Civil Liberties - In Depth:
Religion
Paul believes that prayer in public schools should not be prohibited at the federal or state level, nor should it be made compulsory to engage in.
Paul has sponsored a constitutional amendment which would allow students to pray privately in public schools, but would not allow anyone to be forced to pray against their will or allow the state to compose any type of prayer or officially sanction any prayer to be said in schools.
Paul has sponsored a constitutional amendment which would allow students to pray privately in public schools, but would not allow anyone to be forced to pray against their will or allow the state to compose any type of prayer or officially sanction any prayer to be said in schools.
Freedom Of Speech
In 1997, Paul introduced a Constitutional amendment giving states the power to prohibit the destruction of the flag of the United States. In June 2003, he voted against a Constitutional amendment to prohibit the physical "desecration" of the flag of the United States.He believes that prohibiting flag burning is a state power, not a federal power.
He believes the internet should be free from government regulation and taxation, and is opposed to internet gambling restrictions and network neutrality legislation.
He believes the internet should be free from government regulation and taxation, and is opposed to internet gambling restrictions and network neutrality legislation.
Right to keep and bear arms
The only 2008 presidential candidate to earn Gun Owners of America's A+ rating, Paul has been a lead sponsor of legislation in Congress attempting to maintain individual Second Amendment rights. He has also fought for the right of pilots to be armed.
In the first chapter of his book, Freedom Under Siege, Paul argued that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to place a check on government tyranny, not to merely grant hunting rights or allow self-defense. When asked whether individuals should be allowed to own machine guns, Paul responded, "Whether it's an automatic weapon or not is, I think, irrelevant." Paul believes that a weapons ban at the federal or state level does not work either. "Of course true military-style automatic rifles remain widely available to criminals on the black market. So practically speaking, the assault weapons ban does nothing to make us safer." Rather, he sees school shootings, plane hijackings, and other such events as a result of prohibitions on self-defense.Based on Paul's responses to a 1996 survey, he supports the right of citizens to carry concealed firearms if they are legally owned.
In the first chapter of his book, Freedom Under Siege, Paul argued that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to place a check on government tyranny, not to merely grant hunting rights or allow self-defense. When asked whether individuals should be allowed to own machine guns, Paul responded, "Whether it's an automatic weapon or not is, I think, irrelevant." Paul believes that a weapons ban at the federal or state level does not work either. "Of course true military-style automatic rifles remain widely available to criminals on the black market. So practically speaking, the assault weapons ban does nothing to make us safer." Rather, he sees school shootings, plane hijackings, and other such events as a result of prohibitions on self-defense.Based on Paul's responses to a 1996 survey, he supports the right of citizens to carry concealed firearms if they are legally owned.
PATRIOT Act
Paul broke with his party by voting against the PATRIOT Act in 2001; he also voted against its 2005 enactment. He has said, "Everything we have done in response to the 9-11 attacks, from the Patriot Act to the war in Iraq, has reduced freedom in America." He has spoken against federal use of what he defines as torture and what he sees as an abuse of executive authority during the Iraq War to override Constitutional rights.
REAL ID Act
Paul voted against the REAL ID Act of 2005, an Act to create federal identification-card standards, which has been challenged as violating the Constitutional separation of powers doctrine, and other civil liberties. Enforcement of the Act has been postponed until 2011.
Domestic surveillance
Paul has spoken against the domestic surveillance program conducted by the National Security Agency on American citizens. He believes the role of government is to protect American citizens' privacy, not violate it. He has signed the American Freedom Agenda pledge not to violate Americans' rights through domestic wiretapping and to renounce autonomous presidential signing statements, which rely on unitary executive theory.In December 2007, he stated his opposition to the US House Resolution 1955, arguing that it "focuses the weight of the US government inward toward its own citizens under the guise of protecting us against violent radicalization."
Conscription
Paul is strongly opposed to reintroducing the draft. In 2002, he authored and introduced a resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives expressing that reinstatement of a draft would be unnecessary and detrimental to individual liberties, a resolution that was endorsed by the American Civil Liberties Union. In the 110th Congress, he has proposed a bill which would end Selective Service registration.
Eminent domain
Paul opposes eminent domain. He wishes to "stop special interests from violating property rights and literally driving families from their homes, farms and ranches". He opposes "regulatory takings ... Governments deprive property owners of significant value and use of their properties—all without paying 'just compensation'".
Affirmative action
In 1997, Paul voted to end affirmative action in college admissions. Paul criticizes both racism and obsession with racial identity:
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.
Prostitution
In a South Carolina Republican Presidential Candidate debate in May 2011, Paul affirmed his belief that the Constitution grants American citizens the right to do "controversial things" as long as they do not hurt or defame other people and that the federal government should not infringe on those rights. He believes states should be able to legalize actions such as gay marriage, prostitution, and marijuana use
Same-sex marriage
Paul opposes all federal efforts to define 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".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. This act allows a state to decline to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries, although a state will usually recognize legal marriages performed outside of its own jurisdiction. The Defense of Marriage Act also prohibits the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even if a state recognizes the marriage. Paul co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.
Paul has said that recognizing same-sex marriage at the federal level would be "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty". Paul stated, "Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages."He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.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.
MORE
In 2004, he spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996. This act allows a state to decline to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries, although a state will usually recognize legal marriages performed outside of its own jurisdiction. The Defense of Marriage Act also prohibits the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even if a state recognizes the marriage. Paul co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.
Paul has said that recognizing same-sex marriage at the federal level would be "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty". Paul stated, "Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages."He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.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.
MORE
