June 27th, 1997
WASHINGTON, DC — US Representative Ron Paul (R-Surfside, TX) said on Friday that the US Supreme Court did the right thing by siding with local law enforcement officers against a major portion of the unconstitutional Brady Act, passed in 1993.
“The US Congress completely overstepped it’s bounds in the Brady Act; this is a major move in favor of the US Constitution,” said Paul, a staunch defender of the Constitution and its Second Amendment. He is the sponsor of HR 1147, the Second Amendment Restoration Act, which would restore the right of law-abiding citizens to own the firearms of their choice so that they may defend themselves and their family. In addition, Dr. Paul is a cosponsor of several pieces of pro-second amendment legislation, including HR 27, the Citizens’ Self-Defense Act, which prohibits gun control laws that target law abiding citizens and restores the right of all law abiding citizens to own firearms.
Paul offered his congratulations to the sheriffs who brought the case.
“These brave men are heroes for standing up for what is right against the full power of a federal government which had been bent on doing the wrong thing on this issue. I find it ironic that these locally-elected officials took much more seriously the oath to defend and protect the Constitution, than did the 103rd Congress’ federal officeholders who passed the unconstitutional Brady Act.”
Several sheriffs sued the federal government for requiring in the Brady Act that local police agencies perform background checks. In its ruling announced on Friday, the Supreme Court stated that the federal government does not have the right to commander state and local officials and compel them to execute federal rules and regulations.
“Under the Second Amendment, the federal government has no authority whatsoever to prevent law-abiding citizens from owning and possessing firearms,” said Paul. “At no point in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to in any way force state and local officials to do anything, this is a step toward returning sanity to our government. And by eliminating this horrible provision of the legislation, the Court has essentially rendered much of the Brady Act a lame-duck law, which is good news for anyone who cares about individual liberty and the Constitution.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
June 26th, 1997
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, yesterday’s Supreme Court decision in City of Boerne versus Flores is being touted as a blow to religious liberty and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. It is, however, a blow to neither. The case of City of Boerne versus Flores came to the Supreme Court as a result of the zoning laws in Boerne, Texas which restricted the uses to which Reverend Cummings could put the property belonging to the Roman Catholic Church for which he worked. These particular zoning restrictions were not directed at Reverend Cummings or the Roman Catholic Church. The zoning laws were not even directed at religious organizations or churches generally. Rather, these zoning restrictions were directed at property owners in general in the name of historic preservation. These facts, however, beg the question as to why this case was argued instead as a violation of religious liberties protected by the first amendment.
What made this an issue of religious freedom in the court and ‘court of public opinion’ is perhaps a symptom of the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Village of Euclid, Ohio versus Ambler Realty Co. (1926) in which the Court sanctioned the abandonment of individual rights to property in the name of zoning for the ‘collective good.’ For those whose property rights are regulated away, devalued, or ‘taken’ regulatorily, it is a natural symptom to expect these aggrieved parties to cling to whatever Constitutional liberties might still gain them a sympathetic ear in the courts. Those destroying flag-like property scramble for protection under the banner of free expression and Reverend Cummins sought property rights protection elsewhere within the first amendment, namely, religious freedom. Absent local, state, or federal governments’ realization that such dilemmas are hopelessly irreconcilable outside a framework of individual property rights, similar cases will continue to find their way to various levels of the judicial system as those suffering infringements upon their rights in property, grope for justice against the collective expropriation which has become not only the rule, but the rule of law, in this country.
It is no accident that a case such as this did not originate in Houston, Pasadena, or Alvin, Texas. Each of these cities have allowed the marketplace, through a series of voluntary contractual exchanges, (rather than a central-planning-style zoning board), to determine how private property is most effectively developed.
The first amendment is meaningless absent a respect for property rights. Freedom of the press is a mere sham without the right to own paper and ink. Freedom of religion is vacuous absent the right to own a pulpit from which to preach or at least a place in which to practice or worship. Until this country’s lawmakers and courts restore a system of Constitutional jurisprudence respective of the inextricable nature of so-called economic and fundamental liberties, all liberties will be subject to eradication at the whim of the legislatures, the courts, or both.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
June 25th, 1997
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Balanced Budget Act (H.R. 2015), authorizing the expenditure of an additional $3 billion in taxpayer dollars on ‘Welfare to Work’ programs as the Federal Government has no constitutional authority to spend taxpayer dollars on welfare-to-work programs.
Congress is once again engaging in the tired ritual of the 5-year balanced budget plan. Repeatedly over the past 25 years there have been lofty proclamations that the budget would be balanced in 5 years because of government forecasts of continued growth. Each 5 year plan was announced with great fanfare and happy feelings of bipartisanship, yet, each plan fails to balance the budget because the economic forecasting upon which they were based never reflect actual economic circumstances.
The Federal Government cannot predict exactly how the economy–the aggregate spending and saving habits of every individual in the nation–will behave over the course of the next 5 years. Because the economic situation in the future will be based upon the actions of individuals acting on their subjective preferences, these preferences are impossible to predict. The failure of every socialist government, whether totalitarian or democratic, to fulfill its leaders’ promises of unlimited economic prosperity demonstrates the futility of government planning based upon the economic forecasts of government officials.
It is, however, only a matter of time before the burden of taxes, spending, debt, and inflation catapult America’s economy into yet another recession. When the optimistic projects of growth prove to be based more in hope than reality, the budget figures will be ‘revised’ and a future Congress will once again confront the questions of balancing the budget.
Even if the budget being considered by this Congress were guaranteed to balance the budget within 5 years, it should still be rejected because it fails to eliminate even one unconstitutional function of the Federal Government. Despite proclamations that ‘the era of Big Government is over’, this budget actually increases taxpayer spending for many unconstitutional programs. The main problem with government policy today is not that the government cannot balance its books, but that the Federal Government is performing too many functions for which it lacks any constitutional authority.
Mr. Speaker, the authorization of an additional three billion dollars for a welfare-to-work program, is a perfect example of how the budget proposal fails to address the basic question of how the welfare state exceeds the constitutional limitations on the power of the Federal Government. Under the tenth amendment to the United States Constitution, the Federal Government has no authority to take money from the people of Texas to spend on welfare programs for the people of New York. Welfare and job training programs are strictly the province of the individual States.
The reconciliation proposal not only unconstitutionally spends Federal taxpayer funds on welfare programs, it dictates to the States how they must run their welfare-to-work programs. For example, States are required to spend 1 dollar of their own money for every 3 dollars of Federal money they receive, and they must distribute the funds according to a pre-determined Federal formula.
Short of defunding all welfare programs and transferring responsibility for those programs back to the States and the people, Congress should provide maximum flexibility to the States to manage these programs as State officials see fit. For example, the amendment offered and later withdrawn by Mr. Johnson to allow State governments to use nongovernmental personnel in the determination of eligibility under the Medicaid, Food Stamp, and special supplemental nutrition programs for Women, Infants, and Children, is a step toward restoring federalism in welfare policy. It is not for Washington to determine the strengths and weaknesses of such a plan, these decisions are solely the responsibility of the States.
In the name of transferring citizens from welfare to work, this bill provides millions of taxpayer dollars to move businesses onto the welfare rolls. Under this proposal, State governments may hand over taxpayer dollars to businesses for private sector job creation, employment, wage subsidies, on-the-job training, contacts with job placement companies, and job vouchers. By providing payments to private businesses who place and hire welfare recipients, Congress is creating a dangerous and powerful new constituency for welfare programs and, in effect, making it more difficult for future Congresses to reduce welfare expenditures.
The welfare-to-work proposal also creates powerful disincentives for businesses to give welfare recipients a chance at a new life through an entry-level job. If this proposal becomes law, welfare recipients in entry-level jobs will be entitled to receive the minimum wage and be covered by certain health and safety regulations. Because mandating wages and benefits increases the costs to businesses of hiring new workers, any wage, safety, or health regulations discourage the hiring of new employees. This is especially true in the case of marginal employees who lack well-developed job skills. This bill restricts welfare recipients’ ability to find gainful employment; the very population this bill is allegedly targeted to benefit.
It is time to return to the most effective job creation machine in history–the free market. Any alternative necessarily results in suboptimal employment. Government is institutionally incapable of creating bonafide jobs. Private citizens acting freely are more than capable of caring for the needs of the less fortunate if the Federal Government stops appropriating so many of their resources for wasteful, bureaucratic, federal programs.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge Congress to reject the phony balanced budget plan before us today as that plan rests on two dubious notions: 1. Government can predict the economic future of the country; 2. The burden of taxes and spending placed on the economy by government will not cause America to experience an economic downturn.
Furthermore, this proposal continues the Federal Government’s unconstitutional micro-managing of State welfare programs. This bill extends corporate welfare in the form of subsidies to businesses which hire current welfare recipients thus creating a new client group for the welfare State.
Mr. Speaker, the only way to permanently balance the budget and end welfare as we know it is to cease all federal expenditures for redistributionist programs not authorized under the United States Constitution. Therefore, all Members of the House of Representatives sincerely committed to limited government must oppose this proposal and instead work to defund all unconstitutional programs and return the authority for welfare programs to those best able to manage them.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
June 25th, 1997
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, in a police state the police are national, powerful and authoritarian. Inevitably, national governments yield to the temptation to use the military to do the heavy lifting. Once the military is used for local police activity, however minor initially, the march toward martial law with centralized police using military troops as an adjunct force becomes irresistible.
Throughout our history, law enforcement in the United States has remained for the most part a local matter. In recent history, especially since the 1970s, the growth of Federal agencies to enforce tens of thousands of regulations, not even written even by Congress, has changed our attitude toward the proper use of police power as established under the Constitution. While this is annoying to many Americans, many of whom are voicing their resentment, the principle of a centralized police power has become acceptable and unchallenged by our political leaders today.
The emotional frenzy surrounding the war on drugs has allowed Federal police powers to escalate rapidly into the areas of financial privacy, gun ownership, border controls and virtually all other aspects of law enforcement. Many see this trend as dangerous to our liberties while doing little or nothing to solve the problems of violence, gang wars, deterioration of the inner cities or the decline of the public educational system.
The declared justification for military intervention at Mount Carmel, although never substantiated, was that the Branch Davidians were manufacturing amphetamines. This provided the legal cover for army tanks to use the poisonous gas which apparently resulted in the devastating fire in what was a military operation to enforce the law, something which in ordinary times would have been strictly a local law enforcement matter.
Despite the legitimate concerns surrounding nationalization of the police force and using the military to enforce local laws, the House just recently and overwhelmingly approved the use of 10,000 military troops to patrol U.S. borders, none of whom, however, expect to be deployed on the northern border. Rather than addressing the incentive of welfare benefits to legal and illegal aliens, Congress instead reinstated the funding to aliens which was struck in last year’s budget welfare reform. The House evidently in its infinite wisdom believes that 10,000 troops will solve many of our social problems.
If this Nation’s drug laws are not reconsidered, the tremendous incentive for quick profits will prevent any success that might otherwise result from more and more armed border agents.
But it is also the psychology behind this effort that so often allows the enforcement process to get out of hand, whether at Ruby Ridge or Waco. So far the military on our southern border has not exactly done itself proud.
In January of this year, the army shot and wounded an illegal immigrant near the Rio Grande Valley. Initially the Army said the alien fired twice at the soldiers and had been involved in a robbery. These facts, however, were never substantiated. Even worse, though, is the case of an 18-year-old exemplary high school student and U.S. citizen named Ezeqaiuel Hernandez who on May 20 was shot and killed after being tracked for 20 minutes. He was wounded but then was allowed to bleed to death. What is more, now that more evidence regarding the shooting has become available, the soldier pulling the trigger is the subject of an ongoing investigation. Perhaps to some, these are minor incidents but the issue of using military troops for routine law enforcement is indeed a serious matter.
According to an article by Thaddeus Herrick in the June 22 issue of the Houston Chronicle, changes in the law permitting the military to be used for law enforcement occurred during the Reagan administration and expanded steadily during the Bush and the Clinton administrations. Currently, about 700 troops are being used for law enforcement, mainly for the purpose of enforcing drug laws. However, with the new legislation working its way through Congress, the numbers could grow substantially. This does not include the 6,000 border control agents already manning the borders, a number which is slated to increase to 20,000 over the next 10 years.
Lawrence Korb, former Assistants Secretary of Defense under Reagan was and remains critical of the trends toward using military troops in this manner. His argument according to Herrick is that soldier’s whole mindset to is to go to war. They try to perform law enforcement but at some points their instincts may take over.’ This is a good warning which could be equally applied to our troops being used as civil policemen in foreign countries under the United Nations banner, such as has done recently in Haiti, Somalia and now as well in Bosnia. Korb has consistently opposed using the military on our borders.
The Clinton administration, in continuing the process begun by Reagan, defends his doing so. Don Maple a spokesperson for the National Drug Control Policy stated, ‘We believe there will always be a role for the military in law enforcement.’
When the Mexican Government ignored the Mexican Constitution in the 1830s and used the military to enforce civil law in Texas, the Texas settlers would have no part of it. The Texians’ strong objection and resistance to military law eventually led to the Battle of San Jacinto. Military law in the colonies led to a similar result. Congress must be more careful in ignoring this principle.
Until Congress addresses the failed policy of a national war on drugs and welfare state incentives which draw aliens across the borders in ever-increasing numbers, this unconstitutional national, centralized police state can only result in more loss of liberties in a never-ending battle fought at the expense of the American taxpayer.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
June 25th, 1997
WASHINGTON, DC — In an effort to stop a step toward the merger of the Selective Service with the Americorps program, US Representative Ron Paul (R-Surfside, Texas) has sponsored H.R. 2029, The Selective Service Registration Privacy Act, which was introduced Tuesday evening and has a dozen original cosponsors.
The legislation will prohibit Americorps from using any Selective Service Administration resources, including draft registration information. Current law requires 18-year-old males to register with Selective Service. The legislation’s cosponsors include representatives Sam Johnson (TX), Roy Blunt (MO), John Cooksey (LA), John Doolittle (CA), Van Hilleary (TN), Wally Herger (CA), Asa Hutchison (AR), Donald Manzullo (IL), Ed Royce (CA), Mark Souder (IN), Bob Stump (AZ) Dave Weldon (FL), John Hostetler (IN) and Todd Tiahrt (KS).
“President Clinton is proposing the ‘Service to America Initiative’ which would allow Selective Service resources to be used to promote his brand of federally subsidized ‘volunteerism’ in Americorps,” said Paul. “In fact, the President has proposed increasing the budget of the Selective Service to carry out this ‘initiative.’ Further, I cannot abide by President Clinton’s plan to stick taxpayers with the $1 million price tag this project will carry. To use Selective Service, ostensibly a program designed to enhance our national security, as a means to bolster President Clinton’s liberal, failing Americorps is completely ridiculous.”
Paul said the real danger with letting Americorps get its foot in the door of the Selective Service system now is what that could portend for the future.
“I absolutely do not want my grandsons to be forced into Americorps’ ‘national volunteer service’ and be sent to distribute needles in some drug-infested area, or be forced to pick-up trash in the national parks, but that is exactly where this could lead,” Paul said. “Already the president and his croonies have warped the meaning of volunteers by federalizing and paying these people, so it is not a stretch of the imagination that this same crew would try to draft our sons into ‘volunteering’ with Americorps.”
Paul’s legislation has been referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, as well as the National Security Committee. Paul is a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, which has oversight of the Americorps program, and he has vowed to see the “unconstitutional boondoggle” eliminated. The National Security Committee oversees the Selective Service program, and is chaired by Rep. Floyd Spence (R-SC).
“While we are waiting on an opportunity to stop Americorp, we can not allow this new ‘back door’ attempt to strengthen it to slip by us. If we do not stop these two programs from merging, I believe our attempt to end Americorp will become more and more difficult as time wears on,” said Paul. “Americorps has absolutely no constitutional basis, no rational economic basis, and no pragmatic basis; it is simply another liberal program aimed at making more people dependent on government largess, at the expense of the hard-working taxpayers.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
June 24th, 1997
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I was recently asked who is right, the Southern Baptists or Disney, in their argument regarding homosexuality. The question was pointedly directed to me because it is known that my political positions do not exactly conform to Washington’s conventional wisdom.
As a Congressman, the answer for me was easy: both. Neither party is incorrect in stating their position. Both are permitted their viewpoint and neither has violated the other’s rights.
Disney has chosen to use its own property to express a view. Although not endorsed by everyone, Disney has every right to do so. The Government did not tell them they must nor did Disney ask for any Government pressure to be applied to those disinterested in Disney’s message. Moreover, no Government money was involved. Disney’s right of free expression is achieved in this case through its constitutional right to own and use its own property. This is an easy call when private property is involved and property rights are acknowledged.
If this incident occurred using governmental funds or on Government property, as in a Government school, and only the concept of free speech was taken into consideration, it would have been virtually impossible to satisfy everyone’s demands.
One set of taxpayers claiming free speech on public property only opens the floodgates of controversy in an attempt to permit everyone to express any viewed desire. But it is this very fuzziness injected by government control of property that today is the source of so many hard feelings and difficult problems.
Some argue that the freedom to express the views of secular humanism and even communism are perfectly acceptable in government schools, while at the same time, it is necessary to exclude voluntary prayer and all religious programs. Recognizing that atheistic humanism is a substitute for religious beliefs, this argument falls far short of satisfying any group desiring to use government property for religious reasons.
Such conflicts do not occur on private property. No one argues the right of Protestants to invade Catholic-owned premises to preach the Protestant doctrine as a right under the first amendment. The access to a newspaper, television station, or radio station should only come with the permission of the owner. Who owns the property becomes the overriding issue and the right of free expression is incidental to that ownership.
Essentially, all conflicts as to who could say what could easily be resolved with a greater respect for private property ownership. This is this principle that protects us in our homes from those that would lecture us in the name of free speech in public places.
Thus, it is easy to argue for the Baptists’ right to boycott. They are expressing their disgust by withholding their support and their property, that is, their money. And that is perfectly appropriate. As far as I am concerned, the more voluntary nonviolent boycotts, the better. The boycott is the free society’s great weapon and was well understood by Martin Luther King. The evil comes when a boycott or any objection is made illegal by the State and the participants are jailed. When laws such as these exist, only jury nullification or even civil disobedience can erase them if the legislatures and the courts refuse to do so.
Quite clearly, both sides of the Disney flap are correct in asserting their rights. The proper view on homosexuality and tolerance is a moral and theological question, not a political one.
Problems like this can be voluntarily sorted out by the marketplace, but only when property rights are held in high esteem and there is an acknowledgment that government and individual force have no role to play. Imposing one’s view upon another, through any type of force, should always be forbidden in a free society.
Actually, the Disney-Baptist skirmish is a wonderful example of how freedom can work without Congress sticking its nose into each and every matter. Both sides have a right to stand up for their respective beliefs.
By using the rules of private property ownership to guide our right of free expression and religion, it is not difficult to find an answer, for instance, to the conflict between unwelcomed speeches in privately-owned malls and mall owners. Because most of the difficult and emotional problems occur on Government-owned and Government-regulated property, we should, here in the Congress, do whatever we can to reinstate the original intent of the Constitution and honor and protect property ownership as an inalienable human right.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
June 18th, 1997
Under legislation introduced by US Representative Ron Paul (R-Surfside, Texas), parents would receive up to $3,000 in tax credits per child to cover the costs of education. The Family Education Freedom Act, HR 1816, would equally apply to parents whose children are home-schooled, attend a private or parochial school, or a public school.
“Increasingly, the fundamental right and freedom of parents to educate their children is being usurped by oppressive taxes. This measure guarantees that parents will have control over their children’s education,” said Paul. “Unlike school vouchers, which increase federal spending and run the risk of having strings attached, this measure reduces a person’s tax burden and frees that money for them to spend on their children.”
Paul explained that parents would be eligible to receive the tax credit if they send their child to a private school, or join the growing number of families “home-schooling.” But it will also allow parents who choose the public school system in their state to qualify for the tax credit by using the $3,000 to purchase educational tools for their children, such as computers, or to fund extracurricular educational opportunities such as music lessons or tutoring.
“The best way to ensure children are getting the kind of education parents demand is to make sure parents have complete control over their education dollar. When parents have the fiscal ability to move their children to the best educational institution around, school personnel will begin to listen to parents rather than the dictates of federal commissions and liberal unions,” said Paul. “No nation can remain free when the state has greater influence over the knowledge and values transmitted to children than the family.”
Because the legislation deals with tax policy, it has been referred to the Ways and Means Committee, which is chaired by Rep. Bill Archer (R-Texas). After committee approval, the bill will go to the floor for a vote of the House.
“This measure will strengthen the educational system of our nation by liberating parents of all economic backgrounds from a tax system that hurts families trying to provide for their children’s future. Once this legislation passes, parents will be able to devote more of their hard-earned income to their children, rather than have it wasted away by the education bureaucracy in Washington.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
June 13th, 1997
WASHINGTON, DC – US Representative Ron Paul (R-Surfside, Texas) announced today that West Columbia’s Jeffery Allen Dolezal, Jr., has been nominated for and accepted into the US Air Force Academy. Dolezal will leave for academy on June 20 and must report on June 26.
“As a home-schooled student, Jeffery has shown a degree of academic excellence which well qualifies him for this honor and I congratulate him,” said Paul.
Dolezal is the son of Jeff and Beth Dolezal. He has been home-schooled most of his life. His high school years were completed through an umbrella program whichallowed him to participate in extracurricular sports with Columbia Christian School of West Columbia. During that time he was awarded numerous MVP andother awards in athletic competition including basketball,flag football, co-ed volleyball, track and field, and cross country. He recently won a gold medal and two bronze medals at the Texas Association of Private and Parochial Schools track meet in Waco. He wasalso awarded one of the two highest athletic awards given by CCS for most outstanding male athlete.
Academically, Dolezal has taken several classes at Brazosport College earning dual credits since he was 16. He has been commended by the National MeritScholarship Board based on his high scores earned on the PSAT. He is an active member of His Grace Church in Sweeny.
Dolezal will study at the Air Force Academy for four years and, after training, be commissioned into the active military service. Dolezal says he wants to undergo flight training and serve as an Air Force pilot.
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
June 13th, 1997
WASHINGTON, DC – While some students will spend their summer breaks traveling with family or working traditional jobs, three Texas youth are spending their summer interning in the office of US Representative Ron Paul (R-Surfside, Texas).
“We’re proud to have these interns in our offices, they not only help with the heavy load of work, but they offer a fresh insight to the entire process,” said Paul. “These kids represent some of the finest in our district. Hopefully the experiences they gain working in this office will help them be more productive citizens and leaders.”
The interns include William Davis of Clute, Dawn Waters of Port Lavaca, and Jason Stoddard of San Marcos. Davis works out of the Freeport office, while Waters and Stoddard are in the Washington office.
Davis is a sophomore pre-medicine major at Abilene Christian University minoring in political science. Davis said he wanted to work in Paul’s office because he is interested in how a doctor (the congressman is an obstetrician) can add to the political debate.
Waters, meanwhile, is a senior at Calhoun High School. The daughter of Bill and Laura Waters, she is president of her school’s National Honor Society and holds a black belt in karate.
“I saw the internship as an opportunity to learn more about the government while meeting new people and working with Ron Paul, one of the few honorable politicians on Capitol Hill,” she said.
Finally, Stoddard is a Junior at Southwest Texas State University in San Marcos. The philosophy and political science major is an avid golfer and chess player.
Besides the opportunity to work for “a man of uncompromising integrity and principle,” Stoddard said he was enjoying the chance to briefly live and work in the nation’s Capitol.
The intern program, while highly competitive, is available during the summer and throughout the year, for positions both in Washington, DC, and in the district. Any students interested in participating in Congressman Paul’s intern program should inquire by writing to: The Office of US Rep. Ron Paul, ATTN: Intern Program, 203 Cannon HOB, Washington, DC 20515.
Interns get a first-hand look at the workings of the federal government and are given the opportunity to participate in the day-to-day operations of a congressional office.
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
June 12th, 1997
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I am in support of this rule. I can think of a better rule. I would have liked the rule to be more open. I had a substitute for the particular amendment that we are proposing to the Constitution, but that will not be permissible. However, I will vote for the rule.
I have to compliment the authors of this legislation, recognizing that this cannot be done with legislation, that we have to alter the Constitution, because if one writes legislation, obviously it would not be constitutional. So therefore, I think the authors of the proposal should be complimented.
Also, they deserve some credit for courage, because it is my understanding that this will be the first time that we will alter the Bill of Rights, and in doing so, I think we should do this with a great deal of thoughtfulness.
The courts, as we know, have quite frequently limited our freedom of speech. This is why we have the Istook amendment. The courts have ruled out voluntary prayer in schools, so we are trying to compensate for that with the Istook amendment, and I am a supporter of that, but this amendment is quite different. Instead of expanding the right of free expression, this is curtailing the right of free expression and for that reason I will be opposing the legislation.
We have no flag crisis, and I am quite concerned that once this has passed into the Constitution, it might incite more flag burnings and more flag desecration. Actually, under the Constitution, a more permissible way and more proper way of dealing with the problems that the courts have presented us, is for we as a Congress to withhold the jurisdiction from the courts, and then allow the States to write the legislation that was ruled unconstitutional.
As a matter of fact, even this amendment, as proposed, we could change two words and make it an acceptable amendment to those of us who interpret the Constitution in a strict manner. All we would have to do is the States could write the laws instead of Congress. The first amendment starts out and says the Congress will write no laws, the Congress will make no laws restricting freedom of expression. But here, the last time this amendment came up, they included the States, it said the Congress and the States could write the regulations and the rules, but now it says only the Congress.
I thought we were for less government. I thought we were for less centralization, less police forces up here. I am quite sure that this will become the job of the BATF. I guess we will have a BATFF next, because they will have to police the flag abuse.
There are a lot of reasons why we should oppose this. One is that it is not only a freedom of speech issue, it is also a property rights issue. Withholding and restricting flag burning of other people’s flags and Government-owned flags and on Government property, that certainly is legitimate. But freedom of speech and freedom of expression depends 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. But once we deal with the property, no matter how noble the gesture, I think that we have to be very, very cautious in this manner.
The original intent of the Founding Fathers in writing the Constitution was never that we would be so involved in writing regulations and legislation of free expression in an attack on private property ownership, and then again, it really defies the ninth and tenth Amendments. We would be much better off taking the part of the Constitution that allows us to remove the jurisdiction from the courts and, thus, then permitting the States to write the laws as they see fit.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts: