In 1998, Ron Paul Stood Up Against the Abuse of Non-Custodial Parents -- Now It's Time for Non-Custodial Parents to Stand Up for Him.
It is time for non-custodial parents to start voting for their interests.
We know this is a very bleak proposition as the two major political parties (one party actually, although we are accustomed to saying two to preserve some veneer of democracy) offer very little in the way of relief to the abused non-custodial parent.
It is therefore very easy to get caught up focusing on the negative aspects of a Presidential race as we did in 2008 when we tried to warn non-custodial parents about Barack Obama and his deep-rooted hatred of divorced dads and non-custodial dads.
At that time, we overlooked a man we should have been supporting because his record shows that he was then, as he is now, the only major candidate who has stood up for non-custodial parents when it mattered.
That man is Congressman Ron Paul of Texas.
Ron Paul Vs. The Deadbeat Parent Act
In 1998, when Fascists in our government, then headed by the child murderer and criminal Bill Clinton, decided to rush through the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act without following proper legislative procedures, Congressman Ron Paul rose up in Congress to thwart this obvious violation of our Constitution.
Below is the text of Ron Paul's clear-headed, far-reaching address to Congress on May 12, 1998:
MR. PAUL: "Mr. Speaker, today the Congress will collectively move our nation ... closer to a national police state by further expanding a federal crime...
Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of federalizing every human misdeed in the name of saving the world from some evil than to uphold a Constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure by which the nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil, totalitarianism. Who, after all, and especially in an election year, wants to be amongst those members of Congress who are portrayed as soft on ... deadbeat parents irrespective of the procedural transgressions and individual or civil liberties one tramples in their zealous approach.
Our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, Section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation.
For every other issue, the federal government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the state governments their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating `The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’
Our nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently. Of course, there will be those who will hang their constitutional `hats’ on the interstate commerce general welfare clauses, both of which have been popular `headgear’ since the FDR’s headfirst plunge into New Deal Socialism.
The interstate commerce clause, however, was included to prevent states from engaging in protectionism and mercantilist policies as against other states.
Those economists who influenced the framers did an adequate job of educating them as to the necessarily negative consequences for consumers of embracing such a policy. The clause was never intended to give the federal government carte blanche to intervene in private economic affairs anytime some special interest could concoct a `rational basis’ for the enacting such legislation.
Likewise, while the general welfare provides an additional condition upon each of the enumerated powers of the U.S. Congress detailed in Article I, Section eight, it does not, in itself, provide any latitude for Congress to legislatively take from A and give to B or ignore every other government-limiting provision of Constitution (of which there are many), each of which are intended to limit the central government’s encroachment on liberty.
Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress today will likely pass ... H.R. 3811 under suspension of the rules meaning, of course, they are `non-controversial.’
Today’s ... legislative step towards a national police state can be found in H.R. 3811, the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998. This bill enhances a federal criminal felony law for those who fail to meet child support obligations as imposed by the individual states. Additionally, the bills shifts some of the burden of proof from the federal government to the accused.
The United States Constitution prohibits the federal government from depriving a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Pursuant to this constitutional provision, a criminal defendant is presumed to be innocent of the crime charged and, pursuant to what is often called `the Winship doctrine,’ the prosecution is allocated the burden of persuading the fact-finder of every fact necessary to constitute the crime . . . charged.’
The prosecution must carry this burden because of the immense interests at stake in a criminal prosecution, namely that a conviction often results in the loss of liberty or life (in this case, a sentence of up to two years). This departure from the long held notion of `innocent until proven guilty’ alone warrants opposition to this bill. Perhaps, more dangerous is the loss of another Constitutional protection which comes with the passage of more and more federal criminal legislation.
Constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting (and, as mentioned above, for a short period of history, the manufacture, sale, or transport of alcohol was concurrently a federal and state crime).
`Concurrent’ jurisdiction crimes, such as alcohol prohibition in the past and federalization of felonious child support delinquency today, erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no `person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .’ In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the federal government and a state government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy.
One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.
The argument which springs from the criticism of a federalized criminal code and a federal police force is that states may be less effective than a centralized federal government in dealing with those who leave one state jurisdiction for another.
Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of state sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow states to exact judgments from those who violate their state laws. The Constitution even allows the federal government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow states to enforce their substantive laws without the federal government imposing its substantive edicts on the states. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one state to another.
While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon states in working with one another than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to centralization of police power.
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions–it is called competition and, yes, governments must, for the sake of the citizenry, be allowed to compete ...
When small governments becomes too oppressive, citizens can vote with their feet to a `competing’ jurisdiction. If, for example, I do not want to be forced to pay taxes to prevent a cancer patient from using medicinal marijuana to provide relief from pain and nausea, I can move to Arizona. If I want to bet on a football game without the threat of government intervention, I can move to Nevada. If I want my income tax at 4% instead of 10%, I can leave Washington, DC, for the surrounding state suburbs. Is it any wonder that many productive people leave DC and then commute in on a daily basis? (For this, of course, DC will try to enact a commuter tax which will further alienate those who will then, to the extent possible, relocate their workplace elsewhere).
In other words, governments pay a price (lost revenue base) for their oppression. As government becomes more and more centralized, it becomes much more difficult to vote with one’s feet to escape the relatively more oppressive governments. Governmental units must remain small with ample opportunity for citizen mobility both to efficient governments and away from those which tend to be oppressive. Centralization of criminal law makes such mobility less and less practical. For each of these reasons, among others, I must oppose the further and unconstitutional centralization of power in the national government and, accordingly ... H.R. 3811."
From the Ron Paul Archive at http://www.ronpaularchive.com/1998/05/during-debate-on-the-deadbeat-parents-punishment-act-of-1998.
Mr. Paul's opposition to the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act not only demonstrates a mind in tune with the nature of our Constitution and the founding principles of our country, it also reveals a holistic understanding of government injustice against non-custodial parents.
Ron Paul understands that when state governments are hard pressed to properly deal with something as personal as family dissolution that the behemoth federal government in no better suited to stick in its head. And he knows that when Washington does interfere in local or personal matters, it always makes matters worse.
Fight for Your Rights, and Your Country Too
When Ron Paul stated in 1998 that "governments pay a price for their oppression" he wasn't joking. Thirteen years after that speech, the United States has descended into a police state Banana Republic, with an ever-eroding middle-class, involvement in numerous foreign wars, and verging on financial collapse.
That's because our legislators are owned by very powerful money interests who are not interested in the common good. Our legislators must serve corporations and wealthy individuals, and must therefore takes actions which make them appear to be doing something good for their people when in actuality they are not.
When lawmakers want to pretend they're interested in American families, they come down hard on non-custodial parents; when they want to prove they stand for the safety of American citizens, they bomb goat farmers in the Middle East; when they want to prove they are for education, they lower school standards to make everyone feel smart.
Our government of smoke and mirrors is slowly running out of tricks to keep the American people confused about the real nature of its policies. With social problems piling up, the only response our government can give is more repression.
As non-custodial parents who have been on the receiving end of government oppression for far too long in this country, it is our duty to stand up for the principles of freedom which made America great.
Congressman Ron Paul has proven himself time and time again as a legislator who embodies those principles. And this is why a vote for him is a vote for our interests, and our nation.
How You Can Help Ron Paul
Right not, Ron Paul has a loyal and committed group of followers who are actively working to help him win the Ames Iowa Straw Poll, the bellwether of the Republican party Presidential nomination. If he can make a strong showing there, he will be on a good standing to campaign further.
But the way ahead will be tough, as big money interests are already lining up to make sure a Ron Paul Presidency will never get off the ground. Already, the mainstream media is conditioning the American people to accept former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (a corporate stooge if there ever was one) as the undisputed frontrunner and is happy to leave things that way. Wealthy donors, following news of a Ron Paul surge in the polls, contributed over $18 million to Romney's campaign (a paltry amount compared to Obama's $86 million -- so now we know who the biggest corporate stooge really is!). And we can only expect a wave of negative news stories to hit air if Congressman Paul shows any sign of overtaking Romney.
To help combat this, NCPs can use the organizational tactics, membership, and support of family law reform groups to lend aid to the Ron Paul for President campaign. Just as activists have been getting the word out on family law abuses, we can also help get out the word that Ron Paul is the best candidate for the interests of non-custodial parents and their families who can become a potentially large and powerful voting bloc.
We urge NCPs to visit Congressman Paul's websites at the addresses below to find ways in which they can.