Time: Fri Jun 13 11:56:05 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA18523;
	Fri, 13 Jun 1997 11:56:07 -0700 (MST)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 11:55:03 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Ron Paul:  Legislative Update - June 9, 1997 (fwd)

>Copied from:  http://syninfo.com/IAN/Wed11079.htm
>The Ron Paul
>Legislative Update
>The Week of June 9, 1997
>Hello, this is Ron Paul with the Legislative Update for the Week of June
>Last week our side had some reason to be pleased. However, the upcoming
>week will present an interesting challenge to the Bill of Rights and the
>inextricable nature of property rights and free expression when a measure
>to amend the Constitution to allow Congress to prohibit the physical
>desecration of the U.S. flag comes to the floor of the house.
>Last week the House considered HR 1757, the Foreign Relations
>Authorization Act. Debate on this measure will continue into this week
>with a vote expected sometime Tuesday or Wednesday. On Wednesday, of last
>week I introduced an amendment to this bill. This amendment called for the
>US to withdraw completely from the United Nations. While there have been
>over 100 amendments to the legislation, my amendment commanded more
>attention and heated discussion on the House floor than most others.
>I stood alone on the House floor defending this position as not a single
>Congressman came to defend the proposition of national sovereignty or
>constitutional government. Yet, each of the congressmen who spoke in favor
>of the United Nations continued to prove our point -- they refused,
>absolutely refused, to discuss the reasons present to withdraw from the
>U.N. Those reasons, for me, are very simple. First, the Constitution does
>not allow the federal government to cede power and authority to an
>international entity of foreign government. Second, the cost of being in
>the UN is, quite simply, more than we can afford.
>Each of those who embraced the United Nations on the House floor spoke
>almost hysterically about how we need a global police force and how the
>future peace of mankind can only be ensured by the UN. But no one would
>address the constitutionality or the cost of our participation. American
>taxpayers, since creation of the U.N. in 1947, have spent over one hundred
>billion dollars in U.N. contributions. Instead, the U.N. advocates "felt"
>compelled to defend the merits of taxing Americans to pay for such
>programs as international family planning and military "peacekeeping"
>operations around the world.
>When I asked for a recorded vote on my amendment, however, I was no longer
>alone. While my amendment did not "carry the day," fifty-two Republicans
>and two Democrats had the courage to vote for United States withdrawal
>from the UN and FOR American sovereignty. Each of these men and women
>should be congratulated for their stand.
>The battle on this issue is not yet over, however. Currently, I have a
>separate piece of legislation, H.R. 1146, the American Sovereignty
>Restoration Act which is working its way through the House committee
>process. This measure would accomplish the same goal as the amendment
>offered last week. To find out where individual members of congress stand
>on this bill and urge them to co-sponsor, you should call their offices
>directly as well as contact members of the House subcommittee on
>International Operations and Human Rights of which Chris Smith is the
>This week, Congress will have before it a Constitutionally-complicated
>piece of legislation. It is a measure which would amend the Constitution
>to allow Congress to pass laws making illegal "desecration of any American
>flag." As someone who has proudly served this nation in the United States
>Air Force, I personally find flag-degrading acts very offensive. But as a
>Member of Congress, sworn to uphold the Constitution and Bill of Rights,
>(including property rights and free speech), it is difficult to support a
>constitutional amendment which undermines the existing bill of rights in
>the name of protecting a flag symbolizing that for which the amendment
>As such, I will introduce a substitute bill which I believe is
>significantly more respective of the Bill of Rights. Because the issue of
>burning one's own flag is a property rights issue, my substitute would
>strip the power of the federal courts from overturning the laws which are
>constitutionally reserved to the states the ninth and tenth amendments.
>While everyone should have the right to be free of government censorship
>of their speech, an important distinction is they have no right to express
>themselves at another's expense and certainly not at the expense of the
>taxpayer. Moreover, as a property rights issue, the Constitutionally
>proper venue for adjudicating this issue rests with the respective state
>courts. I encourage your support for my amendment which preserves property
>rights, freedom from censorship, federalism, and is otherwise consistent
>with the Bill of Rights.
>This line does not record messages, but you can reach my Washington staff
>by calling, 202-225-2831. Thank you for calling the toll-free Ron Paul
>Legislative Update. The next message will be available June 16. Thanks
>for calling.
>#  #  #
>-> Send "subscribe   snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com
>->  Posted by: burro@panama.gulf.net

Paul Andrew Mitchell                 : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA;  M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine

tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.2 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com   : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this

As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail