Ron Paul Introduces Bill to Restore the Constitution

This week Ron Paul introduced the ‘American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007’ to roll back the power of the federal government by restoring support for the US Constitution.

The bill would, among other things, repeal the Military Commissions Act of 2006, prohibits “extraordinary rendition,” and the use of secret evidence.

Ron Paul spoke on the floor of the House when he introduced the bill.

The driving force behind the legislation are two groups: the conservative American Freedom Agenda and the liberal American Freedom Campaign. Naomi Wolf wrote about the bill.

We urge everyone to contact their representatives to support this bill.

37 thoughts on “Ron Paul Introduces Bill to Restore the Constitution”

    1. It’s sad that this sort of legislation is necessary in the “land of the free,” but anyone who knows any better know that phrase is simply an illusion. We need to do all we can to support Ron Paul in his Presidential Campaign. America needs change for better not worse. Restore the Constitution.

      Those in postitions to manipulate the masses are attempting to do all they can because this “Ron Paul rEvOlUtIoN” is part of a great awakening so they are trying all they can to stay away from the fact that he is a legitimate candidate for the Presidency. They like to emphasize teh fact that the majority of his support comes from us folks “on the internet,” just the way they say it makes it sound as if we’re all kooky.

  1. Since I’ve first ever seen TV News, activists who’ve been deemed newsworthy by achieving some victory or righting some wrong for their community or nation are cast as having 2 qualities; being a loner to play up the “David and Goliath” motive and being a kook or at best “eccentric” to spin up the entertainment factor of the piece.

    I’m sorry so many see Ron Paul as a loner kook but that’s the automatic reaction to the triggers we’re taught everyday watching newscasters pull funny faces when they report on individuals trying to correct a broken system. Every report on Ron seems to start with a chuckle and twitch of the head to signal “This isn’t real news, folks..”

    1. You’re right, very well put!
      The people that pay those “newscasters” pay a lot of money for the people running against Ron Paul, democrat and republican alike.
      I can’t believe that he isn’t bought and paid for too.

  2. Had no idea that this legislation was in prospect but delighted to learn that it is. Where have been the Democrats when its come to showcasing this bill? Is Paul condemned to doing the fronting for it all by himself?

    The MCA is the most disgraceful piece of legislation passed by the Congress since the Kansas-Nebraska Act two centuries ago. It literally defines the dictatorship that today stands over against the American people. I will never forget the hypocracy of John McCain just prior to his selling out to supporters of this legislation in 2006. It was the single most craven act I’ve witnessed in politics in many years. In supporting MCA, John McCain made a mockery of every moment he spent in the hands of Viet Minh torturers during his active service. He ought to be booted out of every veteran’s organization to which he belongs.

    John Lowell

    1. The dems version of this bill is the American Freedom Campaign. They are very similar… I think conservatives & liberals alike should be behind these pieces of legislation. As for McCain, it certainly appears that he will do ANYTHING to win votes. He is now talking with his pastor about a “full-immersion baptism” in order to win the “christian” vote. What a circus!

      1. These guys are absolutely shameless! Anyone who values his or her baptism will feel thoroughly slimed by what McCain has in prospect. And its not just him, its virtually the whole array of presidential candidates and their phoney religiosity, whether its the leftish, cafeteria Christianity of an Obama or a Clinton, the ReichsChurch variety of McCain or a Huckaby, or some combination thereof a la Giuliani.

        Most of what passes for faith in publc life these days is its corruption into a rather tawdry ideology anyway. Even to be close to American politics seems to leave’s an unmistakeable – and soiling – imprint upon the beliefs of those so exposed. The example of Fr. Richard Neuhaus, unable to find voice to oppose the hideous stem-cell compromise of the Bush Administration in 2001, or James Dobson, who has succeeded almost single handedly in converting Evangelical Christianity into an interest group, are instructive. A properly held conception of the relation of nature and grace can bring cleansing from contamination of this kind but few are those that would seek it out so it seems.

        John Lowell

  3. This is a bill that everyone, no matter what party, can approve & vote for — except those who hate the Constitution altogether.

  4. In its own words the Constitution implies that
    “we the people” entered into an agreement designed
    to bring into being the federal government, and to
    define its powers and its limitations. The problem
    is that it provides the people themselves with no
    practical way to enforce those limitations.
    The government is in the hands of the people elected
    to office and most people elected to office are in the
    hands of the moneyed interests that have ruled this
    country for years. Unless we can put more people like
    Ron Paul into office, then as Lysander Spooner pointed
    out some years ago, there is no way for us to enforce
    the Constitution. Ron Paul, given assistance of a
    like-minded Congress, could enforce it for us.

    Ron Paul could help us get America back.

    Jack Dennon

    1. Jack,

      You wrote “…as Lysander Spooner pointed out some years ago, there is no way for us to enforce the Constitution.”
      This is the real problem. The Constitution got us into the present fix, so to restore it “as is” falls under Einstein’s definition of insanity.

      What is needed is a Constitutional Convention where changes can be made to restore the original intent. These should include differentiating between people and legal personae in favor of the former (“we the people”), inhibiting gerrymandering, spelling out real checks and balances and highlighting that it is the Constitution that protects the American people and our elected officials who are supposed to protect the Constitution (as they swear to do), not the other way around.

      1. Tony, it’s nice to shoot high but I’d be happy to get back to even, get back what we’ve lost of our rights.
        Most americans think that our federal reserve is federal, instead of the private money making machine for the bankers that it is.
        Most people do not know what we’ve lost and for how long it’s been gone.
        They think Hillary or Rudy will save them!

    2. I agree, Jack. Given the assistance of a like minded Congress, we could see a tremendous change in America. The problem, however, is getting that like minded Congress elected. Ron Paul, if he were to be elected President, would face open hostility and derision from the spineless bastards that make up our current congress, and nothing would change. And how long would we have to wait before the Quislings in the Congress, bought and paid for by the defense industry and AIPAC, etc., used to Big Lie to defame a President Paul and impeached and convicted him of some conjured crime?
      I am normally optimistic. In this dark time, optimism is at hard to come by. I feel helpless as our nation and our government dance with a fascist future.

  5. Ron Paul seems to be the only politician in the insane asylem in D.C. who gives a damn about the constitution. I intend to switch policical parties so I can vote for Rep. Paul in the primary.

  6. This petition will tell us which people demand our freedoms back and those that want to destroy our Constitution. This is a perfect way to start a petition drive on the internet to find out which Representatives will support this petition. This should start a revolution in the Ron Paul for President. Let’s see who tries to block this petiton. This could be interesting. Our Constitution VS Neocons and Blue Dog Democrats. Let ask this question to all the one’s running for President. Let us all keep a record of the votes for and against our Constitution.

  7. The Realizer better have already registered as a Republican because the Republicans in his state have probably passed a deadline to do so that already came and went-precisely to keep indep-minded people who care about truth fm voting in the repub primaries…leaving who? jingoistic red-state Armagedonite nut-bags who think Saddam ordered those Saudis to fly those planes into the WTC…

  8. But………………he said he was also gonna promise each of us a pony in this bill too.


  9. It’s not since 9/11 as his measure talks about, but go back farther in Nixon’s era in office. Look at when FISA court was started. Look at the ops of the FBI that are a scar. It is not just recent years, this has been ongoing for DECADES.

    Our second ammendment rights have been stripped since the 30’s continuing through today.

    Freedom of speach is not what is once was. The ability to voice ones OPINION is now squashed “for national security”.

    Freedom of religion is an issue I will barely touch on. It is oil and water. Group A can’t offend Group B just because the beliefs are different. SO WHAT We live in a land where you can believe in a comic strip as far as I care, I don’t dictate who or what you follow, and neither should the government, but they are starting to. It is the persons right to believe (or not) in whatever they want.

    We can’t reduce the constitution back to it’s original writing. The ammendments that gave women their rights would then be removed is one point I cite. The rights of ALL citizens would not be honored. Remember your Abraham Lincoln history. That ammendment would be voided.

    The basic concept is good, but the penalties we’d face would be worse if we went back. Better to get rid of governmental agencies that are of little to no use… You think of the three letters and they most likely are the ones.

    1. It is called freedom, democracy and liberties with consequences.

      It is a social order imported from Motherlands and Fatherlands.

  10. I’m usually a republican, but I’ve REALLY hated this administration stripping our constitutional freedoms, and Hillary Clinton usually going along with it too. (patriot act and renewal)

    I think this is necessary and I’ve emailed both my senators republican and democrat and told them this would be a very important bill that I will place their vote on it in huge consideration the next time I cast my vote.

    I may not vote for Ron Paul in the primary but I will CERTAINLY support this bill and am thankful he is there to introduce it.

  11. I recently heard george bush, as he ushered in some tapped croney for office, say that he expected that this individual would faithfully “interpret” the constitution. Since when did it change from “uphold” to “interpret”?

    The paradigm shift has been subtle at times throughout history, but most recently, like the last eight years, it has been blatant.

    What is happening to our world?

    Who are these vampires?

  12. Sounds like a great bill, but it needs a title that will help it sail through Congress. How about “The Civil Rights Reform and Patriot Military Enhancement of the Homeland”? Who could vote against that?

  13. Ron Paul’s bill to restore the Constitution appears to be somewhat naive. The powers that be are not going to restore a Constitution that required decades of agitation and a war of aggression to destroy. I’m speaking here of Abraham Lincoln’s war of aggression that was instigated and used for the expressed purpose of destroying the constitutional concept of States Rights and replacing it with an all powerful central government based in Washington. States Rights was the first and most important “separation of powers” doctrine and without it, there are no other separation of powers that have any real meaning. For more on this shameful and illegal power grab and what it has led to in this country today, read the book “The Real Lincoln” by Thomas J. DiLorenzo (available from Amazon).

  14. If Ron Paul is elected president, I am sorry to say, he wouldn’t last much longer in the post than Wyclef Jean would. Our kings in washington will not allow thier power to be eroded.

  15. lets be honest, one of his people wrote the bill and he just tosses it on to the pile with hundreds of others. declairing a previous bill unconstitutional sounds like job for… the supreme court… (friendly neighborhood sheepdog) they are the ones who “interpret” the con.

    the office of the press has always sought to expand it power, in order to do its job, during times of war – what is new?

    and dont tell me that we are not at war – the vietnam war, korean and many other conflicts were never officially declared – but we were definately at war

    by the way it was not the bush admin who passed the MCA of 2006 it was the people we voeted for

  16. Ron Paul has been in our Congress for years and the Washington bunch never knew a gold nugget or diamond rock when they heard it.
    The Ron Paul record has proved over the years that he is an American first and his affilliation with any party will be a plus for America.
    The problem today is that Washington is too interested in getting dollars to recognize the gold or diamond in their midst.
    Us poor folks are not blinded by dollars preventing us from recognizing the integrity of Ron Paul. When this integrity is allowed to be seen it will over shadow what we see in the Presidential race.
    The News Media seems to obviously be dedicated to the Quarter Backs of Washington to the planned oblivion of Ron Paul.
    We will remember all these smerk tatics if we get to vote.

  17. Do you all know that in times of national emergencies, such as wars, other administrations have taken much more drastic action than President Bush?

    President Lincoln did things that would make Bush look mild by comparision. Lincoln locked up newspaper editors. And he suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Incidentally, he suspended it without the consent of Congress.

    FDR put thousands of Japanese American citizens in detention camps because he believed it was necessary for our national security. His actions were later upheld by the United States Supreme Court in the Korematsu decision.

    Yet, everyone around here acts like Bush has gone too far. Maybe he has not gone far enough? By comparision Lincoln and Rooslevelt went much further. His actions certainly have historical presedence. We have Islamic terrorists who want nothing better than to get their hands on chemical, nuclear or biological weapons and kill as many millions of Americans as they can. And yet we are not supposed to take action to defend ourselves? Give me a break.

    1. So you damn Bush with faint praise by comparing him to worse abusers such as Lincoln and Roosevelt? Ay caramba. Even this approach doesn’t work. At least one can facially argue that Lincoln had to deal with the crisis of the house divided and civil war; that Roosevelt crossed swords with a premier military power; but Bush…aggressed against a country that never even threatened us, thus doing exactly what the Nazis were condemned of doing at the Nuremberg trials.

      You certainly have a way with history, Timmerman.

      1. That is true, if you look at Iraq as existing in a vacum. We were indeed attacked by radical Islam. Any country, inlcuding Iraq, that supports terrorism in any way ought to be looked at as a clear and present danger to the United States. Bush may very well have made a poor choice by strking at Iraq. But the war in Iraq is not the whole story. You are “missing the forest for the trees.” Iraq is just part of a wider war. When we got attacked on 911 we were not in Iraq and if we pulled out every last solider tomorrow (and who knows maybe we should) it would not stop the Islamic terrorists and they would not be satisfied. Iraq is only a small part of the picture. The real issue is the danger posed by radical Islam and the nations that support terrorism based on it.

        1. Iraq did not support radical Islam. Just a couple of terrorist groups like Abu Nidal who where anti Israel, a strictly political question and some who were not religious at all like Carlos the Jackal.

        2. What the hayell are you saying? If terrorism anywhere is a threat to America, why didn’t we make war against Northern Ireland? Because,inter alia, it posed no threat to us. Maybe Israel had a beef with Iraq giving money to Palestinian terrorist families; we sure had no dog in that fight.

          I’ll say it again. It’s just plain evil to attack a country that is no threat to us and cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. And you sink your own case when you note that even had we not entered Iraq the terrorists would still have it in for us. Then why the devil did we go in, and why the devil are we still there?

        3. R. Nelson,

          Okay, maybe Iraq was a poor choice. But if we pull all our troops out of Iraq would you be willing to vote for a declaration of war against Saudi Arabia? After all 15 of the 19 hijacker came from there. I would be in favor of that. Its not good enough to just be against the war in Iraq. What alternative do you propose? And yes, we have to have a policy of containment against terrorist nations everywhere. And your point about Ireland is not well taken. The war against terror we are fighing is actually a war against ISLAMIC terror. That is what we are fighting and therein lies the danger to us.

        4. The only islamic terrorist group that attacked us are or own children, Al Qaeda. We had our chances to capture them and even in Afghanistan we came close to capture Bin but Bush decided that nation building was more important instead.Wy Should we fight everybodys fight by eradicating all the islamic terrorism in the word (its inconvievable that this can ever by achieved by anyone ever) further clearing the path for Bin and enabling Al Qaeda terrorism?

Comments are closed.