This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. No cleanup reason has been specified. Please help improve this article if you can; the talk page may contain suggestions. (September 2009)

Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects individual persons from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due-process violation, which offends against the rule of law.

Due process has also been frequently interpreted as limiting laws and legal proceedings (see substantive due process), so that judges - instead of legislators - may define and guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty. This interpretation has proven controversial, and is analogous to the concepts of natural justice, and procedural justice used in various other jurisdictions. This interpretation of due process is sometimes expressed as a command that the government must not be unfair to the people or abuse them physically.

Due process is not used in contemporary English law, though two similar concepts are natural justice (which generally applies only to decisions of administrative agencies and some types of private bodies like trade unions) and the British constitutional concept of the rule of law as articulated by A. V. Dicey and others.^[1] However, neither concept lines up perfectly with the American theory of due process, which, as explained below, presently contains many implied rights not found in the ancient or modern concepts of due process in England.^[2]

Due process developed from clause 39 of the Magna Carta in England. When English and American law gradually diverged, due process was not upheld in England, but did become incorporated in the Constitution of the United States.

By jurisdiction[link]

England[link]

Magna Carta[link]

In clause 39 of the Magna Carta, John of England promised as follows: "No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land."^[3] Magna Carta itself immediately became part of the "law of the land", and Clause 61 of that charter authorized an elected body of twenty-five barons to determine by majority vote what redress the King must provide when the King offends "in any respect against any man."^[3] Thus, Magna Carta established the rule of law in England by not only requiring the monarchy to obey the law of the land, but also limiting how the monarchy could change the law of the land. It should be noted, however, that in the thirteenth century these provisions may have been referring only to the rights of landowners, and not to ordinary peasantry or villagers.^[4]

Shorter versions of Magna Carta were subsequently issued by British monarchs, and Clause 39 of Magna Carta was renumbered "29."^[5] The phrase due process of law first appeared in a statutory rendition of Magna Carta in A.D. 1354 during the reign of Edward III of England, as follows: "No man of what state or condition he be, shall be put out of his lands or tenements nor taken, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without he be brought to answer by due process of law."^[6]

In 1608, the English jurist Edward Coke wrote a treatise in which he discussed the meaning of Magna Carta. Coke explained that no man shall be deprived but by legem terrae, the law of the land, "that is, by the common law, statute law, or custom of England.... (that is, to speak it once and for all) by the due course, and process of law.."^[7]

Both the clause in Magna Carta and the later statute of 1354 were again explained in 1704 (during the reign of Queen Anne) by the Queen's Bench, in the case of Regina v. Paty.^[8] In that case, the House of Commons had deprived John Paty and certain other citizens of the right to vote in an election, and had committed them to Newgate Prison merely for the offense of pursuing a legal action in the courts.^[9] The Queen's Bench, in an opinion by Justice Powys, explained the meaning of "due process of law" as follows:

[I]t is objected, that by Mag. Chart. c. 29, no man ought to be taken or imprisoned, but by the law of the land. But to this I answer, that lex terrae is not confined to the common law, but takes in all the other laws, which are in force in this realm; as the civil and canon law.... By the 28 Ed. 3, c. 3, there the words lex terrae, which are used in Mag. Char. are explained by the words, due process of law; and the meaning of the statute is, that all commitments must be by a legal authority.^[8]

Chief Justice Holt dissented in this case, because he believed that the commitment had not in fact been by a legal authority. The House of Commons had purported to legislate unilaterally, without approval of the House of Lords, ostensibly to regulate the election of its members.^[10] Although the Queen's Bench held that the House of Commons had not infringed or overturned due process, John Paty was ultimately freed by Queen Anne when she prorogued Parliament.

English law and American law diverge[link]

Throughout centuries of British history, many laws and treatises asserted various requirements as being part of "due process" or included in the "law of the land". This view usually held in regards to what was required by existing law, rather than what was intrinsically required by due process itself. As the U.S. Supreme Court has explained, a due process requirement in Britain was not "essential to the idea of due process of law in the prosecution and punishment of crimes, but was only mentioned as an example and illustration of due process of law as it actually existed in cases in which it was customarily used."^[11]

Ultimately, the scattered references to "due process of law" in English law did not limit the power of the government; about this, American law professor John Orth wrote that "the great phrases failed to retain their vitality."^[12] Orth points out that this is generally attributed to the rise of the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy in the United Kingdom, which was accompanied by hostility towards judicial review as an undemocratic foreign invention.^[13]

Scholars have occasionally interpreted Lord Coke's ruling in Dr. Bonham's Case as implying the possibility of judicial review, but by the 1870s, Lord Campbell was dismissing judicial review as "a foolish doctrine alleged to have been laid down extra-judicially in Dr. Bonham's Case..., a conundrum [that] ought to have been laughed at."^[14] Lacking the power of judicial review, English courts possessed no means by which to declare government statutes or acts invalid as a violation of due process. As a consequence, English law and American law diverged, with American legislators possessing no means by which to declare judicial invalidation of statutes incorrect (with the sole exception of proposing a constitutional amendment, which is rarely successful). In 1977, an English political science professor explained the present situation in England for the benefit of American lawyers:

Two similar concepts in contemporary English law are natural justice (which generally applies only to decisions of administrative agencies and some types of private bodies like trade unions) and the British constitutional concept of the rule of law as articulated by A. V. Dicey and others.^[1] However, neither concept lines up perfectly with the American conception of due process, which presently contains many implied rights not found in the ancient or modern concepts of due process in England.^[2]

United States[link]

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution each contain a Due Process Clause. The Supreme Court of the United States interprets the Clauses as providing four protections: procedural due process (in civil and criminal proceedings), substantive due process, a prohibition against vague laws, and as the vehicle for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

Others[link]

Various countries recognize some form of due process under customary international law. Although the specifics are often unclear, most nations agree that they should guarantee foreign visitors a basic minimum level of justice and fairness. Some nations have argued that they are bound to grant no more rights to aliens than they do to their own citizens—the doctrine of national treatment—which also means that both would be vulnerable to the same deprivations by the government. With the growth of international human rights law and the frequent use of treaties to govern treatment of foreign nationals abroad, the distinction in practice between these two perspectives may be disappearing.

See also[link]

Notes[link]

Further reading[link]

• Goldberg v. Kelly
• "U.S. Constitution: Fifth Amendment". Findlaw. http://conlaw.usatoday.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment05/index.html. 
• Bernstein, David (2011). Rehabilitating Lochner: Defending Individual Rights against Progressive Reform. Chapter 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-307-26313-4. 
• Breyer, Stephen (2005). Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution. New York: Knopf. ISBN 0-307-26313-4. 
• Friendly, Henry J. (1975). "Some Kind of Hearing". University of Pennsylvania Law Review (University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 123, No. 6) 123 (6): 1267–1317. DOI:10.2307/3311426. JSTOR 3311426. 
• Hawkins, Brian (2006). "The Glucksberg Renaissance: Substantive Due Process since Lawrence v. Texas". Michigan Law Review 105 (2): 409. http://students.law.umich.edu/mlr/archive/105/2/hawkins.pdf. 
• Hyman, Andrew (2005). "The Little Word ‘Due’". Akron Law Review 38: 1. http://www.andrewhyman.com/due.html. 
• Kadish, Sanford H. (1957). "Methodology and Criteria in Due Process Adjudication—A Survey and Criticism". Yale Law Journal 66 (3): 319–363. JSTOR 793970. 
• Madison, P. A. (2008). "A Dummies Guide to Understanding the Fourteenth Amendment". FederalistBlog.us. http://federalistblog.us/mt/articles/14th_dummy_guide.htm. 
• Nowak, John; Rotunda, Ronald (2000). Constitutional Law. West. 
• Ring, Kevin (2004). Scalia Dissents: Writings of the Supreme Court's Wittiest, Most Outspoken Justice. Washington: Regnery. ISBN 0-89526-053-0. 
• Shipley, David E. Due Process Rights Before EU Agencies: The Rights of Defense Article discussing the procedural safeguards that have been recognized in the EU and the parallels between procedural due process in the United States and the rights of defense in the EU.
• Sudbury Valley School (1970). Due Process of Law in School. A school where order and discipline is achieved by a dual approach based on a free and democratic framework: a combination of popularly-based authority, when rules and regulations are made by the community as a whole, fairly and democratically passed by the entire school community, supervised by a good judicial system for enforcing these laws—due process of law—and developing internal discipline in the members of the community by enhancing their ability to bear responsibility and self-sufficiency.
• Yoshino, Kenji (2006-01-15). "The Pressure to Cover: The New Civil Rights". The New York Times Magazine. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/magazine/15gays.html. Retrieved 2010-05-01.  Discussing potential of liberty rights to overtake equality rights.

External links[link]

Look up due process in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Due process

Rand Paul
United States Senator from Kentucky
Incumbent
Assumed office January 3, 2011 Serving with Mitch McConnell
Preceded by	Jim Bunning
Personal details
Born	Randal Howard Paul (1963-01-07) January 7, 1963 (age 49) Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Political party	Republican
Spouse(s)	Kelley Ashby Paul (m. 1990)
Relations	Ron Paul Carol Wells Paul (parents)
Children	William, Robert, and Duncan
Residence	Bowling Green, Kentucky
Alma mater	Baylor University (1981–1984) Duke University (M.D., 1988)
Occupation	Ophthalmologist (Physician), Politician
Religion	Presbyterian[1] (baptized Episcopalian)
Website	paul.senate.gov Rand Paul 2010

Randal Howard "Rand" Paul (born January 7, 1963) is the junior United States Senator for Kentucky. He is a member of the Republican Party. A member of the Tea Party movement, he describes himself as a "constitutional conservative"^[2] and a libertarian.^[3] He is the son of Republican Congressman and 2012 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul of Texas and had never previously held political office. Paul first received national attention in 2008 when making political speeches on behalf of his father. Rand Paul is the first United States Senator in history to serve alongside a parent in the United States House of Representatives.

A graduate of the Duke University School of Medicine, Paul has been a practicing ophthalmologist in Bowling Green, Kentucky, since 1993, and established his own clinic in December 2007. In 1994, he founded Kentucky Taxpayers United, of which he is still the chairman.^[4]

In 2010, Paul ran as the Republican candidate for the United States Senate seat being vacated by retiring Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky and defeated Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway. As a supporter of the Tea Party movement, Paul has been vocal in advocating for term limits, a balanced budget amendment, and the Read the Bills Act, in addition to the widespread reduction of federal spending and taxation. He has gained prominence for his independent positions on many political issues, often clashing with both Republicans and Democrats.^[5]

Early life and education[link]

Paul at a rally in Erlanger, Kentucky, on October 2, 2010, along with his father, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, and his son, William Paul.

Randal Howard Paul^[6] was born on January 7, 1963, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to Carol Wells Paul and Ron Paul. Paul's father is a physician and U.S. Representative of Texas's 14th congressional district. The middle child of five, his siblings are Ronald "Ronnie" Paul Jr., Lori Paul Pyeatt, Robert Paul and Joy Paul-LeBlanc.^[7] Paul was baptized in the Episcopal Church^[8] and identified as a practicing Christian as a teenager.^[9] Despite his father's libertarian views and strong support for individual rights,^[9][10] the novelist Ayn Rand was not the inspiration for Paul's first name; he went by "Randy" while growing up.^[11] His wife shortened his name to "Rand".^[9][12][13]

The Paul family moved to Lake Jackson, Texas, in 1968,^[11][14] where Rand was raised^[15][16] and his father began his medical practice and for an extent of time was the only obstetrician in Brazoria County.^[11][14] When Paul was 13, his father was elected to the United States House of Representatives.^[17] In his teenage years, Paul studied the Austrian economists that his father respected, as well as Ayn Rand.^[11] Paul went to Brazoswood High School and was on the swimming team and played defensive back on the football team.^[9][15] Paul attended Baylor University from fall 1981 to summer 1984. Paul was enrolled in the honors program at Baylor, and had scored approximately in the 90th percentile on the Medical College Admission Test.^[18] During Paul's time at Baylor, he was involved in the swim team and Young Conservatives of Texas and was a member of a secret organization known as the NoZe Brotherhood.^[19] Paul left Baylor early when he was accepted into the Duke University School of Medicine, where he earned his Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) degree in 1988 and completed his residency in 1993.^[18]

Personal life[link]

Paul arriving at the Bowling Green-Warren County Regional Airport on November 1, 2010, in Bowling Green, Kentucky, along with his wife Kelley, sons Duncan and Robert, and a campaign staffer.

In Atlanta, Paul met Kelley Ashby, a Rhodes College English major. Paul and Ashby were married on October 20, 1990, and moved to Bowling Green, Kentucky, less than 30 miles (48 km) from her hometown of Russellville, Kentucky, in 1993.^[20]

Kelley Paul is a freelance writer, and she manages payroll and marketing communications for Paul's surgical practice.^[21] The couple have three sons: William, Duncan and Robert.^[22]

Medical career[link]

Paul has held a state-issued medical license since moving to Bowling Green in 1993.^[23] He received his first job from Dr. John Downing of Downing McPeak Vision Centers, which brought him to Bowling Green after completing his residency. Paul worked for Downing for about five years before parting ways. Afterwards, he went to work at the Graves-Gilbert Clinic, a private medical group in Bowling Green, for 10 years before creating his own practice in a converted one-story house across the street from Downing's office.^[24] After his election to the U.S. Senate, Paul merged his practice with Downing's medical practice.^[25] Paul has had two malpractice lawsuits filed against him since 1993. Paul was cleared in one case and the other was settled for $50,000.^[24] Regardless, his medical work has been praised by Downing and Paul has medical privileges at two Bowling Green hospitals.^[23][24] Paul specializes in cataract and glaucoma surgeries, LASIK procedures, and corneal transplants.^[12]

As a member of the Bowling Green Noon Lions Club, Paul founded the Southern Kentucky Lions Eye Clinic to help provide eye surgery and exams for those who cannot afford to pay.^[26] He is a regular presenter at the annual Men's Health and Safety Day conference held by The Medical Center of Bowling Green since 1998.^[27] In 1999 Paul founded the Non-profit organization National Board of Ophthalmology (NBO).^[28]

Board certification[link]

In 2010 the Louisville Courier-Journal reported that Paul, who described himself as a "board-certified" ophthalmologist, was not certified by the American Board of Ophthalmology (ABO).^[23] In 1995, Paul passed the American Board of Ophthalmology boards earning his certification under the ABO for a term of one decade. In 1997, after a dispute with the American Board of Ophthalmology over recertification requirements,^[29] Paul, along with 200 ophthalmologists formed the National Board of Ophthalmology (NBO).^[30] A spokesperson for the American Board of Medical Specialties stated: "He [Paul] is not board-certified."^[23]

Paul's ABO certification lapsed on December 31, 2005, and Paul has since been certified by the NBO.^[23] ABO administrator Beth Ann Slembarski says that over 95 percent of the nation’s practicing ophthalmologists have American Board of Ophthalmology certification.^[31] Regardless of his additional certifications, Paul has been licensed by the state to practice medicine in Kentucky since 1993, and his license is in good standing with no history of disciplinary action. The Courier-Journal reported: "There is no indication that Paul isn't qualified to practice ophthalmology."^[23]

Political activism[link]

Rand Paul in 2011 speaking at the Night of the Rising Stars.

As founder and chairman of the anti-tax organization Kentucky Taxpayers United (KTU) since 1994, Paul regularly presents "taxpayers' friend" awards to state legislators. KTU, which regards itself as nonpartisan, but is criticized for being ideologically conservative,^[32][33] examines legislator records on taxation and spending to inform voters where their own lawmakers stand on the issues.^[34] Paul's editorial commentary on behalf of KTU has been published and recognized in the Kentucky Post.^[35]

KTU sponsors the Taxpayer's Pledge of Americans for Tax Reform, encouraging politicians to pledge publicly to vote uniformly against tax raises.^[35] Nine of fifteen Northern Kentucky legislators signed the pledge,^[36] such as Senator Dick Roeding^[35] and Representative Royce Adams in 1996.^[37] In 2000, these legislators considered a hotel room tax hike (favored by Governor Paul Patton for helping expand the Dr. Albert B. Sabin Convention Center in nearby Cincinnati), even though the increase might "incur the wrath of Paul's group," as two newspapers put it.^[36][38]

Paul stated that Patton's argument for "revenue recovery" was merely a euphemism for taxes^[39] and said that KTU would fight reelection of any pledge-breakers; Adams requested in writing that Paul's group release him from his pledge, stating that it only applied to his first term.^[37] By the close of session in April, the tax increase had failed, although Patton had achieved most of his intended budget; Paul stated legislators were pressured to finalize the budget by deadline rather than to "face accusations of shutting down government."^[40]

Paul often speaks on his father's behalf,^[22][41] and he and his son William attended the third Republican presidential debate of 2007 in New Hampshire, as well as campaigned door-to-door in the state for his father.^[42] At a New Hampshire rally with 250 in attendance (plus 30 members of his own family), Paul repeated a campaign meme by pretending to take a call from Rudy Giuliani during his remarks, and joking that Giuliani needed campaigners and wanted to borrow the Paul family.^[43]

On December 16, 2007, the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, Paul spoke at Faneuil Hall in favor of small government principles,^[44] calling for what CNN termed a "modern day revolution."^[45] He continued campaigning across the country for his father in 2008,^[21] traveling as far as Montana.^[26]

Paul has co-authored a book entitled The Tea Party Goes to Washington with Jack Hunter, released on February 22, 2011.^[46] It defends the Tea Party movement.^[47]

Electoral history[link]

Paul in Louisville, November 2009

Primary campaign[link]

In the beginning of 2009, Paul was the focus of an online grassroots movement to draft him in a bid to replace beleaguered Republican Kentucky senator Jim Bunning. The news of his potential candidacy became a topic of national interest and was discussed in the Los Angeles Times^[48] and locally in the Kentucky press.^[49] Commenting on Paul's possible candidacy, Congressman Ron Paul noted that "Should Senator Bunning decide not to run, I think Rand would make a great U.S. Senator."^[50]

On May 1, 2009, Paul officially confirmed that if Bunning, whose fundraising in 2009 has matched his poor numbers in opinion polling for the 2010 election,^[51] declined to seek a third term, he would almost certainly run in the Republican Party primary to succeed him,^[52] and formed an exploratory committee soon after, while still promising to stay out of the race if Bunning had ultimately decided to run for re-election. Paul made this announcement on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show, though the news was first broken by a local Kentucky news site.^[53]

On July 28, 2009, Bunning announced that he would not run for re-election, after facing insufficient fundraising. This announcement left only Paul and Secretary of State Trey Grayson as the remaining candidates for the Republican nomination,^[54] with Paul announcing on August 5, 2009 that he would officially run for the U.S. Senate as a Republican. The announcement was made through a series of national TV events, radio, and other programs, as well as through newspapers in Kentucky.^[55][56][57]

Early fundraising success[link]

On August 20, 2009, Paul's grassroots planned a moneybomb to kick off his campaign for United States Senate. The official campaign took in $433,509 in 24 hours.^[58] According to Paul,^[59] This set a new record in Kentucky's political fundraising history in a 24-hour period.

A second "moneybomb" was held on September 23, 2009, to counter a D.C. fundraiser being held for primary opponent Trey Grayson, by 23 Republican United States Senators, 17 of whom voted for the bank bailout.^[60] The theme was a UFC "fight" between Paul and "We the People" vs. Trey Grayson and the "D.C. Insiders."^[61] The money bomb ended up raising $186,276 for Paul in 24 hours on September 23;^[62] bringing Paul's Senate campaign's total raised to over one million. Later in the campaign, Paul claimed his pledge to not take money from lobbyist and Senators who voted for the bailout was only a "primary pledge"^[63] and Paul later held a DC fundraiser with the same Senators who were the target of the September 23, 2009 "moneybomb." Paul ended up raising some $3 million during the primary period.

Primary victory[link]

Rand Paul with then-Senator Jim Bunning.

Although Grayson was considered the frontrunner in July 2009,^[64] Paul found success characterizing Grayson as a "career politician" and challenging Grayson's conservatism. Paul ran an ad in February that made an issue out of Grayson's September 2008 admission that he voted for Bill Clinton when he was 20 years old.^[65] Although the Paul campaign later removed the video from YouTube, Paul's Democratic general election competitor put it back up on October 20 after Paul had taken exception to the Democrat making an issue out of Paul's own college-age actions.^[66] James Dobson, a Christian evangelical figure, endorsed Grayson on April 26 based on the advice of what Dobson described as "senior members of the GOP", but on May 3 the Paul campaign announced that Dobson had changed his endorsement to Paul^[67] after Paul and some Paul supporters had lobbied Dobson insisting on Paul's social conservative bona fides.^[68]

On May 18 Paul won the Republican Senatorial primary by a 23.4% margin,^[69] meaning he would face the Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, in the November 2 general election.^[70]

General campaign[link]

On June 28, 2010, Rand Paul supporters held their first post-primary online fundraising drive, this time promoted as a "money blast."^[71][72]

BP oil spill comments[link]

On May 21, 2010, Paul generated some controversy by characterizing statements made by Obama administration officials regarding the BP oil spill cleanup as sounding "un-American". Paul said:

Paul may have been referring to a statement by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who said "our job is basically to keep the boot on the neck of British Petroleum to carry out the responsibilities that they have, both under the law and contractually to move forward and to stop this spill."^[74] Salazar's remark was later slightly misquoted as "boot on the throat" by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. Gibbs clarified at the same press conference, when asked if this metaphor did not imply hostility to BP, "I think the President accurately conveyed in his remarks yesterday that we are going to do everything humanly possible, and ensure that BP is doing everything humanly possible, to deal with this as comprehensively and as quickly as they can."^[75]

Private property and civil rights[link]

Paul criticized the Bowling Green Daily News on May 30, 2002 for supporting the Fair Housing Act. He explained that "a free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination, even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin."^[76] On May 19, 2010, Paul stated that he favors 9 out of 10 titles of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but had he been a senator during 1960s, he would have raised some questions on the constitutionality of Title II of the Act, which prohibits private businesses who provide public accommodations from discriminating on the basis of race, religion, or national origin against their customers, arguing that it infringes upon constitutional freedoms. Paul stated on National Public Radio, "I'm in favor of everything with regards to ending institutional racism".^[77] Paul favors community and neighborhood pressure to persuade private businesses, rather than federal laws that he argued might violate the constitution.^[78] Paul said he abhors racism, and he would have marched with Martin Luther King Jr. to repeal Jim Crow Laws. Paul's comments on Title II of Civil Rights Act of 1964 stirred controversy^[79][80][81] and brought concern among Republican party insiders about his viability in the general election.^[80][81] Paul later released a statement declaring that he would have voted for the Act and stated "unequivocally ... that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964".^[82][83] Paul stating that while he "abhors racism," he doesn't like the idea of the federal government determining who a business may serve.^[84] Amid a flurry of controversy, Paul became the first American politician to cancel an appearance on Meet the Press in their 64-year history.^[85] Additionally, RNC Chairman Michael Steele, publicly denounced him, saying that Paul's opposition to the Civil Rights Act is a "misplaced" philosophy for the 21st Century.^[86]

Paul addressed his feelings about intentions of the legislation relating to public offices, stating that he "overwhelmingly agrees with the intent of the [Civil Rights Act] which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws," and that Constitutional challenges to the law have been settled by the courts.^[87]

Endorsements[link]

Paul has secured endorsements from several public figures and political organizations. They include the Downsize DC Foundation,^[88] Concerned Women for America,^[89] Gun Owners of America,^[90] Steve Forbes,^[91] FreedomWorks,^[92] Club for Growth,^[93] James Dobson,^[94] Sarah Palin,^[95] Jim DeMint,^[96] Cathy Bailey,^[97] Jim Bunning,^[98] Erick Erickson,^[99] National Federation of Independent Business,^[100] Council for Citizens Against Government Waste,^[101] National Right to Life,^[102] US Chamber of Commerce,^[103] National Vietnam and Gulf War Veterans Coalition,^[104] Mike Huckabee,^[105] and Tony Perkins/FRC Action PAC.^[106][107]

U.S. Senate career[link]

Tenure[link]

Paul was sworn in on January 5, 2011 along with his father, marking the first time in congressional history that a child served in the Senate while the parent simultaneously served in the House of Representatives.^[108] He was assigned to serve on the Energy and Natural Resources, Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, Homeland Security and Government Affairs, and Small Business committees.^[109] Paul also formed the Senate Tea Party Caucus with Jim DeMint and Mike Lee as its inaugural members.^[110] Paul’s first legislative proposal was to cut $500 billion from federal spending in one year. This proposal includes cutting the Department of Education by 83 percent and the Department of Homeland Security by 43 percent, as well as folding the Department of Energy into the Department of Defense and eliminating the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Seven independent agencies would be eliminated and food stamps would be cut by 30 percent. Under Paul’s proposal, defense spending would be reduced by 6.5 percent and international aid would be eliminated.^[111] He later proposed a five-year budget plan that he believed would balance the budget.^[112]

In February, Paul was one of two Republicans to vote against extending three key provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act (roving wiretaps, searches of business records, and conducting surveillance of "lone wolves" — individuals not linked to terrorist groups).^[113] In May, he remained the last senator opposing the PATRIOT Act, and was ultimately defeated on May 26.^[114]

On March 2, Paul was one of nine senators to vote against a stopgap bill that cut $4 billion from the budget and temporarily prevent a government shutdown, citing that it did not cut enough from the budget.^[115] One week later, Paul voted against the Democratic and Republican budget proposals to keep funding the federal government, citing that both bills did not cut enough spending. Both bills failed to pass the senate.^[116] He later voted against stopgap measures on March 17 and April 8, both of which passed the senate.^[117] On April 14, Paul was one of 19 senators to vote against a budget that cut $38.5 billion from the budget and fund the government for the remainder of the fiscal year.^[118] Paul voiced opposition to U.S. intervention in the Libyan civil war and has criticized President Obama for not gaining congressional consent for Operation Odyssey Dawn.^[119] During the debt ceiling crisis, Paul stated that he would only support raising the debt ceiling if a balanced budget amendment was enacted.^[120] Paul was a supporter of the Cut, Cap and Balance Act, which was tabled by the Democrats.^[121] On August 3, Paul voted against a bill that would raise the debt ceiling.^[122]

On September 7, Paul called for a vote of no confidence in Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.^[123] Later that month, Paul blocked legislation that would strengthen safety rules for oil and gas pipelines because he felt the bill was not strong enough.^[124] In October, Paul blocked a bill that would provide $36 million in benefits for elderly and disabled refugees, saying that he was concerned that it could be used to aid domestic terrorists. This was in response to two alleged terrorists, who came to the United States through a refugee program and were receiving welfare benefits, were arrested in 2011 in Paul’s hometown of Bowling Green.^[125] Paul lifted his hold on the bill after Democratic leaders promised to hold a congressional hearing into how individuals are selected for refugee status and request an investigation on how the two suspects were admitted in the country through a refugee program.^[126]

Committee assignments[link]

• Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
  • Subcommittee on Energy
• Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
  • Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging
• Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
  • Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight
  • Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
  • Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
• Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship

Political positions[link]

Paul supports term limits, a balanced budget amendment, and the Read the Bills Act, in addition to the widespread reduction of federal spending and taxation. He has gained prominence for his independent positions on many political issues, often clashing with both Republicans and Democrats.^[5]

Abortion and bioethics[link]

Paul is opposed to abortion and supports a Human Life Amendment and a Life at Conception Act.^{[127][128][129]} He also opposes abortion in cases of rape and incest,^[130] but supports use of the morning-after pill.^[131] He opposes federal funding for abortion.^[128] He takes a states' rights position, favoring the overturn of Roe v. Wade and allowing states to decide on the legality of abortions without federal involvement.^[132]

According to the Paul campaign, Paul received a 100% pro-life score on a Kentucky Right to Life survey^[133] and indicated on the survey that he opposed human cloning. This was disputed by Kentucky Right to Life, however, who endorsed Paul's primary opponent instead and claimed that Paul did not, in fact, answer the cloning question.^[134]

Campaign finance reform[link]

Paul opposes the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 and has called it a "dangerous piece of legislation".^[135] Instead, he supports regulating the contracts given out by Congress and placing limits on corporations receiving government contracts. Paul opposes legislation limiting the amount of money individuals, corporations, and organizations can give to candidates. Additionally, Paul has proposed "mandating a clause in all federal contracts over $1 million that requires the recipient to pledge not to lobby government or contribute to campaigns during the terms of the contract."^[135][136]

Civil liberties[link]

Paul opposes the USA PATRIOT Act, including warrantless searches and breach of individual privacy.^[137]

Economics and tax cuts[link]

Paul has been a longtime opponent of the bank and auto industry bailouts.

He also opposes the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the Federal Reserve's control of the money supply and interest rates. He has advocated allowing the free market to regulate interest rates, and supports Congress' constitutional role in controlling the money supply. Paul endorses H.R. 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, a bill, introduced by his father, mandating an audit of the Federal Reserve. Although Paul would abolish the Federal Reserve, he supports transparency and accountability of the semi-private institution. Additionally, Paul opposes inflation and supports "restoring the value of the dollar that has devalued by approximately 95% since the Federal Reserve's inception in 1913".^[138]

Paul supports tax cuts and a balanced budget amendment, and has criticized both Republicans and Democrats on deficit spending.^[139]

Education[link]

Paul supports returning control of education to local communities and parents and thus eliminating the federal Department of Education, but he says that some functions of the Department of Education, such as disbursing student loans and Pell Grants, should be transferred to other departments instead of being eliminated.^[140][141] Paul opposes federal regulation of homeschooling.^[142]

Energy[link]

Paul supports allowing the free market to compete and dictate which forms of energy to use. He opposes subsidizing energy companies, and would support allowing tax breaks for companies that produce alternative energy such as wind, solar, or geothermal. He has said that subsidizing the energy industry will only add incentive for companies to lobby the federal government.^[143]

Health care[link]

Paul opposes federal government involvement in health care. He has stated that he would repeal the HMO Act of 1973 that "drives a wedge between the patient and [one's] doctor".^[144] He believes that government has driven up the cost of health care and causes the quality and coverage to decrease. Paul would support a free market approach to health care, including tax deductions for medical expenses. He opposes federal regulations discouraging businesses from providing coverage. He supports Health Savings Accounts (HSAs).^[144] On Medicare, Paul has suggested higher deductibles as well as changes to premiums or eligibility rules as ways to address what he sees as the program's looming financial problems, saying "You want to have more participation by the person who's receiving the entitlement... by that I mean that they need to be more involved with some sort of economic transaction every time they use their entitlement, and that means they have to bear more of the burden."^[145] Paul also stated that he does not support such changes for current retirees or people nearing retirement.^[145]

Illegal immigration[link]

Paul has proposed adding security to the border by installing an electronic fence and helicopter stations to respond to breaches.^[146] He opposes birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants.^[147] Paul has said that courts should review the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States," to conclude whether or not it should apply to the children of illegal immigrants. If court challenges fail, Paul would support a constitutional amendment that would deny citizenship to children of illegal immigrants who are born in the United States.^[148]

Medical marijuana[link]

Paul believes the issue of medical marijuana is a states' rights issue and that the federal government should not interfere.^[149] In August, the Associated Press reported that Paul said he was opposed to the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes,^[150] but the Paul campaign says he was misquoted.^[149] Though Paul describes himself as a "social conservative," he was nonetheless described by the AP reporter as holding "libertarian leanings on drugs" and believing some drug sentences were too harsh.^[150]

Foreign policy and national defense[link]

Paul holds that the primary Constitutional function of the federal government is national defense, and that the greatest national security threat is the lack of border security. He supports eliminating issuance of visas to people from “about ten rogue nations.” He supports trying terrorists caught on the battlefield in military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay detention camp. Paul believes that when the United States goes to war, Congress must declare war as mandated by the United States Constitution.^[151]

During his 2010 Senate campaign Paul questioned the idea that U.S. Middle East policy is "killing more terrorists than it creates." He supported the war in Afghanistan and opposed rapid withdrawal from Iraq.^[152] He says he would have voted against the invasion of Iraq and questioned whether the intelligence was manipulated."^[153]

He also spoke against U.S. overseas military bases.^[154]

Same-sex marriage[link]

Paul opposes same-sex marriage, but believes the issue should be left to the States to decide.^[129]

Second Amendment[link]

Paul would oppose all gun control legislation, a position he says is supported by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.^[155]

References[link]

External links[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Rand Paul

	Biography portal
	Kentucky portal
	Politics portal

• Senator Rand Paul official U.S. Senate website
• Rand Paul on Twitter
• Official Campaign Website
• Biography at WhoRunsGov.com at The Washington Post
• Biography at the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress
• Voting record maintained by The Washington Post
• Biography, voting record, and interest group ratings at Project Vote Smart
• Congressional profile at GovTrack
• Congressional profile at OpenCongress
• Issue positions and quotes at On the Issues
• Financial information at OpenSecrets.org
• Staff salaries, trips and personal finance at LegiStorm.com
• Campaign finance reports and data at the Federal Election Commission
• Appearances on C-SPAN programs
• Collected news and commentary at The New York Times