June 30th, 1999
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Most recently, we have been reminded by both Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese that more federal crimes, while they make politicians feel good, are neither constitutionally sound nor prudent. Rehnquist stated in his year-end report ‘The trend to federalize crimes that traditionally have been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system.’ Meese stated 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 nation governed mainly from Washington.
The argument which springs from the criticism of a federalized criminal code and a federal police force is that states may be less effective than a centralized federal government in dealing with those who leave one state jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of state sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow states to exact judgments from those who violate their state laws. The Constitution even allows the federal government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow states to enforce their substantive laws without the federal government imposing its substantive edicts on the states. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one state to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon states in working with one another rather than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to centralization of police power.
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.
It is my erstwhile hope that parents will become more involved in vigilantly monitoring the activities of their own children rather than shifting parental responsibility further upon the federal government. There was a time when a popular bumper sticker read ‘It’s ten o’clock; do you know where your children are?’ I suppose we have devolved to point where it reads ‘It’s ten o’clock; does the federal government know where your children are.’ Further socializing and burden-shifting of the responsibilities of parenthood upon the federal government is simply not creating the proper incentive for parents to be more involved.
For each of these reasons, among others, I must oppose the further and unconstitutional centralization of police powers in the national government and, accordingly, H.R. 1218.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
June 24th, 1999
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substiute as a substitute for amendment the in the nature of a substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment No. 15 in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Paul as a substitute for amendment No. 25 in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Hutchinson :
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:
SECTION 1. FORFEITURE CONDITION.
No property may be forfeited under any civil asset forfeiture law unless the property’s owner has first been convicted of the criminal offense that makes the property subject to forfeiture. The term ‘civil forfeiture law’ refers to any provision of Federal law (other than the Tariff Act of 1930 or the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) providing for the forfeiture of property other than as a sentence imposed upon conviction of a criminal offense.
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a substitute amendment for the Hutchinson amendment. My understanding is that the Hyde amendment would improve current situations very much when it comes to seizure and forfeiture, and I strongly endorse the motivation of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde ) in his bill. I have a suggestion in my amendment to make this somewhat better.
But I rise in strong opposition to the Hutchinson amendment, because not only do I believe that the Hutchinson amendment would undo everything that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde ) is trying to do, but I sincerely believe that the Hutchinson amendment would make current law worse. I think it is very important that we make a decision here on whether or not we want to continue the effort to build an armed police force out of Washington, D.C.
The trends have been very negative over the last 20 or 30 years. It has to do a lot with the exuberance we show with our drug laws. I know they are all well-intended, but since 1976, when I recall the first criminal law that we passed here, they always pass nearly unanimously. Everyone is for law and order. But I think this is a perfect example of unintended consequences, the problems that we are dealing with today, because it is not the guilty that suffer. So often it is the innocent who suffer.
I guess if Members are for a powerful national police and they want to be casual about the civil liberties of innocent people, I imagine they could go along and ruin this bill by passing the Hutchinson amendment.
I think it is very important to consider another alternative. Mine addresses this, because in spite of how the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde ) addresses this, which is in a very positive way, I really would like to go one step further. My bill, my substitute amendment, says this: ‘No property may be forfeited under any Federal civil asset forfeiture law unless the property owner has first been convicted of the criminal offense that makes the property subject to forfeiture.’
Is that too much to ask in America, that we do not take people’s property if they are not even convicted of a crime? That seems to be a rather modest request. That is the way it used to be. We used to never even deal with laws like this at the national level. It is only recently that we decided we had to take away the State’s right and obligation to enforce criminal law.
I think it is time we thought about going in another direction. That is why I am very, very pleased with this bill on the floor today in moving in this direction. I do not think we should have a nationalized police force. I think that we should be very cautious in everything that we do as we promote law.
This bill of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde ) could be strengthened with my amendment by saying that no forfeiture should occur, but the Hutchinson amendment makes it just the preponderance of evidence that they can take property. This is not right. This is not what America is all about. We are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but property is being taken from the American people with no charge of crime.
I ask people to vote for my amendment, which would even make this a better bill, but certainly I think it would be wise not to vote for the Hutchinson amendment to make it much worse. I certainly think that on final passage, we certainly should support the Hyde bill.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
June 24th, 1999
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Privacy Protection Act, which repeals those sections of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 authorizing the establishment of federal standards for birth certificates and drivers’ licenses. This obscure provision, which was part of a major piece of legislation passed at the end of the 104th Congress, represents a major power grab by the federal government and a threat to the liberties of every American, for it would transform state drivers’ licenses into national ID cards.
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!
Mr. Speaker, 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, seeing a doctor, or seeking employment. Any uniform, national system of identification would allow the federal government to inappropriately monitor the movements and transactions of every citizen. History shows that when government gains the power to monitor the actions of the people, it eventually uses that power to impose totalitarian controls on the populace.
Any member who is reluctant to support this legislation should consider the reaction of the American people when they discover that they must produce a federally-approved ID in order to get a job or open a bank account. Already many offices are being flooded with complaints about the movement toward a national ID card. If this scheme is not halted, Congress and the entire political establishment could drown in the backlash from the American people. In fact, I am holding in my hand a letter from almost all citizens’ groups from across the political spectrum, representing thousands of Americans, opposing the plans to implement a national ID.
Although the Transportation Appropriations bill restricts the Department of Transportation from implementing a final rule regarding this provision, the fact is that unless the House acts this year to repeal the provision, states will begin implementing the law so as to be in compliance with the mandate. Therefore, Congress must repeal Section 656 in order to comply with the Constitution and the wishes of the vast majority of the American people who do not want to be forced to carry a national ID card.
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.
We represent a broad-based coalition of state legislators, county officials, public policy groups, civil libertarians, privacy experts, and consumer groups from across the political spectrum. We urge the Congress to repeal Section 656 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibilities Act of 1996 that requires states to collect, verify and display social security numbers on state-issued driver’s licenses and conform with federally-mandated uniform features for driver’s license. The law preempts state authority over the issuance of the state driver’s licenses, violates the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1994 (UMRA) and poses a threat to the privacy of citizens. Opposition to the law and the preliminary regulation issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has been overwhelmingly evidence by the more than 2,000 comments submitted by individuals, groups, state legislators, and state agencies to NHTSA.
The law and the proposed regulation run counter to devolution. The law preempts the traditional state function of issuing driver’s licenses and places it in the hands of officials at NHTSA while imposing tremendous costs on the states that have been vastly underestimated in the Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation. The actual cost of compliance with the law and the regulation far exceeds the $100 million threshold established by UMRA. In addition, the law and proposed regulation require states to conform their drivers’ licenses and other identity documents to a detailed federal standard. Proposals for a national ID have been consistently rejected in the United States as an infringement of personal liberty.
The law raises a number of privacy concerns relating to the expanded use and dissemination of the Social Security Number (SSN), the creation of a national ID cared, and the violation of federal rules of privacy. The law and proposed rule require that each license contain either in visual or electronic form the individual’s SSN unless the state goes through burdensome and invasive procedures to check each individuals’s identify with the Social Security Administration. This will greatly expand the dissemination and misuse of the SSN at a time that Congress; the states, and the public are actively working to limit its dissemination over concerns of fraud and privacy. Many states are taking measures to reduce the use of SSNs as the driver’s identify number. Only a few states currently require the SSN to be used as an identifier on their driver’s licenses.
While the impact of Section 656 may not been fully comprehended in 1996, we urge the Congress now to act swiftly to repeal this provision of law that has been challenged by many diverse groups. If you or your staff have any further questions, please contact Dawn Levy of the National Conference of State Legislatures at (202) 624-8687.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
June 24th, 1999
WASHINGTON, DC — Calling on the federal government to end its war on the privacy rights of American citizens and the prerogatives of state governments, US Rep. Ron Paul (R, Texas) is leading a bipartisan team attempting to stop the national ID card, which is set for implementation on Oct. 1, 2000.
The Privacy Protection Act of 1999 was introduced Thursday, June 24, to repeal the sections of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibilities Act that set the national ID in place. Co-sponsoring the legislation is US Rep. John Hostettler (R, Indiana), Maurice Hinchey (D, New York) and Bob Barr (R, Georgia).
The legislation is supported by the National Conference of State Legislatures , the American Civil Liberties Union , the Electronic Privacy Information Center , the National Council of La Raza , Eagle Forum , the Electronic Frontier Foundation , the Free Congress Foundation and Americans for Tax Reform .
“Under the provisions of the 1996 law, no American will be able to get a job, open a bank acount, apply for Social Security or Medicare benefits, purchase a firearm or even take an airplane flight unless their state’s drivers’ license conforms to the national ID,” said Rep. Paul. “Any Member of Congress who refuses to support this common-sense legislation obviously has not considered — or has considered and rejected — the reaction of his constituents when they learn they must produce their government papers in order to do just about anything.”
Rep. Paul said he is pleased to have the backing not only of his colleagues but also of the American people. Congressional offices have been flooded with mail from constituents on this issue, said Paul.
“This probably marks the first time state legislators and county officials have teamed up with liberal groups like the ACLU and conservative organizations like Free Congress and Eagle Forum, to stop what is a singularly bad idea.”
Rep. Paul is recognized as one of Congress’ leaders in defending American’s privacy rights. He was the first congressman to speak out against the now-withdrawn “Know Your Customer” regulations. He has also been leading the opposition to postal regulations that strip away the fundamental privacy of mailbox users. His legislation to overturn the postal regulations already has more than 30 cosponsors.
“Privacy rights are fundamental to our system of government. These big-government programs only further erode our precious liberties, which is why the issue cuts across political party lines and the ideological spectrum.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
June 24th, 1999
WASHINGTON, DC — In a landslide victory, the House of Representatives passed HR 1658, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, 375 to 48 on Thursday.
Currently, innocent people can have their property seized and forfeited for simply being accused of a crime and must prove themselves innocent in order to get it back. The legislation, brought forward by House Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde (R, IL), Rep. Ron Paul (R, TX) and 58 others, will change the burden of proof so that federal prosecutors must prove guilt.
Chairman Hyde offered his appreciation to Rep. Paul.
“I would like to thank Dr. Paul for highlighting the abuses of civil asset forfeiture and for his help in getting the H.R. 1658 passed,” said Chairman Hyde.
In addition to speaking and writing in support of the measure, Rep. Paul worked with Chairman Hyde to protect the legislation from measures that would have watered down the legislation. In the end, the original legislation brought forward by Chairman Hyde, Rep. Paul and the others passed the House.
“This common-sense reform is a great step forward for our judicial system, and for all Americans,” said Rep. Paul. “Congress is coming around to recognize that our federal criminal laws have gotten out of control. The people complained, and Congress has responded. This is very positive.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
June 23rd, 1999
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the American people strongly oppose the instituting of a national identification card. The authority was given for a national I.D. card in 1996. I have been working very hard to try to repeal this authority.
Today, we would have had an opportunity under the transportation bill to repeal this authority and to prevent a national I.D. card from coming into existence.
Unfortunately, that will not be permitted, due to the rule that is coming up for the transportation bill. I think this is a serious mistake. It is not just 30 or 40 or 50 percent of the American people who reject a national I.D., but almost all Americans reject this idea. I find it a shame that we are not able to vote on the repeal authority.
It was never intended that the Social Security number would be the universal, national identifier. It is given to a child at birth and one cannot even be buried without it. So the national I.D. card, when instituted, will be used for everything: To get on an airplane, to get a job, open up a bank account; whatever we want to do, we will have to show our papers.
This is un-American. It is something that we should not be doing, and unfortunately, we will not get to vote on it today.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
June 22nd, 1999
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we have on our schedule the debate and the vote on a constitutional amendment, the amendment that would make the desecration of the flag illegal. Many who support this amendment imply that those of us who oppose it for some reason might be unpatriotic. That, of course, is not true.
I would like to call attention to my fellow colleagues just exactly what I see us doing by amending the Constitution.
The very first thing that Communist China did after it took over Hong Kong was to pass legislation to make sure that it was illegal to desecrate the Chinese flag. Now let me say that one time again. As soon as Red China took over Hong Kong, that was the very first thing they did. One of the first pieces of legislation was to make sure that the people of Hong Kong knew it was illegal to do anything to desecrate the Chinese flag.
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.
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.
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.
Mr. Speaker, my point is obviously that why do we want to emulate them? There are other countries around the world that have similar laws: Iraq, Cuba, Haiti, Sudan; they all have laws against desecration of the flag. But in this country we have not had this. We have never put it in the Constitution. This debate would dumbfound our Founders to think that we were contemplating such an amendment to the Constitution.
We have existed now for 212 years since the passage of our Constitution, and we have not had laws like this, but all of a sudden we feel compelled. What is the compulsion? Do we see on the nightly news Americans defying our flag and defying our principles of liberty? I cannot recall the last time I saw on television an American citizen burning an American flag or desecrating our flag. So all of a sudden now we decide it is a crisis of such magnitude that we have to amend the Constitution; at the same time, challenging the principles of freedom of expression.
There is one State in this country that has a law which they have the right to, a law against desecration of the flag. And the flag police went to a house to find out what was going on because they were flying their flag upside down. What is going to happen when we try to define ‘desecrate’? Desecrate is usually something held for religious symbol. Have we decided to take the flag and make it a holy symbol? But will a towel that is in the shape and the color of a flag that somebody is lying on at the beach, is that going to be a reason to call the FBI and call the flag police in to arrest someone for this desecration? Because we do not define the desecration, we just say we will write the laws to police this type of activity.
Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks we have had many Members in this Congress cite the Constitution. As a matter of fact, the Constitution is cited all the time. Sometimes I see it inconsistently cited, because when it pleases one to cite the Constitution, they do; and when it does not, they forget about it. But just recently we have heard the citing of the Constitution quite frequently. In the impeachment hearings: We have to uphold the Constitution, we have to live by our traditions and our ideals. Just last week we were citing the Constitution endlessly over the second amendment which I strongly support, and which I said the same thing. We must uphold the Constitution to defend the second amendment. But all of a sudden here we have decided to change the Constitution that we are in some way going to restrict the freedom of expression.
We say, well, this is bad expression. This is ugly people. These are people that are saying unpopular things, and they are being obnoxious. But, Mr. Speaker, the first amendment and the freedom of expression was never put there for easygoing, nice, conventional, noncontroversial speech. There is no purpose to protect that. Nobody cares. The purpose of freedom of expression is to protect controversy, and if somebody is upset and annoyed, the best thing we can do with people like that is to ignore them. If we pass a constitutional amendment and people are so anti-American that they want to display their anti-Americanism, they will love it. They will get more attention because we will be sending in the Federal flag police to do something about it.
Some will argue the Constitution does not protect freedom of expression; it protects freedom of speech, and this is not speech, this is ugly expression. But the Constitution does, does protect freedom of expression. That is what speech is. What about religion? To express one’s religious beliefs. What about one’s property, the right to go in and express what one believes? That is what freedom is all about is the freedom of expression and belief. I do not see how this country can become greater by having an amendment written that is in some ways going to curtail the freedom of Americans to express themselves. We have not had it for 212 years, and here we are going to change it.
It is expected that this will be passed overwhelmingly, and in the Senate possibly as well, and then throughout the country, but I do not see this as a positive step. We here in the Congress should think seriously before we pass this amendment.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
June 17th, 1999
WASHINGTON, DC — To restore due process and protect property rights, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R, TX) said today he is cosponsoring H.R. 1658, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, recently introduced by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R, IL). The legislation addresses the “gross abuses” of individual rights by law enforcement agencies at every level, and will likely come for a vote on the House floor next week.
“The current system used in the seizure of private assets has become widely abused across our nation”, said Dr. Paul, a long-time leader in Congress in the protection of individual’s rights. “What started out as an attempt to curb large-scale crime and drug trafficking, has evolved into a corrupt system of intimidation. It is obvious that our current system fails to protect the holdings of minor offenders and innocent property owners from suspicious government law enforcement agents and their greedy hands. This legislation will restore the Bill of Rights’ Fourth and Fifth Amendment guarantees to innocent property owners and put an end to the widespread abuse.”
H.R. 1658 would replace what has become a nightmarish situation for numerous Americans with just and equitable procedures. The allure of “easy money” for cash-strapped federal agencies has created a perverse incentive for agents to seize property and assets without regard for the innocence of the owner. All too often, even if a person is innocent of the crimes of which they were suspected, they never recover their seized property, said Rep. Paul.
“It is not at all uncommon for an innocent individual, carrying or depositing a large amount of money, to have their cash confiscated because trace amounts of narcotics were detected. This, despite the fact FBI lab studies have shown that nearly all of our paper currency contains some traces of cocaine or other drugs on it”, said Rep. Paul.
The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act restores the doctrine of the presumption of innocence by placing the burden of proof directly on the federal government before forfeiture can occur, and it stops the practice of guilt by association. No longer will innocent property owners, divorced spouses, or parents of drug-dependent children be subject to unreasonable search and seizures.
“Currently, all possessions that are in any way linked to an alleged drug crime are subject to seizure or forfeiture: automobiles, homes, bank account, and so forth, without the government even proving the property owner was actually guilty of anything.”
The legislation also creates strict guidelines that require government agencies to notify individuals of the seizure within 60 days, and allows individuals up to 30 days after notification to appeal in district court for the immediate restoration thereof. Further, the bill creates a system of compensation, up to $50,000, for property damages and loss of interest on assets due to forfeiture.
Among the 57 House members Dr. Paul has joined in the bipartisan Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act are: U.S. Reps. Lamar Smith (R, TX), John Conyers, Jr. (D, MI), Philip Crane (R, IL), and Bob Barr (R, GA). Rep. Paul is encouraging his colleagues to support this important legislation.
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
June 16th, 1999
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.
However, I am not optimistic that much good will come out of the next 2 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 I see these two groups coming together in a coalition to pass a bill that will undermine the first amendment and undermine the second amendment.
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.
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.
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.
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.’
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.’
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.
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?
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.
I say, today we should move carefully and not undermine either the first or the second amendment.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
June 16th, 1999
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I recommend that my colleagues read today’s Washington Times article entitled ‘Disarming Good People’ before voting on unconstitutional and counter-effective gun legislation. Outlined within, are some of the disastrous consequences of enacting more gun control. While the lawmakers demand even more restrictions on the sale, ownership, and the use of firearms, we currently have the highest level of gun control in our Nation’s history. Yet only 50 years ago, there were no violent incidents in schools like the recent tragedy. Instead of rushing to disarm the law-abiding, let us first examine the current 20,000 gun laws already on the books for their effectiveness.
Editor’s note: The following is an open letter from 287 economists, law-school professors and other academics to Congress, regarding gun-control legislation before the House of Representatives. Some but not all of the names of the signatories appear here.
After the tragic attacks at public schools over the last two years, there is an understandable desire to ‘do something.’ Yet, none of the proposed legislation would have prevented the recent violence. The current debate focuses only on the potential benefits from new gun control laws and ignores the fact that these laws can have some very real adverse effects. Good intentions don’t necessarily make good laws. What counts is whether the laws will ultimately save lives, prevent injury, and reduce crime. Passing laws based upon their supposed benefits while ignoring their costs poses a real threat to people’s lives and safety.
These–gun control laws will primarily be obeyed by law-abiding citizens and risk making it less likely that good people have guns compared to criminals. Deterrence is important and disarming good people relative to criminals will increase the risk of violent crime. If we really care about saving lives we must focus not only on the newsworthy events where bad things happen, but also on the bad things that never happen because people are able to defend themselves.
Few people would voluntarily put up a sign in front of their homes stating, ‘This home is a gun-free zone.’ The reason is very simple. Just as we can deter criminals with higher arrest or conviction rates, the fact that would-be victims might be able to defend themselves also deters attacks. Not only do guns allow individuals to defend themselves, they also provide some protection to citizens who choose not to own guns since criminals would not normally know who can defend themselves before they attack.
The laws currently being considered by Congress ignore the importance of deterrence. Police are extremely important at deterring crime, but they simply cannot be everywhere. Individuals also benefit from being able to defend themselves with a gun when they are confronted by a criminal.
Let us illustrate some of the problems with the current debate.
The Clinton administration wants to raise the age at which citizens can posses a handgun to 21, and they point to the fact that 18- and 19-year-olds commit gun crimes at the highest rate. Yet, Department of Justice numbers indicate that 18- and 19-year-olds are also the most likely victims of violent crimes including murder, rape, robbery with serious injury, and aggravated assault. The vast majority of those committing crimes in this age group are members of gangs and are already breaking the law by having a gun. This law will primarily apply to law-abiding 18- to-21-year-olds and make it difficult for them to defend themselves.
Waiting periods can produce a cooling-off period. But they also have real costs. Those threatened with harm may not be able to quickly obtain a gun for protection.
Gun locks may prevent some accidental gun deaths, but they will make it difficult for people to defend themselves from attackers. We believe that the risks of accidental gun deaths, particularly those involving young children, have been greatly exaggerated. In 1996, there were 44 accidental gun deaths for children under age 10. This exaggeration risks threatening people’s safety if it incorrectly frightens some people from having a gun in their home even though that is actually the safest course of action.
Trade-offs exist with other proposals such as prison sentences for adults whose guns are misused by someone under 18 and rules limiting the number of guns people can purchase. No evidence has been presented to show that the likely benefits of such proposals will exceed their potential costs.
With the 20,000 gun laws already on the books, we advise Congress, before enacting yet more new laws, to investigate whether many of the existing laws may have contributed to the problems we currently face. The new legislation is ill-advised.
Sincerely,
Terry L. Anderson, Montana State University; Charles W. Baird, California State University Hayward; Randy E. Barnett, Boston University; Bruce L. Benson, Florida State University; Michael Block, University of Arizona; Walter Block, Thomas Borcherding, Claremont Graduate School; Frank H. Buckley, George Mason University; Colin D. Campbell, Dartmough College; Robert J. Cottrol, George Washington University; Preston K. Covey, Carnegie Mellon University; Mark Crain, George Mason University; Tom DiLorenzo, Loyola College in Maryland; Paul Evans, Ohio State University; R. Richard Geddes, Fordham University; Lino A. Graglia, University of Texas; John Heineke, Santa Clara University; David Henderson, Hoover Institution, Stanford University; Melvin J. Hinich, University of Texas, Austin; Lester H. Hunt, University of Wisconsin-Madison; James Kau, University of Georgia; Kenneth N. Klee, UCLA; David Kopel, New York University; Stanley Liebowitz, University of Texas at Dallas; Luis Locay, University of Miami; John R. Lott, Jr., University of Chicago; Geoffrey A. Manne, University of Virginia; John Matsusaka, University of Southern California; Fred McChesney, Cornell University; Jeffrey A. Miron, Boston University; Carlisle E. Moody College of William and Mary; Craig M. Newark, North Carolina State University; Jeffrey S. Parker, George Mason University; Dan Polsby, Northwestern University; Keith T. Poole, Carnegie-Mellon University; Douglas B. Rasmussen, St. John’s University; Glenn Reynolds, University of Tennessee; John R. Rice, Duke University; Russell Roberts, Washington University; Randall W. Roth, Univ. of Hawaii; Charles Rowley, George Mason University; Allen R. Sanderson, University of Chicago; William F. Shughart II, University of Mississippi; Thomas Sowell, Stanford University; Richard Stroup, Montana State University; Robert D. Tollison, University of Mississippi; Eugene Volokh, UCLA; Michael R. Ward, University of Illinois; Benjamin Zycher, UCLA; Todd Zywicki, George Mason University.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts: