and prolonged debate. In this instance we heard some very sound arguments from the left defending states’ rights and family responsibility, while criticizing the federal government involvement. I’m anxious for the day when those who made these arguments join me in defending the Constitution and states’ rights, especially the 9 th and 10 th Amendments, on many other economic and social issues. I won’t hold my breath.
rights
Who’s Better Off?
April 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 35:14
Sure, there are only 800,000 Christians living in Iraq, but under Saddam Hussein they were free to practice their religion. Tariq Aziz, a Christian, served in Saddam Hussein’s cabinet as Foreign Minister-- something that would never happen in Saudi Arabia, Israel, or any other Middle Eastern country. Today, the Christian churches in Iraq are under attack and Christians are no longer safe. Many Christians have been forced to flee Iraq and migrate to Syria. It’s strange that the human rights advocates in the U.S. Congress have expressed no concern for the persecution now going on against Christians in Iraq. Both the Sunni and the Shiite Muslims support the attacks on Christians. In fact, persecuting Christians is one of the few areas in which they agree-- the other being the removal of all foreign forces from Iraqi soil.
rights
The American Justice For American Citizens Act
14 April 2005 2005 Ron Paul 41:2
In an October 28, 2003 speech before the Southern Center for International Studies in Atlanta, Georgia, Justice O’Connor stated: “[i]n ruling that consensual homosexual activity in one’s home is constitutionally protected, the Supreme Court relied in part on a series of decisions from the European Court of Human Rights. I suspect that with time, we will rely increasingly on international and foreign law in resolving what now appear to be domestic issues, as we both appreciate more fully the ways in which domestic issues have an international dimension, and recognize the rich resources available to us in the decisions of foreign courts.”
rights
The American Justice For American Citizens Act
14 April 2005 2005 Ron Paul 41:3
This statement should send chills down the back of every supporter of Constitutional government. After all, the legal systems of many of the foreign countries that provide Justice O’Connor with “rich resources” for her decisions do not respect the same concepts of due process, federalism, and even the presumption of innocence that are fundamental to the American legal system. Thus, harmonizing American law with foreign law could undermine individual rights and limited, decentralized government.
rights
The American Justice For American Citizens Act
14 April 2005 2005 Ron Paul 41:4
There has also been speculation that transjudicialism could be used to conform American law to treaties, such as the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the Senate has not ratified. Mr. Speaker, some of these treaties have not been ratified because of concerns regarding their effects on traditional American legal, political, and social institutions. Judges should not be allowed to implement what could be major changes in American society, short-circuit the democratic process, and usurp the Constitutional role of the Senate to approve treaties, by using unratifed treaties as the bases of their decisions.
rights
Federalizing Abortion Law
27 April 2005 2005 Ron Paul 42:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, in the name of a truly laudable cause, preventing abortion and protecting parental rights, today the Congress could potentially move our Nation one step closer to a national police state by further expanding the list of Federal crimes and usurping power from the States to adequately address the issue of parental rights and family law. Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of criminally federalizing all human malfeasance in the name of saving the world from some evil than to uphold a constitutional oath, which prescribes a procedural structure by which the Nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil, totalitarianism carried out by a centralized government. Who, after all, wants to be amongst those Members of Congress who are portrayed as trampling parental rights or supporting the transportation of minor females across State lines for ignoble purposes.
rights
Federalizing Abortion Law
27 April 2005 2005 Ron Paul 42:2
As an obstetrician of almost 40 years, I have personally delivered more than 4,000 children. During such time, I have not performed a single abortion. On the contrary, I have spoken and written extensively and publicly condemning this “medical” procedure. At the same time, I have remained committed to upholding the constitutional procedural protections which leave the police power decentralized and in control of the States. In the name of protecting parental rights, this bill usurps States’ rights by creating yet another Federal crime.
rights
Federalizing Abortion Law
27 April 2005 2005 Ron Paul 42:3
Our Federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers, article I, section 8, enumerates the legislative area for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issues, the Federal Government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the State governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The 10th amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our Nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.
rights
Federalizing Abortion Law
27 April 2005 2005 Ron Paul 42:4
Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress today will likely pass H.R. 748. H.R. 748 amends title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Should parents be involved in decisions regarding the health of their children? Absolutely. Should the law respect parents’ rights to not have their children taken across State lines for contemptible purposes? Absolutely. Can a State pass an enforceable statute to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions? Absolutely. But when asked if there exists constitutional authority for the Federal criminalizing of just such an action the answer is absolutely not.
rights
Federalizing Abortion Law
27 April 2005 2005 Ron Paul 42:5
This federalizing may have the effect of nationalizing a law with criminal penalties which may be less than those desired by some States. To the extent the Federal and State laws could co-exist, the necessity for a Federal law is undermined and an important bill of rights protection is virtually obliterated. Concurrent jurisdiction crimes erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the Federal Government and a State government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of the unconstitutionally expanding the Federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for Federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.
rights
Federalizing Abortion Law
27 April 2005 2005 Ron Paul 42:8
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions. An inadequate Federal law, or an “adequate” Federal law improperly interpreted by the Supreme Court, preempts States’ rights to adequately address public health concerns. Roe v. Wade should serve as a sad reminder of the danger of making matters worse in all States by federalizing an issue.
rights
Introducing The Consumers Access To Health Information Act
12 May 2005 2005 Ron Paul 48:2
In 1990, responding to the demands of the American people that the federal government respect consumers’ right to receive information about the ways foods and dietary supplements can improve their health, Congress passed the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act. The intent of that act was to allow the manufacturers of foods and dietary supplements to provide consumers with accurate and specific information regarding the curative and preventive effects of foods and dietary supplements. However, the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, ignored repeated efforts by Congress to protect consumers’ First Amendment rights to receive truthful information about the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements.
rights
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 62:9
In effect, the courts in California were used as a weapon to interfere with our rights to free speech. Along the way, this case resulted in a binding precedent extending First Amendment rights to the Internet. That precedent has been used all the way to the US Supreme Court as well as in several state supreme courts.
rights
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 62:15
There is an exemption to that decision. Inspired by the Spina case, Congress last year passed the Civil Rights Tax Relief Act. It provided that, in Civil Rights cases, attorneys’ fees would not be taxed to plaintiffs (on the basis that the amount had been taxed twice — first to plaintiffs, then to attorneys). Unfortunately for Spina, the law was not made retroactive, so as of this moment, she still contends with the IRS over her tax bill. However, other plaintiffs with similar cases realized tremendous relief.
rights
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 62:16
Not so for us in our California case, and thousands of other plaintiffs also facing ruinous taxes after winning their cases. Clearly the courts in California were used as a weapon to infringe on our civil rights. However, in that underlying case, we were then defendants. When we filed suit to recover damages, the case was characterized differently and was no longer, technically, a civil rights case. Our dilemma had been to seek court assistance to recover, or face paying our legal expense for our own defense in the underlying case for years to come. It did not occur to us at the time we filed with the court that we could win and end up owing an even greater amount to the IRS.
rights
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 62:17
That is the effect of the Supreme Court ruling. Because ours is technically not a civil rights case, we do not enjoy the benefits of the exemption inspired by the Spina case. We had properly appealed to our government for help, and the government has now placed us in a position where our own best interests are indeterminate, so we cannot settle (ironic, since the intent of most tort reform has been to encourage settlement). When a jury makes an award, the tax exposure will likely be ruinous. Another irony is that the higher the award, the greater our tax exposure. And we are middle-class citizens.
rights
Amendment No. 11 Offered By Mr. Paul
16 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 66:5
The United Nations has been under serious attack, and most Americans know there is a big problem with the United Nations. There is corruption involved with the oil-for-food scandal, as well as the abuse of human rights. There are a lot of people who believe that we can reform the United Nations and make it much more responsive to our principles. I do not happen to share that belief.
rights
Statement on the Flag Burning Amendment
June 22, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 71:17
” Our Nation was not founded on devotion to symbolic idols, but on principles, beliefs and ideals expressed in the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. American veterans who have protected our banner in battle have not done so to protect a golden calf. Instead, they carried the banner forward with reverence for what it represents, our beliefs and freedom for all. Therein lies the beauty of our flag. A patriot cannot be created by legislation.”
rights
Statement on the Flag Burning Amendment
June 22, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 71:20
One of the very first laws that Red China passed upon assuming control of Hong Kong was to make flag burning illegal. Since that time, they have prosecuted some individuals for flag burning. Our State Department keeps records of how often the Red Chinese prosecute people for burning the Chinese flag, as it considers those prosecutions an example of how the Red Chinese violate human rights. Those violations are used against Red China in the argument that they should not have most-favored-nation status. There is just a bit of hypocrisy among those Members who claim this amendment does not interfere with fundamental liberties, yet are critical of Red China for punishing those who burn the Chinese flag.
rights
Statement on the Flag Burning Amendment
June 22, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 71:21
Mr. Speaker, this is ultimately an attack on private property. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression depend on property. We do not have freedom of expression of our religion in other people’s churches; it is honored and respected because we respect the ownership of the property. The property conveys the right of free expression, as a newspaper would or a radio station. Once Congress limits property rights, for any cause, no matter how noble, it limits freedom.
rights
Statement on the Flag Burning Amendment
June 22, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 71:22
Some claim that this is not an issue of private property rights because the flag belongs to the country. The flag belongs to everybody. But if you say that, you are a collectivist. That means you believe everybody owns everything. So why do American citizens have to spend money to obtain, and maintain, a flag if the flag is communally owned? If your neighbor, or the federal government, owns a flag, even without this amendment you do not have the right to go and burn that flag. If you are causing civil disturbances, you are liable for your conduct under state and local laws. But this whole idea that there could be a collective ownership of the flag is erroneous.
rights
Statement on the Flag Burning Amendment
June 22, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 71:24
We must be interested in the spirit of our Constitution. We must be interested in the principles of liberty. I therefore urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Instead, my colleagues should work to restore the rights of the individual states to ban flag burning, free from unconstitutional interference by the Supreme Court.
rights
Amendment No. 11 Offered By Mr. Paul
24 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 72:8
Once again, I want to make the point that this does not deny funding for individual children who show signs that they may need or they have a problem and need to be tested. It is just to make sure that this is not universal and not be mandatory and that parental rights are guarded against and that the parent is very much involved.
rights
Introducing The Quality Health Care Coalition Act
27 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 78:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Quality Health Care Coalition Act, which takes a first step towards restoring a true free market in health care by restoring the rights of freedom of contract and association to health care professionals. Over the past few years, we have had much debate in Congress about the difficulties medical professionals and patients are having with Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). HMOs are devices used by insurance industries to ration health care. While it is politically popular for members of Congress to bash the HMOs and the insurance industry, the growth of the HMOs are rooted in past government interventions in the health care market though the tax code, the Employment Retirement Security Act (ERSIA), and the federal anti-trust laws. These interventions took control of the health care dollar away from individual patients and providers, thus making it inevitable that something like the HMOs would emerge as a means to control costs.
rights
Introducing The Quality Health Care Coalition Act
27 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 78:5
Under the United States Constitution, the Federal government has no authority to interfere with the private contracts of American citizens. Furthermore, the prohibitions on contracting contained in the Sherman antitrust laws are based on a flawed economic theory which holds that Federal regulators can improve upon market outcomes by restricting the rights of certain market participants deemed too powerful by the government. In fact, anti- trust laws harm consumers by preventing the operation of the free-market, causing prices to rise, quality to suffer, and, as is certainly the case with the relationship between the HMOs and medical professionals, favoring certain industries over others.
rights
Introducing The Quality Health Care Coalition Act
27 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 78:6
By restoring the freedom of medical professionals to voluntarily come together to negotiate as a group with HMOs and insurance companies, this bill removes a government-imposed barrier to a true free market in health care. Of course, this bill does not infringe on the rights of health care professionals by forcing them to join a bargaining organization against their will. While Congress should protect the rights of all Americans to join organizations for the purpose of bargaining collectively, Congress also has a moral responsibility to ensure that no worker is forced by law to join or financially support such an organization.
rights
The Republican Congress Wastes Billions Overseas
July 20, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 86:3
What is wrong with this bill? Let me just mention a few of the most egregious items. In the name of promoting “religious liberty” and “fighting anti-Semitism” this bill will funnel millions of dollars to the corrupt Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and its Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR). This unaccountable international organization is at the forefront of the manipulation and meddling in the internal affairs of other sovereign states, and has repeatedly dishonored itself through politically-biased monitoring of foreign elections. The OSCE does not deserve a penny from the American taxpayer, but this bill will make sure that the lavishly paid bureaucrats that staff the organization will be able to maintain their standard of living - at our expense. With regard to religious liberty, privately funded voluntary organizations have been shown to be much more effective in promoting tolerance. This is mainly true because these are true grassroots organizations with a stake in their countries and communities, rather than unelected international bureaucrats imposing politically correct edicts from above.
rights
Amend The PATRIOT Act — Part 1
21 July 2005 2005 Ron Paul 87:5
So this is a restatement of a fundamental principle that should be in our minds and in our law, but I think it is worthwhile to restate. And I do recognize that in the PATRIOT Act they recognize that the first amendment should be protected, and in this case I think it is an additional statement that we should be respectful of people’s rights to speak out and not be singled out for political or religious viewpoints. Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
rights
Amend The PATRIOT Act — Part 2
21 July 2005 2005 Ron Paul 88:7
Mr. Chairman, the USA PATRIOT Act and Terrorism Prevention Act (H.R. 3199) in no way brings the PATRIOT Act into compliance with the Constitution or allays concerns that the powers granted to the government in the act will be used to abuse the rights of the people. Much of the discussion surrounding this bill has revolved around the failure of the bill to extend the sunset clauses.
rights
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.
rights
Don’t Reauthorize the Patriot Act
July 21, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 89:1
Mr. Speaker, the USA PATRIOT Act and Terrorism Prevention Act (HR 3199) in no way brings the PATRIOT Act into compliance with the Constitution or allays concerns that the powers granted to the government in the act will be used to abuse the rights of the people. Much of the discussion surrounding this bill has revolved around the failure of the bill to extend the sunset clauses.
rights
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.
rights
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 95:15
Oil in the Middle East has been a big issue since the industrial revolution, when it was realized that the black substance bubbling out of the ground in places like Iraq had great value. It’s interesting to note that in the early 20 th century Germany, fully aware of oil’s importance, allied itself with the Turkish Ottoman Empire and secured the earliest rights to drill Iraqi oil. They built the Anatalia railroad between Baghdad and Basra, and obtained oil and mineral rights on twenty kilometers on each side of this right-of-way. World War I changed all this, allowing the French and the British to divide the oil wealth of the entire Middle East.
rights
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 95:43
Eventually, we will come to realize that the Wilsonian idealism of using America’s resources to promote democracy around the world through force is a seriously flawed policy. Wilson pretended to be spreading democracy worldwide, and yet women in the U.S. at that time were not allowed to vote. Democracy, where the majority dictates the rules, cannot protect minorities and individual rights. And in addition, using force to impose our will on others almost always backfires. There’s no reason that our efforts in the 21 st century to impose a western style government in Iraq will be any more successful than the British were after World War I. This especially can’t work if democracy is only an excuse for our occupation and the real reasons are left unrecognized.
rights
Protection Of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act
20 october 2005 2005 Ron Paul 106:5
Second, a section was added to the bill to create draconian penalties for people who possess “armor piercing” bullets. Just like the Democratic Congress before it that passed the “assault weapons” ban, the Republican Congress is poised to give in to anti-gun rights scare tactics by selectively banning bullets. Instead of each gun owner being able to decide what ammunition he uses in his gun, Federal bureaucrats will make that decision. To recognize the threat such regulation places on gun owners, just consider that a gun without ammunition is nothing more than an expensive club. Regulating ammunition is the back door path to gun regulation.
rights
Protection Of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act
20 october 2005 2005 Ron Paul 106:7
I am particularly disturbed that the House of Representatives’ leadership has taken the unusual step of bringing S. 397 to the floor for a vote without House members at least having an opportunity to vote on removing the gun control amendments. Instead of voting on a bill that contains the new gun control provisions, we should be considering H.R. 800, the House version of S. 397 prior to its perversion by gun control amendments. Notably, Gun Owners of America has written to House members to request that they oppose S. 397 and, instead, support H.R. 800. Last month, I wrote to House Speaker DENNIS HASTERT, Majority Leader TOM DELAY, and Committee on the Judiciary Chairman JAMES SENSENBRENNER of my opposition to these anti-gun rights provisions in S. 397. While I am concerned about some of the federalism implications of H.R. 800, it is a far superior bill because it neither requires gun locks nor restricts gun owners’ ammunition choices.
rights
Rosa Parks
2 November 2005 2005 Ron Paul 117:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I support S. 1285, a bill naming a federal building in Detroit, Michigan after Rosa Parks and I join my colleagues in paying tribute to Mrs. Parks’s courage and high ideals. Rosa Parks’s simple act of refusing to get up from her seat to comply with an unjust law inspired a movement that brought an end to state-mandated racial segregation. Mrs. Parks was inspired to challenge government power by her conviction that laws that treated African-Americans as second- class citizens violated the natural rights all humans receive from their creator — rights which no government can justly infringe.
rights
Free Speech and Dietary Supplements
November 10, 2005 HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS 2005 Ron Paul 118:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Health Freedom Protection Act. This bill restores the First Amendment rights of consumers to receive truthful information regarding the benefits of foods and dietary supplements by codifying the First Amendment standards used by federal courts to strike down the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) efforts to censor truthful health claims. The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the Federal Trade Commissions (FTC) from censoring truthful health care claims.
rights
Free Speech and Dietary Supplements
November 10, 2005 HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS 2005 Ron Paul 118:2
The American people have made it clear they do not want the federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements, yet the FDA and the FTC continue to engage in heavy-handed attempts to restrict such access. The FDA continues to frustrate consumers’ efforts to learn how they can improve their health even after Congress, responding to a record number of constituents’ comments, passed the Dietary Supplement and Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). FDA bureaucrats are so determined to frustrate consumer access to truthful information that they are even evading their duty to comply with four federal court decisions vindicating consumers’ First Amendment rights to discover the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements.
rights
Congress Erodes Privacy
November 16, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 121:3
In recent years—especially since 9-11—Congress has been totally negligent in its duty to protect U.S. citizens from federal government encroachment on the rights of privacy. Even prior to 9-11, the Echelon worldwide surveillance system was well entrenched, monitoring telephones, faxes, and emails.
rights
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:76
The Founders detested democracy and avoided the use of the word in all the early documents. Today, most Americans accept without question a policy of sacrificing life, property and dollars to force democracy on a country 6,000 miles away. This tells us how little opposition there is to democracy. No one questions the principle that a majority electorate should be allowed to rule the country, dictate rights, and redistribute wealth. Our system of democracy has come to mean worshiping the notion that a majority vote for the distribution of government largesse, loot confiscated from the American people through an immoral tax system, is morally and constitutionally acceptable.
rights
S. 2271 Fails To Address The Constitutional Flaws In The PATRIOT Act
7 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 9:3
USA Today’s Editorial of March 1, “Patriot Act ‘compromise’ trades liberty for safety,” accurately describes how people concerned about individual liberty should react to S. 2271’s “reforms”: “Big Deal. By any standard of respect for the Bill of Rights, those provisions never should have been in the law in the first place. What is it about the Fourth Amendment (‘The right of the people to be secure . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated’) that Congress doesn’t get?”
rights
Illegal Drug Problem — Part 2
9 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 13:5
Once a war is declared, whether it is a war overseas or whether it is a domestic war on some evil here, that is when the American people should look out for their civil liberties. There, the issue of privacy is attacked. So now we have a war on terrorism and we have the PATRIOT Act and all these other things that intrude on the civil rights and civil liberties of Americans, and, at the same time, not achieving a whole lot of good results.
rights
College Access and Opportunity Act
30 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 20:2
Opponents of increasing Federal control over higher education should be especially concerned about H.R. 609’s “Academic Bill of Rights.” This provision takes a step toward complete Federal control of college curriculum, grading, and teaching practices. While this provision is worded as a “sense of Congress,” the clear intent of the “bill of rights” is to intimidate college administrators into ensuring professors’ lectures and lesson plans meet with Federal approval.
rights
College Access and Opportunity Act
30 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 20:3
The Academic Bill of Rights is a response to concerns that federally funded institutions of higher learning are refusing to allow students to express, or even be exposed to, points of view that differ from those held by their professors. Ironically, the proliferation of “political correctness” on college campuses is largely a direct result of increased government funding of colleges and universities. Federal funding has isolated institutions of higher education from market discipline, thus freeing professors to promulgate their “politically correct” views regardless of whether this type of instruction benefits their students — who are, after all, the professors’ customers. Now, in a perfect illustration of how politicians use the problems created by previous interventions in the market as a justification for further interventions, Congress proposes to use the problem of “political correctness” to justify more Federal control over college classrooms.
rights
College Access and Opportunity Act
30 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 20:4
Instead of fostering open dialog and wide- ranging intellectual inquiry, the main effect of the Academic Bill of Rights will be to further stifle debate about controversial topics. This is because many administrators will order their professors not to discuss contentious and divisive subjects in order to avoid a possible confrontation with the Federal Government. Those who doubt this should remember that many TV and radio stations minimized political programming in the 60s and 70s in order to avoid running afoul of the Federal “fairness doctrine.”
rights
College Access and Opportunity Act
30 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 20:5
I am convinced that some promoters of the Academic Bill of Rights would be unhappy if, instead of fostering greater debate, this bill silences discussion of certain topics. Scan the websites of some of the organizations promoting the Academic Bill of Rights and you will also find calls for silencing critics of the Iraq war and other aspects of American foreign policy.
rights
College Access and Opportunity Act
30 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 20:6
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 609 expands Federal control over higher education; in particular through an Academic Bill of Rights which could further stifle debate and inquiry on America’s college campuses. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.
rights
Iran, The Next Neocon Target
5 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 21:50
The next best reason is that the rule of law is undermined, especially when military interventions are carried out without a declaration of war. Whenever a war is ongoing, civil liberties are under attack at home. The current war in Iraq and the misnamed war on terror have created an environment here at home that affords little constitutional protection of our citizens’ rights. Extreme nationalism is common during war. Signs of this are now apparent.
rights
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 23:54
At home the war on poverty, terrorism, drugs or foreign rulers provide an opportunity for authoritarians to rise to power, individuals who think nothing of violating the people’s rights to privacy and freedom of speech. They believe their role is to protect the secrecy of government rather than protect the privacy of citizens.
rights
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 23:55
Unfortunately, that is the atmosphere under which we live today with essentially no respect for the Bill of Rights. Though great economic harm comes from a government monopoly, fiat monetary system, the loss of liberty associated with it is equally troubling.
rights
Jack Abramoff Scandal
3 May 2006 2006 Ron Paul 33:2
I am disappointed, but not surprised, to see that Congress is failing to go after the root cause of corruption. Instead, we are considering placing further burdens on the people’s exercise of their free speech rights. H.R. 4975 will not deter corrupt lobbyists, staffers, or members. What H.R. 4975 will do is discourage ordinary Americans from participating in the policy process. Among the ways H.R. 4975 silences ordinary Americans is by requiring grassroots citizens’ action organizations to divulge their membership lists so Congress can scrutinize the organizations’ relationships with members of Congress. The result of this will be to make many Americans reluctant to support or join these organizations. Making it more difficult for average Americans to have their voices heard is an odd response to concerns that Congress is more responsive to special interests than to the American public.
rights
Tribute To Calhoun High School
11 May 2006 2006 Ron Paul 34:4
We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution is a nationally acclaimed civic education program focusing on the history and principles of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. In addition to the requirements of the standard government class, students in this program must master a rigorous curriculum in the background and philosophy of the U.S. Constitution. They participate in oral assessment that involves both prepared and extemporaneous responses to challenging questions. In this nationwide competition, students play the role of “experts in the Constitution,” testifying before a mock Congressional hearing. Among other criteria, students are evaluated on their depth of knowledge, ability to apply academic data to current problems, and understanding of landmark Supreme Court cases. Teams of three students each present a four-minute prepared testimony to answer questions they have researched all semester, and then they respond to extemporaneous follow- up questions from the judges for another six minutes. Judges at the state contest include practicing attorneys, university professors, historians, and legislative staff members.
rights
Tribute To Calhoun High School
11 May 2006 2006 Ron Paul 34:5
In 2001, the Center for Civic Education conducted a survey of We the People alumnae, focusing on voting and civic participation. Among the former students, 82 percent reported that they voted in the November 2000 election. In addition, 77 percent had voted in previous elections. By contrast, the National Election Studies reported 48 percent turnout in the November 2000 election by other respondents aged 18–30. Research also indicates that participation in We the People programs helps encourage greater interest in politics and public affairs, increased involvement in government decision making at all levels, greater willingness to respect the opinions and rights of others, and better preparation for the privileges and responsibilities of democratic citizenship. More information about the program may be found at the Center for Civic Education website, http://www.civiced.org/ wethepeople.php.
rights
Society For Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications
29 June 2006 2006 Ron Paul 49:3
Congress should examine all government programs that monitor the financial transactions of American citizens to ensure they are effective and they do not violate the rights of Americans. Unfortunately, many of my colleagues are attacking newspapers that inform the American people about government surveillance on the grounds that revealing that the federal government is monitoring financial transactions somehow damages national security. It is odd to claim that, until last Friday, neither the American people nor America’s enemies had any idea that the government is engaging in massive surveillance of financial transactions, since the government has been openly operating major financial surveillance programs since the 1970s and both the administration and Congress have repeatedly discussed increasing the government’s power to monitor financial transactions. In fact, such an expansion of the government’s ability to spy on Americans’ banking activites was a major part of the PATRIOT Act.
rights
Society For Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications
29 June 2006 2006 Ron Paul 49:4
Congress should be leery of criticizing media reporting on government activity. Attacking the media for revealing information about government surveillance of American citizens may make reporters reluctant to aggressively pursue stories that may embarrass the government. A reluctance by the media to “embarrass the state” will make it easier for the federal government to get away with violating the people’s rights. Media reports on government surveillance and other security programs can help Congress and the Americans people ensure the government’s actions effectively protect Americans’ security without infringing on basic constitutional liberties. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this resolution.
rights
Why Are Americans So Angry?
June 29, 2006 2006 Ron Paul 52:13
Once we concede government has this “legitimate” function and can be manipulated by a majority vote, the various special interests move in quickly. They gain control to direct government largesse for their own benefit. Too often it is corporate interests who learn how to manipulate every contract, regulation and tax policy. Likewise, promoters of the “progressive” agenda, always hostile to property rights, compete for government power through safety, health, and environmental initiatives. Both groups resort to using government power — and abuse this power — in an effort to serve their narrow interests. In the meantime, constitutional limits on power and its mandate to protect liberty are totally forgotten.
rights
Bilingual Ballots
13 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 56:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, it is shameful that Americans were once routinely denied the ability to vote on account of their skin color. All Americans should celebrate the Voting Rights Act’s role in vindicating the constitutional rights of all citizens to vote free of racial discrimination. Therefore, I was hoping I could support reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. However, I cannot support H.R. 9 because it extends the unfunded bilingual ballots mandate.
rights
Bilingual Ballots
13 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 56:4
In conclusion, while I recognize the continuing need for protection of voting rights, I cannot support this bill before us since it extends the costly and divisive bilingual ballot mandate.
rights
Marriage Protection Amendment
18 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 58:6
“The very fact that the FMA [Federal Marriage Amendment] was introduced said that conservatives believed it was okay to amend the Constitution to take power from the states and give it to Washington. That is hardly a basic principle of conservatism as we used to know it. It is entirely likely the left will boomerang that assertion into a future proposed amendment that would weaken gun rights or mandate income redistribution.”
rights
Marriage Protection Amendment
18 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 58:7
Passing a constitutional amendment is a long, drawn-out process. The fact that the marriage amendment already failed to gather the necessary two-thirds support in the Senate means that, even if two-thirds of House members support the amendment, it will not be sent to states for ratification this year. Even if the amendment gathers the necessary two- thirds support in both houses of Congress, it still must go through the time-consuming process of state ratification. This process requires three-quarters of the state legislatures to approve the amendment before it can become effective. Those who believe that immediate action to protect the traditional definition of marriage is necessary should consider that the Equal Rights Amendment easily passed both houses of Congress and was quickly ratified by a number of states. Yet, that amendment remains unratified today. Proponents of this marriage amendment should also consider that efforts to amend the Constitution to address flag burning and require the federal government to balance the budget have been ongoing for years, without any success.
rights
Raising The Minimum Wage
28 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 73:6
Furthermore, interfering in the voluntary transactions of employers and employees in the name of making things better for low wage earners violates citizens’ rights of association and freedom of contract as if to say to citizens “you are incapable of making employment decisions for yourself in the marketplace.”
rights
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 74:21
Huge omnibus spending bills introduced at the end of legislative years are passed without scrutiny. No one individual knows exactly what is in the bill. In the process, legitimate needs and constitutional responsibilities are frequently ignored. Respect for private property rights is ignored. Confidence in the free market is lost or misunderstood. Our tradition of self-reliance is mocked as archaic.
rights
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 74:32
There should be no distinction between commercial speech and political speech with no consistent moral defense of true liberty. The continued erosion of personal property rights is inevitable.
rights
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 74:92
A real solution to our problems will require a better understanding of and a greater dedication to free markets and private property rights. It can’t be done without restoring a sound asset- backed currency. If we hope to restore any measure of constitutional government, we must abandon the policy of policing the world and keeping troops in the four corners of the earth. Our liberties and our prosperity depend on it.
rights
Senior Citizens’ Improved Quality Of Life Act
19 September 2006 2006 Ron Paul 79:5
Repealing provisions of Federal law that restrict the ability of senior citizens to form private contracts for health care services. This restriction violates the rights of seniors who may wish to use their own resources to obtain procedures or treatments not covered by Medicare, or to simply avoid the bureaucracy and uncertainty that come when seniors must wait for the judgment of a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, bureaucrat before finding out if a desired treatment is covered. H.R. 5211 also stops the Social Security Administration from denying Social Security benefits to seniors who refuse to enroll in Medicare Part A. Forcing seniors to enroll in Medicare Part A as a condition for receiving Social Security violates the promise represented by Social Security. Americans pay taxes into the Social Security trust fund their whole working lives and are promised that Social Security will be there for them when they retire. Yet, today, seniors are told that they cannot receive these benefits unless they agree to join another government program.
rights
Overstepping Constitutional Authority
26 September 2006 2006 Ron Paul 86:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, in the name of a truly laudable cause (preventing abortion and protecting parental rights), today the Congress could potentially move our Nation one step closer to a national police state by further expanding the list of Federal crimes and usurping power from the States to adequately address the issue of parental rights and family law. Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of criminally federalizing all human malfeasance in the name of saving the world from some evil than to uphold a Constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure by which the nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil, totalitarianism carried out by a centralized government. Who, after all, wants to be amongst those Members of Congress who are portrayed as trampling parental rights or supporting the transportation of minor females across state lines for ignoble purposes.
rights
Overstepping Constitutional Authority
26 September 2006 2006 Ron Paul 86:2
As an obstetrician of almost 40 years, I have personally delivered more than 4,000 children. During such time, I have not performed a single abortion. On the contrary, I have spoken and written extensively and publicly condemning this “medical” procedure. At the same time, I have remained committed to upholding the constitutional procedural protections which leave the police power decentralized and in control of the States. In the name of protecting parental rights, this bill usurps States’ rights by creating yet another Federal crime.
rights
Overstepping Constitutional Authority
26 September 2006 2006 Ron Paul 86:3
Our Federal Government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers, Article one, Section eight, enumerates the legislative area for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the Federal Government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the State governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our Nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.
rights
Overstepping Constitutional Authority
26 September 2006 2006 Ron Paul 86:4
Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress today will likely pass S. 403. S. 403 amends title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Should parents be involved in decisions regarding the health of their children? Absolutely. Should the law respect parents’ rights to not have their children taken across State lines for contemptible purposes? Absolutely. Can a State pass an enforceable statute to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions? Absolutely. But when asked if there exists constitutional authority for the Federal criminalizing of just such an action the answer is absolutely not.
rights
Overstepping Constitutional Authority
26 September 2006 2006 Ron Paul 86:5
This federalizing may have the effect of nationalizing a law with criminal penalties which may be less than those desired by some States. To the extent the Federal and State laws could co-exist, the necessity for a Federal law is undermined and an important bill of rights protection is virtually obliterated. Concurrent jurisdiction crimes erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the Federal Government and a State government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the Federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for Federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.
rights
Overstepping Constitutional Authority
26 September 2006 2006 Ron Paul 86:8
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions. An inadequate Federal law, or an “adequate” Federal law improperly interpreted by the Supreme Court, preempts States’ rights to adequately address public health concerns. Roe v. Wade should serve as a sad reminder of the danger of making matters worse in all States by federalizing an issue.
rights
Statement In Support Of NAIS
26 September 2006 2006 Ron Paul 87:3
Small, family farmers and ranchers will be forced to spend thousands of dollars, as well as comply with new paperwork and monitoring regulations, to implement and operate NAIS. These farmers and ranchers will be paying for a massive assault on their property and privacy rights as NAIS forces farmers and ranchers to provide detailed information about their private property to the government. In addition, the NAIS system empowers the Federal government to enter and seize property from farmers and ranchers without a warrant. Mr. Speaker, this is a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment-protected right to be free of arbitrary searches and seizures.
rights
Introduction Of Legislation Repealing Two Unconstitutional And Paternalistic Federal Financials Regulations
29 September 2006 2006 Ron Paul 97:2
These regulations exceed Congress’s constitutional powers and violate individual property and contract rights. Furthermore, these regulations insult Americans by treating them as children who are unable to manage their own affairs without federal control. I urge my colleagues to show their respect for the Constitution and the American people by cosponsoring this legislation.
rights
Milton Friedman
6 December 2006 2006 Ron Paul 100:8
On a personal note, I was honored to receive Milton Friedman’s endorsement of my congressional campaign in 1996. One particular quote from his endorsement exemplifies how Milton Friedman’s commitment to the free market was rooted in a recognition that a society that respects the dignity and worth of every individual is impossible without limited government, private property, and sound money: “We very badly need to have more Representatives in the House who understand in a principled way the importance of property rights and religious freedom for the preservation and extension of human freedom in general . . .”
rights
Identity Theft Protection Act
5 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 8:13
Madam Speaker, while I do not question the sincerity of those members who suggest that Congress can ensure that citizens’ rights are protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, the only effective privacy protection is to forbid the Federal Government from mandating national identifiers. Legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for a couple of reasons.
rights
Identity Theft Protection Act
5 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 8:18
Any action short of repealing laws authorizing privacy violations is insufficient primarily because the Federal Government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any Federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the Federal Government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the Federal Government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”
rights
Against Raising The Minimum Wage
10 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 10:4
Furthermore, interfering in the voluntary transactions of employers and employees in the name of making things better for low wage earners violates citizens’ rights of association and freedom of contract as if to say to citizens “you are incapable of making employment decisions for yourself in the marketplace.”
rights
Introduction Of The Freedom To Bank Act
1 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 47:2
These regulations exceed Congress’s constitutional powers and violate individual property and contract rights. Furthermore, these regulations insult Americans by treating them as children who are unable to manage their own affairs without Federal control. I urge my colleagues to show their respect for the Constitution and the American people by cosponsoring this legislation.
rights
Introduction Of The health Freedom Protection Act
2 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 49:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Health Freedom Protection Act. This bill restores the First Amendment rights of consumers to receive truthful information regarding the benefits of foods and dietary supplements by codifying the First Amendment standards used by Federal courts to strike down the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) efforts to censor truthful health claims. The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the Federal Trade Commissions (FTC) from censoring truthful health care claims.
rights
Introduction Of The health Freedom Protection Act
2 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 49:2
The American people have made it clear they do not want the Federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements, yet the FDA and the FTC continue to engage in heavy-handed attempts to restrict such access. The FDA continues to frustrate consumers’ efforts to learn how they can improve their health even after Congress, responding to a record number of constituents’ comments, passed the Dietary Supplement and Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). FDA bureaucrats are so determined to frustrate consumers’ access to truthful information that they are even evading their duty to comply with four Federal court decisions vindicating consumers’ First Amendment rights to discover the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements.
rights
In The Name Of Patriotism (Who Are The Patriots?)
22 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 55:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, for some, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. For others, it means dissent against a government’s abuse of the people’s rights.
rights
In The Name Of Patriotism (Who Are The Patriots?)
22 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 55:34
The erosion of our personal liberties started long before 9/11, but 9/11 accelerated the process. There are many things that motivate those who pursue this course, both well-intentioned and malevolent, but it would not happen if the people remained vigilant, understood the importance of individual rights, and were unpersuaded that a need for security justifies the sacrifice for liberty, even if it is just now and then.
rights
In The Name Of Patriotism (Who Are The Patriots?)
22 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 55:35
The true patriot challenges the state when the state embarks on enhancing its power at the expense of the individual. Without a better understanding and a greater determination to rein in the state, the rights of Americans that resulted from the revolutionary break from the British and the writing of the Constitution will disappear.
rights
In The Name Of Patriotism (Who Are The Patriots?)
22 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 55:37
The war mentality was generated by the Iraq war in combination with the constant drumbeat of fear at home. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, who is now likely residing in Pakistan, our supposed ally, are ignored, as our troops fight and die in Iraq and are made easier targets for the terrorists in their backyard. While our leaders constantly use the mess we created to further justify the erosion of our constitutional rights here at home, we forget about our own borders and support the inexorable move toward global government, hardly a good plan for America.
rights
In The Name Of Patriotism (Who Are The Patriots?)
22 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 55:50
Before the war in the Middle East spreads and becomes a world conflict for which we will be held responsible, or the liberties of all Americans become so suppressed we can no longer resist, much has to be done. Time is short, but our course of action should be clear. Resistance to illegal and unconstitutional usurpation of our rights is required. Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes.
rights
National Instant Criminal Background Check System Improvements Amendments Act — Part 1
13 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 61:3
H.R. 2640 also seriously undermines the privacy rights of all Americans, gun owners and non-gun owners alike, by creating and expanding massive Federal Government databases, including medical and other private records of every American.
rights
National Instant Criminal Background Check System Improvements Amendments Act — Part 1
13 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 61:4
H.R. 2640 illustrates how placing restrictions on the exercise of one right, in this case, the right to bear arms, inevitably leads to expanded restriction on other rights as well. In an effort to make the Brady background check on gun purchases more efficient, H.R. 2640 pressures States and mandates Federal agencies to dump massive amounts of information about the private lives of all Americans into a central Federal Government database.
rights
National Instant Criminal Background Check System Improvements Amendments Act — Part 1
13 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 61:5
Among the information that must be submitted to the database are medical, psychological, and drug treatment records that have traditionally been considered protected from disclosure under the physician/patient relationship, as well as records related to misdemeanor domestic violence. While supporters of H.R. 2640 say that there are restrictions on the use of this personal information, such restrictions did not stop the well-publicized IRS and FBI files privacy abuses by both Democratic and Republican administrations. Neither have such restrictions prevented children from being barred from flights because their names appeared on the massive terrorist watch list. We should not trick ourselves into believing that we can pick and choose which part of the Bill of Rights we support.
rights
Introducing The Quality Health Care Coalition Act
2 August 2007 2007 Ron Paul 84:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Quality Health Care Coalition Act, which takes a first step towards restoring a true free market in health care by restoring the rights of freedom of contract and association to health care professionals. Over the past few years, we have had much debate in Congress about the difficulties medical professionals and patients are having with Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). HMOs are devices used by insurance industries to ration health care. While it is politically popular for members of Congress to bash the HMOs and the insurance industry, the growth of the HMOs are rooted in past government interventions in the health care market though the tax code, the Employment Retirement Security Act (ERSIA), and the federal anti-trust laws. These interventions took control of the health care dollar away from individual patients and providers, thus making it inevitable that something like the HMOs would emerge as a means to control costs.
rights
Introducing The Quality Health Care Coalition Act
2 August 2007 2007 Ron Paul 84:5
Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to interfere with the private contracts of American citizens. Furthermore, the prohibitions on contracting contained in the Sherman antitrust laws are based on a flawed economic theory which holds that federal regulators can improve upon market outcomes by restricting the rights of certain market participants deemed too powerful by the government. In fact, anti- trust laws harm consumers by preventing the operation of the free-market, causing prices to rise, quality to suffer, and, as is certainly the case with the relationship between the HMOs and medical professionals, favoring certain industries over others.
rights
Introducing The Quality Health Care Coalition Act
2 August 2007 2007 Ron Paul 84:6
By restoring the freedom of medical professionals to voluntarily come together to negotiate as a group with HMOs and insurance companies, this bill removes a government-imposed barrier to a true free market in health care. Of course, this bill does not infringe on the rights of health care professionals by forcing them to join a bargaining organization against their will. While Congress should protect the rights of all Americans to join organizations for the purpose of bargaining collectively, Congress also has a moral responsibility to ensure that no worker is forced by law to join or financially support such an organization.
rights
Introduction Of The Voter Protection Act
19 september 2007 2007 Ron Paul 90:2
I want to make 4 points about this bill. First, it is constitutional. Article I, section 4, explicitly authorizes the U.S. Congress to, “At any time by law make or alter such regulations regarding the manner of holding elections.” This is the authority that was used for the Voter Rights Act of 1965.
rights
Introducing The Television Consumer Freedom Act
19 September 2007 2007 Ron Paul 91:3
It is, of course, within the constitutionally enumerated powers of Congress to “promote the progress of Science and Useful Arts by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the Exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” However, operating a clearing-house for the subsequent transfer of such property rights in the name of setting a just price or “instilling competition” via “central planning” seems to be neither economically prudent nor justifiable under this enumerated power. This process is one best reserved to the competitive marketplace.
rights
Introducing The Television Consumer Freedom Act
19 September 2007 2007 Ron Paul 91:4
It is impossible for the government to set the just price for satellite programming. Over- regulation of the cable industry has resulted in competition among service providers for government privilege rather than free market competition among providers to offer a better product at a lower price. While federal regulation does leave satellite programming service providers free to bypass the governmental royalty distribution scheme and negotiate directly with owners of programming for program rights, there is a federal prohibition on satellite service providers making local network affiliates’ programs available to nearby satellite subscribers. This bill repeals that federal prohibition so satellite service providers may freely negotiate with program owners for programming desired by satellite service subscribers. Technology is now available by which viewers could view network programs via satellite as presented by their nearest network affiliate. This market-generated technology will remove a major stumbling block to negotiations that should currently be taking place between network program owners and satellite service providers.
rights
House Financial Services Committee – Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy
17 October 2007 2007 Ron Paul 99:2
Foreign nations could easily criticize the United States for its weak dollar policy which favors our exporting industries while harming the exporting industries of our trading partners; for our eminent domain policies which make a mockery of property rights; and for Sarbanes-Oxley, which unfairly burdens companies operating in this country and causes companies to move to foreign capital markets. We would understandably resent this intrusion into our affairs.
rights
Legislation Allowing Interstate Shipment Of Unpasteurized Milk
5 November 2007 2007 Ron Paul 101:3
I urge my colleagues to join me in promoting consumers’ rights, the original intent of the Constitution, and federalism by cosponsoring my legislation to allow the interstate sale of unpasteurized milk and milk products.
rights
Statement of Ron Paul on H.R. 5104
30 January 2008 2008 Ron Paul 3:6
The only legitimate “upgrade” to the original FISA legislation would be to allow surveillance of conversations that begin and end outside the United States between non-US citizens where the telephone call is routed through the United States. Technology and the global communications market have led to more foreign to foreign calls being routed through the United States. This adjustment would solve the problems outlined by the administration without violating the rights of US citizens.
rights
Statement on FISA Amendments
14 March 2008 2008 Ron Paul 15:6
This is what happens when we begin down the slippery slope of giving up our constitutional rights for the promise of more security. When we come to accept that the government can spy on us without a court order we have come to accept tyranny.
rights
Statement on H Res 997
1 April 2008 2008 Ron Paul 16:2
This current round of NATO expansion is a political reward to governments in Georgia and Ukraine that came to power as a result of US-supported revolutions, the so-called Orange Revolution and Rose Revolution. The governments that arose from these street protests were eager to please their US sponsor and the US , in turn, turned a blind eye to the numerous political and human rights abuses that took place under the new regimes. Thus the US policy of “exporting democracy” has only succeeding in exporting more misery to the countries it has targeted.
rights
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.
rights
TRIBUTE ON THE PASSING OF SCOTT S. STUART
15 May 2008 2008 Ron Paul 28:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a man who recently died at a tragically young age. I am appending his official obituary to this extension of remarks. In addition to those things listed in his obituary, I would like to point out that Scott was very involved in community and political events. This, for him, was essential to share his concern for his country. Scott held a deep and abiding belief in the rights, freedom and dignity of human beings.
rights
FISA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008
20 June 2008 2008 Ron Paul 38:3
In addition to gutting the fourth amendment, this measure will deprive Americans who have had their rights violated by telecommunication companies involved in the Administration’s illegal wiretapping program the right to seek redress in the courts for the wrongs committed against them. Worse, this measure provides for retroactive immunity, whereby individuals or organizations that broke the law as it existed are granted immunity for prior illegal actions once the law has been changed. Ex post facto laws have long been considered anathema in free societies under rule of law. Our Founding Fathers recognized this, including in Article I section 9 of the Constitution that “No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” How is this FISA bill not a variation of ex post facto? That alone should give pause to supporters of this measure.
rights
Statement: “Something Big is Happening”
9 July 2008 2008 Ron Paul 42:3
America , with her traditions of free markets and property rights, led the way toward great wealth and progress throughout the world as well as at home. Since we have lost our confidence in the principles of liberty, self reliance, hard work and frugality, and instead took on empire building, financed through inflation and debt, all this has changed. This is indeed frightening and an historic event.
rights
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.
rights
Statement on H. RES. 1370 Calling on the Government of the People’s Republic of China to immediately end abuses of the human rights of its citizens
July 30, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 54:1
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution, which is yet another meaningless but provocative condemnation of China . It is this kind of jingoism that has led to such a low opinion of the United States abroad. Certainly I do not condone human rights abuses, wherever they may occur, but as Members of the US House of Representatives we have no authority over the Chinese government. It is our Constitutional responsibility to deal with abuses in our own country or those created abroad by our own foreign policies. Yet we are not debating a bill to close Guantanamo , where abuses have been documented. We are not debating a bill to withdraw from Iraq , where scores of innocents have been killed, injured, and abused due to our unprovoked attack on that country. We are not debating a bill to reverse the odious FISA bill passed recently which will result in extreme abuses of Americans by gutting the Fourth Amendment.
rights
Statement on H. RES. 1370 Calling on the Government of the People’s Republic of China to immediately end abuses of the human rights of its citizens
July 30, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 54:4
Instead of lecturing China, where I have no doubt there are problems as there are everywhere, I would suggest that we turn our attention to the very real threats in a United States where our civil liberties and human rights are being eroded on a steady basis. The Bible cautions against pointing out the speck in a neighbor’s eye while ignoring the log in one’s own. I suggest we contemplate this sound advice before bringing up such ill-conceived resolutions in the future.
rights
Statement on HR 4137
August 1, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 56:2
Opponents of increasing federal control over higher education should be especially concerned about HR 4137’s “Academic Bill of Rights.” This provision takes a step toward complete federal control of college curriculum, grading, and teaching practices. While this provision is worded as a “sense of Congress,” the clear intent of the “bill of rights” is to intimidate college administrators into ensuring professors’ lectures and lesson plans meet with federal approval.
rights
Statement on HR 4137
August 1, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 56:3
The “Academic Bill of Rights” is a response to concerns that federally-funded institutions of higher learner are refusing to allow students to express, or even be exposed to, points of view that differ from those held by their professors. Ironically, the proliferation of “political correctness” on college campuses is largely a direct result of increased government funding of colleges and universities. Federal funding has isolated institutions of higher education from market discipline, thus freeing professors to promulgate their “politically correct” views regardless of whether this type of instruction benefits their students (who are, after all, the professors’ customers). Now, in a perfect illustration of how politicians use the problems created by previous interventions in the market as a justification for further interventions, Congress proposes to use the problem of “political correctness” to justify more federal control over college classrooms.
rights
Statement on HR 4137
August 1, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 56:4
Instead of fostering open dialog and wide-raging intellectual inquiry, the main effect of the ”Academic Bill of Rights” will be to further stifle debate about controversial topics. This is because many administrators will order their professors not to discuss contentious and divisive subjects in order to avoid a possible confrontation with the federal government. Those who doubt this should remember that many TV and radio stations minimized political programming in the sixties and seventies in order to avoid running afoul of the federal “fairness doctrine.”
rights
Statement on HR 4137
August 1, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 56:5
I am convinced that some promoters of the “Academic Bill of Rights” would be unhappy if, instead of fostering greater debate, this bill silences discussion of certain topics. Scan the websites of some of the organizations promoting the “Academic Bill of Rights” and you will also find calls for silencing critics of the Iraq war and other aspects of American foreign policy.
rights
Statement on HR 4137
August 1, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 56:6
Madame Speaker, HR 4137 expands federal control over higher education; in particular through an “Academic Bill of Rights“ which could further stifle debate and inquiry on America’s college campus. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.
rights
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT
January 6, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 4:13
Madam Speaker, while I do not question the sincerity of those members who suggest that Congress can ensure that citizens’ rights are protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, the only effective privacy protection is to forbid the federal government from mandating national identifiers. Legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for a couple of reasons.
rights
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT
January 6, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 4:18
Any action short of repealing laws authorizing privacy violations is insufficient primarily because the federal government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”
rights
INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION ALLOWING INTERSTATE SHIPMENT OF UNPASTEURIZED MILK
January 28, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 12:3
I urge my colleagues to join me in promoting consumers’ rights, the original intent of the Constitution, and federalism by cosponsoring my legislation to allow the interstate shipment of unpasteurized milk and milk products for human consumption.
rights
THE FREEDOM TO BANK ACT
March 10, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 26:2
These regulations exceed Congress’s constitutional powers and violate individual property and contract rights. Furthermore, these regulations insult Americans by treating them as children who are unable to manage their own affairs without federal control. I urge my colleagues to show their respect for the Constitution and the American people by cosponsoring the Freedom to Bank Act.
rights
INTRODUCING THE QUALITY HEALTH CARE COALITION ACT
March 12, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 29:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Quality Health Care Coalition Act which takes a first step towards restoring a true free market in health care by restoring the rights of freedom of contract and association to health care professionals. For over a decade, we have had much debate in Congress about the difficulties medical professionals and patients are having with Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). HMOs are devices used by insurance industries to ration health care. While it is politically popular for members of Congress to bash the HMOs and the insurance industry, the growth of the HMOs are rooted in past government interventions in the health care market though the tax code, the Employment Retirement Security Act (ERSIA), and the federal anti-trust laws. These interventions took control of the health care dollar away from individual patients and providers, thus making it inevitable that something like the HMOs would emerge as a means to control costs.
rights
INTRODUCING THE QUALITY HEALTH CARE COALITION ACT
March 12, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 29:5
Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to interfere with the private contracts of American citizens. Furthermore, the prohibitions on contracting contained in the Sherman antitrust laws are based on a flawed economic theory which holds that federal regulators can improve upon market outcomes by restricting the rights of certain market participants deemed too powerful by the government. In fact, anti- trust laws harm consumers by preventing the operation of the free-market, causing prices to rise, quality to suffer, and, as is certainly the case with the relationship between the HMOs and medical professionals, favoring certain industries over others.
rights
INTRODUCING THE QUALITY HEALTH CARE COALITION ACT
March 12, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 29:6
By restoring the freedom of medical professionals to voluntarily come together to negotiate as a group with HMOs and insurance companies, this bill removes a government-imposed barrier to a true free market in health care. Of course, this bill does not infringe on the rights of health care professionals by forcing them to join a bargaining organization against their will. While Congress should protect the rights of all Americans to join organizations for the purpose of bargaining collectively, Congress also has a moral responsibility to ensure that no worker is forced by law to join or financially support such an organization.
rights
COMMEMORATING 20TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE TIANANMEN SQUARE SUPPRESSION
June 2, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 61:3
This resolution “calls on the People’s Republic of China to invite full and independent investigations into the Tiananmen Square crackdown, assisted by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the International Committee of the Red Cross . . .” Where do we get the authority for such a demand? I wonder how the U.S. government would respond if China demanded that the United Nations conduct a full and independent investigation into the treatment of detainees at the U.S.-operated Guantanamo facility?
rights
COMMEMORATING 20TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE TIANANMEN SQUARE SUPPRESSION
June 2, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 61:5
While we certainly do not condone government suppression of individual rights and liberties wherever they may occur, why are we not investigating these abuses closer to home and within our jurisdiction? It seems the House is not interested in investigating allegations that U.S. government officials and employees approved and practiced torture against detainees. Where is the Congressional investigation of the U.S.-operated “secret prisons” overseas? What about the administration’s assertion of the right to detain individuals indefinitely without trial? It may be easier to point out the abuses and shortcomings of governments overseas than to address government abuses here at home, but we have the constitutional obligation to exercise our oversight authority in such matters. I strongly believe that addressing these current issues would be a better use of our time than once again condemning China for an event that took place some 20 years ago.
rights
GLOBAL WARMING PETITION SIGNED BY 31,478 SCIENTISTS
June 4, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 64:16
Above all, we must never forget our contract with the American people – the Constitution that provides the sole source of legitimacy of our government. That Constitution requires that we preserve the basic human rights of our people – including the right to freely manufacture, use, and sell energy produced by any means they devise – including nuclear, hydrocarbon, solar, wind, or even bicycle generators.
rights
Statement Opposing Resolution on Iran
June 19, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 72:4
Madam Speaker, I urge you to support H.R. 560, expressing support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law and for other purposes. The only effective way to achieve lasting peace and prosperity in the region, along with bringing about reforms in Iran’s polity, is to assist the Iranian people in their quest to achieve political, social, and religious liberty. Every government can be judged with the way in which it treats its ethnic and religious minorities, and the current Iranian government gets a failing grade for its treatment of its many and diverse minorities. It is not our position as the United States to determine the outcome of the recent Iranian elections, but as a leader in the international community, we have a responsibility to ensure that the people of Iran have the opportunity to have fair and free elections.
rights
INTRODUCING HEALTH FREEDOM LEGISLATION
July 29, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 87:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce two pieces of legislation restoring the First Amendment rights of consumers to receive truthful information regarding the benefits of foods and dietary supplements. The first bill, the Health Freedom Act, codifies the First Amendment by ending the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s efforts to censor truthful health claims. The second bill, the Freedom of Health Speech Act, codifies the First and Fifth Amendment by requiring the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prove that health claims are false before it takes action to stop manufacturers and marketers from making the claims.
rights
INTRODUCING HEALTH FREEDOM LEGISLATION
July 29, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 87:2
The American people have made it clear they do not want the federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements, yet the FDA and the FTC continue to engage in heavy-handed attempts to restrict such access. The FDA continues to frustrate consumers’ efforts to learn how they can improve their health even after Congress, responding to a record number of constituents’ comments, passed the Dietary Supplement and Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). FDA bureaucrats are so determined to frustrate consumers’ access to truthful information that they are even evading their duty to comply with four federal court decisions vindicating consumers’ First Amendment rights to discover the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements.
rights
INTRODUCING HEALTH FREEDOM LEGISLATION
July 29, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 87:6
The Health Freedom Act will force the FDA to at last comply with the commands of Congress, the First Amendment, numerous federal courts, and the American people by codifying the First Amendment prohibition on prior restraint. Specifically, the Health Freedom Act stops the FDA from censoring truthful claims about the curative, mitigative, or preventative effects of dietary supplements. The Health Freedom Act also stops the FDA from prohibiting the distribution of scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in protecting against disease. The FDA has proven that it cannot be trusted to protect consumers’ rights to make informed choices. It is time for Congress to stop the FDA from censoring truthful health information.
rights
MORE GOVERNMENT WON’T HELP
September 23, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 90:3
Number two, if medical care is provided by government, this can only be achieved by an authoritarian government unconcerned about the rights of the individual.
rights
- The China Syndrome: Let's not be hasty with a prescription
20 June 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 June 1997 verse 7 ... Cached
We have such a case before us now. It is the dilemma of whether or not China should be granted the same trade relationship granted to almost every other nation of the world, a status misleadingly referred to as "Most Favored Nations," or, MFN. We all know the charges: the Chinese government violates basic human rights of its citizens, it is hostile towards Christianity, and its system of government runs contrary to our most fundamental beliefs.
rights
- The China Syndrome: Let's not be hasty with a prescription
20 June 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 June 1997 verse 12 ... Cached
But the critics of MFN for China do not address the free-trade aspect of the debate, or the very real cost eliminating MFN will have on the American people. Instead, they focus on the real facts that the basic rights of people the rights we as Americans declare come from God are often violated by China. And for that I defer to those who are "on the ground" in China: the missionaries.
rights
- The China Syndrome: Let's not be hasty with a prescription
20 June 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 June 1997 verse 13 ... Cached
According to Father Robert Sirico, a Paulist priest who recently discussed this topic on the Wall Street Journal's opinion page, the Americans actually in China working to help the Chinese people are scared of what ending MFN might do to their efforts and the people to whom they minister. After all, ending MFN will not bring about the freedoms we hope China may confer on its people, nor will ending MFN mean more religious freedom or fewer human rights violations. In fact, those working in China to bring about positive change fear only the worst if MFN is withdrawn.
rights
- Constitution must always be considered
01 September 1997 Texas Straight Talk 01 September 1997 verse 14 ... Cached
I swore an oath to uphold and follow the Constitution. It's an oath I take seriously because when a congressman violates the Constitution and spends money on programs not authorized, a great deal of harm is done. In the first place, harm is done directly to the individual taxpayer because the fruit of his labor is wrongly taken from him. Second, harm is done by the way the money is spent, almost always violating the rights of states and the liberties of people. Finally, harm is done to our society as we hypocritically throw to the wind the notion that Congress is bound by any law. How can Congress expect individuals to follow the laws created on Capitol Hill, when Congress doesn't follow the law as embodied in the Constitution?
rights
- If someone accepts federal cash, then they must follow rules taxpayers set and deserve
15 September 1997 Texas Straight Talk 15 September 1997 verse 5 ... Cached
During debate last week an amendment was offered to prohibit the use of federal funds to perform abortions or offer various contraceptive devices to minors, if parents are not notified. The real debate on this point is not one of the rights of children versus the rights of parents, or even the question of whether federal money being spent this way -which constitutionality it obviously should not. The real debate is to what extent strings may be attached to federal funds. If the government is going to fund an unconstitutional program which should not exist anyway, then at the very least Congress should add sensible requirements for the sake of accountability. Doctors and nurses cannot even give out even an aspirin to a child without parental consent, mainly for fear of liability. And the government should do no less. If parents want their children to have ready access to birth control devices, then the parents should pay for it. But if the government is going to force us, the taxpayers, to subsidize these programs, then at the very least we should have a reasonable expectation that we - as taxpayers - are not going to be held accountable for any problems which may result from a child being given unlimited, uncontrolled access to various items paid for by the government. At the same time, it is unreasonable to expect parents to assume liability for complications resulting from actions over which they are no allowed no control.
rights
- US shouldn't cast stones with Religious Persecution
06 October 1997 Texas Straight Talk 06 October 1997 verse 8 ... Cached
The legislation cites for its justification not the Constitution, but various international agreements. It then authorizes the president to take action, without the approval of Congress, against countries he thinks are violating rights to religious freedom.
rights
- US shouldn't cast stones with Religious Persecution
06 October 1997 Texas Straight Talk 06 October 1997 verse 9 ... Cached
In addition, the legislation prohibits federal agencies and U.S. persons from exporting goods to citizens within countries whose governments either engage in or tolerate "religious persecution." There is great concern from many in the religious community that these kinds of restrictions would prohibit American missionaries from taking Bibles and humanitarian items into those named countries - the opposite of what needs to occur if we seriously want to see positive changes in the nations persecuting their citizens for religious reasons. Several issues arising from this proposed legislation warrant discussion and debate, including constitutional authority and the morality of rights "swapping."
rights
- US shouldn't cast stones with Religious Persecution
06 October 1997 Texas Straight Talk 06 October 1997 verse 10 ... Cached
Religious persecution in any form is reprehensible, but especially when it takes on a violent face. It was for this reason our Founding Fathers insisted upon a Bill of Rights which prohibited our federal government from interfering with religious exercise by persons within the United States. The Constitution, however, does not provide the federal government the authority to police the world at taxpayer expense.
rights
- US shouldn't cast stones with Religious Persecution
06 October 1997 Texas Straight Talk 06 October 1997 verse 12 ... Cached
As to the effectiveness of trade sanctions reforming human rights records, the trade embargo imposed on Cuba for the past thirty years serves as a good example of the lack of the effectiveness of such a policy. According to Father Robert Sirico, a Catholic priest who recently discussed this topic in the Wall Street Journal, American missionaries operating in offending countries actual favor economic relationships over isolation, and see engagement as the policy most likely to bring about positive change.
rights
- US shouldn't cast stones with Religious Persecution
06 October 1997 Texas Straight Talk 06 October 1997 verse 13 ... Cached
While basic human rights must include free religious exercise, those rights must also include the right to associate with others. To prohibit individuals from the U.S. from meeting and trading with the individual citizens of foreign countries - in the name of "protecting" human rights - is inconsistent with the goal we all hope to achieve. It is only by changing the hearts of those nations' leaders that religious persecution will end. And it is only by allowing our missionaries and businessmen unfettered access to those countries that we will see those leaders influenced for the better.
rights
- FDA bill no reform: proves Congress still the same
13 October 1997 Texas Straight Talk 13 October 1997 verse 9 ... Cached
This now-passed FDA bill requires that the US, through various international agreements, "harmonize regulation . . . and seek appropriate reciprocal arrangements" with foreign regulatory agencies. Opponents of this harmonization language correctly argue this "internationalizing" is very likely to limit the availability of food supplements by requiring prescriptions for dispensation as is the case in certain parts of Europe. Now remember, much of what the FDA does is already an unconstitutional usurpation of states rights, now this measure allows foreign governments to usurp the rights of American consumers.
rights
- FDA bill no reform: proves Congress still the same
13 October 1997 Texas Straight Talk 13 October 1997 verse 11 ... Cached
Food supplement availability may be the least of concerns among those who still revere states' rights and acknowledge the continued existence of the tenth amendment, but one section of the legislation, "prohibits states and subdivisions from regulating food, drugs, or cosmetics . . ." The bill permits the FDA to set national standards for cosmetics but it does permit states to issue warning labels and take defective products of the shelves.
rights
- Gun Control? Disarm The Bureaucrats!
20 October 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 October 1997 verse 6 ... Cached
The enforcement of the interventionist, welfare-warfare state requires a growing army of thriving bureaucrats. With special interests demanding favors, federal office-holders can only meet those demands by abusing the rights of those who produce wealth and cherish liberty. The resentment of those being abused is then directed at the government agents who come to collect, even though those agents are merely the front-men for the special interests and their elected puppets. As resentment toward these agents increases and becomes more hostile, the natural consequence has been for the bureaucrats - the intruders upon liberty - to arm themselves as protection against the angry victims of government abuse.
rights
- Gun Control? Disarm The Bureaucrats!
20 October 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 October 1997 verse 12 ... Cached
I tend to agree with Charlton Heston, who recently said that the Constitution's Second Amendment is the most important. Without the ability to protect themselves and their property, discussion of any other rights is only so much talk.
rights
- Neutrality and dialogue, not intervention, will secure peace
24 November 1997 Texas Straight Talk 24 November 1997 verse 13 ... Cached
Our foreign policy is without sense or reason. We subsidize China to the tune of many billions of dollars, although their record on human rights is every bit as bad as Iraq. Not only that, but China probably represents the greatest threat to world peace of all the countries in the world. Further, we are currently bailing-out Indonesia, although it too, violates the civil liberties of their own people. The U.S. criticizes Iraq for the treatment of the Kurds; yet Turkey's policy is the same and we reward them with more American dollars. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have hardly been champions of civil liberties for minority religious groups or women, and yet we sacrificed American lives for them. The determining factor in all this seems to be who's controlling the oil. Human rights issues and provoked threats from Hussein seem to be nothing more than propaganda tools for the politicians.
rights
Abortion and National Sovereignty: No Compromises
26 January 1998 Texas Straight Talk 26 January 1998 verse 6 ... Cached
I believe that the only real answer to the concerns of sovereignty, property rights, constitutionality and pro-life philosophy is for the United States to totally de-fund any foreign aide for international "family planning" programs. I introduced a resolution to that effect in 1997 and we received 154 votes in support of cutting off this unconstitutional funding program.
rights
Never sacrifice liberty for "campaign reform"
02 March 1998 Texas Straight Talk 02 March 1998 verse 5 ... Cached
Despite the rhetoric, the proposed "campaign finance reforms" have little to do with liberty, freedom and democracy, and much to do with narrowing the choices available to the American people and limiting their ability to participate in the free exchange of ideas. And above all else, these "reforms" are designed to preserve the status quo and protect those in power. To maintain their authority, many in Congress are willing to limit the choices of Americans and trample First Amendment rights.
rights
Never sacrifice liberty for "campaign reform"
02 March 1998 Texas Straight Talk 02 March 1998 verse 9 ... Cached
The only meritorious reform is legislation to strike down barriers which serve to quash opposition to the big-government political factions. For this reason, under authority of Article I, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution relating to the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding federal elections, I have introduced HR 2477, the Voter Freedom Act, and HR 2478, the Debate Freedom Act. Rather than trampling individual rights, these bills actually enhance fundamental liberties and expand the exchange of ideas. These bills embrace, rather than disgrace, the First Amendment.
rights
Block grants are not the answer
09 March 1998 Texas Straight Talk 09 March 1998 verse 12 ... Cached
Devolution is said to be a return to States Rights, since it is inferred that management of the program will be decentralized. This is a new 1990s definition of the original concept of States Rights and will prove not to be an adequate substitute.
rights
Block grants are not the answer
09 March 1998 Texas Straight Talk 09 March 1998 verse 13 ... Cached
At the same time these token efforts were made in welfare, education and human resources reform, Congress gave the federal government massive new influence over adoption and juvenile crime, education and medicine. Block grants to States for specific purposes after collecting the revenues at the Federal level is foreign to the concept that once was understood as States rights.
rights
Is it freedom from religious persecution?
11 May 1998 Texas Straight Talk 11 May 1998 verse 4 ... Cached
The "Freedom From Religious Persecution Act of 1997" proposes that a new office be created within the Clinton Administration, with the stated purpose to "provide for the imposition of economic sanctions against countries engaged in a pattern of religious persecution." Numerous issues arising from this proposed legislation warrant elaboration, discussion, and debate: constitutional authority, effectiveness of trade sanctions, rights "swapping," and the practicality of such an approach.
rights
Is it freedom from religious persecution?
11 May 1998 Texas Straight Talk 11 May 1998 verse 6 ... Cached
Constitutional considerations temporarily set aside, it would be commendable if the legislation could at least be justified based upon some proven or demonstrated effectiveness of trade sanctions. The effectiveness of trade sanctions for reforming human rights records is, at best, unscientific and empirically unjustified. Harsh economic sanctions against Cuba for more than thirty years have done nothing to alter that nation's record on human rights or political bent.
rights
Is it freedom from religious persecution?
11 May 1998 Texas Straight Talk 11 May 1998 verse 7 ... Cached
While the right to free religious exercise absent interference from the state is an important right, it is not the only right. Any list of individual rights must also include the right to enter into voluntary exchanges with others. Removing trade barriers benefit consumers who can purchase goods more cheaply than previously available from those who have a comparative advantage in the respective good. Those individuals who choose, for moral or religious reasons, not to trade with citizens of particular foreign jurisdictions are, of course, not threatened by removing barriers for those who, for whatever reasons, choose to do so. Further, the right of United States citizens to travel freely, at their own expense, is also infringed upon by the portion of the bills limiting the availability of commercial flights.
rights
Is it freedom from religious persecution?
11 May 1998 Texas Straight Talk 11 May 1998 verse 9 ... Cached
Obliterating religious persecution around the world is a noble and, I believe, well-intended pursuit. However, circumventing the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as well as choosing an economically-unproven means of doing so, is never an advisable method.
rights
Religious freedom found in following Constitution
08 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 08 June 1998 verse 3 ... Cached
Simply meddling with Bill of Rights will not correct problems
rights
Religious freedom found in following Constitution
08 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 08 June 1998 verse 8 ... Cached
Our basic problem is not a lack of constitutional direction regarding the right of Americans to freely practice their religious beliefs; for the First Amendment is very clear. In reality, the problem has been that our courts are filled with judges who have no understanding, appreciation, or concern for the original intent of our Founding Fathers, or for the constitutional Doctrine of Enumerated Powers, or of property rights. And as long as this disgraceful condition exists, any new amendment to the Constitution will only be similarly abused. How can we expect judges, or even Members of Congress, to follow new constitutional amendments when they do not now follow anything currently existing in the Constitution?
rights
Religious freedom found in following Constitution
08 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 08 June 1998 verse 13 ... Cached
The only solution is to shrink the government and raise a new generation of judges and congressmen who understand the constitutional principles of original intent, enumerated powers, and property rights. If we do this, our existing First Amendment right to freedom of religious expression will be protected more strongly than any effort at federal meddling.
rights
Religious freedom found in following Constitution
08 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 08 June 1998 verse 14 ... Cached
Until our judges and our Congress embraces the Constitution, and willingly follows it, new Constitutional amendments will do little to help and will almost certainly make things worse by weakening the already-existing bill of rights.
rights
Campaign reform should encourage choice
15 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 15 June 1998 verse 9 ... Cached
The rights of eligible citizens to seek office, volunteer for the campaigns of the candidates they like, vote for candidates of their choice, and even the right to create and develop new political parties, are fundamental to a free society. But more and more, people find the choice of candidates from the two major parties to be akin to choosing between the lesser of two evils, and feel increasingly unrepresented in the democratic process, not knowing that there may well be candidates out there who more closely match their own political philosophy.
rights
Campaign reform should encourage choice
15 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 15 June 1998 verse 10 ... Cached
I have introduced two pieces of legislation which will be included in the debate on this issue. My legislation, rather than disgracing our First Amendment rights, embraces them by enhancing electoral free speech.
rights
Campaign reform should encourage choice
15 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 15 June 1998 verse 13 ... Cached
Undue restrictions on access to the ballot impair the ability of citizens to exercise their rights, and has a direct and damaging effect on citizens' participation in the electoral process. Many states unduly restrict access to the ballot by means of such devices as excessive petition signature requirements, insufficient petitioning periods, unconstitutionally early petition filing deadlines, petition signature distribution criteria, and limitations on eligibility to circulate and sign petitions.
rights
Campaign reform should encourage choice
15 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 15 June 1998 verse 15 ... Cached
Congress has strict constitutional authority to regulate, protect and promote the exercise of the voting rights, as well as set the specifications on how federal elections are to be conducted.
rights
Campaign reform should encourage choice
15 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 15 June 1998 verse 16 ... Cached
It would be ironic if in our zeal to promote freedom and correct what is wrong with our system of campaigns and elections, we instituted new laws and regulations that trample our most precious rights. The answer to our electoral problems is found not in restricting freedom or limiting access, but rather in following the Constitution and allowing maximum individual liberty.
rights
Trade, not aid or isolation, should be US foreign policy
22 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 22 June 1998 verse 14 ... Cached
And there is another dynamic in place as we look toward engagement rather than isolation, and that is the issue of aid. For years the American taxpayer has been forced to subsidize hundreds of governments around the world, including those of some of the most vicious dictators in history, in the name of either "promoting human rights" in that country, or in the interest of "national security." Often times, tax dollars are being used to prop up these dictators, while at the same time trade sanctions prevent US farmers and small businessmen from selling their products in that market.
rights
After 222 years liberty must still be our goal
29 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 29 June 1998 verse 4 ... Cached
Liberty, freedom, self-determination. It was 222 years ago this week that a handful of colonists stood and demanded that these rights, inalienable be virtue of being endowed by the Creator, be recognized by the imperial Crown of England.
rights
After 222 years liberty must still be our goal
29 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 29 June 1998 verse 6 ... Cached
Those who signed the Declaration of Independence envisioned a nation rising on this continent which was based on the Rule of Law and respected, unequivocally, the rights of the individual to live their lives free from oppression. To a degree perhaps unimaginable to that band of radical idealists, their vision has come to pass over these two centuries.
rights
Respect for property rights necessary for freedom
06 July 1998 Texas Straight Talk 06 July 1998 verse 2 ... Cached
Respect for property rights necessary for freedom
rights
Respect for property rights necessary for freedom
06 July 1998 Texas Straight Talk 06 July 1998 verse 4 ... Cached
It is the most basic of all our rights. In a society which has the proper focus, many of the problems we face today become non-issues. Over the last half-century, there has been a declared war on these most fundamental of rights: property rights.
rights
Respect for property rights necessary for freedom
06 July 1998 Texas Straight Talk 06 July 1998 verse 5 ... Cached
Some try to make this an issue of simply pro-property rights versus pro-environmentalism. In reality, the issue is much, much deeper. In fact, how we look at property rights is a most basic foundation of our liberty.
rights
Respect for property rights necessary for freedom
06 July 1998 Texas Straight Talk 06 July 1998 verse 6 ... Cached
When one has a proper respect for property rights, environmental concerns go away. In a society that respects the property of others, it is cause for legal action if someone pollutes your land, or the water coming across your property, or the air which floats above it. With a proper respect for private property, people can and should be allowed to do whatever they would like with their land - barring any restrictions they agreed to when they purchased the land - up until the point that their actions physically affect their neighbors.
rights
Respect for property rights necessary for freedom
06 July 1998 Texas Straight Talk 06 July 1998 verse 11 ... Cached
Freedom only exists where there is complete respect for rights of property ownership. When we go to another person's land, or home, or business, we should expect to be bound by their rules of conduct. And they should be free to protect their property and family as they see fit.
rights
Respect for property rights necessary for freedom
06 July 1998 Texas Straight Talk 06 July 1998 verse 12 ... Cached
Increasingly, though, the government is usurping our property rights, in one fashion or another. It is fair to say that we are in a sense losing true property ownership. In many cases, the government prevents us from doing with our property what we would like, essentially making the land worthless. Yet government still manages to tax us at rates which rival rent for the pleasure of being forbidden from using the land. Some of the laws are ostensibly "environmental" in nature, others reflect a desire for "fairness," while still others make claims of simply being "good for everyone." While these laws may be good for the big-government bureaucrats, they are bad for almost everyone else. In fact, these laws amount to regulatory takings, which are prohibited by our Constitution's Fifth Amendment.
rights
Respect for property rights necessary for freedom
06 July 1998 Texas Straight Talk 06 July 1998 verse 14 ... Cached
Our freedoms and liberties are only as secure as our property rights. This was the underlying assumption of our Founding Fathers, and a foundation we are in danger of cracking. Without a firm respect for property ownership, all our other rights are only so much talk.
rights
Paul legislation will stop national ID card
13 July 1998 Texas Straight Talk 13 July 1998 verse 6 ... Cached
Under the current state of the law, the citizens of states which have drivers' licenses that do not conform to the federal standards by October 1, 2000, will find themselves essentially stripped of their ability to participate in life as we know it. On that date, Americans will not be able to get a job, open a bank account, apply for Social Security or Medicare, exercise their Second Amendment rights, or even take an airplane flight, unless they can produce a state-issued ID that conforms to the federal specifications. Further, under the terms of the 1996 Kennedy-Kassebaum health-care law, Americans may be forced to present this federally-approved drivers' license before consulting a physician for medical treatment!
rights
Paul legislation will stop national ID card
13 July 1998 Texas Straight Talk 13 July 1998 verse 7 ... Cached
This situation is decidedly un-American, contrary to our heritage of individual liberty and states' rights. The federal government has no constitutional authority to require Americans to present any form of identification before engaging in any private transaction, such as opening a bank account, seeking employment, or especially seeing a doctor.
rights
Integrity of Social Security Number must be maintained
20 July 1998 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1998 verse 3 ... Cached
Issues of individual privacy, rights should not be so quickly dismissed
rights
Right to work must be free of coercion
27 July 1998 Texas Straight Talk 27 July 1998 verse 6 ... Cached
The National Right to Work Act simply repeals sections of federal law giving union officials the power to force workers to pay union dues as a condition of employment. Compulsory unionism violates employers' and employees' constitutional rights of freedom of contract and association. Further, Congress has no constitutional authority to force employees to pay union dues to a labor union as a condition of getting or keeping a job. Perhaps more importantly, though, Congress does not have the moral authority to grant a private third party the right to interfere in the employment agreements between two free people.
rights
'High crimes and misdemeanors'
07 September 1998 Texas Straight Talk 07 September 1998 verse 6 ... Cached
But allegations of bribery, treason and oppression of rights are far more serious.
rights
For sake of Rule of Law, Congress must proceed
28 September 1998 Texas Straight Talk 28 September 1998 verse 13 ... Cached
A big question will be whether or not the impeachment hearings will be limited solely to allegations that the president lied under oath, or if it will also include other charges. Those involve potentially treasonous activities in transferring advanced missile technology to the communist Chinese in exchange for campaign donations, as well as violations of peoples rights in the abuse of more than 1,000 confidential FBI files for partisan purposes. (By comparison, a man went to prison in the early 1970s for misuse of one FBI file.)
rights
Privacy tops agenda
09 November 1998 Texas Straight Talk 09 November 1998 verse 2 ... Cached
Restoration of rights should lead in 106th Congress
rights
Privacy tops agenda
09 November 1998 Texas Straight Talk 09 November 1998 verse 16 ... Cached
We as a nation must jealously guard our constitutional rights and American heritage of liberty. To assume we can at the same time be a nation of liberty and have a government which monitors our every move and word is foolishly inconsistent.
rights
Privacy Busters: Big Bank is watching
30 November 1998 Texas Straight Talk 30 November 1998 verse 11 ... Cached
But at the expense of law-abiding citizen's privacy? And with the resources of private institutions? While such egregious violations of individual rights are common in totalitarian regimes (Hitler's National Socialists elevated such abuses to a perverse art), they cannot be tolerated in a free society. The regulators say these new banking rules are required under existing banking laws. If that is the case, I will gladly relieve them of that burden by introducing, at the beginning of the 106th Congress in January, legislation to repeal those laws. Somehow, though, I imagine such action will not stop them, only slow them down.
rights
Free speech is good medicine
07 December 1998 Texas Straight Talk 07 December 1998 verse 7 ... Cached
In recent years, the Food and Drug Administration has quietly begun limiting the speech rights of Americans. For as disturbing as this may be from an ideological perspective, it portends ominous possibilities for people's very lives.
rights
Orwellian rules face major opposition
01 February 1999 Texas Straight Talk 01 February 1999 verse 13 ... Cached
Congressmen are signing on these measures due in large part to the growing chorus of Americans who are saying, to paraphrase our founding fathers' cry, "don't tread on my privacy rights!" Dozens of organizations, ranging from banking and technology groups to conservative family-values coalitions to the liberal ACLU, are joining in the fight to oppose these regulations.
rights
A right to network TV?
08 February 1999 Texas Straight Talk 08 February 1999 verse 8 ... Cached
Most recently, in an attempt to protect the property rights of network program creators and affiliate local stations, a federal court in Florida properly granted an injunction to prevent the satellite service industry from making certain programming available to its customers. This is programming for which the satellite service providers had not secured from the program creator-owners the right to rebroadcast.
rights
A right to network TV?
08 February 1999 Texas Straight Talk 08 February 1999 verse 10 ... Cached
The Library of Congress, if you can imagine, has been delegated the power to determine prices at which program suppliers must make their programs available to cable and satellite programming service providers. Government's attempt to set the just price for satellite programming outside the market mechanism is inherently impossible. This has resulted in competition among service providers for government privilege rather than consumer-benefits inherent to the genuine free market. Currently, however, federal regulation does leave satellite programming service providers free to bypass the governmental royalty distribution scheme and negotiate directly with owners of programming for program rights.
rights
A right to network TV?
08 February 1999 Texas Straight Talk 08 February 1999 verse 11 ... Cached
It is within the constitutionally enumerated powers of Congress to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." However, operating a clearinghouse for the subsequent transfer of such property rights in the name of setting a just price or "instilling competition" via "central planning" seems not to be an economically prudent nor justifiable action under this enumerated power. This process is one best reserved to the competitive marketplace.
rights
Victory should be call to action
08 March 1999 Texas Straight Talk 08 March 1999 verse 9 ... Cached
The LEAA statement goes on to read that, "Such intrusive measures will also infringe the privacy rights of law-abiding citizens while detracting from meaningful debate and discussion of measures that would improve law enforcement's crime-fighting ability."
rights
Tragedy begets tragedy
14 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 14 June 1999 verse 10 ... Cached
Very soon, Congress will take up HR 1501, the Consequences for Juvenile Offenders Act. The measure not only continues the federalization of law enforcement, it undermines the Bill of Rights. While our founding fathers wisely left the enforcement of crime to local and state leaders, federal legislators assume they are wiser not only than George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and George Mason, but everyone not in DC.
rights
Tragedy begets tragedy
14 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 14 June 1999 verse 12 ... Cached
One measure would require every music store to provide, free of charge, the lyrics to any song upon the demand of a parent. While perhaps a good service for a store to provide on its own, to mandate this from Washington is nothing short of immoral, and an unfunded mandate of the highest order. It is also an infringement on the rights of the free-market musician. After all, he profits by the sale of his music -- lyrics and all. For as revolting as his "art" may be, it remains true that never is a second wrong justified by a first.
rights
Tragedy begets tragedy
14 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 14 June 1999 verse 14 ... Cached
In rushing to "do something," even good people are tempted to promote a very bad idea, presenting Americans with a false choice: give up the precious liberties of Bill of Rights and cede greater power to the federal government, or face more youth violence. Reality, of course, demonstrates something very different.
rights
Flag Amendment is a reckless solution
28 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 28 June 1999 verse 9 ... Cached
This system has served us well for more than two centuries. After all, our founding fathers correctly recognized that the federal government should be severely limited, and especially in matters of expression. They revolted against a government that prevented them from voicing their politically unpopular views regarding taxation, liberty and property rights. As a result, the founders wanted to ensure that a future monolithic federal government would not exist, and that no federal government of the United States would ever be able to restrict what government officials might find obnoxious, unpopular or unpatriotic. After all, the great patriots of our nation -- George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and Benjamin Franklin -- were all considered disloyal pests by the British government.
rights
Flag Amendment is a reckless solution
28 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 28 June 1999 verse 10 ... Cached
Too often in this debate, the issue of patriotism is misplaced. This is well addressed by Keith Kruel, an Army veteran and a past national commander of the American Legion. He has said that, "Our nation was not founded on devotion to symbolic idols, but on principles, beliefs and ideals expressed in the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. American veterans who have protected our banner in battle have not done so to protect a 'golden calf.' …A patriot cannot be created by legislation."
rights
A new declaration: more liberty, fewer taxes
05 July 1999 Texas Straight Talk 05 July 1999 verse 5 ... Cached
They declared, in radical terms both then and now, that "all men are created equal" and are endowed with certain "inalienable rights," rights that government cannot take away for government does not grant them.
rights
A new declaration: more liberty, fewer taxes
05 July 1999 Texas Straight Talk 05 July 1999 verse 6 ... Cached
In the Declaration of Independence, the founding fathers sought to demonstrate to the world that the "…history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having the direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states…" In the list, we find the basic philosophy for our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
rights
Campaign reform misses target
12 July 1999 Texas Straight Talk 12 July 1999 verse 7 ... Cached
Those pushing finance reform argue the fault rests only with those who are trying to influence government; never is fault assigned, of course, to those congressmen who create the environment that pressures the system to generate abuse. Members of Congress thereby avoid assuming responsibility for their own acts and instead blame those who exert pressure on Congress through the political process, despite the fact that political participation is among the most basic of rights bestowed on all Americans.
rights
Restricting the Executive Orders
02 August 1999 Texas Straight Talk 02 August 1999 verse 12 ... Cached
Finally, and perhaps most significantly, my legislation grants legal standing to individual Members of Congress and Senators, state officials and, of course, private citizens who believe a president's Executive Order has overstepped constitutional bounds and negatively impacted them, their rights, their property or their business.
rights
A flood of bills of rights
16 August 1999 Texas Straight Talk 16 August 1999 verse 2 ... Cached
A flood of bills of rights
rights
A flood of bills of rights
16 August 1999 Texas Straight Talk 16 August 1999 verse 5 ... Cached
The latest in this trend among the politically savvy is the use of the adjective phrase "Bill of Rights." Every imaginable cause or group has seen a "Bill of Rights" proposed to support it these days: children, patients, airline travelers and so on.
rights
A flood of bills of rights
16 August 1999 Texas Straight Talk 16 August 1999 verse 7 ... Cached
Without fail, these new "Bill of Rights" programs are not just cute ploys to garner attention, they strike at the core of what is wrong with the way so many in Congress go about their business. One has to raise the question: What's wrong with the existing Bill of Rights, those original Ten Amendments to the Constitution, that a new one must be created to assuage every group, complaint or situation?
rights
A flood of bills of rights
16 August 1999 Texas Straight Talk 16 August 1999 verse 8 ... Cached
The answer is simple. The problem with the Bill of Rights is that it restricts the power of the federal government while ensuring maximum liberty for the individual. This is a problem for those who see government as the panacea to every ill, the protector of all that is good. While the Bill of Rights limits government, liberates the market and empowers the individual, these initiatives inevitably anoint government with greater power, restrict the rights of the individual and shackle the market.
rights
A flood of bills of rights
16 August 1999 Texas Straight Talk 16 August 1999 verse 9 ... Cached
We should be suspicious when it is declared we need a new "Bill of Rights." If Congress were interested in protecting the rights of individuals (whether as taxpayers, patients or travelers), then it should adhere to the principles so clearly defined in the original Bill of Rights.
rights
A flood of bills of rights
16 August 1999 Texas Straight Talk 16 August 1999 verse 11 ... Cached
If over the last fifty years we would have had more respect for the Bill of Rights, property rights, voluntary contracts, state jurisdiction and free markets, we would not have the mess we’re facing today in medical care and a host of other issues.
rights
A flood of bills of rights
16 August 1999 Texas Straight Talk 16 August 1999 verse 14 ... Cached
And make no doubt about it: the veritable avalanche of "Bill of Rights" packages before Congress represent more mandates, more government control and fewer liberties for everyone. That they mask their agendas with the phrases of liberty is both deceitful and comforting. Deceitful for obvious reasons; comforting because it reflects an understanding that -- despite our many problems -- Americans remain rightly suspicious of government power and desirous of liberty.
rights
Punishing accidents, ignoring murder
20 September 1999 Texas Straight Talk 20 September 1999 verse 14 ... Cached
But of course, passing laws that actually recognize the full rights of the unborn as a human being is not the intention; that, after all, would require a commitment to principle, rather than politics. Instead, this legislation further enlarges the jurisdiction of the federal government by using an emotionally charged issue as justification, without actually addressing the most pressing concerns.
rights
Taking the Next Step
29 November 1999 Texas Straight Talk 29 November 1999 verse 8 ... Cached
During this year I also introduced bills to protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans. Our founding fathers understood that the right to keep and bear arms was the bedrock upon which all other rights were rested, a sort of insurance plan against an intrusive and abusive federal police state, my legislation would restore our Republic to those founding principles in this crucial policy area as well.
rights
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.
rights
The Year Ahead
03 January 2000 Texas Straight Talk 03 January 2000 verse 9 ... Cached
Still, with the federal judges and liberals working to define privacy in a way that our founding fathers would have never intended, and with leftists using so-called privacy legislation to further expand the ever-growing weed that is our federal government, I am convinced the time has come for us to outline, in a clear, concise and constitutional manner, the true definition of privacy rights as our founding fathers would have understood them.
rights
Medical Privacy Threatened
07 February 2000 Texas Straight Talk 07 February 2000 verse 8 ... Cached
Forcing individuals and providers to reveal medical records without their consent also runs afoul of the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on the taking of private property for public use without just compensation. After all, people do have a legitimate property interest in their private records; therefore, restrictions on individuals' ability to control the dissemination of their private information represent a massive taking. The takings clause is designed to prevent this type of sacrifice of individual property rights for the "greater good."
rights
Electoral Follies
03 April 2000 Texas Straight Talk 03 April 2000 verse 9 ... Cached
First, we must realize that a new board would be empowered to govern this endowment. The board would undoubtedly be populated by political patronage appointees, but aside from that we should ask where in the U.S. Constitution the federal government is given authority to provide for such a board. The short answer is that no such authority exists, and only tinkering with our Constitution at the expense of the bill of rights can in fact create it. Moreover, this money would almost certainly be apportioned among certain favored political parties. Would so-called minor party candidates be funded? Would incumbents receive more of this taxpayer funding than challengers? Would candidates be funded in primaries? Who would decide all of these things?
rights
Constitutional Rights Threatened
24 April 2000 Texas Straight Talk 24 April 2000 verse 2 ... Cached
Constitutional Rights Threatened
rights
Constitutional Rights Threatened
24 April 2000 Texas Straight Talk 24 April 2000 verse 4 ... Cached
The constitutional rights of all Americans continue to be threatened. Unfortunately, this election year has shades of past years when the President and the anti-gun lobby were able to neutralize many key gun rights advocates and back-down the congressional leadership.
rights
Constitutional Rights Threatened
24 April 2000 Texas Straight Talk 24 April 2000 verse 6 ... Cached
The arguments of those who oppose gun rights make no sense at all. New gun laws have gone on the book just about every decade over the last century, and at the same time gun related crime incidents have increased. In fact, in places where gun laws are most strict, gun crime and violence is most rampant.
rights
Constitutional Rights Threatened
24 April 2000 Texas Straight Talk 24 April 2000 verse 13 ... Cached
Actually, I realize why the gun grabbers are never called onto the carpet in such a way. Simply, those who refuse to stand up for constitutional rights like to say they are compromising, but the fact is they are cowering. It is one thing to be a coward with one's own life, but it is entirely immoral to run in fear when it comes to defending the constitutional rights we are sworn to uphold.
rights
Government Snoops Threaten Privacy
08 May 2000 Texas Straight Talk 08 May 2000 verse 5 ... Cached
When I see President Clinton suggesting he is going to protect the privacy rights of Americans I start to feel like the fella in the example just cited. Do I really trust Bill Clinton, or any U.S. President, to protect my privacy? Would the founding fathers accept the notion that the federal government is supposed to protect our privacy? Did they authorize that in the constitution?
rights
Government Snoops Threaten Privacy
08 May 2000 Texas Straight Talk 08 May 2000 verse 9 ... Cached
When it comes to our privacy rights however, we need to understand the idea from the view of those who ensconced our rights in a constitution. Our founding fathers understood privacy rights are held by individuals and ought not to be violated by the federal government. Mr. Clinton's attempts are to turn the thoughts of the founders upside down. He would have us believe that privacy rights are protected by federal intervention into the information economy. Nothing could be further from the truth and nothing could be more contrary to the ideas of liberty.
rights
Privacy Takes Center Stage
22 May 2000 Texas Straight Talk 22 May 2000 verse 4 ... Cached
Last week the Ways and Means Committee held hearings regarding use of the Social Security number. The fact that the Social Security number has become a unique identifier has strongly contributed to the efforts of those who invade the privacy rights of citizens. From government snoops at the IRS to identity-thieves, those who would invade privacy have found the Social Security number to be a key weapon to allow them to commit their criminal actions.
rights
Privacy Takes Center Stage
22 May 2000 Texas Straight Talk 22 May 2000 verse 11 ... Cached
It will probably not surprise anybody to learn that there are a number of people in Congress who are actually suggesting that the best way to protect privacy is to make the government bigger and stronger. These people argue that the government should further regulate the information economy in an attempt to advance privacy. Any person familiar with the concept of negative and positive rights, and any student of history, will immediately realize the follies of trying to secure privacy rights by increasing government authority.
rights
CARA: Environmental Protection or Destruction?
05 June 2000 Texas Straight Talk 05 June 2000 verse 8 ... Cached
CARA not only necessitates the creation of a trust fund to engage in activities which are not authorized by the Constitution, it also promises to have a negative impact on property rights in general and on the environment Congress is claiming to protect. If we are truly interested in providing better land management and environmental stewardship, we should get the federal government out of the land management business. As the recent uncontrolled burns of Los Alamos show, there is literally no end to the possible ways the federal government can mismanage environmentally sensitive lands.
rights
A Big Win for Medical Privacy in Congress
19 June 2000 Texas Straight Talk 19 June 2000 verse 3 ... Cached
On Tuesday, the House of Representatives passed an amendment I proposed to an appropriations bill that will prohibit the federal government from imposing a "uniform standard health identifier" on the American people. This legislation will give Americans the peace of mind that comes from knowing that every detail of their lives is not being filed away. It restores and protects the fundamental privacy and due process rights that are the foundation of our system of government.
rights
A Big Win for Medical Privacy in Congress
19 June 2000 Texas Straight Talk 19 June 2000 verse 8 ... Cached
I am very pleased that my amendment to the Labor-HHS Appropriations bill passed the House. American citizens have the right to be free from the prying eyes of government bureaucrats. It is the only way to guarantee that medical IDs do not become a reality. By listening to the American people, we have terminated the uniform standard health identifier. This is a great victory for privacy rights. We have finally taken a stand against federal bureaucrats invading our privacy and recording every detail of our lives.
rights
True Free Trade Benefits Texas Farmers
03 July 2000 Texas Straight Talk 03 July 2000 verse 8 ... Cached
"I have always supported true free trade not simply because it makes economic sense for Texas agriculture, but also because it is a critical component of private property rights and human freedom. "Sanctions," closing foreign markets, really are penalties on Texas farmers who export much of what they produce. Such sanctions ought never be permitted merely by executive order. We have a long way to go in reforming agricultural policy and ending embargoes which hurt our farmers, but this agreement is an important first step and a victory for Texas farmers. I will continue the battle to get HR 1181 passed so that we might realize the full benefits of free trade with Cuba.
rights
The Disturbing Trend Toward Federal Police
31 July 2000 Texas Straight Talk 31 July 2000 verse 4 ... Cached
ATF gets more than $730 million dollars for fiscal year 2001, an increase of $166 million over its 2000 budget. Why the increase? The administration wants the agency to hire 600 new federal police officers to enforce ever-expanding gun laws. Never mind the obvious failures of gun control legislation and the clear Second Amendment prohibition against such laws. The politicians in Washington are determined to slowly abolish gun rights, and they are determined to use federal police to accomplish the task.
rights
The Danger of Military Foreign Aid to Colombia
11 September 2000 Texas Straight Talk 11 September 2000 verse 6 ... Cached
Fortunately, however, many Americans agree that military aid for Colombia is a bad idea. "Plan Colombia" has received harsh criticism from members of Congress, while various human rights activists have condemned the President's visit. Normally, the government of a country must meet certain humanitarian standards to qualify for U.S. foreign aid. Although Colombia does not meet such standards, the administration and Congress chose to waive the requirements on "national security" grounds. As Robert White, former ambassador to El Salvador, stated: "There is a very great danger that this kind of thing can increase little by little, and all of a sudden you will be in far more deeply than you ever wished to be. This could aggravate and prolong the three-decade old Colombian civil war."
rights
U.S. Congress Bows to WTO Mandate
30 October 2000 Texas Straight Talk 30 October 2000 verse 7 ... Cached
More importantly, however, our involvement in the WTO threatens national sovereignty. The Constitution clearly vests the power to regulate trade solely with Congress, and Congress cannot cede with mandates in areas such as environmental protections, worker rights, and trade policy. Congress either blindly or willfully chose to ignore this very serious constitutional conflict when it voted in favor of WTO membership. However, a Congressional Research Service report was quite clear about the consequences of our membership: "As a member of the WTO, the United States does commit to act in accordance with the rules of the multi-lateral body. It is legally obligated to insure that national laws do not conflict with WTO rules," (emphasis added).
rights
The Electoral College Serves to Protect Liberty and Statehood
13 November 2000 Texas Straight Talk 13 November 2000 verse 6 ... Cached
Not surprisingly, calls to abolish the electoral college system are heard most loudly among the liberal/collectivist elites concentrated largely on the two coasts. Liberals favor a very strong centralized federal government, and have contempt for the concept of states' rights. They believe the federal government is omnipotent, and that individual states should not have the power to challenge directives sent down from Washington. Their real goal is the abolition of statehood, because strong states represent a threat to their centralized collectivist agenda. The electoral college system threatens liberals because it allows states to elect the President, and in many states the majority of voters still believe in limited government and the Constitution. Citizens in southern and western states in particular tend to value individual liberty, property rights, gun rights, and religious freedom, values which are abhorrent to the collectivist elites. The collectivists care about centralized power, not democracy. Their efforts to discredit the electoral college system are an attempt to limit the voting power of pro-liberty states.
rights
The Conflict Between Collectivism and Liberty is Reflected in the Presidential Election
27 November 2000 Texas Straight Talk 27 November 2000 verse 8 ... Cached
The goal of liberty has long been forgotten. An impasse was destined to come, and already signs of a fundamental conflict are evident. The presidential election in many ways demonstrates both an economic and political reality. The political stalemate mirrors the stalemate that is developing in the economy. Both eventually will cause deep division and hardship. The real problem- preserving the free market and private property rights- will worsen if ignored. The only solution offered by Washington will be more government intervention, increased spending, increased monetary inflation, more debt, and increased military interventionism throughout the world.
rights
Activist Courts Threaten Our Liberty
04 December 2000 Texas Straight Talk 04 December 2000 verse 6 ... Cached
Today, however, judges at every level increasingly engage in shaping the law to meet their particular political and social agendas. Liberal/collectivist interests especially have found a sympathetic audience among our federal judges, who have been willing accomplices in crafting liberal legislation and overriding properly enacted state law. Perhaps the most egregious example of judicial legislation is the infamous Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, which created a federal constitutional "right" to abortion out of thin air. While the collectivist agenda is advanced, activist courts have refused to uphold economic due process rights and property rights. The result is a legal landscape where all manner of fabricated social rights are upheld (e.g. entitlements), while true constitutional rights (e.g. gun ownership, religious freedom) are trampled.
rights
A Republic, Not a Democracy
12 December 2000 Texas Straight Talk 12 December 2000 verse 5 ... Cached
In fact, the Constitution is replete with undemocratic mechanisms. The electoral college is an obvious example. Small states are represented in national elections with greater electoral power than their populations would warrant in a purely democratic system. Similarly, sparsely populated Wyoming has the same number of senators as heavily populated New York. The result is not democratic, but the Founders knew that smaller states had to be protected against overreaching federal power. The Bill of Rights provides individuals with similar protections against the majority. The First Amendment, for example, is utterly undemocratic. It was designed to protect unpopular speech against democratic fervor. Would the same politicians so enamored with democracy be willing to give up freedom of speech if the majority chose to do so?
rights
A Republic, Not a Democracy
12 December 2000 Texas Straight Talk 12 December 2000 verse 6 ... Cached
Our Founders instituted a republican system to protect individual rights and property rights from tyranny, regardless of whether the tyrant was a king, a monarchy, a congress, or an unelected mob. They believed that a representative government, restrained by the Bill of Rights and divided into three power sharing branches, would balance the competing interests of the population. They also knew that unbridled democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny suffered by the colonies under King George. In other words, the Founders had no illusions about democracy. Democracy represented unlimited rule by an omnipotent majority, while a constitutionally limited republic was seen as the best system to preserve liberty. Inalienable individual liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights would be threatened by the "excesses of democracy."
rights
The Bush Administration Must Honor its Commitment to Smaller Government
18 December 2000 Texas Straight Talk 18 December 2000 verse 6 ... Cached
Still, it is important to understand that the calls for "bipartisanship" really are nothing less than political threats aimed at president-elect Bush. Mainstream media and collectivist politicians want to create an atmosphere where adherence to principles and ideology is mischaracterized as mean-spirited or divisive. In other words, they are warning Bush not to pursue a conservative, limited government agenda. The not-so-subtle threat is that the administration will face a political firestorm unless it continues Clinton era policies, which are incorrectly presented as "bipartisan." For example, one prominent Senator recently called on Bush to insure passage of a "patient's bill of rights," which he insisted was mandated by widespread bipartisan support. This is nonsense, of course; most Americans rightfully oppose the terrible trend toward a government controlled health care system. Yet we are led to believe that Bush must accept and even endorse such proposals to expand the government's role in medicine in order to demonstrate "bipartisan cooperation."
rights
The Blessings of Liberty at Christmas
25 December 2000 Texas Straight Talk 25 December 2000 verse 4 ... Cached
America is the only nation truly conceived in liberty. The Founding Fathers, weary of oppression and taxation by a faraway king, made the heroic decision to secede and stake a claim to their own nation. They sought to disavow centuries of tribal warring, medieval feudalism, and collectivist rule by tyrants of every stripe. For the first time in human history they created a governmental system where the state existed to serve the individual, rather than vice versa. It is impossible to overstate how radical this notion was at the time (and still is today). They created the first society where individual human happiness was held up as an ideal. The limited state established by the Constitution was charged with fostering that happiness by protecting property rights and preventing aggression. The courage of our Founders, clearly demonstrated in the resulting secessionist war with England, was fueled by their unquenchable desire to be free. Their daring set the stage for the emergence of the America we enjoy today.
rights
International Criminal Court is the Latest U.N. Outrage
08 January 2001 Texas Straight Talk 08 January 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
The proposed court will be made up of 18 "judges," elected by an Assembly of member nations ratifying the Rome treaty. Should the U.S. Senate ultimately ratify the treaty, America will have only one vote among hundreds of nations vying to decide which global visionaries will be anointed to judge us (perhaps Kofi Annon? Bill Clinton??). The court will claim international jurisdiction over "crimes against humanity" and the "crime of aggression." The Assembly, of course, is left to define such crimes and aggression. Undoubtedly, leftist political correctness, socialist economic philosophy, and environmentalist falsehoods will decide the definition of a crime with the new court. It clearly is no stretch to predict that the court will attempt to continually expand its jurisdiction in both the civil and criminal realms. 20 years hence, will we see U.S. corporations dragged before the court to answer for "environmental crimes?" Or will U.S. soldiers be prosecuted for their actions in wartime? What about rights guaranteed to all U.S. citizens by the Constitution, such as due process, jury trials, the right against self-incrimination, and the prohibition against unreasonable searches?
rights
Turn Out the Lights
15 January 2001 Texas Straight Talk 15 January 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
California's woes are due in part to its tremendous population growth over the past decade. The influx of residents and businesses, particularly energy-intensive tech businesses, has greatly increased demand for electricity. The problem is that the California government has not allowed the construction of new power plants, in large part because of "environmentalists," citizens groups, and regulators hostile to property rights. The blatantly obvious result of high demand coupled with artificially low supply must be: high prices. Had the free market been allowed to operate, profit-seeking utility companies would have built new power plants to meet the demand and the situation would be very different today.
rights
The Ashcroft Controversy Exposes Disdain for Conservative Principles
22 January 2001 Texas Straight Talk 22 January 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
The real question for Mr. Ashcroft or any federal official is simple: will you abide by your oath to uphold the Constitution? The rhetoric from the Senate and the media leads the public to believe the Attorney General has a duty to Congress directly, that he must enforce any law passed by Congress without regard to the Constitution or legal precedents. In truth, however, the Attorney General is counsel for the American people, not Congress or the President. He is sworn to uphold the highest law in the land, the Constitution. Under no circumstances may he enforce a law that clearly contravenes the Constitution, regardless of whether Congress or the President demands it. Would we expect Mr. Ashcroft to enforce a law passed by Congress today suspending First Amendment assembly and speech rights at this weekend's inauguration? Of course not. The possibility of an independent-minded conservative Attorney General threatens the left, however, because they want a federal administration which will rubber stamp the laws they support, many of which are unconstitutional.
rights
IRS Church Seizure is a Tragedy for Religious Liberty
26 February 2001 Texas Straight Talk 26 February 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
The state-loving media scarcely mentioned the IBT story, with brief articles predictably portraying the church as a fringe organization that avoided its taxes. This follows an established pattern of characterizing religious conservatives who protest the federal government as dangerous extremists, implicitly associated with militias and racists. Imagine the national media coverage, and resulting public outrage, if a minority church was seized over a refusal to pay taxes. Protestors supporting left-wing causes like abortion, affirmative action, environmentalism, feminism, AIDS, and animal rights consistently are shown as courageous martyrs fighting for principle against an unfeeling society and government. Conservative protestors, however, are shown as sinister bigots who selfishly refuse to follow benign laws and politically correct social rules.
rights
The Fight for Medical Privacy Continues in Washington
26 March 2001 Texas Straight Talk 26 March 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
Medical privacy advocates enjoyed a victory last week when the Supreme Court ruled that a government hospital in South Carolina violated the constitutional rights of pregnant women by testing them for drugs without their consent. The hospital ostensibly began the testing program because of concerns about increasing cocaine use by pregnant patients, but if the hospital was concerned only with patient and fetus health, why were test results turned over to law enforcement? Several women were arrested and put in jail because of the tests, with their newborns presumably taken away to become wards of the state. Not surprisingly, the rationale for this terrible violation of doctor-patient confidentiality was the drug war. The real tragedy of this case is that it may cause pregnant women to conceal illegal drug use from their doctors out of fear of arrest. How many babies will be misdiagnosed or go untreated because their mothers no longer have any medical privacy?
rights
The Fight for Medical Privacy Continues in Washington
26 March 2001 Texas Straight Talk 26 March 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
Fortunately, the Supreme Court upheld the Fourth amendment in ruling against the hospital. The drug war has been used for too long as an excuse for unconstitutional actions by government. The Fourth and Fifth amendment prohibitions against unreasonable searches and compelled testimony routinely are ignored by legislators, law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, and especially federal agencies. As a result, all Americans have suffered the loss of liberties guaranteed to them in the Bill of Rights.
rights
Respect for Life begins with Respect for the Constitutional Rule of Law
30 April 2001 Texas Straight Talk 30 April 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
Worse yet, the Act serves to legitimize and further entrench the Roe v. Wade decision. Like Roe, the Act federalizes law which the Constitution properly leaves to the states. Constitutionally, virtually all crimes are state matters. The only true federal crimes are those listed in Article I (treason, piracy, and counterfeiting); all other crimes are left to the jurisdiction of the states under the 10th Amendment. Yet Congress finds it much easier to federalize every human evil rather than uphold the Constitution and respect states' rights. Impassioned pro-life Americans might want a federal criminal law protecting fetuses, but in truth the federal government is more likely to pass laws favoring abortion rather than outlawing it. Once we allow federal control over abortion, we lose the opportunity for states to enact pro-life legislation. Numerous states already have laws that punish the act of murder against a fetus. Our focus should be on overturning Roe and getting the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters. All abortion foes must understand that the real battle should be fought at the state level, where grassroots respect for life can influence state legislatures.
rights
Respect for Life begins with Respect for the Constitutional Rule of Law
30 April 2001 Texas Straight Talk 30 April 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
Political expediency is never an excuse for ignoring the Constitution. The Supreme Court did so in Roe v. Wade, with tragic consequences. The states are now unable to enact laws to protect the weakest, smallest, and most innocent human lives. A society that does not respect life cannot be expected to respect liberty. Our goal must be to restore respect for the Constitution and states' rights. Only then can states properly restore respect for unborn life by criminalizing the act of abortion.
rights
The Deepening United Nations Quagmire
14 May 2001 Texas Straight Talk 14 May 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
The United States recently was humiliated when the UN Economic and Social Council voted by secret ballot to remove us from the UN Human Rights Commission. Ironically, the U.S. was instrumental in establishing the commission; Eleanor Roosevelt was a founding chairman in 1946. Apparently, our fellow member states no longer consider America qualified to judge human rights violations, although brutal regimes like Sudan and Cuba remain on the commission. The U.S. also was voted off a UN counter-narcotics commission, raising questions about how other countries view our self-appointed status as the global drug policeman.
rights
The Deepening United Nations Quagmire
14 May 2001 Texas Straight Talk 14 May 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
The Congressional response to these most recent expressions of anti-American sentiment took the form of amendments to a State Department spending bill. One amendment, which passed in the House with my support, requires reinstatement of the US on the Human Rights commission before Congress pays part of nearly one billion dollars in back dues "owed" to the UN. I certainly support any measure that suspends or delays payments to the UN- I don't want one more penny of taxpayer funds going to the global bureaucrats who hold such disdain for America. Unfortunately, the measure is largely symbolic, as it is unlikely to survive in the Senate.
rights
The Deepening United Nations Quagmire
14 May 2001 Texas Straight Talk 14 May 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
Undeclared wars are only one of many threats to our sovereignty posed by the UN. The recently proposed International Criminal Court seeks to subject U.S. citizens to the jurisdiction of an unconstitutional world tribunal. Our soldiers are especially at risk, as wartime actions later could be prosecuted as "crimes of aggression" or "crimes against humanity." One amendment to the State Department bill makes a weak attempt to protect soldiers from prosecution, but the validity of the tribunal itself is not challenged. What about rights guaranteed to American citizens under the Constitution, such as due process, jury trials, the right against self-incrimination, and the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures? The conflict between our national laws and a global court is clear. I introduced legislation earlier this year that would rescind U.S. approval of the ICC treaty (signed by a Clinton administration official), yet again Congress sidesteps the issue rather than address the central question of whether the Constitution permits American citizens to be brought before an international court.
rights
Religious Liberty Thwarted by the Supreme Court
04 June 2001 Texas Straight Talk 04 June 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
The Supreme Court also has ignored the obvious point that the amendment applies only to Congress, and not to the states. This means that while the federal government cannot pass laws restricting religion or use federal funds to give preference to one religion over another, state and local governments retain the right under the 10th Amendment to set their own policies regarding religious expression. The Elkhart case is a classic example of the courts ignoring this fundamental distinction between federal and local action. Bluntly, the use of Elkhart city government property is none of the federal government's business. Yet respect for state rights and enumerated powers, not to mention the property rights of the citizens of Elkhart, is nonexistent in our federal courts. The unchallenged assumption is that the federal courts have jurisdiction over all religious matters.
rights
"Patients Bill of Rights" or Federal Takeover of Medicine?
02 July 2001 Texas Straight Talk 02 July 2001 verse 2 ... Cached
"Patients Bill of Rights" or Federal Takeover of Medicine?
rights
"Patients Bill of Rights" or Federal Takeover of Medicine?
02 July 2001 Texas Straight Talk 02 July 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
Not surprisingly, the loudest voices on Capitol Hill now calling for a so-called "patients bill of rights" don't want to abolish the HMO mandate. Instead, more government is proposed to fix the problem. Congress wants to micromanage the system, deciding what treatments and drugs should be paid for by health insurers. Congress also wants to create new rules allowing lawsuits against employers when the HMO refuses treatment to an employee! Surely the trial lawyers will support the new laws, but Americans certainly should understand that more federal involvement will only increase the cost of health insurance for everyone. Undoubtedly, lower-paid workers will find themselves completely uninsured when their premiums increase beyond affordable levels. The truth is that any new legislation will only serve to increase government involvement in our health care system, to the detriment of us all. Without question, the true goal of some in Congress is to create a socialized medicine system. It's politically expedient to slap a "patients rights" label on legislation which simply leads us closer to a complete government takeover of medicine.
rights
"Patients Bill of Rights" or Federal Takeover of Medicine?
02 July 2001 Texas Straight Talk 02 July 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
We can hardly blame the market for our current healthcare woes. As with all goods and services, medical care is best delivered by the free market, with competition and patient responsibility keeping costs down. Government has neither the constitutional authority nor the wisdom to determine appropriate contract terms between individuals and health insurers. Congress needs to abolish the HMO mandate and allow favorable tax treatment for individuals paying for health care directly. Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs), which are tax-deductible and tax-exempt accounts used to pay medical expenses, should be made available to all Americans. When patients spend their own money for health care, they have a direct incentive to negotiate lower costs with their doctor. When government controls health care, all cost incentives are lost. No "patients bill of rights" will help us when the money runs out.
rights
UN Plans for Global Gun Control
16 July 2001 Texas Straight Talk 16 July 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
A UN conference on small arms trading began last week in New York, with the goal of creating global standards for the manufacture, sale, export, and possession of guns. While UN spokesmen claim that any proposals arising from the conference will not be legally binding, the organization's own website details an earlier conference in Vienna (March 2001) where delegates agreed to a "legally binding protocol against the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms" (italics added). Furthermore, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has been outspoken in advocating global gun laws, even proposing that small arms be supplied to governments only, and not individuals (as though governments use weapons wisely!). So it's obvious that the UN ultimately seeks to impose global gun control on individuals everywhere, despite any benign rhetoric. Clearly, every American who cares about the 2nd Amendment and the steady erosion of gun rights should be very concerned by this latest UN outrage.
rights
Government Cannot Mandate Solutions to Ethical Dilemmas
06 August 2001 Texas Straight Talk 06 August 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
Morally complex issues require flexible approaches. The states have successfully dealt with the capital punishment issue for decades without an overriding federal law. The states also crafted their own abortion laws until 1973. Cloning and stem cell research issues likewise should be determined at the state level. Congress forgets that the Constitution grants only certain limited powers to federal lawmakers, reserving all other matters for the states under the 10th Amendment. Therefore, the constitutional approach would be to allow a mixture of moral standards, medical ethics, and local laws to determine the permissibility of cloning or stem cell research in each particular state. Unfortunately, however, neither political party has paid much attention to the Constitution during this debate, preferring instead to focus only on federal mandates and federal funding. No mention is made of states rights, even though state governments would do a much better job of reflecting local sentiment on these ethical issues.
rights
Government Cannot Mandate Solutions to Ethical Dilemmas
06 August 2001 Texas Straight Talk 06 August 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
It is especially immoral to force Americans who oppose cloning and stem cell research to fund those activities with their tax dollars. Apparently Congress has not learned from the abortion debate that forcing taxpayers to fund very controversial programs creates tremendous resentment and dissension. In a free society, citizens are not forced to support practices that they abhor. Congress should remain neutral by following a strict policy of not subsidizing research, which encourages private funding while respecting the rights of those who do not want to pay for practices that offend their moral or religious sensibilities.
rights
America Retains its Sovereign Right to Respond to Attacks
08 October 2001 Texas Straight Talk 08 October 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
Similarly, the unconstitutional UN international criminal court is being touted by many globalists as the appropriate forum for trying terrorists charged with crimes against humanity. Remember, the ICC would attempt to exert jurisdiction over every American, without affording them constitutional due process rights or 4th and 5th amendment protections. The ICC is a dangerous idea that directly threatens our constitution and our sovereignty, and we must not let the recent tragedy blind us to these dangers.
rights
Effective and Practical Counter-Terrorism Measures
15 October 2001 Texas Straight Talk 15 October 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
Immigration Restrictions: Common sense tells us that we should not currently be admitting aliens from nations that sponsor or harbor terrorists. Remember, only U.S. citizens have constitutional rights; non-citizens are in the country at the discretion of the State department. While we should generally welcome people from around the world whenever possible, we cannot allow potential enemies or terrorists to enter the country now under any circumstances. My legislation would restrict immigration, including the granting of student visas, by individuals from nations listed as terrorist threats by the State department.
rights
Expansion of NATO is a Bad Idea
12 November 2001 Texas Straight Talk 12 November 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
NATO is an organization that has outlived its usefulness. It was formed as a defensive military alliance, designed to protect western Europe against the Soviet threat. With the Soviet collapse in 1991, however, NATO bureaucrats (and the governments backing them) were forced to reinvent the alliance and justify its continued existence. So the "new NATO" began to occupy itself with issues totally unrelated to defense, such as economic development, human rights, territorial disputes, religious conflicts, and ethnic rivalries. In other words, "nation building." The new game was interventionism, not defense.
rights
Military Tribunals Put Our Justice System on Trial
03 December 2001 Texas Straight Talk 03 December 2001 verse 9 ... Cached
Who cares, supporters will say. After all, only foreigners are to be tried under these courts and we all know only American citizens are afforded the benefits of our judicial system. Fortunately our founding fathers saw things differently, as they drew up a system that recognized the fundamental rights of all humanity and created a model for constitutional governance. Do Americans really expect Germany or Holland, for example, to disregard their own laws when trying Americans suspected of crimes in their countries? Of course not.
rights
Don't Believe the Hype- "Campaign Finance Reform" Serves Entrenched Interests
18 February 2002 Texas Straight Talk 18 February 2002 verse 8 ... Cached
Outrageously, the new reform bill virtually outlaws criticism of incumbent politicians for 60 days before an election. Do you think citizens need to know about one prominent New York Senator's plan to confiscate firearms? Any gun rights group that speaks out between Labor Day and the November election- precisely the time when most Americans are becoming informed about the candidates and the issues- will be violating the law. Do you think voters need to know if a senior member of the important House International Relations committee puts his allegiance to the United Nations before that of his own country? An opponent making this point in a commercial during the 60-day period could end up in jail. Do we honestly think this kind of muzzle should be put on the American people?
rights
UN Planting the Seeds for a Coming Global Tax
25 March 2002 Texas Straight Talk 25 March 2002 verse 4 ... Cached
The UN is meeting this week in Monterrey, Mexico to discuss exactly such a tax. The meeting is billed as a "Conference on Financing for Development," which is a nice way of saying it’s a conference to consider the best ways to shake down rich nations for money. UN bureaucrats think rich nations like America ought to give more money to poor nations- a lot more- simply because we’re rich. Never mind the billions of foreign aid tax dollars we send overseas every year; never mind the billions donated to overseas charities by Americans, the most charitable people on earth. The UN mindset blames the western world for poverty everywhere, assuming that our relative wealth must have come at the expense of the third world. The poor countries themselves are never deemed responsible for their own predicaments, despite their often corrupt governments, lack of property rights, and hostility toward wealth-producing capitalism. Somehow, it’s always our fault. So the UN holds conferences to talk about how we should pay to make things right, and the idea of a UN tax naturally arises.
rights
Were the Founding Fathers Wrong about Foreign Affairs?
15 April 2002 Texas Straight Talk 15 April 2002 verse 6 ... Cached
In fact, when I mentioned Washington the other guest on the show quickly repeated the tired cliche that "We don’t live in George Washington’s times." Yet if we accept this argument, what other principles from that era should we discard? Should we give up the First amendment because times have changed? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights? It’s hypocritical and childish to dismiss certain founding principles simply because a convenient rationale is needed to justify foolish policies today. The principles enshrined in the Constitution do not change. If anything, today’s more complex world cries out for the moral clarity provided by a noninterventionist foreign policy.
rights
Pilots vs. Bureaucrats
06 May 2002 Texas Straight Talk 06 May 2002 verse 4 ... Cached
Pilots already fought this fight last November. Congress passed an armed pilots provision as part of a larger airline safety bill, and the President signed the legislation. Transportation Secretary Mineta, however, has a long history of opposition to gun rights as a Congressman- and his anti-gun bias is interfering with his ability to do his job. He is no longer a lawmaker. His job now is to implement the laws passed by Congress. Yet like the IRS, the Transportation department simply won't follow laws it doesn't like. This illustrates perfectly how we have come to be governed by unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats who constantly undermine the legislative process.
rights
President Bush Delivers Victory over UN Court!
13 May 2002 Texas Straight Talk 13 May 2002 verse 6 ... Cached
We must reassert that the Supreme Court is the court of highest authority for our nation, and that every American citizen enjoys protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. President Bush gave notice to the international community last week that the United States will not participate in a global court that undermines the checks and balances of our Constitution. He deserves our praise and our support for bravely standing against the ICC and against UN bureaucrats who have so little regard for our laws. Congress should follow his lead and respect the Constitution by refusing to send even one penny of taxpayer funds to the ICC bureaucrats.
rights
Imperial Transportation Bureaucrat Says Yes to Lavish Offices, No to Armed Pilots
24 June 2002 Texas Straight Talk 24 June 2002 verse 10 ... Cached
A new armed pilots bill recently passed in the Aviation subcommittee, and may see a vote later this year. While I support this bill, which essentially makes pilots federal deputies, my own legislation is more direct. My bill simply allows the airlines and pilots to decide for themselves whether to allow guns in the cockpit. This approach respects both the Second amendment and the private property rights of the airlines. While no amount of security can guarantee another terrorist won’t again board an aircraft with a weapon, Congress can make sure pilots are not left defenseless by passing a direct armed pilots bill and overseeing its immediate implementation.
rights
What does the First Amendment Really Mean?
01 July 2002 Texas Straight Talk 01 July 2002 verse 6 ... Cached
Similarly, the mythical separation of church and state doctrine has no historical or constitutional basis. Neither the language of the Constitution itself nor the legislative history reveals any mention of such separation. In fact, the authors of the First amendment- Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry- and the rest of the founders routinely referred to "Almighty God" in their writings, including the Declaration of Independence. It is only in the last 50 years that federal courts have perverted the meaning of the amendment and sought to unlawfully restrict religious expression. We cannot continue to permit our Constitution and our rich religious institutions to be degraded by profound misinterpretations of the Bill of Rights.
rights
Does Government Run the Economy?
19 August 2002 Texas Straight Talk 19 August 2002 verse 6 ... Cached
In a capitalist economy, the government acts only as a referee by protecting property rights, enforcing contracts, and prohibiting force and fraud. Because our modern federal government has strayed so far from its limited constitutional powers, it controls the economy far more than the founders intended. As a result, our economy is becoming more and more socialist. Federal taxes, regulations, welfare, subsidies, wage controls, and price controls, along with Fed manipulation of interest rates and the money supply, all represent socialist government intervention in the economy. No matter what the Democrats or Republicans want to call it, socialism is socialism. We should have the honesty to identify exactly what is being advocated when some call for even more government control of the economy.
rights
Snipers, Terror, and Gun Control
28 October 2002 Texas Straight Talk 28 October 2002 verse 7 ... Cached
For most Americans, guns are not a political issue. People buy and own guns to protect their families, not to commit crimes. The truth is that even millions of Americans who support and vote for gun control own guns themselves, because deep down they share the basic human need to feel secure in their homes. Since September 11th, that sense of security has been shaken, resulting in a big increase in gun sales across the country. Most supporters of gun rights take no pleasure in this fact, nor do they trumpet it as a political victory over gun control forces. The time has come to stop politicizing gun ownership, and start promoting responsible use of firearms to make America a safer place. Guns are here to stay; the question is whether only criminals will have them.
rights
Who Should Prosecute the Snipers?
04 November 2002 Texas Straight Talk 04 November 2002 verse 4 ... Cached
Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia all have valid claims for prosecuting the case, because the sniper and his accomplice committed murders in all four jurisdictions. Prosecutors from each understandably want to bring these killers to justice on behalf of their citizens. After all, it was the people of these states who were truly terrorized for nearly a month. Of course a federal court may be needed to decide which state prevails in the inevitable jurisdictional battle, especially since the availability of the death penalty varies between them. But the rush to have a federal court try these two men reminds us that the federal government cares very little about states’ rights. The feds appear to be more interested in hijacking a high-profile prosecution for their own benefit than allowing the states to enforce their own laws.
rights
Homeland Security is the Largest Federal Expansion in 50 Years
25 November 2002 Texas Straight Talk 25 November 2002 verse 3 ... Cached
The frightening details of the Homeland Security bill, which authorizes an unprecedented level of warrantless spying on American citizens, are still emerging. Those who still care about the Bill of Rights, particularly the 4th amendment, have every reason to be alarmed. But the process by which Congress created the bill is every bit as reprehensible as its contents.
rights
What Does Regime Change in Iraq Really Mean?
16 December 2002 Texas Straight Talk 16 December 2002 verse 7 ... Cached
The practical consequences of meddling in the domestic politics of foreign nations are clearly disastrous. We should remember, however, that it is also wrong in principle to interfere with the self-determination rights of foreign peoples. Consider how angry Americans become when Europeans or Mexicans merely comment on our elections, or show a decided preference for one candidate. We rightfully feel that our politics are simply none of the world’s business, yet we seem blind to the anger created when we use military force to install governments in places like Iraq. The unspoken question is this: What gives us the right to decide who governs Iraq or any other foreign country? Apparently our own loss of national sovereignty, as we surrender more and more authority to organizations like the UN and WTO, mirrors our lack of respect for the sovereignty of foreign nations.
rights
What Really Divides Us?
23 December 2002 Texas Straight Talk 23 December 2002 verse 3 ... Cached
In the aftermath of the Lott debacle, we must not allow the term "states’ rights" to be smeared and distorted into code words for segregationist policies or racism. States’ rights simply means the individual states should retain authority over all matters not expressly delegated to the federal government in Article I of the Constitution. Most of the worst excesses of big government can be traced to a disregard for states’ rights, which means a disregard for the Ninth and Tenth amendments. The real reason liberals hate the concept of states’ right has nothing to do with racism, but rather reflects a hostility toward anything that would act as a limit on the power of the federal government.
rights
What Really Divides Us?
23 December 2002 Texas Straight Talk 23 December 2002 verse 8 ... Cached
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees- while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism.
rights
Welfare for the Left, Welfare for the Right, Welfare for the World
03 February 2003 Texas Straight Talk 03 February 2003 verse 8 ... Cached
I say “supposedly” because the money never really helps, and almost always ends up in the hands of dictators, corrupt government officials, or thuggish leaders of local factions. We could send $100 or $500 billion, and Africa would remain mired in AIDS and poverty. Only freedom, property rights, capitalism, and the rule of law can help Africa. The AIDS crisis cannot be solved by government, but rather requires a combination of truly independent private sector medical research and politically incorrect prevention efforts. Americans are the most charitable people on earth, and we should stop taxing them so much and allow private charities, including charities aimed at combating AIDS, to flourish.
rights
Support the President's Tax-Free Savings Plan
10 February 2003 Texas Straight Talk 10 February 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
Incredibly, members of both political parties seem to question the obvious benefit of tax-free accounts. With the Social Security system threatened by demographics and congressional spending raids, the need for private retirement saving has never been greater. America was in fact built with private savings. Only when individuals save money does a society develop the capital for investment and lending that is so critical to economic growth. Impoverished nations, by contrast, have little or no capital. This is often because of burdensome taxes and a lack of property rights. The desire to save money and build a better life is intrinsically human, and no society that punishes saving can remain prosperous for long.
rights
The Myth of War Prosperity
10 March 2003 Texas Straight Talk 10 March 2003 verse 8 ... Cached
The greatest economic cost of war, however, comes from the expansion in the size and scope of government. Government always grows during wars and other crises. As economist Murray Rothbard noted, government uses crises to “Engineer the great leaps forward,” in the size of the state. When the crisis ends, government never returns to its former size. As government expands, individual liberty necessarily shrinks. True prosperity cannot exist without individual liberty and its corollaries of limited government, property rights, and free markets. Ultimately, war leaves us with less freedom at home. The sad irony is that while our soldiers have fought for the freedom of Europe, Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, and Iraq, the government uses war to steadily diminish freedom here at home. While we fight a war in Iraq, we must also fight to maintain and restore individual liberty in America.
rights
Assault Weapons and Assaults on the Constitution
21 April 2003 Texas Straight Talk 21 April 2003 verse 4 ... Cached
Given this trend in the American electorate away from support for gun control, the administration’s position may well cost votes in 2004. The mistaken political premise is that while Republicans generally support gun rights, so-called “assault weapons” are different and must be controlled. The administration clearly believes that moderate voters from both parties support the ban. “Who could possibly need such weapons?” is the standard question posed by gun control advocates.
rights
Assault Weapons and Assaults on the Constitution
21 April 2003 Texas Straight Talk 21 April 2003 verse 7 ... Cached
Tortured interpretations of the Second amendment cannot change the fact that both the letter of the amendment itself and the legislative history conclusively show that the Founders intended ordinary citizens to be armed. The notion that the Second amendment confers rights only upon organized state-run militias is preposterous; the amendment is meaningless unless it protects the gun rights of individuals. Georgetown University professor Robert Levy recently offered this simple explanation:
rights
The Federal Government Bully in State and Local Elections
26 May 2003 Texas Straight Talk 26 May 2003 verse 4 ... Cached
These are troubling questions raised by the latest assault on states’ rights in Washington. The Ninth and Tenth amendments make it clear that under our federal system, states retain full authority to craft their own laws. The federal government has only limited, express powers, and therefore can preempt state laws only in a very narrow range of federal matters. But in imperial Washington, states have become nothing more than glorified counties.
rights
Independence from England, Dependence on Washington?
07 July 2003 Texas Straight Talk 07 July 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
Today some Americans, including many members of Congress, view both the Constitution and our Founders as quaint anachronisms at best. Times have changed, they argue, and we hardly should be bound by rules established by a bunch of dead white men who could not possibly understand our modern society. The Constitution is relevant only if it “evolves” to allow for new realities, and the federal government certainly should not be constrained by outdated notions about its proper role. This viewpoint steadily gained acceptance throughout the 20th century, exemplified by the blatantly unconstitutional New Deal and Great Society programs, Supreme Court activism, the virtual abolition of states rights, and uncontrolled growth of the federal government.
rights
Independence from England, Dependence on Washington?
07 July 2003 Texas Straight Talk 07 July 2003 verse 8 ... Cached
We owe our Founding Fathers a tremendous debt of gratitude. They created a society based on the radical idea that the purpose of government was to protect the rights of the individual, preexisting rights granted by God rather than the state. For the first time in human history, a government was designed to serve the individual, rather than vice versa. This triumph of the individual over the claims of the state, the King, the collective, or society represents a great gift to humanity. The principle of a servant government is the ideal that made America the greatest nation on earth.
rights
Independence from England, Dependence on Washington?
07 July 2003 Texas Straight Talk 07 July 2003 verse 9 ... Cached
Those who dismiss the Constitution ignore the link between the wisdom of our Founders and the freedom and prosperity we still enjoy today. America is not prosperous and relatively free merely by accident. It is prosperous and free because we still retain vestiges of our constitutional system of limited government, with its emphasis on property rights and the rule of law. Other nations are similarly filled with bright, hardworking people, and enjoy abundant natural resources. Yet why have they not prospered like America? The simple reason is they enjoy less liberty. Without liberty and property rights, the human spirit diminishes. More freedom always means more prosperity, which is why American enjoys a much higher level of material well-being than almost any other nation.
rights
Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution
11 August 2003 Texas Straight Talk 11 August 2003 verse 2 ... Cached
It’s been a tough summer for social conservatives, thanks to our federal courts. From “gay rights” to affirmative action to Boy Scouts to the Ten Commandments, federal courts recently have issued rulings that conflict with both the Constitution and overwhelming public sentiment. Conservatives and libertarians who once viewed the judiciary as the final bulwark against government tyranny must now accept that no branch of government even remotely performs its constitutional role.
rights
Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution
11 August 2003 Texas Straight Talk 11 August 2003 verse 4 ... Cached
Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights- rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.
rights
Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution
11 August 2003 Texas Straight Talk 11 August 2003 verse 7 ... Cached
The political left increasingly uses the federal judiciary to do in court what it cannot do at the ballot box: advance an activist, secular, multicultural political agenda of which most Americans disapprove. This is why federal legal precedents in so many areas do not reflect the consensus of either federal or state legislators. Whether it’s gun rights, abortion, taxes, racial quotas, environmental regulations, gay marriage, or religion, federal jurists are way out of touch with the American people. As a society we should reconsider the wisdom of lifetime tenure for federal judges, while Congress and the President should remember that the Supreme Court is supreme only over other federal courts- not over the other branches of government. It’s time for the executive and legislative branches to show some backbone, appoint judges who follow the Constitution, and remove those who do not.
rights
Reject UN Gun Control
22 September 2003 Texas Straight Talk 22 September 2003 verse 3 ... Cached
Perhaps the biggest threat to gun rights in America today comes not from domestic lawmakers, but from abroad. Even as support for gun control wanes at home, globalist bureaucrats are working to override national sovereignty and craft international gun laws.
rights
Reject UN Gun Control
22 September 2003 Texas Straight Talk 22 September 2003 verse 4 ... Cached
For more than a decade the United Nations has waged a campaign to undermine Second Amendment rights in America. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has called on members of the Security Council to address the “easy availability” of small arms and light weapons, by which he means all privately owned firearms. In response, the Security Council released a report calling for a comprehensive program of worldwide gun control, a report that admonishes the U.S. and praises the restrictive gun laws of Red China and France! Meanwhile, this past June the UN held a conference with the silly title “Week of Action against Small Arms.”
rights
Reject UN Gun Control
22 September 2003 Texas Straight Talk 22 September 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
They believe in global government, and armed people could stand in the way of their goals. They certainly don’t care about our Constitution or the Second Amendment. But the conflict between the UN position on private ownership of firearms and our Second Amendment cannot be reconciled. How can we as a nation justify our membership in an organization that is actively hostile to one of our most fundamental constitutional rights? What if the UN decided that free speech was too inflammatory and should be restricted? Would we discard the First Amendment to comply with the UN agenda?
rights
"Campaign Finance Reform" Muzzles Political Dissent
22 December 2003 Texas Straight Talk 22 December 2003 verse 5 ... Cached
Second, freedom of the press applies equally to all Americans, not just the institutional, government-approved media. An unknown internet blogger, a political party, a candidate, and the New York Times should all enjoy the same right to political speech. Yet McCain-Feingold treats the mainstream press as some kind of sacred institution rather than the for-profit industry it is. Why should giant media companies be able to spend unlimited amounts of money to promote candidates and issues, while an organization you support cannot? The notion of creating a preferred class of media, with special First Amendment rights, is distinctly elitist and un-American.
rights
A Wise Consistency for Liberty
16 February 2004 Texas Straight Talk 16 February 2004 verse 2 ... Cached
Anyone who follows events in Washington quickly understands that there is no guiding philosophy behind the actions of Congress. New laws are made in a haphazard manner; new regulations are imposed on an ad hoc basis; trillions of dollars are spent without regard to whether the programs and agencies funded do any good whatsoever. Both political parties blame each other for the resulting mess, but both are guilty of an egregious lack of principle in virtually everything they do. Both parties cite the Constitution when it suits their purposes, but both regularly violate it-- particularly through legislation that exceeds the enumerated powers of Congress and tramples on states’ rights. Both support various actions by their party or president, yet strenuously oppose the same actions if taken by the other party. In short, there is no consistent guiding philosophy on Capitol Hill except political expediency. The battle in Washington is about political spoils, not ideology.
rights
Gay Marriage Quicksand
01 March 2004 Texas Straight Talk 01 March 2004 verse 7 ... Cached
The choices are not limited to either banning gay marriage at the federal level, or giving up and accepting it as inevitable. A far better approach, rarely discussed, is for Congress to exercise its existing constitutional power to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts. Congress could statutorily remove whole issues like gay marriage from the federal judiciary, striking a blow against judicial tyranny and restoring some degree of states’ rights. We seem to have forgotten that the Supreme Court is supreme only over lower federal courts; it is not supreme over the other branches of government. The judiciary is co-equal under our federal system, but too often it serves as an unelected, unaccountable legislature.
rights
Gay Marriage Quicksand
01 March 2004 Texas Straight Talk 01 March 2004 verse 8 ... Cached
It is great comedy to hear the secular, pro-gay left, so hostile to states’ rights in virtually every instance, suddenly discover the tyranny of centralized government. The newly minted protectors of local rule find themselves demanding: “Why should Washington dictate marriage standards for Massachusetts and California? Let the people of those states decide for themselves.” This is precisely the argument conservatives and libertarians have been making for decades! Why should Washington dictate education, abortion, environment, and labor rules to the states? The American people hold widely diverse views on virtually all political matters, and the Founders wanted the various state governments to most accurately reflect those views. This is the significance of the 10th Amendment, which the left in particular has abused for decades.
rights
Whose Justice?
12 April 2004 Texas Straight Talk 12 April 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
As Robert Bork explains, six of the nine Supreme Court justices have either written or joined opinions that favorably cited foreign authorities. These justices have considered the European Court of Human Rights, various United Nations conventions, international human rights treaties, and even judicial decisions from India, Jamaica, and Zimbabwe when writing their opinions! Simply put, these justices are making the incredible argument that American federal courts should consider sources other than US law when deciding cases. In the words of one justice, the Court “cannot afford to ignore the rest of the world.”
rights
The Great Foreign Aid Swindle
24 May 2004 Texas Straight Talk 24 May 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
In many cases, foreign aid money simply distorts foreign economies and props up bad governments. In countries that pursue harmful economic policies, an infusion of US cash only exacerbates and prolongs problems. No amount of money can help nations that reject property rights, free markets, and the rule of law.
rights
Resisting Judicial Tyranny
26 July 2004 Texas Straight Talk 26 July 2004 verse 4 ... Cached
The Founders never intended for a handful of unelected, unaccountable federal judges to decide social policy for the entire nation. Just as Texas is not required to recognize medical licenses, law licenses, or driving licenses from other states, it ought not be forced to recognize gay marriage licenses granted elsewhere. Already some same-sex couples have sued in federal court to force the nationwide recognition of their marriages, so the Marriage Protection Act is needed to preserve states’ rights. Federal judges have flouted the will of the American people for too long, acting as imperial legislators instead of jurists
rights
The 9-11 Commission Charade
23 August 2004 Texas Straight Talk 23 August 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
Our nation will be safer only when government does less, not more. Rather than asking ourselves what Congress or the president should be doing about terrorism, we ought to ask what government should stop doing. It should stop spending trillions of dollars on unconstitutional programs that detract from basic government functions like national defense and border security. It should stop meddling in the internal affairs of foreign nations, but instead demonstrate by example the superiority of freedom, capitalism, and an open society. It should stop engaging in nation-building, and stop trying to create democratic societies through military force. It should stop militarizing future enemies, as we did by supplying money and weapons to characters like Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. It should stop entangling the American people in unholy alliances like the UN and NATO, and pledge that our armed forces will never serve under foreign command. It should stop committing American troops to useless, expensive, and troublesome assignments overseas, and instead commit the Department of Defense to actually defending America. It should stop interfering with the 2nd amendment rights of private citizens and businesses seeking to defend themselves.
rights
A Texas Platform for the GOP
30 August 2004 Texas Straight Talk 30 August 2004 verse 3 ... Cached
First and foremost, the Texas GOP is serious about reducing the size and scope of government. The party platform calls for strict congressional adherence to the 10th amendment, and the abolition of all federal agencies not authorized under a strict interpretation of the Constitution. It urges a return to truly republican government, based on limited federal powers and states rights. The language of the platform is refreshingly frank, with quotes like "We believe that government spending is out of control and needs to be reduced" and "We respect our Founders' intent to restrict the power of the federal government over the states and the people." In fact, whole sections of the document are devoted to worthy subjects like "Limiting the expanse of government power." Contrast these words with what you'll hear this week from the big spending, big government Republicans from Washington.
rights
A Texas Platform for the GOP
30 August 2004 Texas Straight Talk 30 August 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
When it comes to 2nd amendment rights, the Texas GOP platform is uncompromising. It calls for outright abolition of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. It also calls for repeal of all laws infringing upon 2nd amendment rights. This is another example of grassroots conservatives in Texas taking a position that Republicans in Washington lack the courage to endorse.
rights
The IMF Con
27 September 2004 Texas Straight Talk 27 September 2004 verse 8 ... Cached
American taxpayers already lend various governments more than $5 billion annually through the IMF, at a yearly cost of over $300 million because of loan defaults and subsidized interest rates. Now the IMF wants to double its pool of funding, which will put taxpayers on the hook for $12 billion in loans at a cost of about $750 million each year. Furthermore, since the IMF creates “drawing rights” accounts that are redeemable in US dollars, it in essence prints US dollars when it increases those drawing rights. This is a clear violation of our national sovereignty, and a vivid example of why we should stop participating in international schemes like the IMF altogether.
rights
The IMF Con
27 September 2004 Texas Straight Talk 27 September 2004 verse 9 ... Cached
The IMF and other complex schemes only serve to obscure the real issue: Why should US taxpayers be forced to send money abroad? Certainly the Constitution provides no authority for foreign aid. In historical and practical terms, redistribution of wealth from rich to poor nations has done little or nothing to alleviate suffering abroad. Only free markets, property rights, and the rule of law can create the conditions necessary to lift poor nations out of poverty.
rights
"I Have a Plan..."
18 October 2004 Texas Straight Talk 18 October 2004 verse 8 ... Cached
In a truly free nation, the government acts only as a referee by protecting property rights, enforcing contracts, prohibiting force and fraud, and providing national defense. Such was the system envision by the Founding Fathers, who strictly limited regulatory and tax powers in the Constitution. They were tired of having their business affairs managed by the Crown, so they created a servant government that would allow freedom and capitalism to flourish.
rights
The Electoral College vs. Mob Rule
01 November 2004 Texas Straight Talk 01 November 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
Those who call for the abolition of the electoral college are hostile to liberty. Not surprisingly, most advocates of abolition are statist elites concentrated largely on the east and west coasts. These political, economic, academic, media, and legal elites overwhelmingly favor a strong centralized federal government, and express contempt for the federalist concept of states’ rights. They believe in omnipotent federal power, with states acting as mere glorified federal counties carrying out commands from Washington.
rights
The Electoral College vs. Mob Rule
01 November 2004 Texas Straight Talk 01 November 2004 verse 7 ... Cached
The electoral college threatens the imperial aims of these elites because it allows the individual states to elect the president, and in many states the majority of voters still believe in limited government and the Constitution. Voters in southern, midwestern, and western states- derided as “flyover” country-- tend to value family, religion, individual liberty, property rights, and gun rights. Washington elites abhor these values, and they hate that middle and rural America hold any political power whatsoever. Their efforts to discredit the electoral college system are an open attack on the voting power of the pro-liberty states.
rights
The Electoral College vs. Mob Rule
01 November 2004 Texas Straight Talk 01 November 2004 verse 8 ... Cached
Sadly, we have forgotten that states created the federal government, not the other way around. The electoral college system represents an attempt, however effective, to limit federal power and preserve states’ rights. It is an essential part of our federalist balance. It also represents a reminder that pure democracy, mob rule, is incompatible with liberty.
rights
TSA- Bullies at the Airport
29 November 2004 Texas Straight Talk 29 November 2004 verse 7 ... Cached
Passengers, of course, have caught on quickly. They have learned to stay quiet and not ask any questions, no matter how ludicrous or undignified the command. It's bad enough to see ordinary Americans bossed around in their stocking feet by newly-minted TSA agents, but it's downright disgraceful to see older Americans and children treated so imperiously. But any objection, however rational and reasonable, risks immediate scrutiny. At best, complainers will be taken aside and might miss their flight. If they don't submit quickly and attempt to assert any rights, they will end up detained, put on a TSA list that guarantees them hostile treatment at every airport, and possibly arrested or fined for their "attitude."
rights
Hands Off the Electoral College
27 December 2004 Texas Straight Talk 27 December 2004 verse 7 ... Cached
Not surprisingly, calls to abolish the electoral college system are heard most loudly among left elites concentrated largely on the two coasts. Liberals favor a very strong centralized federal government, and have contempt for the concept of states' rights (a contempt now shared, unfortunately, by the Republican Party). They believe in federalizing virtually every area of law, leaving states powerless to challenge directives sent down from Washington. The electoral college system threatens liberals because it allows states to elect the president, and in many states the majority of voters still believe in limited government and the Constitution. Citizens in southern and western states in particular tend to value individual liberty, property rights, gun rights, and religious freedom, values which are abhorrent to the collectivist elites. The collectivists care about centralized power, not democracy. Their efforts to discredit the electoral college system are an attempt to limit the voting power of pro-liberty states.
rights
What does Freedom Really Mean?
07 February 2005 Texas Straight Talk 07 February 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by our republican constitutional system, but also by their writings in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere. James Madison cautioned that under a democratic government, “There is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” John Adams argued that democracies merely grant revocable rights to citizens depending on the whims of the masses, while a republic exists to secure and protect pre-existing rights. Yet how many Americans know that the word “democracy” is found neither in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence, our very founding documents?
rights
What does Freedom Really Mean?
07 February 2005 Texas Straight Talk 07 February 2005 verse 8 ... Cached
Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and created the least coercive government in the history of the world. The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government to provide national defense and little else. States, not the federal government, were charged with protecting individuals against criminal force and fraud. For the first time, a government was created solely to protect the rights, liberties, and property of its citizens. Any government coercion beyond that necessary to secure those rights was forbidden, both through the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of strictly enumerated powers. This reflected the founders’ belief that democratic government could be as tyrannical as any King.
rights
The Maestro Changes his Tune
21 February 2005 Texas Straight Talk 21 February 2005 verse 3 ... Cached
Nearly 40 years ago, Federal Reserve chair Alan Greenspan wrote persuasively in favor of a gold monetary standard in an essay entitled Gold and Economic Freedom. In that essay he neatly summarized the fundamental problem with fiat currency in a few short sentences: “The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit… In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value… Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the ‘hidden’ confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists’ antagonism toward the gold standard.”
rights
Pro-Life Politics?
28 March 2005 Texas Straight Talk 28 March 2005 verse 4 ... Cached
My own pro-life views were strengthened by my experiences as an obstetrician. I believe beyond a doubt that a fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection, and that the right to life is the foundation of any moral society. The abortion issue forged my belief that law and morality must intersect to protect the most vulnerable among us. The proper role of government, namely the protection of natural and constitutional rights, flows from the pro-life perspective.
rights
Reconsidering the Patriot Act
02 May 2005 Texas Straight Talk 02 May 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
Many of the most constitutionally offensive measures in the Act are not limited to terrorist offenses, but apply to any criminal activity. In fact, some of the new police powers could be applied even to those engaging in peaceful protest against government policies. The bill as written defines terrorism as acts intended “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.” Under this broad definition, a scuffle at an otherwise peaceful pro-life demonstration might subject attendees to a federal investigation. We have seen abuses of law enforcement authority in the past to harass individuals or organizations with unpopular political views. Congress has given future administrations a tool to investigate pro-life or gun rights organizations on the grounds that fringe members of such groups advocate violence.
rights
Federal Funding for Mental Health Screening of Kids
27 June 2005 Texas Straight Talk 27 June 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
-Parental rights under such programs are at best unclear, at worst nonexistent;
rights
What Should America do for Africa?
11 July 2005 Texas Straight Talk 11 July 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
African poverty is rooted in government corruption, corruption that actually is fostered by western aid. We should ask ourselves a simple question: Why is private capital so scarce in Africa? The obvious answer is that many African nations are ruled by terrible men who pursue disastrous economic policies. As a result, American aid simply enriches dictators, distorts economies, and props up bad governments. We could send Africa $1 trillion, and the continent still would remain mired in poverty simply because so many of its nations reject property rights, free markets, and the rule of law.
rights
The Patriot Act Four Years Later
25 July 2005 Texas Straight Talk 25 July 2005 verse 5 ... Cached
One prominent Democratic opined on national television that “most of the 170 page Patriot Act is fine,” but that it needs some fine tuning. He then stated that he opposed the ten-year reauthorization bill on the grounds that Americans should not have their constitutional rights put on hold for a decade. His party’s proposal, however, was to reauthorize the Patriot Act for only four years, as though a shorter moratorium on constitutional rights would be acceptable! So much for the opposition party and its claim to stand for civil liberties.
rights
Politics and Judicial Activism
15 August 2005 Texas Straight Talk 15 August 2005 verse 8 ... Cached
The congressional power to strip federal courts of jurisdiction is plainly granted in Article III, and no constitutional amendments are required. On the contrary, any constitutional amendment addressing judicial activism would only grant legitimacy to the dangerous idea that social issues are federal matters. Giving more authority over social matters to any branch of the federal government is a mistake, because a centralized government is unlikely to reflect local sentiment for long. Both political parties are guilty of ignoring the 9th and 10th amendments, and federalizing whole areas of law that constitutionally should be left up to states. This abandonment of federalism and states’ rights paved the way for an activist federal judiciary.
rights
Our Political Federal Courts
10 October 2005 Texas Straight Talk 10 October 2005 verse 4 ... Cached
Instead of viewing federal judicial nominees as liberals or conservatives, we ought to be viewing them as activists or originalists. Judicial activism is a popular and often misused term in politics today, but if we define it properly we can better understand the problem with our courts. Judicial activism is the practice of judges legislating from the bench, by interpreting law in a manner that creates an outcome to fit their political views. But judicial activism is more than this. Activist federal judges not only craft laws, they also ignore the laws in place-- particularly the enumerated powers listed in Article I of the Constitution and underscored by the 9th and 10th amendments. By ignoring the strict constitutional limits placed on the federal government and bulldozing states’ rights, federal judges opened the door to the growth of wildly extra-constitutional government in the 20th century. Activist courts enable activist government.
rights
Our Political Federal Courts
10 October 2005 Texas Straight Talk 10 October 2005 verse 8 ... Cached
The Constitution above all is a document that limits the power of the federal government. The fundamental point that has been lost in our national discourse is this: the Constitution prohibits the federal government, including the federal judiciary, from doing all kind of things. Until we have federal judges who understand this, it matters little what political stripes or experience they bring to the bench. The Constitution does not empower government and grant rights, it restricts government in order to safeguard preexisting rights. When federal courts disregard this principle, acting as legislatures or failing to enforce constitutional limitations, we get the worst kind of unaccountable government.
rights
Deficts at Home, Welfare Abroad
07 November 2005 Texas Straight Talk 07 November 2005 verse 15 ... Cached
In many cases, foreign aid money simply distorts foreign economies and props up bad governments. In countries that pursue harmful economic policies, an infusion of US cash only exacerbates and prolongs problems. No amount of money can help nations that reject property rights, free markets, and the rule of law.
rights
New Rules, Same Game
23 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 23 January 2006 verse 6 ... Cached
I don’t believe the problem is corrupt lobbyists or even corrupt politicians per se. The fundamental problem, in my view, is the very culture of Washington. Our political system has become nothing more than a means of distributing government largesse, through tax dollars confiscated from the American people-- always in the name democracy. The federal budget is so enormous that it loses all meaning. What’s another million or so for some pet project, in an annual budget of $2.4 trillion? No one questions the principle that a majority electorate should be allowed to rule the country, dictate rights, and redistribute wealth.
rights
The Port Security Controversy
27 February 2006 Texas Straight Talk 27 February 2006 verse 8 ... Cached
There also is an important states’ rights issue involved in this controversy. Why are Treasury department bureaucrats in Washington making decisions about port security? Most American ports are owned by U.S. states, cities, or local port authorities, not the federal government. Do Treasury department personnel 1500 miles away really know what’s best for the ports of Galveston or Freeport?
rights
International Taxes?
06 March 2006 Texas Straight Talk 06 March 2006 verse 5 ... Cached
The United Nations remains determined to rob from wealthy countries and, after taking a big cut for itself, send what’s left to the poor countries. Of course, most of this money will go to the very dictators whose reckless policies have impoverished their citizens. According to the international bureaucrats of the UN, wherever poverty exists in the rest of the world it is always our fault. According to them, our prosperity comes not from hard work, legal protection of property rights, and our capitalist system, but rather because we exploit the poor of the third world. Somehow, it’s always our fault.
rights
Stop the NAIS
29 May 2006 Texas Straight Talk 29 May 2006 verse 8 ... Cached
NAIS also forces livestock owners to comply with new paperwork and monitoring regulations. These farmers and ranchers literally will be paying for an assault on their property and privacy rights, as NAIS empowers federal agents to enter and seize property without a warrant-- a blatant violation of the 4th amendment.
rights
Stop the NAIS
29 May 2006 Texas Straight Talk 29 May 2006 verse 11 ... Cached
NAIS means more government, more regulations, more fees, more federal spending, less privacy, and diminished property rights. It’s exactly the kind of federal program every conservative, civil libertarian, animal lover, businessman, farmer, and rancher should oppose. The House has already acted, but there’s still time to tell the Senate to dump NAIS. Please call your Senators and tell them you oppose spending even one dime on the NAIS program in the 2007 agriculture appropriations bill.
rights
Why Won't Congress Abolish the Estate Tax?
12 June 2006 Texas Straight Talk 12 June 2006 verse 7 ... Cached
The real motivation behind the estate tax is a deep-seated hostility to property rights, and a misguided fear of family dynasties. But people don’t keep money in mattresses anymore. Money inherited from an estate is either spent, saved, or invested—all of which are better for the economy than sending it to Washington, where bureaucratic overhead consumes at least 50 cents of every dollar.
rights
Why Won't Congress Abolish the Estate Tax?
12 June 2006 Texas Straight Talk 12 June 2006 verse 8 ... Cached
If you truly own your property, you have the right to dispose of it any way you wish. You can sell it, give it away, or direct who will receive it when you die. This control is the essence of property rights. If you can’t control what happens to your property, you don’t really own it.
rights
Congress Rejects UN Taxes
19 June 2006 Texas Straight Talk 19 June 2006 verse 4 ... Cached
UN bureaucrats think rich nations like America ought to give more money to poor nations- a lot more- simply because we’re rich. Never mind the billions of foreign aid tax dollars we send overseas every year; never mind the billions donated to overseas charities by Americans, the most charitable people on earth. The UN mindset blames the western world for poverty everywhere, assuming that our relative wealth must have come at the expense of the third world. The poor countries themselves are never deemed responsible for their own predicaments, despite their often corrupt governments, lack of property rights, and hostility toward wealth-producing capitalism. Somehow, it’s always our fault. So the UN holds conferences to talk about how we should pay to make things right, and the idea of a UN tax naturally arises.
rights
The Worldwide Gun Control Movement
26 June 2006 Texas Straight Talk 26 June 2006 verse 5 ... Cached
Fortunately, U.S. gun owners have responded with an avalanche of letters to the American delegation to the conference, asking that none of our tax dollars be used to further UN anti-gun proposals. But we cannot discount the growing power of international law, whether through the UN, the World Trade Organization, or the NAFTA and CAFTA treaties. Gun rights advocates must understand that the forces behind globalism are hostile toward our Constitution and national sovereignty in general. Our 2nd Amendment means nothing to UN officials.
rights
The Worldwide Gun Control Movement
26 June 2006 Texas Straight Talk 26 June 2006 verse 7 ... Cached
So it makes sense that perhaps the biggest threat to gun rights in America today comes not from domestic lawmakers, but from abroad.
rights
The Worldwide Gun Control Movement
26 June 2006 Texas Straight Talk 26 June 2006 verse 8 ... Cached
For more than a decade the United Nations has waged a campaign to undermine Second Amendment rights in America. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has called on members of the Security Council to address the “easy availability” of small arms and light weapons, by which he means all privately owned firearms. In response, the Security Council released a report calling for a comprehensive program of worldwide gun control, a report that admonishes the U.S. and praises the restrictive gun laws of Red China and France!
rights
The Worldwide Gun Control Movement
26 June 2006 Texas Straight Talk 26 June 2006 verse 10 ... Cached
They believe in global government, and armed people could stand in the way of their goals. They certainly don’t care about our Constitution or the Second Amendment. But the conflict between the UN position on private ownership of firearms and our Second Amendment cannot be reconciled. How can we as a nation justify our membership in an organization that is actively hostile to one of our most fundamental constitutional rights? What if the UN decided that free speech was too inflammatory and should be restricted? Would we discard the First Amendment to comply with the UN agenda?
rights
A New Declaration
03 July 2006 Texas Straight Talk 03 July 2006 verse 4 ... Cached
They declared, in terms that still are radical today, that all men are created equal, and endowed with certain inalienable rights that government neither grants nor can take away.
rights
A New Declaration
03 July 2006 Texas Straight Talk 03 July 2006 verse 5 ... Cached
In the Declaration of Independence, the founding fathers sought to demonstrate to the world that they were rejecting a tyrannical king. They listed the “injuries and usurpations” that contain the philosophical basis for our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
rights
Elected Officials Threaten Property Rights
04 September 2006 Texas Straight Talk 04 September 2006 verse 1 ... Cached
Elected Officials Threatening Property Rights
rights
Elected Officials Threaten Property Rights
04 September 2006 Texas Straight Talk 04 September 2006 verse 4 ... Cached
This is why every American needs to understand that property rights are the foundation of a free society. Without property rights, all citizens live subject to the whims of government officials. When government can seize your property without your consent, all of your other rights are negated. Our founders would roll over in their graves if they knew that the takings clause in the Fifth Amendment was being used to justify unholy alliances between private developers and tax-hungry local governments.
rights
Elected Officials Threaten Property Rights
04 September 2006 Texas Straight Talk 04 September 2006 verse 7 ... Cached
Congress can and should act to prevent the federal government from seizing private property. I've introduced and cosponsored several bills that prohibit or severely limit the power of Washington agencies to seize private property in locations around the nation. But the primary fight against local eminent domain actions must take place at the local level. The people of New London, Connecticut, like the people of Texas, could start by removing from office local officials who have so little respect for property rights.
rights
Gun Control on the Back Burner
06 November 2006 Texas Straight Talk 06 November 2006 verse 5 ... Cached
Most supporters of gun rights take no pleasure in this fact, nor do they trumpet it as a political victory over gun control forces. The time has come to stop politicizing gun ownership, and start promoting responsible use of firearms to make America a safer place. Guns are here to stay; the question is whether only criminals will have them.
rights
Gun Control on the Back Burner
06 November 2006 Texas Straight Talk 06 November 2006 verse 9 ... Cached
Tortured interpretations of the Second amendment cannot change the fact that both the letter of the amendment itself and the legislative history conclusively show that the Founders intended ordinary citizens to be armed. The notion that the Second amendment confers rights only upon organized state-run militias is preposterous; the amendment is meaningless unless it protects the gun rights of individuals.
rights
Gun Control on the Back Burner
06 November 2006 Texas Straight Talk 06 November 2006 verse 10 ... Cached
Gun control may have faded as a political issue, but the mentality that Washington knows best-- and that certain constitutional rights are anachronisms-- is alive and well. Look for gun control advocates to bide their time and look for new ways to resurrect the issue in 2008 and beyond.
rights
The Original Foreign Policy
18 December 2006 Texas Straight Talk 18 December 2006 verse 11 ... Cached
Of course we frequently hear the offensive cliché that, “times have changed,” and thus we cannot follow quaint admonitions from the 1700s. The obvious question, then, is what other principles from our founding era should we discard for convenience? Should we give up the First amendment because times have changed and free speech causes too much offense in our modern society? Should we give up the Second amendment, and trust that today’s government is benign and not to be feared by its citizens? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights?
rights
The DC Gun Ban
12 March 2007 Texas Straight Talk 12 March 2007 verse 3 ... Cached
Last Friday a federal appeals court in Washington DC issued a ruling that hopefully will result in the restoration of 2nd Amendment rights in the nation's capital. It appears the Court rejected the District of Columbia 's nonsensical argument that the 2nd Amendment confers only a "collective right," something gun control advocates have asserted for years.
rights
The DC Gun Ban
12 March 2007 Texas Straight Talk 12 March 2007 verse 4 ... Cached
Of course we should not have too much faith in our federal courts to protect gun rights, considering they routinely rubber stamp egregious violations of the 1 st, 4th, and 5th Amendments, and allow Congress to legislate wildly outside the bounds of its enumerated powers. Furthermore, the DC case will be appealed to the Supreme Court with no guarantees. But it is very important nonetheless for a federal court only one step below the highest court in the land to recognize that gun rights adhere to the American people, not to government-sanctioned groups. Rights, by definition, are individual. "Group rights" is an oxymoron.
rights
Government and Racism
16 April 2007 Texas Straight Talk 16 April 2007 verse 10 ... Cached
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.
rights
Rights of Taxpayers is Missing Element in Stem Cell Debate
25 June 2007 Texas Straight Talk 25 June 2007 verse 1 ... Cached
Rights of Taxpayers is Missing Element
rights
Rights of Taxpayers is Missing Element in Stem Cell Debate
25 June 2007 Texas Straight Talk 25 June 2007 verse 5 ... Cached
On one side, those who support the President’s veto tend to argue against embryonic stem cell research, pointing to the individual rights of the embryo being discarded for use in research. On the other hand are those who argue the embryo will be discarded any way, and the research may provide valuable cures for people suffering from terrible illnesses.
rights
Rights of Taxpayers is Missing Element in Stem Cell Debate
25 June 2007 Texas Straight Talk 25 June 2007 verse 6 ... Cached
In Washington, these two camps generally advocate very different policies. The first group wants a federal ban on all such research, while the latter group expects the research to be federally-subsidized. Neither side in this battle seems to consider the morality surrounding the rights of federal taxpayers.
rights
Rights of Taxpayers is Missing Element in Stem Cell Debate
25 June 2007 Texas Straight Talk 25 June 2007 verse 8 ... Cached
Their approach was also the only one consistent with a concern for the rights and freedom of all individuals, and for limiting negative impacts upon taxpayers. When Washington subsidizes something, it does so at the direct expense of the taxpayer. Likewise, when Washington bans something, it generally requires a federal agency and a team of federal agents— often heavily-armed federal agents—to enforce the ban. These agencies become the means by which the citizenry is harassed by government intrusions. Yet it is the mere existence of these agencies, and the attendant costs associated with operating them, that leads directly to the abuse of the taxpayers’ pocketbooks.
rights
Recapturing the Spirit of Independence
02 July 2007 Texas Straight Talk 02 July 2007 verse 9 ... Cached
Moreover, this constitutional republicanism is essential to protecting the individual rights and self-determination that is at the heart of our Declaration. As we celebrate the 231ist anniversary of our nation’s birth, I hope every person who reads or hears this will take the time to go back and read the Declaration of Independence. Only by recapturing the spirit of independence can we ensure our government never resembles the one from which the American States declared their separation.
rights
The Fear Factor
30 July 2007 Texas Straight Talk 30 July 2007 verse 3 ... Cached
While fear itself is not always the product of irrationality, once experienced it tends to lead away from reason, especially if the experience is extreme in duration or intensity. When people are fearful they tend to be willing to irrationally surrender their rights.
rights
The Fear Factor
30 July 2007 Texas Straight Talk 30 July 2007 verse 8 ... Cached
To calm fears, Americans accepted the patriot act and the doctrine of pre-emptive war. We tolerated new laws that allow the government to snoop on us, listen to our phone calls, track our financial dealings, make us strip down at airports and even limited the rights of habeas corpus and trial by jury. Like some dysfunctional episode of the twilight zone, we allowed the summit of our imagination to be linked up with the pit of our fears.
rights
Surrender Should Not be an Option
02 September 2007 Texas Straight Talk 02 September 2007 verse 2 ... Cached
Faced with dwindling support of the Iraq War, the warhawks are redoubling their efforts. They imply we are in Iraq attacking those who attacked us, and yet this is not the case. As we know, Saddam Hussein, though not a particularly savory character, had nothing to do with 9/11. The neo-cons claim surrender should not be an option. In the same breath they claim we were attacked because of our freedoms. Why then, are they so anxious to surrender our freedoms with legislation like the Patriot Act, a repeal of our 4th amendment rights, executive orders, and presidential signing statements? With politicians like these, who needs terrorists? Do they think if we destroy our freedoms for the terrorists they will no longer have a reason to attack us? This seems the epitome of cowardice coming from those who claim a monopoly on patriotic courage.
rights
Taxing Ourselves to Death
14 October 2007 Texas Straight Talk 14 October 2007 verse 3 ... Cached
The underlying attitude behind this bill, and the estate tax, is what I find so distressing about tax policy in this country today - that being a growing disregard for property rights, which are so important to the American dream.
rights
Taxing Ourselves to Death
14 October 2007 Texas Straight Talk 14 October 2007 verse 7 ... Cached
Other anti-property rights provisions in the Tax Collection Responsibility Act make desperate last attempts to extract the most amount of revenue possible from expatriots on their way out the door. A telling signal that a country is taxing itself to death is capital flight and expatriation. When successful Americans no longer feel their property is secure from government thieves, and they have too much to lose by staying, they vote with their feet and go elsewhere. This country is poorer for the loss of that citizen’s investment here, but it is their right to keep and enjoy what they have built up. How dare Congress or the IRS try to deny them that? And what message does that send to the next generation of young entrepreneurs?
rights
Paving Paradise
03 February 2008 Texas Straight Talk 03 February 2008 verse 6 ... Cached
From Washington I have voiced my staunch disapproval of taking these hard-working taxpayers’ land for a private toll road, by introducing legislation (HR 5191) that simply states, “No Federal funds appropriated or made available before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act may be used by a unit of Federal, State, or local government to carry out the highway project known as the 'Trans-Texas Corridor'.” I am working hard in Congress to make sure that no Federal funding is used to undermine property rights in this way.
rights
Second Amendment Battle in DC
10 February 2008 Texas Straight Talk 10 February 2008 verse 2 ... Cached
As a United States Congressman, I take my oath to uphold all of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights very seriously. Unfortunately, too many in Washington DC believe they can pick-and-choose which provisions of the constitution they can uphold. For example, many politicians, judges, and bureaucrats believe they have the power to disregard our right to own guns, even though the second amendment explicitly guarantees the people's right to "keep and bear arms."
rights
Second Amendment Battle in DC
10 February 2008 Texas Straight Talk 10 February 2008 verse 5 ... Cached
However, a Supreme Court decision that the District of Columbia 's gun laws are a "reasonable" infringement on constitutional rights could severely setback the gun rights movement.
rights
Second Amendment Battle in DC
10 February 2008 Texas Straight Talk 10 February 2008 verse 6 ... Cached
This is why I have signed on to a brief headed by Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and signed by a majority of Congress asking the Supreme Court to uphold the lower court's decision and take a stand for stricter standards of constitutional review for gun laws. I am pleased to work with Senator Hutchison, and so many of my other colleagues, on this important issue. As a member of the Second Amendment Caucus, I will continue to work with those of my colleagues who support gun rights and grassroots activists to defend the Second Amendment Rights of Americans.
rights
Taxes or Tolls on the TTC
24 February 2008 Texas Straight Talk 24 February 2008 verse 6 ... Cached
And to add insult to injury – private lands will be taken for this road which will be, for all intents and purposes, a private business. The government should not use the power of eminent domain to seize and redistribute land for the benefit of a private company. This is wrong and unconstitutional. Cintra Zachry should negotiate with each individual land owner and go through the normal private land acquisition process to start its new business. If mutual agreements can be reached, fine. If not, government force is not appropriate. Our government should protect property rights, not facilitate theft.
rights
Taxes or Tolls on the TTC
24 February 2008 Texas Straight Talk 24 February 2008 verse 7 ... Cached
Toll roads should not be paid for with taxpayer dollars, or even bond funding that pledge future tax dollars. Taxpayers should not have to pay additional fees for something they have already paid for. Eminent domain should absolutely not be used for private businesses. This public-private partnership has all the makings of the worst of both worlds. I am doing my part at the Federal level in Congress to limit the damage to the taxpayer. I introduced a bill in that prohibits the use of federal funding for any part of the TTC and I will continue to push for this bill, and other bills protecting property rights, taxpayers rights and our national sovereignty. The government should not fund and enforce private efforts like this and thumb their nose at land owners and taxpayers.
rights
The Emerging Surveillance State
07 April 2008 Texas Straight Talk 07 April 2008 verse 8 ... Cached
The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution requires the government to have a warrant when it wishes to look into the private affairs of individuals. If we are to remain a free society we must defend our rights against any governmental attempt to undermine or bypass the Constitution.
rights
A Major Victory for Texas
23 June 2008 Texas Straight Talk 23 June 2008 verse 2 ... Cached
I am pleased to report that last week we received notice that the Texas Department of Transportation will recommend the I-69 Project be developed using existing highway facilities instead of the proposed massive new Trans Texas Corridor/NAFTA Superhighway. According to the Texas Transportation Commissioner, consideration is no longer being given to new corridors and other proposals for a new highway footprint for this project. A major looming threat to property rights and national sovereignty is removed with this encouraging announcement.
rights
A Major Victory for Texas
23 June 2008 Texas Straight Talk 23 June 2008 verse 5 ... Cached
However, now is not the time to rest on our laurels. The bittersweet aspect of this victory is that we had to fight at all. We took time away from family and friends, doing other things, to attend these meetings, inform others, write letters, post signs and submit our complaints, and we should not have had to. Government should let us be, if we are peaceful citizens, harming no one. In a perfect world, government could be trusted to act in the best interests of the people without overwhelming pressure of this kind. This is not a perfect world. Constant pressure is needed to keep government in check, and we succeeded this time. But this will not be the last time citizen efforts and involvement will be required. We still face many unreasonable encroachments of big government today, from confiscatory, economy-strangling taxation to creeping disregard of the right of habeas corpus and other Constitutional rights, to thousands of nuisance bureaucratic regulations interfering with our every day lives. We have drifted far from what the founding fathers envisioned for this nation. Last week was just one victory towards getting back on the right path. We must continue to hold politicians’ feet to the Constitutional fire. If I had to guess, they will probably try to implement the NAFTA Superhighway again sometime in the future.
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.