Rand Paul in Government Bullies, by Senator Rand Paul (R, KY)

On Corporations: Kelo decision was dangerous landmark in US law

In a horrific turn of events for private property owners across the US, the Supreme Court ruled in the favor of the City of New London in the case "Kelo v City of New London". This was a dangerous landmark decision in US law.

On Crime: Lacey Act applies foreign laws to US citizens

Legal scholars agree that the end result of this act is an extremely broad law that contains harsh criminal penalties for the vaguest of reasons. The original maximum penalty for violating the Lacey Act was a $200 fine. No imprisonment was envisioned for such violations. But mere $200 fines don't make legislators seem "tough on crime."

The Lacey Act's broad and unspecific delegation of congressional power to foreign governments runs completely afoul of Article I of the Constitution. It also runs afoul of common sense. Try explaining to any American that they could go to jail simply for buying or selling a product that is illegal under foreign law--not US law. Try explaining to them that it wouldn't really matter if they were aware they were breaking these laws or not.

On Crime: Stop over-criminalization in vague laws like Lacey Act

"Rep. Broun and I are concerned with a dangerous law called the Lacey Act. The FOCUS Act makes significant revisions to the Lacey Act, revisions that we believe are necessary to prevent Americans from having their businesses raided by armed federal agents, their property seized, and even being sent to federal prison."

I refer to the Lacey Act as "dangerous" because of the ways in which it has already wreaked havoc in the lives of many innocent Americans. The FOCUS Act would alter the Lacey Act by removing all references to "foreign law." It would also remove the Lacey Act's criminal penalties and substitute a reasonable civil penalty system.

On Crime: Many criminal statutes lack requirement of criminal intent

In addition, the vast majority of criminal statutes that have been passed by Congress in recent years lack adequate "mens rea" requirements--our traditional and basic legal notion of criminal intent. In other words, Congress passes laws that either completely lack or have an extremely weak "guilty mind" requirement, meaning that someone charged under the statute could be convicted of a federal offense when he or she just made an honest mistake, or perhaps did not possess the criminal intent traditionally necessary for a criminal conviction.

On Energy & Oil: Test older gas pipelines for explosion safety

Senators Boxer and Dianne Feinstein's bill exempted old pipelines from the new rules. This meant that the over 50-year-old San Bruno pipeline itself would be exempt from the new rules.

We discovered a 1985 report on two fatal explosions in Kentucky, which specifically stated the need to end the exemption of older pipelines from standard regulations. This reform never happened, and 26 years later, Boxer and Feinstein's legislation would have simply papered over the problem again.

We won this battle to include a requirement for testing of the older pipelines. Just weeks later, this test discovered another faulty part, in a different section, of the San Bruno pipeline that had previously exploded.

On Environment: Citizens run afoul of vague definition of "wetlands"

The definition of wetlands has become so absurd and transparent that the Army Corps of Engineers developed the "migratory bird theory." This theory states that if your land is a stopping point for any migratory bird that has traveled between real navigable waters, then your land is now de facto connected to the interstate navigable streams. I'm not kidding.

This theory is irrational & completely illogical. How did it ever become enforceable law? It happened because Congress has abdicated its duty in this area. Citizens often run afoul of these rules inadvertently due to the constant evolution of complex and unexplained regulations.

On Environment: EPA enforcement nullifies due process and judicial review

However, they filed their own lawsuit in federal court, arguing that the Administrative Procedure Act entitled them to a hearing before a judge. Yet the Sixth and Fourth Circuits rejected any possibility of judicial review. Is this not a complete violation of the separation-of-powers principle? These circuit courts essentially handed the EPA free rein over innocent Americans and their private property. Our government was literally telling the Sacketts that in the US, you are free--unless the EPA decides to get involved, at which point your right to due process and private property becomes null and void.

On Environment: EPA regulations cost $15 trillion in 2012

Too often our rights are violated by abusive and power-hungry EPA bureaucrats who use threats, coercion, and force to implement power grabs. I wish these instances of abuse were random and the exception, but they have unfortunately come to characterize what many Americans now rightly see as a rogue government agency. EPA regulations have hampered landowners' ability to manage their private property as they please and have seriously impaired job creation. As with the massive cost of the EPA, many Americans are unaware of the routine suffering caused by the overreach of such regulatory agencies.

On Environment: Land rules made by delusional government interventionists

During one of the dozens of hearings held regarding this property, an architectural review board member said, "In my former life as a seagull, I was flying up and down the California coastline and saw your house built shaped as a seashell." And because his house plan did not match the seashell-shaped house this board member envisioned in her previous life as a bird, she voted against approving any of his plans.

Some would argue this board member to be certifiably insane. This landowner's American dream and basic constitutional right to private property was stifled due to a person in a position of power who is delusional at best. This is literally crazy--and if this story does not illustrate the perils of power-hungry government interventionists, then I do not know what does.

On Environment: Navigable waters should mean permanently flowing

It remains a dangerous situation, though, because the definition of "navigable" is still nebulous and arbitrarily decided by the Corps. Congress has abdicated its responsibility to provide clear laws and guidelines for regulators and citizens to follow. I have introduced the Defense of the Environment and Property Act of 2012 in order to:

• Redefine "navigable waters" to explicitly clarify that waters must actually be navigable, or "permanent, standing, or continuously flowing bodies of water."
• Ephemeral or intermittent streams--the streams that sometimes form when rain falls--will be excluded from federal jurisdiction.

On Environment: Our federal government regulates everything and anything

Our federal government regulates everything and anything. How much water goes into you commode. How much water comes out of your showerhead. The temperature of the water in your washing machine. How many miles to the gallon your car must get.

On Foreign Policy: Freeze aid to Egypt until they release detained Americans

Due to a near criminal degree of corruption, abuse, and waste on the part of many recipients--not to mention the fact that we can't afford it--I had long been in favor of eliminating foreign aid altogether. But since the aid existed, I thought it gave Congress the perfect tool to help the detained Americans.

I attempted to freeze aid to Egypt. We had sent Mubarak's regime over $60 billion and now a member of that same regime was responsible for arresting and holding American citizens against their will--19 US nationals. I proposed an amendment to end ALL foreign aid to Egypt--economic aid, military aid, all aid--in 30 days unless the American citizens were released. We give over $1.5 billion to Egypt annually.

On Foreign Policy: Stop sending foreign aid to people who don't like us

Pakistani leaders have made similar comments, that if the US goes to war with Iran, Pakistan will side with Iran. Yet we continue to send Pakistan billions of US taxpayer dollars. Why?

We cannot continue to try to bully allies or pay off our enemies. So many of the countries we send aid to dislike us, regularly disrespect us, and openly tell the world they will side with our enemies.

America doesn't even have the money to send them. We're borrowing the money from China to aid people who don't like us. This is illogical. It's an insult.

And it should end.

On Free Trade: Participated with Raw Milk Freedom Riders civil disobedience

Milk.

In November 2011, my office was happy to participate with the Raw Milk Freedom Riders, who set out to acquire raw milk in protest of raids on small farmers.

The Raw Milk Freedom Riders intentionally purchased and transported raw milk across state lines in violation of federal law.

Civil disobedience. Hunger strikes. Persecuted activists. The food freedom movement has all the hallmarks of the great struggles of the past, and that's because it shares a common enemy with those movements--aggressive and arrogant government.

On Government Reform: Fund new programs by deleting existing ones

I have come to refer to them as the Beseechers. Their hands are always out. They are here to tell me why their cause/products/disease/group is by far the most--in fact possibly the ONLY--one deserving of large amounts of federal dollars, tax breaks, subsidies, or special rules and privileges.

My office demands that anyone wanting money--for any cause no matter how necessary or noble--must first explain where the money will come from. What existing program will they delete to pay for their desired program?

• If you've come for more federal money, well, guess what--we're broke.
• If you've come for a special-interest tax break, you'll get yours when everyone else does--no special favors.
• If you've come to have a rule written to stifle your competition--you'll more likely find my office hard at work repealing rules, not creating them.

On Health Care: Protect vitamin manufacturers from unreasonable regulations

Major corporations who manufacture vitamins and supplements are often able to advertise certain health benefits. But what about the small businesses? What about those who sell & promote natural foods and supplements, products that are widely known to have certain health benefits, but the FDA doesn't think these businesses should be allowed to advertise these benefits?

For millions of Americans suffering from a wide range of diseases or other health care problems, the FDA has regularly denied information regarding the therapeutic benefits of using dietary supplements.

On Homeland Security: Military sacrifice spreads flame of freedom around the world

Our Founding Fathers spent, and often gave, their lives to build a new country, where men could truly be free, a nation where the rights granted to us by our Creator could not be trampled on or taken by government.

On Technology: Sharply questioned ban on incandescent light bulbs

But, as noted, the alternative to incandescent light bulbs isn't much better.

When I sharply questioned a Department of Energy bureaucrat about the light bulb and consumer choice, my Democrat colleagues said that the ban on incandescent bulbs was beyond criticism because a bipartisan majority had passed it.

Beyond criticism? Government overreach doesn't become constitutional or morally right simply because both parties agree to it.

On Technology: TSA is a testament to Islamic terrorist's success

There are many parts to this tragedy: great expansion of unchecked federal power; agencies 1st distorting then growing entirely beyond their mission. The combination of all of this has left us where we are today--in a mess.

First came the introduction of the "naked body" scanners, which some have accurately dubbed "porno scanners." For years, passengers on airlines just like visitors to a secure building, have gone through metal detectors to ensure they were not carrying a weapon. In recent years government bureaucrats at the TSA decided that such measures were inadequate.

On Technology: TSA's primary function violates the Fourth Amendment

America is better than this.