Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am
happy to yield 4 minutes to my good
friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
PAUL).
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission
to revise and extend his remarks.)
1999 Ron Paul 61:1 Mr. PAUL.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the
chairman for yielding me the time.
1999 Ron Paul 61:2 Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support
of the rule. I believe 2 days of debate on
this very important issue is about as
fair as we can get. I know a lot of people
are not satisfied with the rule. But
I think under the circumstances it is
fair, and I will support the rule.
1999 Ron Paul 61:3 However, I am not optimistic that
much good will come out of the next
days of debate. I think there is a lot of
mischief going on here. I see that one-half
of this Congress is quite capable
and anxious to defend the First Amendment,
and I think that is good. I see
the other half of the Congress is quite
anxious and capable of defending the
second amendment, and I think that is
good. But it seems strange because
see these two groups coming together
in a coalition to pass a bill that will
undermine the first amendment and
undermine the second amendment.
1999 Ron Paul 61:4 That does not make a whole lot of
sense to me because I think that we are
obligated here in the Congress to defend
both the first and the second
amendment and were not here for the
purpose of undermining both amendments.
1999 Ron Paul 61:5 We should be reminded, though, that
traditionally, up until the middle part
of this century, crime control was always
considered a local issue. That is
the way the Constitution designed it.
That is the way it should be. But every
day we write more laws here in the
Congress building a national police
force. We now have more than 80,000
bureaucrats in this country carrying
guns. We are an armed society, but it is
the Federal Government that is armed.
1999 Ron Paul 61:6 So I think we should think seriously
before we pass more laws whether they
undermine the first amendment or
whether we pass more laws undermining
the second amendment. We do
not need more Federal laws.
1999 Ron Paul 61:7 Recently there was a bipartisan
study put out and chaired by Ed Meese,
and he is not considered a radical libertarian.
He was quoted in an editorial in
the Washington Post as to what we
here in the Congress are doing with nationalizing
our police force. The editorial
states:
“The basic contention of
the report, which was produced by a bipartisan
group headed by former Attorney
General Edward Meese, is that
Congress’ tendency in recent decades
to make Federal crimes out of offenses
that have historically been State matters
has dangerous implications both
for the fair administration of justice
and for the principle that States are
something more than mere administrative
districts of a national government.”
1999 Ron Paul 61:8 Along with this, we have also heard
Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist say
the same thing.
“The trend to federalize
crimes that traditionally have
been handled in State courts threatens
to change entirely the nature of our
Federal system.”
1999 Ron Paul 61:9 We are unfortunately bound and determined
to continue this trend. It
looks like we are going to do so today.
We are going to place a lot more rules
and regulations restricting both the
first and second amendment.
1999 Ron Paul 61:10 We are bound and determined to
write more rules and regulations dealing
with the first and the second
amendment, and I do not see this as a
good trend. It is said today that those
who want to undermine the first
amendment, that it is already established
that pornography is not protected
under the first amendment. And
today the goal is to make sure that the
depiction of violence is not protected
under the first amendment. But do my
colleagues know that the major cause
of violence in the world throughout
history have been abuse of religion and
the abuse of philosophy?
1999 Ron Paul 61:11 So, therefore, the next step will be, if
we can limit the depiction of pornography
and then violence, be the limitation
of the depiction of a philosophy
that deals with religion or political
systems such as Communism or other
fascism.
1999 Ron Paul 61:12 I say, today we should move carefully
and not undermine either the first or
the second amendment.
Notes:
1999 Ron Paul 61:1
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time. Here, Ron Paul thanks The Honorable David dreier of California, chairman of the Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House.
1999 Ron Paul 61:3
defending the second amendment probably should be capitalized: defending the Second Amendment.
1999 Ron Paul 61:3
undermine the first amendment and undermine the second amendment. probably should be capitalized:
undermine the First Amendment and undermine the Second Amendment.
1999 Ron Paul 61:3
But it seems strange because see these two groups coming together probably should be
But it seems strange because I see these two groups coming together
1999 Ron Paul 61:4
both the first and the second amendment probably should be capitalized: both the First and the Second Amendment. (cf. both North and South Dakota.)
1999 Ron Paul 61:4
were not here for the purpose of undermining both amendments. probably should have an apostrophe:
we’re not here for the purpose of undermining both amendments.
1999 Ron Paul 61:6
first amendment probably should be capitalized: First Amendment.
1999 Ron Paul 61:6
second amendment probably should be capitalized: Second Amendment.
1999 Ron Paul 61:9
both the first and second amendment probably should be capitalized: both the First and Second Amendment.
1999 Ron Paul 61:10
Here, the names of Constitutional amendments probably should be capitalized.
1999 Ron Paul 61:12
the first or the second amendment probably should be capitalized: the First or the Second Amendment.
