|
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 122
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Introducing We The People
17 November 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, November 17, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 122:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the We the People Act. The We the People
Act forbids Federal courts, including the Supreme
Court, from adjudicating cases concerning
State laws and polices relating to religious
liberties or “privacy,” including cases involving
sexual practices, sexual orientation or
reproduction. The We the People Act also protects
the traditional definition of marriage from
judicial activism by ensuring the Supreme
Court cannot abuse the equal protection
clause to redefine marriage. In order to hold
Federal judges accountable for abusing their
powers, the act also provides that a judge who
violates the act’s limitations on judicial power
shall either be impeached by Congress or removed
by the President, according to rules established
by the Congress.
2005 Ron Paul 122:2
The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish and limit the
jurisdiction of the lower Federal courts and
limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The
Founders intended Congress to use this authority
to correct abuses of power by the federal
judiciary.
2005 Ron Paul 122:3
Some may claim that an activist judiciary that strikes down State laws at will expands
individual liberty. Proponents of this claim
overlook the fact that the best guarantor of
true liberty is decentralized political institutions,
while the greatest threat to liberty is
concentrated power. This is why the Constitution
carefully limits the power of the Federal
Government over the States.
2005 Ron Paul 122:4
In recent years, we have seen numerous abuses of power by Federal courts. Federal
judges regularly strike down State and local
laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual
orientation, family relations, education, and
abortion. This government by Federal judiciary
causes a virtual nullification of the Tenth
Amendment’s limitations on Federal power.
Furthermore, when Federal judges impose
their preferred polices on State and local governments,
instead of respecting the polices
adopted by those elected by, and thus accountable
to, the people, republican government
is threatened. Article IV, section 40 of
the Untied States Constitution guarantees
each State a republican form of government
Thus, Congress must act when the executive
or judicial branch threatens the republican
governments of the individual States. Therefore,
Congress has a responsibility to stop
Federal judges from running roughshod over
State and local laws. The Founders would certainly
have supported congressional action to
reign in Federal judges who tell citizens where
they can and can’t place manger scenes at
Christmas.
2005 Ron Paul 122:5
Mr. Speaker, even some supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the
Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, which
overturned the abortion laws of all 50 States,
is flawed. The Supreme Court’s Establishment
Clause jurisdiction has also drawn criticism
from across the political spectrum. Perhaps
more importantly, attempts to resolve, by judicial
fiat, important issues like abortion and the
expression of religious belief in the public
square increase social strife and conflict The
only way to resolve controversial social issues
like abortion and school prayer is to restore
respect for the right of State and local governments
to adopt polices that reflect the beliefs
of the citizens of those jurisdictions. I would
remind my colleagues and the Federal judiciary
that, under our Constitutional system,
there is no reason why the people of New
York and the people of Texas should have the
same polices regarding issues such as marriage
and school prayer.
2005 Ron Paul 122:6
Unless Congress acts, a State’s authority to define and regulate marriage may be the next
victim of activist judges. After all, such a decision
would simply take the Supreme Court’s
decision in the Lawrence case, which overturned
all State sodomy laws, to its logical
conclusion. Congress must launch a preemptive
strike against any further Federal usurpation
of the States’ authority to regulate marriage
by removing issues concerning the definition
of marriage from the jurisdiction of Federal
courts.
2005 Ron Paul 122:7
Although marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the States, government did not
create the institution of marriage. Government
regulation of marriage is based on State recognition
of the practices and customs formulated
by private individuals interacting in civil
institutions, such as churches and synagogues.
Having Federal officials, whether
judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose
a new definition of marriage on the people is
an act of social engineering profoundly hostile
to liberty.
2005 Ron Paul 122:8
It is long past time that Congress exercises its authority to protect the republican government
of the States from out-of-control Federal
judges. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor
the We the People Act.
| |
