Congressman Paul is one of the most vocal proponents of the need to respect the constituion. He cites the document in his theories on the economy, monetary policy, foreign policy, and overall state of the nation. He advocates a return of the federal government to the constitutional limitations as the solution to a number of problems. He believes that the Constitution means what it says and says what it means. He asserts that the US federal government must abide by the rules established within the Constitution and that deviations from these established rules are to blame for a large number of problems.
Among the items that Congressman Paul has addressed are a growth of the federal government into facets of American life it was never intended to go. This includes health care, social security, and bailouts. He notes that even the wars we fight no longer follow the Constitutional requirement that only Congress can declare war and not the President. He notes that the US has not declared war since WWII and as a result, there are no clearly defined objectives and no real end.
Monetary policy is another aspect that Congressman Paul addresses at length, He notes that the federal government has the right to coin money, but that the Constitution requires that the money be backed up with precious metals. The movement from this principle is unconstitutional and Congressman Paul blames this move for a number of the US's economic woes. He has stated that when the rule of law is respected, it provides business with some measure of predictability so they can plan and operate smoothly and that when it is not respected, there are just too many variables, too much risk of loss or waste.
Congressman Paul has also noted that the powers of the executive and judicial branches have exceeded their constitutional mandates. He notes that President Obama issued an executive order dealing with abortion during the health care debate. Through this move, the President attempted to enact law - a power granted to the legislative branch. He also cites the power of judges to decide matters such as abortion and other social issues as an arena that federal judges were never meant to rule on and federal law was never meant to touch.
Congressman Paul uses the Constitution as a guide for the conduct of the federal government. In every legal issue he addresses, he cites the rules enacted by the Constitution as the basis for his opinions and actions. In debates, he has introduced himself as "Ron Paul - a champion of the Constitution."
Congressman Paul has sponsored legislation to require that each piece of legislation be accompanied by a statement declaring the part of the Constitution which gives the federal government the power to enact that law.
Special Order Speech on the Constitution
In August of 1997, Congressman Paul gave a speech on the House floor concerning the Constitution.
Federal Courts
In January of 2006, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" address to discuss the expansion of the federal court system.
Federal Courts and the Growth of Government Power
January 16, 2006 The Senate hearings regarding the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court demonstrated that few in Washington view the Constitution as our founders did. The Constitution first and foremost is a document that limits the power of the federal government. It prevents the president, Congress, and the Supreme Court from doing all kinds of things. But judging by last week's hearings, the Constitution is an enabling document, one that authorizes the federal government to involve itself in nearly every aspect of our lives. The only controversy, it seems, is whether the current nominee will favor the power of one branch over another, or the preferences of one political party over another. Last week's hearings were purely political, because the role of Supreme Court justices has become increasingly political. Nearly all of the Senators, witnesses, and Judge Alito himself spoke repeatedly about the importance of respecting Supreme Court precedents. The clear implication is that we must equate Supreme Court decisions with the text of the Constitution itself, giving them equal legal weight. But what if some precedents are bad? Should the American people be forced to live with unpopular judicial "laws" forever? The Constitution itself can be amended; are we to accept that Supreme Court rulings are written in stone? Also troubling was the apparent consensus among both the Senators and Judge Alito that Congress has no authority to limit federal court jurisdiction by forbidding it to hear certain types of cases. This is completely false: Article III Section 2 of the Constitution plainly grants Congress the authority to limit federal court jurisdiction in many kinds of cases. It is perfectly constitutional for Congress to pass court-stripping legislation to reflect public sentiment against an overreaching Supreme Court. We're being told two very troubling things: First, Supreme Court decisions are the absolute law of the land, equal in weight to the text of the Constitution itself. Supreme Court precedents should never be changed, and all nominees to the Court must accept them as settled law or be disqualified. Second, if the American people don't like any of the "laws" created by the Supreme Court, they have no choice but to live with them unless by some miracle the Court later overturns itself. The people have no recourse through Congress to address unpopular Court decisions. The ramifications of these assertions are very serious. They mean the Supreme Court not only can invalidate the actions of Congress or the President, but also craft de facto laws that cannot be undone by the people's elected legislators! This is wildly beyond the role of the federal judiciary as envisioned by the founders. They certainly never intended to create an unelected, lifetime-tenured, superlegislature. Our federal courts, like the rest of our federal government, have become far too powerful. When federal judges impose their preferred policies on the American people, the ability of average citizens to influence the laws under which they must live diminishes. This is why every American should read or reread the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. Only when we understand the proper role of the judiciary in our federal system will we stop viewing judges as purveyors of social, political, and economic rules for our nation.
Signing Statements
In July of 2007, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" address to discuss signing statements their constitutionality.
Signing Statements Erode Constitutional Balance
July 9, 2007 Recently, the General Accounting Office studied nineteen instances where the President issued so-called “signing statements.” In such statements, the President essentially begins the process of interpreting legislation – up to and including declaring provisions unconstitutional—hence often refusing to enforce them. The GAO study found that in nearly 1/3 of the cases studied, the administration failed to enforce the law as enacted. This approach is especially worrisome for several reasons. First, these signing statements tend to move authority from the legislative branch to the executive, thus upsetting our delicate system of checks and balances. Next, these statements grant the President power not given by the Constitution, allowing him to usurp powers of the judicial branch. Finally, the idea of agencies refusing to enforce the law as enacted sets precedent for the type of run away administrative actions our constitution was expressly enacted in order to avoid. Although these signing statements are at record high numbers, the problem is not with a single administration. Contrary to the claims of those who raise this issue for purely political purposes, the most significant challenge to liberty presented by these statements is that they can serve to further erode our constitutional republic. I have long been skeptical of the line item veto on spending bills for the same reason I oppose these signing statements. The legislature should not yield its authority to the executive. Our constitutional republic demands that all branches of government understand and respect our system and jealously guard their own prerogatives. In modern Washington nothing is more misunderstood, and less appreciated, than the genius of republicanism. Presidents issue signing statements that effectively “approve in part and reject in part,” laws of the land—even though there is no constitutional provision for such a process. In addition, Congress cedes its powers at the crucial moment when a decision on whether or not a war is to be fought will be made, only to then criticize the effort it could have used its powers to stop. In his Notes on Virginia, Thomas Jefferson spoke clearly and directly about the idea of elected representatives delegating their responsibility to other branches of government, saying in no uncertain terms that since such representatives had received their authority by delegation from the people-- expressly for the use as representative-- the legislature had to choose to either use the authority granted or return it to the people. In other words, there is to be no delegation of authority from the representatives to the executive branch of government. Concerns with signing statements ought to include a concern for the health of our constitutional republic, it ought not to be based upon the political battle of the day. Regardless of whether the President is named Bush or Clinton, and without respect to any particular political interest, we in Congress need to fulfill our oath of office and protect and defend the constitution and our republic. Our constituents deserve no less, and should demand it of all of us.
Constitutional Responses
In January of 2008, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" to address what the constitutional responses to a terror attack would be.
Constitutional Responses to Terrorism
It has been over 6 years since the atrocities of September 11 were committed and there are still some very basic measures that need to be taken to bring the perpetrators to justice and make America safer. I have proposed legislation to help with these efforts and will continue to fight in Congress for the safety and security of the American people. My legislation entitled The Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007 (HR 3216) makes the surgical strike option available to the President in our mission to capture Bin Laden. Our military has been pursuing him without result for far too long now, and it is high time ALL constitutional tools were utilized in the hunt for this dangerous madman. As an American it sickens me to know that Bin Laden and top leaders of al Qaeda remain at large and thumbing their noses at us, while we unravel the sacred fabric of our constitution out of fear. It is Osama Bin Laden and the perpetrators of terrorist attacks that ought to be afraid of us, not the other way around. The answers are found in the Constitution. We should boldly root out the perpetrators and not let them get away with their crimes against us. As the home of the brave we should use Letters of Marque and Reprisal to bring Bin Laden to justice. Also, we need to take serious steps to prevent terrorists from gaining easy access to targets on our soil. Quite alarmingly, even with the knowledge that the 19 terrorist hijackers entered our country legally, and that 15 of them were from Saudi Arabia , student visas from terrorist sponsoring countries are still far too easily obtained. In a baffling move President Bush struck a deal with Saudi King Abdullah in 2005 to allow 21,000 more Saudi young men into the US on student Visas. Of course, not all students from terror sponsoring countries are terrorists, but I place a higher premium on the security of the American people than the convenience of citizens of hostile countries. We should not be making the goals of would-be terrorists easier to accomplish, but rather should be vigilant about defending against enemies at every turn. They should not be slipping through our doors so easily, using our immigration laws against us, and that is why I proposed the Terror Immigration Elimination Act (HR 3217) to toughen standards for VISAS from countries on the State Department's list of terrorist sponsoring countries in addition to Saudi Arabia . Just as you decide who to invite to a dinner party in your home, we should be in charge of who we allow in this country, without apology. A lot has been done to fight the War on Terror and much of it has been misdirected, but there are some tools still needed and more progress to be made. My bills The Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007 and The Terror Immigration Elimination Act are logical steps in the right direction.
Military Conflicts and the Constitution
In August of 2010, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" to address the constitutional requirements for military conflict.
The Trouble With Unconstitutional Wars
Our foreign policy was in the spotlight last week, which is exactly where it should be. Almost two years ago many voters elected someone they thought would lead us to a more peaceful, rational co-existence with other countries. However, while attention has been focused on the administration's disastrous economic policies, its equally disastrous foreign policies have exacerbated our problems overseas. Especially in times of economic crisis, we cannot afford to ignore costly foreign policy mistakes. That's why it is important that U.S. foreign policy receive some much needed attention in the media, as it did last week with the leaked documents scandal.
Many are saying that the Wikileaks documents tell us nothing new. In some ways this is true. Most Americans knew that we have been fighting losing battles. These documents show just how bad it really is. The revelation that Pakistani intelligence is assisting the people we are bombing in Afghanistan shows the quality of friends we are making with our foreign policy. This kind of thing supports points that Rep. Dennis Kucinich and I tried to make on the House floor last week with a privileged resolution that would have directed the administration to remove troops from Pakistan pursuant to the War Powers Resolution.
We are not at war with Pakistan. Congress has made no declaration of war. (Actually, we made no declaration of war on Iraq or Afghanistan either, but that is another matter.) Yet we have troops in Pakistan engaging in hostile activities, conducting drone attacks and killing people. We sometimes manage to kill someone who has been identified as an enemy, yet we also kill about 10 civilians for every 1 of those. Pakistani civilians are angered by this, yet their leadership is mollified by our billions in bribe money. We just passed an appropriations bill that will send another $7.5 billion to Pakistan. One wonders how much of this money will end up helping the Taliban. This whole operation is clearly counterproductive, inappropriate, immoral and every American who values the rule of law should be outraged. Yet these activities are being done so quietly that most Americans, as well as most members of the House, don't even know about them.
We should follow constitutional protocol when going to war. It is there for a reason. If we are legitimately attacked, it is the job of Congress to declare war. We then fight the war, win it and come home. War should be efficient, decisive and rare. However, when Congress shirks its duty and just gives the administration whatever it wants with no real oversight or meaningful debate, wars are never-ending, wasteful, and political. Our so-called wars have become a perpetual drain on our economy and liberty.
The founders knew that heads of state are far too eager to engage in military conflicts. That is why they entrusted the power to go to war with the deliberative body closest to the people – the Congress. Decisions to go to war need to be supported by the people. War should not be covert or casual. We absolutely should not be paying off leaders of a country while killing their civilians without expecting to create a lot of new problems. This is not what America is supposed to be about.
The Need for the Rule of Law
In July of 2010, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" to discuss the need for the rule of law.
When There is No Rule of Law
Last week ended with some promising news on finally stopping the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Unfortunately, the administration still seems to believe that shutting down working oil wells is a higher priority than effectively dealing with the broken one. They are again issuing a moratorium on off-shore drilling, while maintaining a de facto ban on new permits even for shallow water drilling, which they previously stated would be unaffected. The courts have twice declared this unconstitutional, over 70 percent of the people see this as unreasonable, yet the administration seems determined to simply end off-shore drilling, at least for those producers that cannot afford to sit idle for an unknown period of time until the ban is lifted.
Whether or not this latest effort will hold up in court is yet to be seen. Sadly, many smaller oil producers in the Gulf see the writing on the wall, and instead of waiting around and risking their livelihoods on the whims of American politicians and judges, they are leaving for friendlier business climates. What is happening to this country when the Republic of Congo is better for business than the United States? One big factor is regime uncertainty.
Regime uncertainty is the opposite of the rule of law. It is the rule of the whims of the people in charge and what mood they are in on any particular day. It is usually associated with third world dictatorships and plays a major role in why some countries remain poor. When a business cannot predict whether a government will issue a permit, confiscate or nationalize their capital investments, tax them into bankruptcy, or arbitrarily stall their operations, they tend to do business elsewhere. This type of government hostility is not conducive to wealth creation and it is tragic to see it chasing away businesses here when we need the jobs and productivity more than ever.
When the rule of law is respected, it provides business with some measure of predictability so they can plan and operate smoothly. When it is not respected, there are just too many variables, too much risk of loss or waste.
Of course, disregard of the rule of law creates other problems too. For the larger and better-connected businesses, it creates the opportunity of regulatory capture. If the government becomes too unpredictable, one business survival strategy is to become so involved in government and regulatory bodies that they effectively gain control over the very entities that are supposed to keep them in line. In other words, if you can’t beat the government, become the government. A business that achieves regulatory capture is also able to write and implement laws and regulations that it can deal with, but its competitors cannot. The eventual outcome is that companies use regulation to drive everyone else out of business until a monopoly is achieved, putting consumers at its mercy.
Meanwhile, the people develop a false sense of security, assuming that the many regulatory bodies in place are protecting them. Without respect for the rule of law, however, those bodies and their regulations are more likely protecting and enabling big business at the expense of small business and the consumer.
We see this not only with big oil, but big banking, big defense contractors, you name it. This is why, especially in a crisis, we should uphold the Constitution. It is the ultimate consumer protection from crony corporatism
Floor Speech on the Constitution
In January of 2011, Congressman Paul spoke on the House floor about the recent focus on the Constitution. He discusses the movement of powers from the Congress to the Executive Branch and the need for Congress to follow the rule of law.
Respect for the Constitution
In January of 2011, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" to address recent discussions about returning to the Constitution and what he believes that means.
On Real Respect for the Constitution
I am pleased that the Constitution has received a lot of attention in recent weeks, thanks to the tea party movement. The 112th Congress kicked off with a reading of the Constitution on the floor of the House. It goes without saying that Members of Congress should have read the Constitution many times, and should continue to study it.
Citing the particular clause of the Constitution that authorizes newly introduced legislation is a reasonable suggestion, yet in reality it will do little to restrain unconstitutional growth of the federal government. We have had such rules in the past and no benefit came of it.
The laws that are passed reflect the preferences and personal agendas of those in charge. For too long those agendas have expanded government at the expense of personal liberty, regardless of which political party was in charge. This expansion of government clearly violated the Constitution, yet it was always argued that this or that program somehow conformed to that “living” document.
By misinterpreting the general welfare clause, the interstate commerce clause, and the “necessary and proper” clause, Congress has justified every conceivable expansion of the federal government. Congress also has misinterpreted the 14th Amendment and legislated as though it had repealed the 10th Amendment. Sadly, Congress has also systematically abdicated its prerogatives and responsibilities to the executive branch over many decades.
Too many people, in and out of Congress, grew up being taught that the Constitution was a “modern living document.” Though the authors allowed for flexibility through the amendment process, this process has been ignored for the sake of speed and convenience. As a result, the Constitution now has little actual meaning.
Our Constitution should be viewed as law, and Members of Congress should be expected to follow, respect, understand, and uphold the law. But a document is just a piece of paper if those who represent us and promise to obey it ignore it instead. Celebrating the Constitution without this understanding will do nothing to restore the greatness of America.
Simply praising the document distracts from the need for Members to resist special interests, political self-interests, emergency needs in times of crisis, fear-based economic myths, and the persistent temptation to seek security over liberty while ignoring personal responsibility and self-reliance.
I wonder: will this welcomed renewed interest in the Constitution lead to a healthy reassessment of all of our policies? Will there be no more wars without an actual congressional declaration? Will the Federal Reserve Act be repealed? Will only gold and silver be deemed legal tender?
Will we end all unconstitutional federal departments, including the Department of Energy, Education, Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and Labor?
Will the Patriot Act be repealed and all warrantless searches stopped?
Will the TSA be abolished? Will the IRS's unconstitutional collection powers end? Will executive and judicial quasi-legislative powers end? Will we end the federal war on drugs? Will we end the federal government's involvement in medical care? Will we end all of the federal government's illusionary insurance programs? Will we ban secret prisons, trials without due process, and assassinations? Will we end our foreign policy of invasion and occupation?
For America to once again become the standard for a free society, our love of liberty and desire for peace must far surpass any public display of fidelity to the Constitution. We must first look to strong moral character, respect for the rule of law, and an understanding of the proper role of government in a free society.
Palmetto Freedom Forum
In the summer of 2011, Congressman Paul participated in the Palmetto Freedom Forum. In a 20 minute session, Congressman Paul discusses the founding principles and the deviations from them that have caused our economic and legislative problems.
Reagan Library Debate
In September of 2011, Congressman Paul participated in the Republican debate at the Reagan library. He was asked about overall government regulation and the involvement of the government with respect to the constitution.
Over to Congressman Paul, you're known as the absolutist in the bunch, someone who has consistently opposed federal government from having any role -- and I think by your definition -- that isn't explicitly laid out in the Constitution.
So this makes people curious: Is there a line with you? Where do you draw it? Does this include things like making cars safe, making medicine safe, air traffic control controlling the jets above our heads?
PAUL: I think in theory, if you understood the free market in a free society, you don't need government to do that. We live in a society where we have been adapted to this, and you can't just drop it all at once, but you can transition away from it.
On regulations, no, I don't believe in any of these federal regulations, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in regulations. The regulation of the marketplace takes care of it. Just think if we had the regulations on the market that dealt with the bankruptcies? They'd have had to go bankrupt. We wouldn't have been able to bail out the big banks and the big corporations and dump onto poor people.
So the market would dictate it. You can't commit fraud. If you need detailed regulations, you can do it at the state level. But the federal government is not authorized to nitpick every little transaction. The way they use the interstate commerce clause is outrageous, as far as I'm concerned.
WILLIAMS: Well, 30 seconds more for devil's advocate here, because would you then put it on the drug companies to say, "No, we're bringing this to market, trust us, it's a fantastic drug"? All the pilots in the sky, to add to their responsibilities, their own air traffic control, in an organic way?
PAUL: What I said is, theoretically, you could -- it could be privatized, but who ends up doing the regulations on the drugs? They do as much harm as good. They don't take good care of us. Who gets -- who gets to write the regulations? The bureaucrats write the regulations, but who writes the laws? The lobbyists have control, so lobbyists from the drug industry has control of writing the regulations, so you turn it over to the bureaucracy.
But you would have private institutions that could become credible. And, I mean, do we need the federal government to tell us whether we buy a safe car? I say the consumers of America are smart enough to decide what kind of car they can buy and whether it's safe or not, and they don't need the federal government hounding them and putting so much regulations on that our car industry has gone overseas.
TEA Party Debate
In September of 2011, Congressman Paul participated in the TEA Party debate for the Republican primary. He is asked about executive orders and talks about constitutional aspects of executive orders.
BLITZER: Congressman Paul.
PAUL: The executive orders have been grossly abused by all administrations for a lot of years. If you can't -- some executive orders are legal. When the president executes proper function of the presidency like moving troops and other things, yes, it's done with an executive order. But the executive order should never be used to legislate. That is what is so bad.
So the executive order should be taken under control. And I have made a promise that as president I would never use the executive order to legislate.
Huckabee Forum
In December of 2011, Congressman Paul participated in a forum with other Republican candidates that was moderated by Mike Huckabee. He spoke about the Constitution and supported the idea of nullification.
Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that: (1) high school students should spend at least one week in September of their senior year learning about the U.S. Constitution, as knowledge of this country's founding document is critical to being an effective citizen; and (2) upon reaching voting age, high school seniors should demonstrate their understanding of the rights and responsibilities of citizenship by engaging in civic learning activities on an issue of importance to them.
Authorizes a designated state official to file with the head of a federal agency proposing a rule, during the period when the proposed rule is required to be open for public comment, a legal brief challenging the constitutionality of the rule under the Tenth Amendment. Directs the agency head: (1) to notify the designated official of each state within 15 days after such a brief is filed; (2) to post prominently on the agency's primary Web page a link to the brief within 10 days after such brief is filed; and (3) within 15 days after posting such link, to certify in writing that such rulemaking does not violate the Tenth Amendment and post the certification prominently on the front page of the agency's website, unless the agency determines it will not put the proposed rule into effect. Authorizes a state official who decides to challenge a federal rule on the grounds that it violates the Tenth Amendment to elect to file a legal action in U.S. district court for the district in which the official's place of business is located. Directs the relevant U.S. Court of Appeals, at the request of a designated state official, to grant expedited review of a decision by a district court in such a case.
