|
Ron Paul's Freedom Report
A publication of the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education
VOLUME 3, NO. 2 March 1999
For the Record
The following excerpts are taken from prepared statements and other remarks delivered by Dr. Paul on the Floor of the House of Representatives between March 11 and 24, 1999, during debate on U.S. military intervention in Yugoslavia.
"Mr. Chairman…for weeks I have advocated talking about [sending US troops to Kosovo] and urged that troops never be sent to Kosovo without Congress' consent. I want to thank the leadership for finally allowing this debate, but the fact that we are only talking about this in the context of a House Concurrent Resolution that authorizes troop deployment raises serious questions. "Since World War II, we in Congress have been derelict in protecting our constitutional prerogatives with respect to the declaration of war. Wars in Korea and Vietnam were fought without a declaration of war, and these wars were not won.
"The War Powers Resolution passed in 1973 undermined the authority of the Congress …by giving the President power to wage war for up to 90 days without Congress granting authority. …[W]e should be more concerned about the Constitution and the process in the War Powers Resolution that gives unconstitutional authority to the President to wage war.
"Should we be the world's policeman? That answer is easy. We should not be - it undermines our military strength. But the biggest concern is, if we vote for this - and I strongly oppose its passage - we authorize moving troops into a dangerous area.
"We should ask ourselves, under the pretext of "saving the world"…are we ourselves willing to go to Kosovo and expose our lives on the front lines? Are we willing to send our own children or grandchildren…with the knowledge that it may cost their lives?"
[March 11, concerning the resolution: "Peacekeeping Operations in Kosovo."]
"Mr. Chairman ... I can support [this Resolution because] it does not go that one step too far by rubber-stamping a foreign policy that is very questionable.
"Now, if we really wanted to support our troops, I think we would defend the sovereignty of our country. We would provide for a strong national defense and we certainly would avoid putting our troops in harm's way. …[B]y putting our troops in this region right now, we are invading a sovereign nation…involved in a civil war with bad guys on both sides. For us here in the Congress to decide who are the good guys and bad guys is not possible, nor is it our job."
[March 24, during debate on: "Resolution Expressing Support of the House of Representatives for Members of the U.S. Armed Forces Engaged Against
the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia."]
"Mr. Speaker…Serbia has not invaded another country but is involved in a nasty civil war with both sides contributing to the violence. There is no American security interest involved in Serbia. Serbia hasn't threatened us or used any force against American citizens. The reason given for [US military forces bombing this foreign nation] is that Serbian leaders have not done what we have told them to do.
"...Our responsibility as U.S. Members of Congress is to preserve Liberty here at home and uphold the rule of law. Meddling in the internal…affairs of a nation involved in civil war is illegal and dangerous.
"The House resolution regarding Kosovo was narrowly, reluctantly, and conditionally passed. It was a nonbinding resolution and has no effect in law. ...[T]he resolution dealt with sending troops as a peacekeeping force to Kosovo only if a peace agreement were signed. There was no mention of endorsing an act of war against Serbia.
"The Senate resolution is not much better. Although it is now claimed to be congressional consent for the President to wage war, it too, was [only] a sense of Congress resolution without force of law. It wrongly implies the President can defer to NATO for authority to pursue a war effort when only Congress can decide the issue of war. Congress cannot transfer the constitutional war power to the President, or to NATO, or to the United Nations.
"The Senate resolution…specifically limits the use of force to air operations and missile strikes, but no war has ever been won with air power alone. The Milosevic problem will actually get worse with our attacks, and ground troops will likely follow.
"It has been argued that we are needed to stop the spread of war throughout the Balkans, but our presence will do the opposite, although it will certainly help our military-industrial complex.…[C]ooperative relations with Russia have now ended, and we have provoked the Russians into becoming a much more active ally of Serbia.
"U.S. and NATO policy against Serbia will certainly encourage the Kurds. Every argument for Kosovo's independence can be used by the Kurds for their long-sought-after independence. This surely will drive the Turks away from NATO.
"Our determination to be involved in this dangerous civil war may well prompt a stronger Greek alliance with their friends in Serbia, further splitting NATO and offending the Turks, who are naturally inclined to be sympathetic to the Albanian Muslims. "Sympathy and compassion for the suffering and voluntary support for the oppressed are commendable. But the use of force and acts of war to pick and choose between two sides that have been fighting for hundreds of years is not. It cannot achieve peace.
"...Promoters of war never personalize it. It is always some other person or the life of some other parent's child that will be sacrificed, not their own. With new talk of reinstating the military draft…all Americans should pay close attention as our leaders foolishly and carelessly rush our troops into a no-win war we should have no part of."
[March 24, excerpts from prepared remarks: "U.S. Military Action Taking Place in Serbia is Unconstitutional."]
The Police State
Eighty thousand armed federal bureaucrats should be enough to alert all Americans to the fact that the federal government is out of control and prompt a message to Congress that the current preparation for domestic urban warfare is not welcomed.
The original intent of the Constitution was to have a weak federal government binding together "independent" states in a republic. The federal government was to have only those powers explicitly granted to it by the constitution. The list of federal crimes was quite short: treason, counterfeiting, and piracy. Federal courts could adjudicate interstate conflicts. It was up to the Congress and the federal courts to assure free movement of people and trade between the states and provide for the national defense.
Since our country's founding, we have perversely and systematically strayed far from what was originally envisioned by the Founders. This has been especially true for the past hundred years, with a sharp acceleration toward big government since the Depression and the introduction of Roosevelt's New Deal and welfarism.
While government power and influence at all levels have grown rapidly, it is the federal government that has expanded and encroached on individual liberty by far the most - as if constitutional restraints did not exist.
It is now commonplace for presidents to assume power never granted to them by the Constitution. As our federal bureaucracy has grown, so has the unconstitutional administrative court system. Likewise, our federal court system has expanded exponentially, as federal laws and tens of thousands of regulations have been promulgated on the people.
The people have become complacent and desensitized by the benefits that come to them, but the great prosperity of the 1990s has not been enjoyed by nearly as many as the government claims. A sense of insecurity about future prosperity, and particularly about programs like Social Security and Medicare, has prompted many Americans to start turning to their politicians for answers to questions that should have been asked decades ago.
Young people know that Social Security benefits are not likely to be there when they retire, yet they must suffer an ever-increasing tax burden that threatens their future economic wellbeing. The stock market is soaring and some feel wealthier because of it, but most people realize that financial bubbles don't last forever, and now is hardly the time for Social Security funds to be invested in the stock market.
Because of the increasing income discrepancy between the haves and have-nots, a growing number of people have less confidence in the status quo. Some feel cheated and want more welfare benefits in order to keep up their standard of living. Others rightfully resent a tax burden out of proportion to what they expect to get - or even want - from the government.
Many businesses have grown dependent on a system of special-interest government that rewards political connections over entrepreneurship and hard work. We are a society that punishes men like Bill Gates for providing the best product at the lowest price because his competition rushes to the government for relief.
Do Good Intentions Justify Government Evil?
The epidemic of government invasion of citizen's privacy by policing agencies is now a concern of more than 80% of the population. We should be encouraged that more and more Americans not only realize that the promised benefits of big government can't be delivered and the taxes paid for them are excessive, but that there is also a cost in terms of loss of personal liberty. This is a good sign that our complacency toward the growth of big government is eroding.
While a large majority of the people may be annoyed, the message has yet to sink in in Washington. Most Members of Congress are not yet aware that maintaining the Welfare State is incompatible with protecting citizens from the prying eyes of Big Brother. Both the Left and the Right wrongly believe that privacy can be protected with more rules, regulations, and mandates without having to unharness the bureaucracy and the welfare system.
Good intentions throughout history have been used to justify every government evil, whether involving foreign or domestic policy. Some do-gooders are philosophically motivated to write laws that will make people more moral by dictating standards of personal conduct in areas such as gambling, drinking, drugs or sex. Others are motivated to make the world economically fairer by promoting an egalitarian society. The latter such efforts encourage programs designed for economic equality that only result in poverty and hardship for the very people they were intended to help.
Both groups of Washington busybodies work on the assumption that people are incapable of making their own decisions in all social and economic circumstances. They also have convinced themselves that government can protect people from their own stupidity and risk taking - which is impossible. Any attempt to do so always leads to an intrusive nanny state, with government bureaucrats buzzing and beeping around us every place we go. The notion that each person is responsible for his own acts has grown foreign to us, and collective rights have replaced personal responsibility.
This century has seen Americans grow accustomed to their government assuming foreign responsibilities far beyond anything authorized in the Constitution. We have become the policeman of the world, especially since the demise of the Soviet Empire, taking our orders from UN resolutions and NATO directives.
The domestic and international police state is now in place with essentially no congressional restraint on the President's power to wage war at home or abroad. Unfortunately, Congress continues to give ever-increasing power to the President by enlarging and expanding the bureaucracies dealing with domestic and international trade, the drug war, illegal property seizure, gun control, education, work-force rules, the environment, travel, and much more. Congress rarely challenges presidential Executive Orders, most of which are unconstitutional and support centralized government.
Government out of Control
Just as there have been encouraging outcries about privacy invasion, we now hear some voices-even from the Establishment-suggesting that the nationalization of law enforcement has gone too far. This is something I have been arguing for years in my campaigns. If the people had not agreed with me to some degree, I could not have had successful campaigns-especially with my strong objection to the federal war on drugs (the prime motivation for "Know Your Customer" type regulations), and the seizure and forfeiture laws that plague our nation and undermine our liberties.
In my fight to return to Congress in 1995-1996, the issues of the federal drug war and law and order were major topics fully debated by both sides. I maintained that police power was a local function and we need not increase the federal government's role ... we should reduce it.
The Republican leadership strongly opposed my efforts to return to Congress, and this issue prompted them to send in former Attorney General Ed Meese to undermine my credibility. I continued to argue my case and won, to the surprise of the Establishment. Too many politicians believe that no one can possibly challenge the notion of federalizing our police and still win an election.
We now see an interesting turn of events in recent pronouncements by none other than…Ed Meese. The American Bar Association's Task Force, chaired by Mr. Meese, released a report, "Federalization of Criminal Law," that confirms what many of us have known for years. Congress, the report argues, too often passes laws that are "misguided, unnecessary, and harmful." The report acknowledges that the purpose of these federal laws is to deter crime, but says there's no evidence that they do. The report concludes that expansion of federal criminal law, in contradiction to the Constitution, has pushed us into a cumbersome and inefficient parallel and redundant set of laws-federal and state. And the report condemns this trend. Amazing!
The report blames Congress for passing these laws, not because they are good laws, but out of political fear that the Congressman might be considered "soft on crime."
What most Members seem to forget is, it's a "crime" to violate the Constitution, even if the motivation is to be "tough" on criminals. Flouting the Constitution and ignoring its oath of office is a crime - and a worse one since the effort to stop crime with federal laws is ineffective and illegal. Ironically, it has been men like Ed Meese who have in the past urged Congress to pass more laws. It's nice to have a convert to the cause.
Others are picking up the same theme. I hope the Congress is listening-but I doubt it. A few months ago, in the Year End Report of the Federal Judiciary, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said the same thing. Rehnquist called on Congress to stop writing new laws nationalizing crimes that have throughout our history been handled in state courts. Rehnquist does not see why crimes like car-jacking and failure to pay child support are put into the already over-burdened federal courts.
Last year, federal criminal-case filings jumped 15% to 57,691 - a huge increase. Rehnquist rightfully blames Congress. Congress insists, for self-serving political reasons, on duplicating already-available state laws. Rehnquist's complaints are almost identical to Meese's: politicians want to look tough on crime and never question the wisdom of the growing federal police state. Soon Congress will be passing a law to expand hate crime legislation as a result of a recent Wyoming murder already being adequately prosecuted in a state court.
But nevertheless, the hear-of-a-problem, pass-a-law, gain-some-points attitude controls Washington. Someday, after the deficiencies and danger of this approach become more readily apparent, more Americans will say: "Enough!" I personally believe an outright rejection of federalization of almost all laws is overdue.
Rehnquist was also critical of the ever-increasing politically correct legislation; like laws dealing with civil rights, drugs, and anti-terrorism laws, all of which are often pushed by our administrations as well as congresses. Federal seizure and forfeiture laws are a sore spot with a lot of Americans, but until Congress hears a different story, it is going to go on believing federal laws are popular with the people and constitutional considerations are not important.
Some Encouragement...
Former Governor Pete Dupont of Delaware wrote an op ed piece for The Washington Times agreeing with both Rehnquist and Meese.
Support has even come from the liberal Washington Post which editorialized in favor of the Rehnquist position, but cautioned that "the problem is that federalism is almost nobody's paramount policy concern-including ours. While everyone can agree that the tendency to federalize crime is dangerous, few are willing to give up cherished public-policy goals in order to protect the rather defuse and already eroded principle of federalism." The Post expresses a little sympathy, but it's very clear that the effort to get back to constitutional government will be difficult.
Although many Americans are fed up with too many laws and regulations dealing with eating, smoking, drinking, safety, and a thousand other things, there are still plenty of zealots determined to continue this effort. The real fight is yet to come. Members of Congress hear only the message telling them it's in their best interest to appear concerned and endorse more legislation. They are convinced the self-reliant, leave-me-alone crowd is small and politically inconsequential. Until it becomes consequential, Congress will defy the rising clamor condemning too many laws and proceed to enact even more.
The fight can't be won by a vague argument that we need fewer federal laws. The corruption of principle behind the passing of myriad federal laws must be exposed and pointedly rejected. The promoters believe only they can protect citizens from themselves. Regulators believe they know what's best, and reject free choices. The Regulators are addicted to running other people's lives and controlling other people's property. Psychologically, they are devoted tyrants who despise choice for others and delight in the messianic notion that they-through government-can provide security for all mankind.
Government laws and regulations cannot protect people from making bad decisions. Even if they could, what kind of a world would it be if people couldn't make their own decisions regarding risk?
If the federal government can make us safer and healthier with seat-belt laws, toilet laws, helmet laws, regulations on airbags, drinking, smoking, and eating, why not laws regarding exposure to dangerous ideas and religious beliefs? That's been the main source of suffering throughout history. Unfortunately, we already have some trying to do this very thing through political correctness, destruction of Western thought in our government-dependent universities, federal control of public education, internet controls, and systemic invasions of our privacy under the guise of fighting a war on drugs, terrorism and tax cheats.
If the tyrants can ban Joe Camel, Ronald McDonald (the evil promoter of deadly cholesterol) will soon be censured-for the common good.
It would truly be a giant step for mankind if we all had a little more respect for the Constitution and followed the advice of the Founders with regard to the role of the federal government in lawmaking. It would help if more Americans respected and loved liberty enough not to ask for government protection from competition, natural disadvantages, disasters and economic inequality. But the Welfare State (which includes favors to business) promotes dependencies, and fear of losing the "benefits" of government prompts a complicity that makes reversing course difficult, if not impossible, without major social upheaval.
The reversal will likely come only after we, as a nation, cannot afford the taxes and regulatory costs, and interest in the principles of liberty is renewed. The sad part is that a nation that has learned to live with government excesses and pseudo-prosperity will suffer greatly when the economy turns down and the real bills need to be paid.
Borrowed money, inflated currency, temporarily beneficial programs and favoritism cannot produce perpetual prosperity. The day will arrive when the bills come due. That will be a challenge for us all.
|
