[Editor's Note: As of June 12, 2008, Ron Paul has ended his candidacy for President. His official campaign website states: "...[A]fter much serious thought, I have decided to end my campaign for the Presidency of the United States."
On June 13, 2008, ProCon.org called Paul's campaign headquarters in Washington, DC and confirmed with Anthony Riedel that Ron Paul is "no longer running for President." ProCon.org stopped updating his profile as of that date.]
Ron Paul
Republican Presidential Candidate
US Representative (R-TX)
Not Clearly Pro or Con: "Once we allow federal control over abortion, we lose the opportunity for states to enact pro-life legislation. Numerous states already have laws that punish the act of murder against a fetus. Our focus should be on overturning Roe and getting the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters."
"Issues," Ron Paul's official campaign website (accessed Nov. 28, 2007)
Not Clearly Pro or Con: "This federalization of social issues, often championed by conservatives, has not created a pro-life culture, however. It simply has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens. Once we accepted the federalization of abortion law under the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues. It is much more difficult for pro-life advocates to win politically at the federal level. Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade 300 million Americans to agree with us. Our focus should be on overturning Roe and getting the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters."
"Dr. Paul's Writings: Pro-Life Politics?" Ron Paul's official candidate website, Mar. 28, 2005
None Found: ProCon.org emailed the Paul campaign on Jan. 21, 2008 with this question. We had not received a reply or found a position as of Jan. 29, 2008.
Not Clearly Pro or Con: "Each year the people of the United States write a check to subsidize China, one of the most brutal, anti-American regimes in the world. Lately it has been in vogue for everyone in Washington to eagerly denounce the egregious abuses of the Chinese people at the hands of their communist dictators. Yet no one in our federal government has been willing to take China on in any meaningful way."
"Dr. Paul's Writings: Your Taxes Subsidize China," Ron Paul's official campaign website, Aug. 14, 2006
Con: "Make no mistake about it: Economic sanctions are acts of aggression. Sanctions increase poverty and misery among the very poorest inhabitants of targeted nations, and they breed tremendous resentment against those imposing them. But they rarely hurt the political and economic elites responsible for angering American leaders in the first place."
" Sanctions Against Iran," LewRockwell.com, Apr. 18, 2006
[Editor's Note: In addition to Ron Paul's Con position on sanctions, we have provided the following quote, taken directly from his official campaign website on Jan. 28, 2008, describing his positions on human rights in China and US economic support of China.
"Each year the people of the United States write a check to subsidize China, one of the most brutal, anti-American regimes in the world. Lately it has been in vogue for everyone in Washington to eagerly denounce the egregious abuses of the Chinese people at the hands of their communist dictators...
I offered an amendment before the House of Representatives last month that would have ended the $4 billion subsidy our nation quietly gives China through the US government's Export-Import Bank. The bank underwrites the purchases of goods and services by the Chinese government and others around the world. Unfortunately, only a minority of Democrats or Republicans supported my measure. Apparently, many members of Congress are happy to bash China, but don?t mind lending her US taxpayer money at sweetheart interest rates...
In reality, there is very little the federal government can do about conditions in China. Under our Constitution, the federal government simply does not have the authority to point a gun at Chinese leaders and force them to respect the principles of liberty. It just doesn't work that way."]
Con: "Decades of agricultural trade sanctions have done nothing to topple the Castro regime, but they have hurt American farmers and the Cuban people. Our farmers should not be denied access to markets because of a misguided and ineffective State department policy. Our current approach simply opens the door for farmers around the world to exploit the Cuban market. Rather than punishing our farmers with trade embargoes, Congress should be eliminating barriers and opening new markets like Cuba."
"Paul Works to Open Cuban Market to Texas Farmers," Ron Paul's Congressional website, July 17, 2002
Con: "[Cynthia] Tucker: ... [D]oes the US have a role to play in ending the genocide in Darfur? And, if so, what should that role be?
[Ron] Paul: The US government has no authority. There's no constitutional authority. There's no moral authority. There's plenty of moral authority and responsibility for individuals to participate. But every time we get involved, no matter where, for good intentions, believe me, we're getting involved in a civil war.
Even when you send food, it ends up in the hands of the military and they use it as weapons. So it's not well-intended. We should direct our attention only to national security and not get involved for these feel-good reasons of going overseas for the various reasons."
Republican Presidential Debate, Morgan State University, Baltimore, MD, hosted by PBS, Nov. 28, 2007
Pro: "Well, all states have the right to impose capital punishment. But I have become so skeptical of the federal government that under our system... the federal government has made so many mistakes and with DNA evidence now revealing so many errors that I don't even like the idea of our federal government pretending that they know whose life they are going to take because of their total ineptness in just about everything they do. As far as the state goes, yes capital punishment is a deserving penalty for those who commit crime."
"Exclusive Interview: Ron Paul on God/Government; Abortion; Homosexuality; and Much More," interview with John Lofton on The American View, Aug. 25, 2007
Con: "Outsourcing is a reflection of a bad economic environment domestically. If you fix that, you fix outsourcing. Our primary export is paper money, and that should change if you change the monetary policy. We should drop the Overseas Investment Protection Corporation -- which makes taxpayers cover losses for US companies doing business in foreign countries -- have a sound currency and lower taxes. With that we could become competitive again, but that is going to be very very difficult."
"Election '08: Talk With the Candidates," live online Q & A hosted by the Washington Post online, the Concord Monitor, and the Cedar Rapids Gazette, Oct. 12, 2007
Con: "CAFTA [Central American Free Trade Agreement] and other international trade agreements do not represent free trade. Free trade occurs in the absence of government interference in the flow of goods, while CAFTA represents more government in the form of an international body. It is incompatible with our Constitution and national sovereignty, and we don't need it to benefit from international trade...
The quasi-judicial regime created under CAFTA will have the same power to coerce our cowardly legislature into changing American laws in the future. Labor and environmental rules are inherently associated with trade laws, and we can be sure that CAFTA will provide yet another avenue for globalists to impose the Kyoto Accord and similar agreements on the American people. CAFTA also imposes the International Labor Organization's manifesto, which could have been written by Karl Marx, on American business. I encourage every conservative and libertarian who supports CAFTA to read the ILO declaration and consider whether they still believe the treaty will make America more free."
" Dr. Paul's Writings: CAFTA- More Bureaucracy, Less Free Trade," Ron Paul's official campaign website, June 6, 2005
Con: "So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT [General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade], WTO [World Tourism Organization], and CAFTA [Central America Free Trade Agreement] are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites.
NAFTA's superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the US and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the US and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under this scheme."
"American Independence and Sovereignty," Ron Paul's official candidate website (accessed Apr. 11, 2008)
Con: "Congress is now considering whether to continue this cycle by passing the national five-year plan contained in H.R. 1, the so-called 'No Child Left Behind Act.' A better title for this bill is 'No Bureaucrat Left Behind' because, even though it's proponents claim H.R. 1 restores power over education to states and local communities, this bill represents a massive increase in federal control over education. H.R. 1 contains the word 'ensure' 150 times, 'require' 477 times, 'shall' 1,537 and 'shall not' 123 times. These words are usually used to signify federal orders to states and localities. Only in a town where a decrease in the rate of spending increases is considered a cut could a bill laden with federal mandates be considered an increase in local control!
If, after the experience of the past thirty years, you believe that federal bureaucrats are better able to meet children's unique educational needs than parents and communities then vote for H.R. 1. However, if you believe that the failures of the past shows expanding federal control over the classroom is a recipe for leaving every child behind then do not settle for some limited state flexibility in the context of a massive expansion of federal power: Reject H.R. 1 and instead help put education resources back into the hands of parents by supporting my Family Education Freedom Act and Education Improvement Tax Cut Act."
"Statement on No Child Left Behind," Ron Paul's official campaign website, May 23, 2001
Not Clearly Pro or Con: Ron Paul voted No on "H.R. 2669: Higher Education Access Act of 2007," on July 20, 2007
"The College Cost Reduction Act (H.R.2669) seeks to lower the cost of higher education by reducing lender subsidies by $19 billion and then investing those funds in programs that increase grant amounts to students, improve access to student loans, cut interest rates on student loans, provide for the repayment of parts of the loans through employment or service in areas of national need, and reward colleges for lowering costs to students."
"H.R. 2669: Higher Education Access Act of 2007," Govtrack.us, July 20, 2007
Con: "Mr. Speaker, many of those who share my belief that the most effective education reform is to put parents back in charge of the education system have embraced government-funded voucher programs as a means to that end. I certainly sympathize with the goals of voucher proponents and I believe that States and local governments have the right, protected by the Tenth Amendment, to adopt any sort of voucher program they believe meets the needs of their communities. However, I have a number of concerns regarding proposals to implement a voucher plan on the Federal level.
The basic reason supporters of parental control of education should view Federal voucher programs with a high degree of skepticism is that vouchers are a creation of the government, not the market. Vouchers are a taxpayer-funded program benefiting a particular group of children selected by politicians and bureaucrats. Therefore, the Federal voucher program supported by many conservatives is little more than another tax-funded welfare program establishing an entitlement to a private school education. Vouchers thus raise the same constitutional and moral questions as other transfer programs."
"Speech of Hon. Ron Paul of Texas in the House of Representatives," Congressional Record, Library of Congress, THOMAS, Sep. 30, 2003
None Found: ProCon.org emailed the Paul campaign on Oct. 10, 2007 with this question. We had not received a reply or found a position as of Oct. 31, 2007.
Con: "In a devastating blow to political speech, the Supreme Court recently upheld most of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill passed by Congress last year. The legislation will do nothing to curb special interest power or reduce corruption in Washington, but it will make it harder for average Americans to influence government. 'Campaign finance reform' really means the bright-line standard of free speech has been replaced by a murky set of regulations and restrictions that will muzzle political dissent and protect incumbents. Justice Scalia correctly accuses the Court of supporting a law 'That cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government...This is a sad day for freedom of speech.'
Two important points ignored by the Court should be made. First, although the new campaign rules clearly violate the First amendment, they should be struck down primarily because Congress has no authority under Article I of the Constitution to regulate campaigns at all. Article II authorizes only the regulation of elections, not campaigns, because our Founders knew Congress might pass campaign laws that protect incumbency. This is precisely what McCain-Feingold represents: blatant incumbent protection sold to the public as noble reform.
Second, freedom of the press applies equally to all Americans, not just the institutional, government-approved media. An unknown internet blogger, a political party, a candidate, and the New York Times should all enjoy the same right to political speech. Yet McCain-Feingold treats the mainstream press as some kind of sacred institution rather than the for-profit industry it is. Why should giant media companies be able to spend unlimited amounts of money to promote candidates and issues, while an organization you support cannot? The notion of creating a preferred class of media, with special First Amendment rights, is distinctly elitist and un-American."
"'Campaign Finance Reform' Muzzles Political Dissent," Ron Paul's official Congressional website (Texas Straight Talk), Dec. 22, 2003
Not Clearly Pro or Con: "Wealthy people will always seek to influence politicians, because government unfortunately plays a very big role in determining who gets (and stays) rich in our country. Our federal government has become a taxing, spending, and regulating leviathan that virtually controls the economy. Having rejected the notion of limited, constitutional government, we can hardly be surprised when special interests use corrupting campaign money to influence the process! We need to get money out of government; only then will money not be important in politics. Big government and big campaign money go hand-in-hand."
"Dr. Paul's Writings: 'Campaign Finance Reform' Muzzles Political Dissent," Ron Paul's official candidate website, Dec. 22, 2003
Con: "Now one year removed from the notorious Kelo decision by the Supreme Court [Kelo v. City of New London, 545 US 469 (2005); the majority held that the city's taking of private property to sell for private development qualified as a 'public use' within the meaning of the takings clause.], Americans are still reeling from the shock of having our nation's highest tribunal endorse using government power to condemn private homes to benefit a property developer. The silver lining, however, is that many Americans have been stirred to action and are demanding new state laws to prohibit the Kelo scenario from repeating itself in their cities...
Congress can and should act to prevent the federal government from seizing private property. I've introduced and cosponsored several bills that prohibit or severely limit the power of Washington agencies to seize private property in locations around the nation. But the primary fight against local eminent domain actions must take place at the local level. The people of New London, Connecticut, like the people of Texas, could start by removing from office local officials who have so little respect for property rights."
"Lessons from the Kelo Decision," The Ron Paul Library website, July 4, 2005
Pro: Voted Yes on "H.AMDT.297 to H.R.4 Amendment implements a 2,000-acre limitation on the total surface area that may be covered by oil and gas production operations in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge's Coastal Plain."
"H.AMDT.297," Library of Congress website, Aug. 1, 2001
Not Clearly Pro or Con: "The price of oil, like everything else, depends on supply and demand. What we really need to focus on is how government keeps the supply of refined gasoline too low. This is not as easy as demanding price controls, and does not fit into 30-second sound bites. But as with so many issues, we must peel away decades of government interference to really understand the problem.
Most people understand that federal restrictions on exploring, drilling, and refining domestic oil have made us dependent on various questionable Middle East governments. We should expand this into a greater understanding of how American foreign policy increases gas prices here at home. Before the war in Iraq, oil was about $28 per barrel. Today it is over $70. Iraq was a significant source of worldwide oil, but its production has dropped 50% since 2002. Pipeline sabotage and fires are routine; we have been unable to prevent them. Furthermore, the general instability in the Middle East created by the war causes oil prices to rise everywhere."
"Dr. Paul's Writings - Foreign Policy, Monetary Policy, and Gas Prices," Ron Paul's official candidate website, May 8, 2006
Not Clearly Pro or Con: "What about the Kyoto Accords, the international agreement that aims to solve the supposed problem of global warming? Clearly the Kyoto Accords, to which the United States has not agreed, will affect world trade. Will this be an open door for the WTO to act as enforcer toward the United States and other countries that refuse to sign Kyoto? Two leading UN observers, Henry Lamb of Sovereignty International and Cathie Adams of Texas Eagle Forum, have reported that the WTO is widely recognized as the enforcement tool of choice for the Kyoto treaty."
"Get Out of the WTO," LewRockwell.com, May 17, 2005
Not Clearly Pro or Con: Voted No on "H.R.6 Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007: An Act to move the United States toward greater energy independence and security, to increase the production of clean renewable fuels, to protect consumers, to increase the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles, to promote research on and deploy greenhouse gas capture and storage options, and to improve the energy performance of the Federal Government, and for other purposes."
"H.R.6 Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007," Library of Congress website, Jan. 18, 2007
Not Clearly Pro or Con: "I think some of it [global warming] is related to human activities, but I don't think there's a conclusion yet. There's a lot of evidence on both sides of that argument. If you study the history, we've had a lot of climate changes. We've had hot spells and cold spells. They come and go. If there are weather changes, we're not going to be very good at regulating the weather."
"Paul on the Record," Grist website, Oct. 16, 2007
Con: "I share our Founders' belief that in a free society each citizen must have the right to keep and bear arms. They ratified the Second Amendment knowing that this right is the guardian of every other right, and they all would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans from exercising this right.
I have always supported the Second Amendment and these are some of the bills I have introduced in the current Congress to help restore respect for it:
H.R. 1096 includes provisions repealing the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the Federal Firearms License Reform Act of 1993, two invasive and unconstitutional bills.
H.R. 1897 would end the ban on carrying a firearm in the National Park System, restoring Americans' ability to protect themselves in potentially hazardous situations.
H.R. 3305 would allow pilots and specially assigned law enforcement personnel to carry firearms in order to protect airline passengers, possibly preventing future 9/11-style attacks.
H.R. 1146 would end our membership in the United Nations, protecting us from their attempts to tax our guns or disarm us entirely.
In the past, I introduced legislation to repeal the so-called 'assault weapons' ban before its 2004 sunset, and I will oppose any attempts to reinstate it.
I also recently opposed H.R. 2640, which would allow government-appointed psychiatrists to ban US veterans experiencing even mild forms of Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome from ever owning a gun.
You have the right to protect your life, liberty, and property. As President, I will continue to guard the liberties stated in the Second Amendment."
"Issues: Second Amendment," Ron Paul's official campaign website (accessed Nov. 30, 2007)
Con: "Well, we've had managed care, now, for about 35 years. It's not working, and nobody's happy with it.
Nobody seems to be happy -- except the corporations, the drug companies and the HMOs.
You take care of poor people by turning the medical care back into the system, where people have some choices.
Now, we have a mess because we have -- a lot of people are very dependent on health care. But I have the only way we can afford to take care of people now, because we're going broke, with $500 billion going to debt every single year. And we have a foreign policy that is draining us.
I say, take care of these poor people. I'm not against that. But save the money someplace. The only place available for us to save it is to change our attitude about running a world empire and bankrupting this country. We can take care of the poor people, save money and actually cut some of our deficit.
So you don't have to throw anybody out in the street, but long term you have move toward the marketplace. You cannot expect socialized medicine of the Hillary brand to work.
And you can't expect the managed care system that we have today, which promotes and benefits and rewards the corporations -- because it's the drug companies and the HMOs and even the AMA that comes to us and lobbies us for this managed care, and that's why the prices are high.
It's only in medicine that technology has raised prices rather than lowering prices."
Republican Presidential Debate, Orlando, Florida, hosted by FOX News and the Republican Party of Florida, Oct. 21, 2007
Pro: "Reimportation [of drugs manufactured in the US and exported] is hardly a solution to our health care woes, of course, and the bill faces a highly uncertain future in the Senate. Reimportation would, however, inject a tiny measure of freedom into our increasingly regulated health care system. No American should ever enjoy less freedom by virtue of living in the US, and no American should be forced to pay higher prices for drugs that are available more cheaply overseas. The ban on reimportation is unconscionable, and most Americans know it despite the best efforts of the pharmaceutical companies and their mouthpieces."
"Dr. Paul's Writings: Drug Reimportation Increases Medical Freedom," Ron Paul's official campaign website, Dec. 11, 2000
Not Clearly Pro or Con: "Today, the overwhelming majority of Americans- including immigrants- want immigration reduced, not expanded. The economic, cultural, and political situation was very different 100 years ago.
We?re often told that immigrants do the jobs Americans won?t do, and sometimes this is true. But in many instances illegal immigrants simply increase the supply of labor in a community, which lowers wages. And while cheap labor certainly benefits the economy as a whole, when calculating the true cost of illegal immigration we must include the cost of social services that many new immigrants consume- especially medical care."
"Dr. Paul's Writings: The Immigration Question," Ron Paul's official campaign website, Apr. 3, 2006
Con: "Right now we are subsidizing a lot of illegal immigration with our robust social programs and it is an outrage that instead of coming to the United States as a land of opportunity, many come for the security guaranteed by government forced transfer payments through our welfare system. I have opposed giving federal assistance to illegal immigrants and have introduced legislation that ends this practice. In the last major House-passed immigration bill I attempted to introduce an amendment that would make illegal immigrants ineligible for any federal assistance. Unfortunately, that amendment was ruled 'not relevant' to immigration reform. I believe it is very relevant to taxpayers, however, who are being taken advantage of through the welfare system. Illegal immigrants should never be eligible for public schooling, social security checks, welfare checks, free healthcare, food stamps, or any other form government assistance."
"Dr. Paul's Writings: On Illegal Immigration and Border Security," Ron Paul's official campaign website, Dec. 2, 2007
Pro: "Congressman Ron Paul joined more than 280 of his House colleagues in voting to better secure our nation's borders. The House of Representatives passed the 'Secure Fence Act of 2006' yesterday, taking a needed step toward real immigration reform.
'The problems associated with illegal immigration cannot be addresses unless and until we gain physical control of our borders and coastlines,' Paul stated. 'The number one priority for Congress should be securing our borders-no immigration reform is possible until then. Once we have control over who is entering the country, we can begin to reform the legal immigration process.'
'Amnesty for lawbreakers is not the answer, and it's time to rethink birthright citizenship,' Paul added. The bill passed yesterday requires the Homeland Security Department to gain 'operational control' of the country's international borders, authorizes the construction of approximately 700 miles of fencing along the US-Mexican border, requires a study of implementing security systems along the US-Canadian border, and directs the department to evaluate the ability of personnel to stop fleeing vehicles at the border."
"Dr. Paul's Writings: Paul Votes for Stronger Border Security," Press Release, Ron Paul's official candidate website, Sep. 14, 2006
Con: "We have no need for our national security to have troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and going into Iraq and Afghanistan and threatening Iran is the worst thing we can do for our national security...
I would say that we should go very cautiously. We should back off. We should be talking to Iran right now. We shouldn't be looking for the opportunity to attack them. They are at the present time, according to the AEIA (sic/IAEA), cooperating, and by the end of the year they're supposed to be willing to reveal all that they are doing.
So instead of looking for this scenario where it is inevitable that we have to attack, I think we ought to be talking about how do you get along with some people that are deadly like the Soviets and the Chinese and the many others. We don't have to resort to war every single time there's a confrontation."
Republican Presidential Debate, Durham, New Hampshire, hosted by FOX News, Sep. 5, 2007
Pro: "It was a very bad idea, and it wasn't worth it. The al Qaeda wasn't there then; they're there now. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Had nothing to do with 9/11."
Republican Presidential Debate, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, hosted by MSNBC, St. Petersburg Times, Jan. 24, 2008
Con: "And going into Iraq and Afghanistan and threatening Iran is the worst thing we can do for our national security. I am less safe, the American people are less safe for this."
Republican Presidential Debate, Durham, New Hampshire, hosted by FOX News, Sep. 5, 2007
Pro: Ron Paul was a co-sponsor of "H.R.787: Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007," which states:
"(1) US Armed Forces levels in Iraq after the date of enactment of this Act shall not exceed January 10, 2007, levels without specific statutory authority enacted by Congress after the date of the enactment of this Act; and (2) except as otherwise provided, the phased redeployment of US Armed Forces from Iraq shall begin by May 1, 2007."
"H.R. 787: Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007," Library of Congress website, Jan. 31, 2007
Con: "[Glenn] BECK: So you`re saying that we actually hurt Israel by being their friend? We should have no foreign aid to Israel at all? If Israel asked for our help, should we be involved?
[Ron] PAUL: Not unless the Congress authorizes, you know, for war or something. But when you say no foreign aid, you say no foreign aid to Israel. And I say, oh, we give foreign aid to the Arabs three times greater than Israel...
So, we are not only neutralizing things -- so, you know, we really neutralize things much better. Israel is in better shape by no foreign aid to anybody...
And so it's not anti-Israel. It's just neutral...
You know, we treat Israel like a second-class citizen. You know, you understand the issue at home when you treat people with Welfare, they become dependent on the state. Israel is dependent on us, you know, for economic means.
We send them these billions of dollars and then they depend on us. They say, well, you know, we don't like Iran. You go fight our battles. You bomb Iran for us. And they become dependent on us."
"Honest Questions with Ron Paul," Glenn Beck, CNN, Dec. 18, 2007
Not Clearly Pro or Con: "It is time to challenge the notion that it is our job to broker peace in the Middle East and every other troubled region across the globe. America can and should use every diplomatic means at our disposal to end the violence in the West Bank, but we should draw the line at any further entanglement. Third-party outsiders cannot impose political solutions in Palestine or anywhere else. Peace can be achieved only when self-determination operates freely in all nations. 'Peace plans' imposed by outsiders or the UN cause resentment and seldom produce lasting peace."
"Dr. Paul's Writings - Can We Achieve Peace in the Middle East?" Ron Paul's official candidate website, Jan. 22, 2007
Not Clearly Pro or Con: "America can and should use every diplomatic means at our disposal to end the violence in the West Bank, but we should draw the line at any further entanglement. Third-party outsiders cannot impose political solutions in Palestine or anywhere else...
Respect for self-determination really is the cornerstone of a sensible foreign policy, yet many Americans who strongly support US sovereignty advocate interventionist policies that deny other nations that same right. The interventionist approach that has dominated American foreign policy since World War I has produced an unmitigated series of disasters."
"The Middle East Quaqmire," Ron Paul's US Congress website, Nov. 15, 2004
None Found: ProCon.org emailed the Paul campaign on Mar. 31, 2008 with this question. We had not received a reply or found a position as of Apr. 11, 2008.
Con: "Mr. Speaker, while I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman, I do not believe a constitutional amendment is either a necessary or proper way to defend marriage...
Having studied this issue and consulted with leading legal scholars, including an attorney who helped defend the Boy Scouts against attempts to force the organization to allow gay men to serve as scoutmasters, I am convinced that both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act can survive legal challenges and ensure that no state is forced by a federal court's or another state's actions to recognize same sex marriage. Therefore, while I am sympathetic to those who feel only a constitutional amendment will sufficiently address this issue, I respectfully disagree. I also am concerned that the proposed amendment, by telling the individual states how their state constitutions are to be interpreted, is a major usurpation of the states' power. The division of power between the federal government and the states is one of the virtues of the American political system. Altering that balance endangers self-government and individual liberty. However, if federal judges wrongly interfere and attempt to compel a state to recognize the marriage licenses of another state, that would be the proper time for me to consider new legislative or constitutional approaches."
"Cultural Conservatives Lose If Gay Marriage Is Federalized," Speech made on House floor, Sep. 30, 2004
None Found: ProCon.org emailed the Paul campaign on Dec. 13, 2007 with this question. We had not received a reply or found a position as of Dec. 20, 2007.
Pro: "After deferring to the DEA [Drug Enforcement Agency], your release reads that, 'FDA [Food and Drug Administration] is the sole federal agency that approves drug products as safe and effective for intended indications.' Why then has the FDA failed to respond to the 1999 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report which concluded that marijuana's active components are potentially effective in treating pain, nausea, the anorexia of AIDS wasting, and other symptoms, and should be tested rigorously in clinical trials?
It perplexes us that even though the FDA is responsible for protecting public health, the agency has failed to respond adequately to the IOM's findings seven years after the study's publication date. Additionally, this release failed to make note of the FDA's Investigational New Drug (IND) Compassionate Access Program, which allowed patients with certain medical conditions to apply with the FDA to receive federal marijuana. Currently, seven people still enlisted in this program continue to receive marijuana through the federal government.
The existence of this program is an example of how the FDA could allow for the legal use of a drug, such as medical marijuana, without going through the 'well-controlled' series of steps that other drugs have to go through if there is a compassionate need."
Letter to US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), signed by Rep. Paul and 23 other members of the US House of Representatives, Apr. 27, 2005
Pro: "I'd stop them [federal arrests and raids]. I wouldn't do them, because it's unconstitutional. Why should I go and send someone out to California to overrule a state law when we have no jurisdiction? Besides, it's a waste of a lot of money and energy. No, there should be no federal preemption on laws like that."
Speaking at a campaign event in Londonderry, New Hampshire, Aug. 19, 2007
Con: "The biggest threat to your privacy is the government. We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens' personal matters.
We must stop the move toward a national ID card system. All states are preparing to issue new driver's licenses embedded with 'standard identifier' data - a national ID. A national ID with new tracking technologies means we're heading into an Orwellian world of no privacy. I voted against the Real ID Act in March of 2005."
"Issue: Privacy and Personal Liberty," Ron Paul's official candidate website (accessed May, 8, 2008)
Not Clearly Pro or Con: "[Scott] Spradling: ...Is it time to end don't ask/don't tell policy and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the US military?
[Ron] Paul: 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 sexual 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."
Republican Presidential Debate, Saint Anselm College, Manchester, New Hampshire, hosted by CNN, WMURTV and The New Hampshire Union Leader, June 5, 2007
[Editor's Note: ProCon.org has been unable to find Ron Paul's pro or con position to this question. We emailed and placed phone calls to Ron Paul's campaign on Jan. 21, Feb. 11, Mar. 31, and Apr. 10, 2008 to have Dr. Paul clarify his views on this question. In a phone call with ProCon.org on Mar. 31, Matthew Hawes, Policy Assistant for the Ron Paul campaign, said that he would look further into the matter. On Apr. 14, 2008, ProCon.org received an email from Mr. Hawes stating that he would "try to have an answer" to us "soon."]
Con: "The Constitution is very clear in defining how the legislative process is to work, and the line-item veto is clearly a violation of that process...
The direction this newly-created power takes us is 180-degrees off base; it is completely misguided and will further undermine the Constitution. The line-item veto consolidates too much power in the hands of the President, giving him unlimited power to re-craft legislation to his liking. The Constitution makes it clear that the president is only allowed to approve or disapprove entire pieces of legislation. The line-item veto opens the door for a president to do much more."
"Paul Calls Line-Item Veto Unconstitutional," Press Release, Ron Paul's US Congress website, Aug. 12, 1997
Con: "A Wall Street Journal article last week detailed a Department of Defense memo that discusses the legality of interrogation and torture methods in the wake of events at Abu Gharib. The document reportedly advises that the President has authority to order almost any action, including physical or psychological torture, despite federal laws to the contrary. The Pentagon lawyers who drafted the memo were not shy about blatantly asserting that the Commander-In-Chief can break the law when necessary, as evidenced by this quote from the memo: 'Sometimes the greater good for society will be accomplished by violating the literal language of the criminal law.'...
The greater issue presented by the Defense Department memo, however, is the threat posed by unchecked executive power. Defense Department lawyers essentially argue that a President's powers as Commander-In-Chief override federal laws prohibiting torture, and the Justice Department appears to agree. But the argument for extraordinary wartime executive powers has been made time and time again, always with bad results and the loss of our liberties. War has been used by Presidents to excuse the imprisonment of American citizens of Japanese descent, to silence speech, to suspend habeas corpus, and even to control entire private industries...
A strong separation of powers is at the heart of our constitutional liberties. No branch of government should be able to act unilaterally, no matter how cumbersome the legislative process may be. The beauty of the Constitution is that it encourages some degree of gridlock in government, making it harder for any branch to act capriciously or secretly. When we give any president- one man- too much power, we build a foundation for future tyranny."
"Torture, War, and Presidential Powers," The Ron Paul Library website (accessed May 8, 2008)
Con: "I agree with the President that churches and private charities do a better job providing social services than government agencies... However, it's dangerous to give public funds to private organizations, because such organizations might change their faith-based message to win government favor. Churches should not become entangled with government subsidies and programs, because truly independent religious institutions are critical to a free society.
The better approach is to provide tax incentives for individuals and businesses that make direct donations to charities and faith-based providers... This increases the budgets of such providers without using taxpayer funds, enabling them to expand their charitable missions without government involvement. The goal is to reduce the role of the federal welfare state by promoting charitable solutions to community problems. Charities do a far better job of helping the poor and returning individuals to productive lives than dependency-creating federal welfare programs."
"Paul Offers Alternative Faith-Based Initiatives Plan," Ron Paul's congressional website, July 20, 2001
Not Clearly Pro or Con: "Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.
The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life."
"The War on Religion," LewRockwell.com, Dec. 30, 2003
Not Clearly Pro or Con: "The administration speaks of private accounts, but government-managed investment of Social Security funds is not privatization at all. True capitalism by definition operates without government interference, and we should oppose further government involvement in the financial markets. After all, which government officials will decide what stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or other investment vehicles are approved? Which politicians will you trust to decide what your portfolio may contain? Imagine the lobbyists fighting over which special interests will have their favored investments approved for Social Security accounts. Political favoritism, rather than market performance, will determine what investments are allowed, and Social Security in essence will become a huge source of taxpayer-provided investment capital.
If the administration truly wants to give people more control over their retirement dollars, why not simply reduce payroll taxes and let them keep their own money to invest privately as they see fit? This is the true private solution."
"Want to Reform Social Security? Stop Spending," Ron Paul's Congressional website, Jan. 24, 2005
Con: "Mr. Speaker, the issue of government funding of embryonic stem cell research is one of the most divisive matters facing the country. While I sympathize with those who see embryonic stem cell research as a path to cures for dreadful diseases that have stricken so many Americans, I strongly object to forcing those Americans who believe embryonic stem cell research is immoral to subsidize such research with their tax dollars.
The question that should concern Congress today is: Does the US government have the constitutional authority to fund any form of stem cell research? The clear answer to that question is no. A proper constitutional position would reject federal funding for stem cell research, while allowing individual states and private citizens to decide whether to permit, ban, or fund this research. Therefore, I must vote against HR 810."
"Dr. Paul's Writings - No Federal Funding for Stem Cell Research," Ron Paul's official campaign website, May 24, 2005
Pro: "I certainly support President Bush's tax cut initiatives, and I will vote (or have voted) for each plank in his tax cut plan. Lowering marginal rates, eliminating the marriage penalty, abolishing the death tax- these are worthy goals for any administration. I also applaud the President for living up to his campaign promises by making these tax cuts a priority. Congress already approved marginal rate reductions and elimination of the marriage penalty; estate tax repeal legislation likely will reach the House floor in April. At this rate the President may enact his tax cut proposals by the end of the year, which would be a great accomplishment for a new administration. Certainly my own legislation would reduce taxes more drastically, but I always support any tax cut proposals as a step in the right direction. Voters in my district know that I am committed to reducing the size of the federal government, and tax reduction is an important step in returning the federal government to its proper constitutional role."
"Dr. Paul's Writings, Uncontrolled Spending Threatens Our Liberty," Ron Paul's official candidate website, Apr. 2, 2001
Con: "Turkey wants more than our money, however. It also wants to control the Kurdish population in northern Iraq. The Kurds in both Iraq and Turkey desire an independent Kurdish state, which the Turkish government fiercely resists. Turkish officials want an agreement that will allow thousands of their soldiers to advance into Kurdish northern Iraq on the heels of American forces. This would be a shameful insult to the Kurdish people, who at least have been consistent foes of Saddam Hussein."
"Buying 'Friends' With Foreign Aid," LewRockwell website, Feb. 25, 2003
Pro: "Additionally, one of the most absurd incentives for people to come to the US illegally is the promise of instant US citizenship to anyone born on our soil. That is why when Congress returns next week I will be re-introducing my Constitutional amendment to deny automatic citizenship to individuals born on US soil to parents who are not US citizens or who do not owe permanent allegiance to the United States."
"Dr. Paul's Writings: Immigration 'Compromise' Sells Out Our Sovereignty'," Ron Paul's official campaign website, May 28, 2007
Pro: "Shut it down. The current rationale at Guantanamo is based on the false premise that detainees are not entitled to due process protections. I support court decisions recognizing fundamental human rights, such as habeas corpus. Again, this is an issue that flies in the face of our civic and legal traditions as outlined in the Constitution. As such, I see no purpose for continuing the facility."
"An Interview with Presidential Candidate Congressman Ron Paul," MuckrakerReport.com, June 28, 2007
Con: "The accelerated attacks on liberty started quickly after 9/11. Within weeks the Patriot Act was overwhelmingly passed by Congress. Though the final version was unavailable up to a few hours before the vote — no Member had sufficient time to read or understand it — political fear of 'not doing something,' even something harmful, drove Members of Congress to not question the contents and just vote for it. A little less freedom for a little more perceived safety was considered a fair tradeoff — and the majority of Americans applauded.
The Patriot Act, though, severely eroded the system of checks and balances by giving the government the power to spy on law abiding citizens without judicial supervision. The several provisions that undermine the liberties of all Americans include: sneak and peak searches; a broadened and more vague definition of domestic terrorism; allowing the FBI access to libraries and bookstore records without search warrants or probable cause; easier FBI initiation of wiretaps and searches, as well as roving wiretaps; easier access to information on American citizens' use of the internet; and easier access to e-mail and financial records of all American citizens."
"In the Name of Patriotism (Who are the Patriots?)," The Ron Paul Library website, May 22, 2007
Con: "No. I would in no way support giving them [telecommunications companies] immunity for breaking privacy laws. One of the legitimate functions of the federal government is to protect the privacy of its citizens, not invade it. If private companies cooperated with the federal government in violating the Fourth Amendment rights of their customers, they should be held accountable."
"Technology Voters' Guide: Ron Paul," CNET News.com, Jan. 3, 2008
Representative, United States House of Representatives, Texas (14th District), 1996-present
United States Senate, Republican Candidate, 1984
Representative, United States House of Representatives, Texas District 22, 1976-1977, 1979-1985
Republican Nominee for United States House of Representatives, 1974
Chairman, The Liberty Caucus of Fellow Congressmen on Capitol Hill
Member, Financial Services
Member, International Relations
Member, Joint Economic Committee
Member, Subcommitte on the Western Hemisphere
Member, Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology
Member, Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight
Member, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations (Financial Services)
Congressional Fire Services Caucus
Past Member, Gold Commission
Congressional Rural Caucus
Education:
MD, Duke University, 1967
BS, Gettysburg College, 1957
Affiliations and Memberships:
Ran for president in 1988 as a candidate for the Libertarian party
Obstetrician-Gynecologist, 1968-1996
Founder, FREE and the National Endowment for Liberty
Founder/Honorary Chairman, The Liberty Committee
Distinguished Scholar, Ludwig von Mises Institute
Air National Guard, 1965-1968
United States Air Force, Captain, 1963-1965
Other:
Missed 339 votes (27.7%) during the current (110th) Congress and missed 687 of 7054 votes (10%) since Jan. 7, 1997 (as of Feb. 15, 2008)
As a physician he refused to accept payment by Medicare or Medicaid, preferring to work for free or pre-arranged discounts or payment plans for poor patients