Political positions of Ron Paul

The political positions of Ron Paul (R-TX), United States presidential candidate, have been labeled conservative, [] He has asserted that Congress had no power to impose a direct income tax and supports the repeal of the sixteenth amendment. []

Paul has proposed the use of education tax credits, included in his bill the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 612), which provides a $3,000 tax credit to families to choose their own schools. He has also introduced the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act, which would provide for a tax credit for up to a $3,000 donation to the public or private school of the taxpayer's choice, which would provide accountability and more money to America's schools from a local level.cite web|url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul132.html|title=Are Vouchers the Solution for Our Failing Public Schools?|accessdate=2007-06-13|last=Paul|first=Ron|date=2003-09-30 ] Paul has also proposed tax credits of $5,000 per year for each family, which could be used for any school-related expenses, whether the children of the family attend public or private school or are home-schooled.cite web|url=http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst97/tst072097.htm|title=Parents must have control of education|accessdate=2007-09-13|last=Paul|first=Ron|date=1997-07-20 ]

Paul has rejected government-issued vouchers in favor of education tax credits. Paul supports the right of state and local school districts to implement education vouchers according to the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, but he does not believe they should exist on a federal level. He says that vouchers are given to certain students favored over others, and it is not fair for some middle-class parents to have to pay their child's own way at a private school while other parents' children are selected for government voucher programs. He opposes the welfare state generally, [cite news|url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul204.html|last=Paul|first=Ron|title=The Therapeutic Nanny State|publisher=Lew Rockwell|accessdate=2007-10-23|date=2004-09-21] and says that in their current form, vouchers are a form of welfare given to some over others; they would be worthwhile if they resulted in an equal amount of money being taken out of the public school system, but the end result is usually more money on both vouchers for private schools and more money for the public school system. He says that vouchers would only work if they gave public schools some competition and forced public schools to get better, but when the public school gets all the money it would have and more even with vouchers as competition, the public system has no reason to get better.

Paul says that when voucher proponents say that students have a right to a good education and give vouchers as the answer, it means that private schools must fall under federal regulations to ensure that they are meeting students' rights. He says that if given the choice of which private school to attend, parents may choose to use their taxpayer-voucher to attend a school objectionable to some, such as one run by, for example, the Nation of Islam, and for that situation not to happen, government control over which schools are acceptable for vouchers would have to be injected. He asserts that colleagues have mentioned before that to take vouchers, religious schools would have to seek government accreditation under the Department of Education. He argues that this would in effect be a forced accreditation process because schools that choose not to take part will not be seen as having the "government's seal of approval" and may go out of business. He points to how the federal government has used federal funding for universities to tell universities what policies they must accept, and that the government would try to do the same with private schools.

exual orientation legislation

;Same-sex adoptionOn 1999 House appropriations bill H.R. 2587, for the government of the District of Columbia, Paul voted for four different amendments to prohibit federal funding. [ [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:HR02587:@@@S Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) ] ] Of these, Amendment 356 would have prevented federal money appropriated in the bill (money "for a Federal payment to the District of Columbia to create incentives to promote the adoption of children in the District of Columbia foster care system") from being spent on "the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage", whether same-sex or opposite-sex. [ [http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=BC031929 Project Vote Smart - Representative Ronald Ernest 'Ron' Paul - Voting Record ] ] [ [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp106:FLD010:@1(hr263): Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) ] ] [ [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=1999_record&page=H6635&position=all Retrieve Pages ] ] [ [http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Civil_Rights.htm#1999-346 "Ron Paul on Civil Rights"] "OnTheIssues.org"]

;Same-sex unionsPaul opposes all federal efforts to redefine marriage, whether defined as a union between one man and one woman, or defined as including anything else as well. He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states, and not subjected to judicial activism.cite web|url=http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr093004.htm|title=Cultural Conservatives Lose if Gay Marriage is Federalized|accessdate=2007-03-02|last=Paul|first=Ron|date=2004-09-30 ] For this reason, Paul voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004.

In 2004, he spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act (passed in 1996) which uses the U.S. Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause to prohibit states from being compelled to recognize same-sex relationships as marriages, even if treated as marriages in other states. The Defense of Marriage Act also prohibits the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even if treated as marriages in other states. He co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.cite web|url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html|title=The Federal Marriage Amendment Is a Very Bad Idea|accessdate=2007-06-06|last=Paul|first=Ron|date=2004-10-01 ]

Paul has said that federal officials changing the definition of marriage is "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty." [ [http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html "Protecting Marriage From Judicial Tyranny" by Ron Paul] , accessed on 19 August 2007] Paul stated, "Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages." [ [http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul160.html "Eliminate Federal Court Jurisdiction" by Ron Paul] , accessed on 19 August 2007] He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.cite web|url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul160.html|title=Eliminate Federal Court Jurisdiction|accessdate=2007-06-06|last=Paul|first=Ron|date=2004-03-02 ] Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.cite news|title=Candidates@Google: Ron Paul|publisher=Google|date=2007-07-13|url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg|accessdate=2007-10-23] cite web|url=http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0706/05/se.01.html|title=Transcript of June 5 "CNN/WMUR/"New Hampshire Union Leader" Republican presidential debate|publisher=CNN|accessdate=2007-10-23|date=2007-06-05] Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."

In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed from the jurisdiction of federal courts "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction" and "any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation." If made law, these provisions would remove sexual practices, and particularly same-sex unions, from federal jurisdiction.

;Don't ask, don't tellIn the third Republican debate on June 5 2007, Paul said about the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy:

"I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem."cite web|url=http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0706/05/se.01.html|title=Transcript of June 5 "CNN/WMUR/"New Hampshire Union Leader" Republican presidential debate|publisher=CNN|accessdate=2007-10-23|date=2007-06-05]

Paul elaborated his position in a 65-minute interview at Google, stating that he would not discharge troops for being homosexual if their behavior was not disruptive.

;SodomyRon Paul has been a critic of the Supreme Court's decision on the Lawrence v. Texas case in which sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. In an essay posted to the Lew Rockwell website he wrote

"Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards." [cite news|url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html|title=Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution|author=Paul, Ron|publisher=Lew Rockwell|date=2003-08-12|accessdate=2007-12-11]

Environment

As a free-market environmentalist, Paul sees polluters as aggressors who should not be granted immunity or otherwise insulated from accountability. Paul argues that enforcing private property rights through tort law would hold people and corporations accountable, and would increase the cost of polluting activities - thus decreasing pollution. [ [http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/environment/ Issues - Environment] RonPaul2008.com] He claims that environmental protection has failed in communist countries such as China, citing lack of respect for private property:

:"The environment is better protected under private property rights .... We as property owners can't violate our neighbors' property. We can't pollute their air or their water. We can't dump our garbage on their property .... Too often, conservatives and libertarians fall short on defending environmental concerns, and they resort to saying, 'Well, let's turn it over to the EPA. The EPA will take care of us .... We can divvy up the permits that allow you to pollute.' So I don't particularly like that method." [cite news|url=http://www.dennismillerradio.com/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp;jsessionid=5AB880AD34E2A8C96307474FCB08ED9D?dispid=301&headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0xMjY5JnBsYXlsaXN0PXRydWUmY2hhcnR0eXBlPWNoYXJ0c3RyZWFtaW5nJmNoYXJ0SUQ9MzAxJnBsYXlsaXN0U2l6ZT0zMA=|title=Ron Paul Interview|publisher=Dennis Miller Radio|author=Miller, Dennis|accessdate=2007-10-23|date=2007-05-30]

He believes that environmental legislation, such as emissions standards, should be handled between and among the states or regions concerned. "The people of Texas do not need federal regulators determining our air standards." [cite web|url=http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=154|title=EPA Regulations Threaten Texas|publisher=Ron Paul Library|accessdate=2007-06-11]

In an October 2007 interview on the environment, Paul held that climate change is not a "major problem threatening civilization". He declined to name any particular environmental heroes and affirmed no special environmental achievements other than his educating the people about free-market solutions rather than "government expenditures and special-interest politics". While he had stated his membership in the Congressional Green Scissors Coalition in a June interview, [ [http://www.teamliberty.net/id447.html An Interview with Presidential Candidate Congressman Ron Paul ] ] he did not recall the group's name in the later interview, describing it only as "a lot of environmentalists that work with me very closely". [ [http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/10/16/paul/ Paul on the Record] ]

*In 2005, supported by Friends of the Earth, Paul cosponsored a bill preventing the U.S. from funding nuclear power plants in China. [cite web|url=http://www.foe.org/new/releases/june2005/exportimport62905.html|title=House Votes Overwhelmingly Against Financing Nuclear Energy in China|publisher=Friends of the Earth|accessdate=2007-06-03]
*He has voted against federal subsidies for the oil and gas industry, saying that without government subsidies to the oil and gas industries, alternative fuels would be more competitive with oil and gas and would come to market on a competitive basis sooner.cite web|url=http://youtube.com/watch?v=v6ZwHhl_gbY|title=REP. RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT - WMUR 4-27-07 - 2 OF 2|publisher=YouTube|accessdate=2007-06-06]
*Paul is opposed to federal subsidies that favor certain technologies over others, such as ethanol from corn rather than sugarcane, and believes the market should decide which technologies are best and which will succeed in the end.
*He sponsored an amendment to repeal the federal gas tax for consumers. [cite news|url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul273.html|title=Gasoline, Taxes, and Middle East Policy|publisher=Lew Rockwell|accessdate=2007-06-12]
*He believes that nuclear power is a clean and efficient potential alternative that could be used to power electric cars.
*He believes that states should be able to decide whether to allow production of hemp, which can be used in producing sustainable biofuels, and has introduced bills into Congress to allow states to decide this issue; North Dakota, particularly, has built an ethanol plant with the ability to process hemp as biofuel and its farmers have been lobbying for the right to grow hemp for years.
*He voted against 2004 and 2005 provisions that would shield makers from liability for MTBE, a possibly cancer-causing gasoline additive that seeped into New England groundwater. The proposal included $1.8 billion to fund cleanup and another $2 billion to fund companies' phaseout programs. [cite web|url=http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Energy_+_Oil.htm|title=Ron Paul on Energy and Oil|publisher=On the Issues|accessdate=2007-05-30] [cite web|url=http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/05/16/saudis_lobby_to_limit_liability_on_additive/|title=Saudis lobby to limit liability on additive|publisher=the Boston Globe|accessdate=2007-05-30] [cite web|url=http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/dec2003/ener-d04.shtml|title=US: Regional, industry conflicts stall energy bill|publisher=World Socialist|accessdate=2007-05-30]

The League of Conservation Voters gave Paul a lifetime voting-record score of 30%, [ [http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/Paul/NA.html LCV Scorecard] ] while Republicans for Environmental Protection gave him a score of 17. [ [http://www.rep.org/2006_scorecard.pdf REP Scorecard] ]

Health policy

Health care costs

Paul has called for passage of tax relief bills to reduce health care costs for families: [cite web|url=http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst082106.htm|title=Lowering the Cost of Health Care|publisher=U.S. House of Representatives|author=Paul, Ron|date=2006-08-21|accessdate=2008-03-08|work=Congressional Record] He would support a tax credit for senior citizens who need to pay for costly prescription drugs. He would also allow them to import drugs from other countries at lower prices. He has called for health savings accounts that allow for tax-free savings to be used to pay for prescriptions. [cite web|url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul105.html|title=Free Trade in Pharmaceuticals|author=Paul, Ron|publisher=Lew Rockwell|accessdate=2007-06-08]

*H.R. 3075 allows families to claim a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for health insurance premiums.
*H.R. 3076 provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit that permits consumers to purchase "negative outcomes" insurance prior to undergoing surgery or other serious medical treatments. Negative outcomes insurance is a novel approach that guarantees those harmed receive fair compensation, while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. Patients receive this insurance payout without having to endure lengthy lawsuits, and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer. This also drastically reduces the costs imposed on physicians and hospitals by malpractice litigation. Under HR 3076, individuals who pay taxes can purchase negative outcomes insurance at essentially no cost.
*H.R. 3077 creates a $500 per child tax credit for medical expenses and prescription drugs that are not reimbursed by insurance. It also creates a $3,000 tax credit for dependent children with terminal illnesses, cancer, or disabilities.
*H.R. 3078 waives the employee portion of Social Security payroll taxes (or self-employment taxes) for individuals with documented serious illnesses or cancer. It also suspends Social Security taxes for primary caregivers with a sick spouse or child.

Paul voted for the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act, which would allow the government to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies to get the best price for drugs provided in the Medicare Part D prescription drug program.cite news|url=http://www.reason.com/news/show/118086.html|title=Paul for President?|publisher=Reason|accessdate=2007-11-04]

Paul rejects universal health care, believing that the more government interferes in medicine, the higher prices rise and the less efficient care becomes. He points to how many people today are upset with the HMO system, but few people realize that HMOs came about because of a federal mandate in 1973. He also points to the 1974 ERISA law that grants tax benefits to employers for providing insurance but not individuals; he prefers a system which grants tax credits to individuals. [cite web|url=http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst092506.htm|title=Diagnosing our Health Care Woes|publisher=U.S. House of Representatives|author=Paul, Ron|date=2006-09-25|accessdate=2008-03-08|work=Congressional Record] He supports the U.S. converting to a free market health care system, saying in an interview on New Hampshire NPR that the present system is akin to a "corporatist-fascist" system which keeps prices high. He says that in industries with freer markets prices go down due to technological innovation, [cite web|url=http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst050304.htm|title=Free Market Medicine|publisher=U.S. House of Representatives|work=Congressional Record|author=Paul, Ron|date=2004-05-03|accessdate=2008-03-08] but because of the corporatist system, this is prevented from happening in health care. He opposes socialized health care promoted by Democrats as being harmful because they lead to bigger and less efficient government.cite web|title=Republican Representative Ron Paul of Texas|url=http://www.nhpr.org/node/13016|publisher=New Hampshire National Public Radio|date=2007-06-05|accessdate=2007-06-08]

Paul has said that although he prefers tax credits to socialized medicine, he would be willing to "prop up" the current systems of Medicare and Medicaid with money saved by bringing troops home from foreign bases in places such as those in South Korea. [cite news|work=Victoria Advocate|date=2006-10-15|author=Brendel, Patrick|title=Incumbent Ron Paul, Shane Sklar vie for U.S. District 14 seat]

He opposes government regulation of vitamins and minerals, observing that the Codex Alimentarius proposal would even require a prescription for basic vitamins. [cite news|url=http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst042505.htm|title=Dietary Supplements and Health Freedom|publisher=House of Representatives|accessdate=2007-06-08]

Marijuana

Paul favors the use of marijuana as a medical option. He was cosponsor of H.R. 2592, the States' Rights to Medical Marijuana Act. [ [http://www.medicalmarijuanaprocon.org/BiosInd/Paul.htm Ron Paul's position on Medical Marijuana] , accessed on 19 August 2007] [ [http://cannabisnews.com/news/13/thread13529.shtml "Medical Marijuana Takes Center Stage On The Hill"] at Cannabis News, accessed on 19 August 2007] He opposes federal prohibition of this option in states such as California under Proposition 215.

Paul has joined prominent liberal Democrats in urging that states be allowed to permit farmers to grow industrial hemp, which currently is defined as a controlled substance.cite news|url=http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/column?oid=oid%3A477963|title=Reefer Madness: 'Let's Embarrass Ron Paul'|work=Austin Chronicle|date=2007-05-25] He contends that this would help North Dakota and other agriculture states, where farmers have requested the ability to farm hemp for years.

In 2005 and 2007 he introduced the Industrial Hemp Farming Act "to amend the Controlled Substances Act to exclude industrial hemp from the definition of marijuana, and for other purposes" [cite web|url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.3037:|title=H. R. 3037|publisher=Library of Congress|accessdate=2007-03-04] ; it currently has eleven cosponsors. This bill would give the states the power to regulate farming of hemp. The measure would be a first since the national prohibition of industrial hemp farming in the United States. "The Economist" wrote that his support for hemp farming could appeal to farmers in Iowa.cite news|url=http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9371878|title=On a high|work=the Economist|date=2007-06-21]

Drug prohibition

Paul contends that prohibition of drugs is ineffective and advocates ending the War on Drugs. [cite web|url=http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst051704.htm|title=The War on Drugs is a War on Doctors|author=Paul, Ron|publisher=U.S. House of Representatives|date=2004-04-17|accessdate=2008-03-08|work=Congressional Record] [cite web|url=http://www.counterpunch.org/paul1.html|title=War On Terror? It's As Bad As War on Drugs|author=Paul, Ron|publisher=Counterpunch|date=2001-10-30|accessdate=2008-03-08|work=Congressional Record] [cite web|url=http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst041904.htm|title=The Federal War on Pain Relief|author=Paul, Ron|publisher=U.S. House of Representatives|date=2004-04-19|accessdate=2008-03-08|work=Congressional Record] "Prohibition doesn’t work. Prohibition causes crime." He believes that drug abuse should be treated as a medical problem, "We treat alcoholism now as a medical problem and I, as a physician, think we should treat drug addiction as a medical problem and not as a crime." The Constitution does not enumerate or delegate to Congress the authority to ban or regulate drugs in general. He believes the war on drugs is a racist policy against African Americans, who are affected disproportionally.

Paul believes in personal responsibility, but also sees inequity in the current application of drug enforcement laws, noting in 2000, "Many prisoners are non-violent and should be treated as patients with addictions, not as criminals. Irrational mandatory minimal sentences have caused a great deal of harm. We have non-violent drug offenders doing life sentences, and there is no room to incarcerate the rapists and murderers." [cite news|url=http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr020200.htm|title=A Republic, If You Can Keep It|date=2000-02-02|accessdate=2008-02-11|author=Paul, Ron|publisher=U.S. House of Representatives|work=Congressional Record]

When asked about his position on implementing the tenth amendment, Paul explained, "Certain medical procedures and medical choices, I would allow the states to determine that. The state law should prevail not the Federal Government." Speaking specifically about Drug Enforcement Administration raids on medical marijuana clinics Paul said, "They’re unconstitutional," and went on to advocate states' rights [cite web|url=http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst052603.htm|title=The Federal Government Bully in State and Local Elections|publisher=U.S. House of Representatives|author=Paul, Ron|date=2003-05-26|accessdate=2008-03-08|work=Congressional Record] and personal choice: "You’re not being compassionate by taking medical marijuana from someone who’s suffering from cancer or AIDS .... People should have freedom of choice. We certainly should respect the law and the law says that states should be able to determine this."

Veterans' hospital access

Paul believes that the Veterans Administration should not be building more hospitals, and that VA hospitals should instead be phased out. He believes that government should pay to treat veterans in private hospitals, arguing they will get better care more cost-effectively.

Election law

Ballot access

As a former Libertarian Party candidate for President, Paul has been a proponent of ballot access law reform, and has spoken out on numerous election law reform issues.

In 2003, he introduced [http://www.geocities.com/edwardtjbrown/HR1941.htm H. R. 1941] , the Voter Freedom Act of 2003, that would have created uniform ballot access laws for independent and third political party candidates in Congressional elections. He supported this bill in a speech before Congress in 2004. [cite news|url=http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr071504.htm|title=End the Two-Party Monopoly!|publisher=House of Representatives|work=Congressional Record|date=2004-07-15|accessdate=2007-10-23|last=Paul|first=Ron] In 2007 he reintroduced a similar version of the bill.

Voting Rights Act

In 2006, Paul joined 32 other members of Congress in opposing the renewal of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, originally passed to remove barriers to voting participation for minorities. [cite web|url=http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/votes/?votenum=374&chamber=H&congress=1092|title=Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act
publisher=Congress.org|accessdate=2007-06-08] Paul has indicated that he did not object to the voting rights clauses, but rather to restrictions placed on property rights by the bill.cite web|url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html|title=The Trouble With Forced Integration|accessdate=2007-07-11|author=Ron Paul|date=2004-07-03|year=2004|publisher=Lew Rockwell] He felt the federal interference mandated by the bill was costly and unjustified because the situation for minorities voting is much different than when the bill was passed 40 years ago. Many of Texas' Republican representatives voted against the bill, because they believe it specifically singles out some Southern states, including Texas, for federal Justice Department oversight that makes it difficult for localities to change the location of a polling place or other small acts without first receiving permission from the federal government.cite web|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101910.htmll|title=GOP Rebellion Stops Voting Rights Act|accessdate=2007-07-11|author=Charles Babington|date=2006-06-22|year=2006|publisher="Washington Post"] The bill also mandated bilingual voting ballots upon request, and in a letter opposing the bill for this reason, 80 members of Congress including Paul objected to the costly implications of requiring bilingual ballots. In one example cited in the letter, the members detailed how Los Angeles spent $2.1 million for the 2004 election to provide ballots in seven different languages and more than 2,000 translators, although one of the requirements of gaining United States citizenship is ability to read in English, and another California district spent $30,000 on translating ballots per election despite receiving only one request for Spanish documents in 16 years. The legislators also noted that printing in foreign languages increases the chances of ballot error, pointing out a specific example of erroneous translated ballots that had been used in Flushing, New York.cite web|url=http://www.proenglish.org/issues/ballots/kingletter.pdf|title=King letter|accessdate=2007-07-11|date=2006-02-03|year=2006]

Civil Rights Act of 1964

Paul wrote of his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

It "not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife."

tate representation

Paul would like to restore State representation in Congress. During a speech in New Hampshire in February 2007 Paul called for a repeal of the seventeenth amendment, [cite news|http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Libertarian+candidate+in+%2788%2c+Paul+eyes+GOP+nomination&articleId=1ea4b86c-ef92-4a1c-9bff-1328cfbc16f2|title=Libertarian candidate in '88, Paul eyes GOP nomination|publisher=Union Leader|accessdate=2007-03-04] which allows for direct election of U.S. Senators. Instead Paul would have members of state legislatures vote for U.S. Senators as they had done under . Direct popular representation would be retained in the U.S. House of Representatives. Paul believes that increased representation of state interests at the federal level encourages greater sharing of power between state and federal government, [cite web|url=http://centre.telemanage.ca/links.nsf/articles/E381FC8AD15A01BB852569020076F31E|title=Public letter by Congressman Ron Paul on the World Trade Organization|accessdate=2007-03-04] and that greater state participation serves as a check against a powerful federal government.

Congressional appointment

In 2003, he spoke out against the enacted law that appoints (rather than elects) members of Congress in the event of the death of several members due to an act of terrorism. [cite news|url=http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr0604b03b.htm|title=Let’s Keep All Representatives Elected|publisher=House of Representatives|accessdate=2007-03-04]

Campaign contributions

In 2002, he spoke before the Congress in opposition to campaign finance reforms that place any restrictions on citizens and businesses making campaign contributions to the candidate of their choice. He based his argument on the First Amendment, Separation of Powers, and , and the belief that such efforts are also counterproductive in reducing entrenched powers. [cite news|url=http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr021302.htm|title=So-Called "Campaign Finance Reform" is Unconstitutional|publisher=House of Representatives|accessdate=2007-03-04]

Electoral college

In 2004, he spoke out against efforts to abolish the electoral college, stating that such a reform would weaken the “voting power of pro-liberty states” and that “Populated areas on both coasts would have increasing influence on national elections, to the detriment of less populated southern and western states.” [cite news|url=http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst122704.htm|title=Hands Off the Electoral College|publisher=House of Representatives|accessdate=2007-03-04]

See also

* Austrian School
* Debt
* Free banking
* Hard currency
* Libertarian Republican
* Libertarianism
* Monetary policy of the United States
* Soft currency
* Treasury bills
* Usury

External links

;Official sites
* [http://www.house.gov/paul U.S. House of Representatives Office of Ron Paul]
* [http://ronpaul.meetup.com Local Meetup Groups]
* [http://www.youtube.com/RonPaul2008dotcom YouTube channel]
* [http://www.myspace.com/ronpaul2008 MySpace]
* [http://eventful.com/performers/P0-001-000016544-9 Eventful]

; Speeches, statements and issues
* [http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/ RonPaul2008.com - Issues]
* [http://www.ronpaullibrary.org Ron Paul Library] , more than 1,000 articles and speeches by Ron Paul
* [http://www.ronpaulvideos.net Ron Paul Videos]
* [http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html LewRockwell.com] archived commentaries by Ron Paul
* [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173 Ron Paul in "America: Freedom to Fascism"]
* [http://www.mises.org/store/Case-for-Gold-The-P386C0.aspx The Case For Gold: A Minority Report of the U.S. Gold Commission]
* [http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html The Partial Birth Abortion Ban] speech
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peBGJwE9NXo&NR=1 Ron Paul at the first 2008 Republican presidential debate]
* [http://politics.healthdiaries.com/ron-paul-quotes-on-medical-marijuana.html Ron Paul Quotes on Medical Marijuana]
* [http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca Previous Views] Accusations of Ron Paul as a racist *Needs link to rebuttals.

;Topic pages and databases
* [http://ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm On the Issues] issue positions
* [http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=296 Project Vote Smart] candidate profile including issue positions
* [http://libertymaven.com/paul-o-meter The Paul-O-Meter] ranking candidates against Ron Paul's positions

References