iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Ron Paul's Remarkable No Votes: Holocaust Memorial Funding, Ethics Offices, Civil Rights Bills

Ron Paul No Votes

First Posted: 12/28/11 05:38 PM ET Updated: 12/28/11 05:58 PM ET

When Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) announced his most recent run for the White House back in May 2011, MSNBC Host Chris Matthews pressed him on the extent of his libertarian convictions. Would he have opposed the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act had he been in office when it was considered, Matthews wanted to know.

It was a hypothetical question and Paul gave a fairly broad answer, saying he appreciated the intent of the law but disagreed with the specific language on property rights.

Left unmentioned was that Paul had -- in more than a hypothetical sense -- already cast a vote on the famous bill. On June 24, 2004, the House of Representatives took up a resolution "recognizing and honoring the 40th anniversary of congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." Four hundred and fourteen members voted yes, and 18 didn't show up to vote. Only one member said nay: Ron Paul.

Throughout his congressional tenure, Paul has built a reputation as a legislator who marches to his own distinctive drumbeat. He is a Republican by label, not in the fraternal meaning. Oftentimes, his voting habits leave him utterly isolated from the rest of his colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike.

"Ron Paul was his own island," said one Republican leadership aide. "Leadership tried not to visit and rarely had to. Sometimes we sailed through."

Using C-SPAN's database, The Huffington Post examined all the nay votes Paul cast during his current stint in Congress, from 1997 to the present. (Paul served several terms in the 1970s and 80s, but the C-SPAN archive doesn't stretch back that far.) From there, we pulled out every instance in which the congressman was either alone in voting against a measure or one of just ten or fewer House members to do so. There were more than 675 such instances.

A close examination of those votes -- some of which were on repeat bills, others of which were simple procedural votes -- helps illustrate just what principles drive the man who could very well win the all-important 2012 Iowa caucuses. But it also underscores how the congressman's black-and-white worldview of federal politics has led him to vote against legislation on constitutional grounds even if he may personally back it, from funding for a Holocaust memorial to resources for anti-terrorism training to child abuse prevention legislation.

After casting that no vote in commemoration of the Civil Rights Act, Paul was cheered inside Libertarian circles. His former chief of staff, Lew Rockwell (who is believed to be the author of many of Paul's controversial newsletters) wrote an item on his website declaring that "only the heroic Ron Paul dissented" on the legislation. In mainstream GOP circles, however, Paul was an outcast. George W. Bush held a White House ceremony featuring many Republicans praising the bill's anniversary.

Three years later, a similar situation would unfold. On June 20, 2007, Paul was one of two members of the entire House of Representatives to vote against the "Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act," a bill that authorized $100 million over ten years to investigate unresolved civil rights-era murders. Paul's campaign did not return a request for comment for this article. But it stands to reason that he agreed with the complaint lodged by the other dissenting member, Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.), who said he thought "federal and state law enforcement units" could handle those cases "where there are good leads on suspects."

Civil rights issues weren't the only areas where Paul was a man alone in Congress. On foreign policy matters, and those pertaining to Israel in particular, he has routinely isolated himself from all other lawmakers.

On July 30, 1997, Paul was the lone dissenter on a House-passed resolution titled "Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the terrorist bombing in the Jerusalem market." Three-and-a-half years later, he was the lone dissenter on a House-passed resolution congratulating Ariel Sharon for his election as Israeli prime minister. In July 20, 2006, he was one of eight no votes on another House-passed resolution sponsored by now-Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) condemning terrorist attacks against Israel.

The list goes on.

Paul's supporters have long argued that his posture towards Israel is driven not out of some latent anti-Semitism, but conviction that U.S. policy in the Middle East is imbalanced and over-engaged. And, indeed, a look at other votes on Paul's resume shows that he's been an equal opportunity offender.

In February 2005, he was the only member in the House to vote against a resolution "commending the Palestinian people" for conducting a "free and fair" presidential election. During the height of the Green Revolution, Paul was the lone House member to vote against a resolution "expressing support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law."

Even when the terrorist target was America, Paul played a stubborn role: On September 23, 1997, he was one of seven members voting against a motion to suspend the rules and pass the Oklahoma City National Memorial Act of 1997.

None of these votes had any real-world implications, save that they set Paul apart from his colleagues as an adherent to a strictly limited foreign policy. As a result, they rarely come up when discussion turns to his presidential aspirations. They represent, as one foreign policy operative who worked on U.S.-United Nations relations noted, "Ron Paul being Ron Paul." But not all of the congressman's no votes were on ceremonial matters.

  • On September 7, 2000, Paul was alone in his opposition to a bill exempting the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum from limits established during the previous year's budget. The bill ultimately became law.
  • On March 10, 1998, he was one of two House members to vote against a motion to suspend the rules and pass the Birth Defects Prevention Act, which promoted better data collection and sharing on the topic. The bill ultimately became law.
  • On November 4, 1997, he was one of two members to vote against a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill that would "require the Attorney General to establish a program in local prisons to identify, prior to arraignment, criminal aliens and aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States." The bill ultimately became law.
  • On October 27, 2000, he was one of two votes against the Assistance for International Malaria Control Act. The bill, which was sponsored by former Sen. Jesse Helms, eventually became law.
  • On February 1, 2000, Paul was one of two no votes on a motion to suspend the rules and pass the Child Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Act, which provided more state grant funding for criminal justice and child welfare agencies to collect and share data on child abuse. The bill ultimately became law.
  • On December 15, 2009, Paul was the only member to vote against a motion to suspend the rules and pass the "First Responder Anti-Terrorism Training Resources Act" which loosened restrictions on the type of financial help the Department of Homeland Security could get for the purpose of terrorism preparedness and prevention. The bill ultimately became law.
  • Paul was one of only three House members to vote against a conference report creating a commission to investigate the 9/11 attacks. One of the other two to vote against the measure (which became law) is former Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), the current Secretary of Transportation.
  • On October 17, 2001, Paul was the lone no vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001, which dramatically heightened rules and enforcement on funds that went to terrorist or terrorist-connected organizations. The bill wouldn't become law but portions of it were put into the PATRIOT Act.
  • On November 8, 1999, Paul was the lone nay vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass an amendment to fund the Office of Government Ethics.
  • On July 1, 2010, he was one of four members who voted against a motion to suspend the rules and pass an amendment that prohibited "any person from performing lobbying activities on behalf of a client which is determined by the Secretary of State to be a State sponsor of terrorism."

There are, of course, many more. Paul was one of two House members to vote against a September 2008 motion to adopt a bill extending a "grant program for armor vests for law enforcement officers." That same month, he was one of two members to vote against suspending a rule and adopting a bill that would require group health plans to ensure that inpatient coverage and radiation therapy were provided for breast cancer treatment.

Paul was the only member to vote against a House measure expressing condolences to the families and victims of the February 2010 Chilean earthquake. He was also the only member to vote against a House measure expressing condolences to the victims of the Haiti earthquake. And when the House considered a resolution that would make any organ donor eligible for a Stephanie Tubbs Jones Gift of Life medal, in honor of the late congresswoman, he was, once again, the lone vote in opposition.

All of these votes have explanations that Paul and his supporters have made in various forms throughout his rise on the national political scene. Usually, they boil down to a simple argument: the legislation is either antithetical to small government convictions or contradicts the text of the Constitution. Why, for instance, expand the Department of Homeland Security's capacity to accept gifts when the department should never have been created in the first place? Why give more money for malaria control in other countries when the United States has its own medical issues with which to contend.

But for Paul's critics -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- governance doesn't take place in such a confined vacuum. Moreover, they say, his voting record provides real-life proof of the turmoil that would result from his style of leadership if he were to become president.

"I never once saw him in the Speaker's Office, come out of the Leader's office or attend a Whip dinner," said a former GOP leadership aide, who worked with Paul in previous Congresses. "The guy marches to the beat of his own drum which was fine because there were enough conservative Democrats that we never needed his vote."

The aide emailed The Huffington Post minutes later: "Of course that quote will probably help him!"

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
When Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) announced his most recent run for the White House back in May 2011, MSNBC Host Chris Matthews pressed him on the extent of his libertarian convictions. Would he have oppos...
When Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) announced his most recent run for the White House back in May 2011, MSNBC Host Chris Matthews pressed him on the extent of his libertarian convictions. Would he have oppos...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 4,174
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (60 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nick Riley
04:32 PM on 04/02/2013
Articles like this remind me why I like Ron Paul so much.

Rand Paul 2016.
03:43 PM on 01/23/2012
"If everyone is thinking alike, then no one is thinking..." Benjamin Franklin

Bravo Dr. Paul for often being the only thinking member in Congress
12:10 PM on 01/14/2012
'...on a motion to suspend the rules and pass...' some law or another without any debate as to whether or not the bill would do more harm than good on some topic or another. Time after time.

The man doesn't like to suspend such debate. And HuffPo considers this a bad thing?

I guess we'll see just how bad a thing when we see if HuffPo's moderators suspend this post...
11:24 AM on 01/14/2012
I wish there were only more "no" votes.

Look where our country is now, on the verge of collapse.

We need more bills called the "Patriot Act". Too bad they didnt rename the NDAA as the "Authority to Round Up Americans by the Military Act". Congress would have still probably voted for it.

Conveniently left off the list, Ron Paul also voted AGAINST the "Mother Teresa Award". Guess he hates White Missionaries.

Not exactly, but he did call Congress out on their BS:

"I oppose the Gold Medal for Mother Teresa Act because appropriating $30,000 of taxpayer money is neither constitutional nor, in the spirit of Mother Teresa who dedicated here entire life to voluntary, charitable work, particularly humanitarian.

I invited each of these colleagues to match my private, personal contribution of $100 which, if accepted by the 435 Members of the House of Representatives, would more than satisfy the $30,000 cost necessary to mint and award a gold medal to the well-deserving Mother Teresa. To me, it seemed a particularly good opportunity to demonstrate one’s genuine convictions by spending one’s own money rather than that of the taxpayers who remain free to contribute, at their own discretion, to the work of Mother Teresa and have consistently done so.

Not a single Representative was willing to contribute their own money to demonstrate the courage of their so-called convictions and generosity.

It is, of course, very easy to be generous with other people’s money."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sassan K Darian
Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis
07:36 AM on 01/03/2012
The fact is that Ron Paul was one of two congresspersons to vote against funding for malaria immunization and prevention in Africa which saves millions of lives a year is also "wise". Away from the vital humanitarian concerns (as we are a hope and beacon for liberty, freedom, and human rights) imagine the void that this would create in which Islamicists would quickly fill without avoiding an eyeblink. And then, Islamicists would control and run a new terror haven called AFRICA.
MTTM
Your microbio is MT
11:43 PM on 01/10/2012
Paranoid much...?

Where did I put my tin foil hat?
photo
CeltGunn1970
Hope is a waking dream
11:28 PM on 12/30/2011
Here is a link to Ron Paul archives for people on a variety of issues;
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html
07:51 PM on 12/30/2011
Ron Paul was the "lone offender," the article says. No, he was the lone virtuous man among usurpers: the lone keeper of the oath ALL elected (and a great many appointed) public officials make to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Keeping that oath IS civic virtue.

Leadership is VISION plus guidance of dissatisfaction. It is NOT compromise. He made his arguments well, but we know that reason and virtue rarely guide congressbeasts, who vote for personal gain.

During the founding, the lone argument against a Bill of Rights was that FedGov was only allowed, only empowered (i.e., by the states and the people) to do certain things. That means that if Congress isn't specifically empowered, it is not authorized. It's that simple. The Constitution confuses only those who want to wrangle it.

The Constitution is the law of the land, above all others. It is the document that authorized and empowered the federal government. For the FedGov to venture beyond this written charter is for a usurping servant to deign to command the master. Unacceptable.

If you vote for someone other than Ron Paul, you are voting to continue the usurpation. You vote to empower those who take your freedom and wealth.

Rather than do that, I suggest you vote for Ron Paul, who understands not only the Constitution and his oath to it, but also the very deep, meaningful principles behind it.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
jsgaetano
Legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus
04:19 PM on 12/30/2011
I wonder if Ron Paul is going to make excuses about how that wasn't him voting, it was the guy who make the Ron Paul Newsletter.
10:53 AM on 12/30/2011
Stood Alone: Standing up to the federal reserve and in defense of Americans purchasing power and freedom.
Stood Alone: Only republican candidate in 2008 to stand against unlawful war...s.
Stood Alone: Only one telling the truth to the American people, whether it's popular or not.
Stood Alone: In bringing awareness to the American People about the potential disasters of foreign aid and blowback. (See Al Queda)...
Stood Alone: In providing FREE HEALTH CARE to his patients while politicians made promises for other doctors to do the same.
Stood Alone: On the house floor in 2003 predicting the housing crisis and the ensuing bailouts of 2008.
Stood Alone: In presenting an actual deficit reduction budget in which he, as a representative to the people pledges to accept the median income of the average American.
Stood Alone: In not participating in the lucrative congressional benefits program.
Stood Alone: In defending the Constitution while others made promises that could not be kept...
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
jsgaetano
Legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus
04:19 PM on 12/30/2011
So if Ron Paul thinks free health care is good enough for his patients, why isn't it good enough for the rest of America?
06:01 PM on 12/31/2011
Because to advocate for the former is voluntary charity while the latter is theft at the tip of a gun
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
jsgaetano
Legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus
04:22 PM on 12/30/2011
Ron Paul couldn't even run a newsletter. How can he run a nation?
02:18 AM on 02/21/2013
No one "runs a nation", any more than any person "runs the world".
09:47 AM on 12/30/2011
"Although Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul may be ignored throughout the mainstream media, one report shows that the presidential candidate may have strong support from the country's military personnel.

During the 2008 presidential election, Congressman Ron Paul garnered the most financial support from active military duty officers than any other Republican candidate. Some reports, though conflicting, even showed Paul gained more than then-Senator Barack Obama."

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/310783
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
jsgaetano
Legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DontShoot Me
09:04 PM on 12/29/2011
Food for my kids is more important than a shrine. Its not his money to spend and he understands that. Too bad the others arent intelligent enough to come to the same conclusion.
11:03 PM on 12/29/2011
that right it's not his money
RON PAUL 2012
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
jsgaetano
Legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus
04:20 PM on 12/30/2011
Ron Paul: because conservatives are tired of voting for the LESSER evil!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
shotgunjohnny
"From my cold, dead hands", to which I say, "Ok."
07:18 PM on 12/29/2011
"On September 23, 1997, he was one of seven members voting against a motion to suspend the rules and pass the Oklahoma City National Memorial Act of 1997."

Of course he voted 'no'. Why on earth would he support a memorial that would delegitimize all his conspiracy nut, militia buddies? Can you imagine how many of those subscriptions to the Ron Paul Freedom Report would not be renewed.

As for the rest, the voting against the Holocaust Memorial, the voting against the civil rights investigation funding... can anyone REALLY be surprised that that racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic trash went out under his name?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DontShoot Me
09:05 PM on 12/29/2011
Dont you have to dust off your Star Trek action figure collection this evening?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
jsgaetano
Legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus
04:21 PM on 12/30/2011
So desperate personal attacks are all you can manage? You realized a rational defense of Ron Paul is impossible, huh?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MarketAnarchist101
Make my enemies ridiculous.
07:56 AM on 12/31/2011
*Motion to SUSPEND THE RULES*.. Key term there friend.
photo
CommodoreP
Darn the torpedos, full speed ahead!
06:13 PM on 12/29/2011
Boy there is just a ton of waste of time, fluff legislation! But I digress. Paul is not a good representative. He is so anti-government that his views lean more towards anarchy. (Not all the way, give me a break) It is just that he will cut so much he will kill the patient. In his mind he's freeing us from the burden of this regulation and government. But he's "freeing" all. He's freeing us from ensureing that our food is safe, our water clean and our air breathable. He sees no distinctions, no compromise. Regardless of the taste that the word "politician" leaves in your mouth, they HAVE to be able to work with others and HAVE to be able to compromise when appropriate. Paul cannot.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Avatar73
11:46 PM on 12/29/2011
Go to the website "Death and Taxes", they do a break-down every year of the budget, since you think the government is spending it all on keeping you nice and cozy, might just learn you up a bit.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
jsgaetano
Legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus
04:24 PM on 12/30/2011
It won't help. If conservatives wanted to have an informed opinion, they wouldn't be conservatives.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mack Hopkins
04:40 PM on 12/29/2011
I can't believe people want to elect another old Texan white guy...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DontShoot Me
09:06 PM on 12/29/2011
No problem unless he unexpectedly stops playing golf everyday and instead goes to a school to read my pet goat to a bunch of photogeneic school kids.
02:51 PM on 12/29/2011
During Dr. Paul’s years in office, only 4% of the more than 69,000 bills filed by House members have become law!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And I can almost guarentee you that Dr. Paul voted nay on many because these "laws" were Unconsitutional....

Why do Dr. Paul's bills get shot down? Because it would take the plutocrats and crony capitalists out of congress.

RON PAUL 2012
photo
Brian Gilmer
Good citizens make good citizens.
05:47 PM on 12/29/2011
Dr Paul's bills don't get passed because he just does not have the skill to draft or promote legislation. He has not even conducted a significant hearing on ANY of his pet policy issues. Ron Paul has failed to move the needle on any issue of significance to libertarians.
08:16 PM on 12/29/2011
And how did we find out that the American people were robbed of $16 trillion dollars by a conglomerate of private bankers called the Federal Reserve....who coincidentally is our largest creditor....larger than CHINA! All so we could bailout irresponsible bankers who gambled our pensions and 401ks on fraudulently pushed mortgage backed securities? We got robbed and then shaken down. And we are in multiple wars. Most of which are illegal and more innocent people are dying than we can quanitfy. The fallout from depleted uranium alone lasts decades.


Have some respect for humanity.
photo
S Andersen
Human flourishing is the first priority
07:29 PM on 12/29/2011
"During Dr. Paul’s years in office, only 4% of the more than 69,000 bills filed by House members have become law!"

And how many bills became law before Dr. Paul went to congress? What is the norm on drafted bills becoming law? Let me guess: about 4%. Most bills never even make it to the floor.

In other words, Paul is irrelevant to that statistic.

Paul supporters are all alike. They speak about the Constitution as if it were a document etched in granite with everything spelled out in precise terms. Black-and-white.

The Constitution is anything BUT that. It is deliberately designed to require interpretation, a brilliantly designed, living document constructed in such a way that it not only permits but promotes interpretation by each generation fortunate enough to live under its guidelines.
08:40 PM on 12/29/2011
The statistic was posted because of someone trying to correlate Paul'
s success rate with passing bills as if its a marker of some innate proeficiency at being a freaking brilliant politician?! All Paul does is adhere to his oath of office.

And what is all this esoteric nonsense about the interpretation of the Constitition?! There is no philosophy...it is in BLACK & WHITE. Need examples of why Dr. Paul is the exception?

The PATRIOT Act, as bad is its violation of the 4th Amendment, was just one step down the slippery slope. The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) continues that slip toward tyranny and in fact accelerates it significantly. The main section of concern, Section 1021 of the NDAA Conf Report, does to the 5th Amendment what the PATRIOT Act does to the 4th. The 5th Amendment is about much more than the right to remain silent in the face of government questioning. It contains very basic and very critical stipulations about due process of law. The government cannot imprison a person for no reason and with no evidence presented or access to legal counsel. Lets not even get into military patrolling our streets!
08:41 PM on 12/29/2011
No foreign entanglements. Surely George Washington had it right? No income tax (which Ronald Reagan's Grace Commission Report proved 100% went to Military Industrial Complex!...not for defense but for militarism). ILLEGAL. Black and white.
Foreign Aid?! Where the hell does it say in the Consitition that we can give $30 billion to Israel in the next 10 years?! Where does it say we can go to WAR WITHOUT A DECLARATION. Where does it say we can BAIL OUT banking cartels who pissed our pensions away on "AAA" rated fraudulent CDO's which are all sub-prime garbage meant to fail. Lets not even get into credit default swaps.

Where in Constitution does it day fiat currency is legal tender? Black and white. But who gave our power of coin away? PLUTOCRATS and Crony-Capitalists. Gave it to the privately owned Federal Reserve. Who by the way, is our LARGEST creditor. MORE THAN CHINA! http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/2011/06/09/fed-passes-china-to-become-largest-u-s-creditor/

Stop with ur pandering and just support the man. In the presidency Dr. Paul has more power than a lame duck in Texas who the bankers hate.